Hi Richard et al,
In response to your request to thoughts back on your posting, here are
some :)
...
> So, if I carve a figure (or something) in stone, am I
> still using the material as 'neutral' carrier medium for
> forms? Or has it an in-built nostalgia which you - as
> carver - have to take into account? ...
I have seen different people take different approaches to a piece of
stone. Some will develope a form and then fit it into a raw piece and
some will develope the piece while in communication with the media
(i.e. direct carving with no marquette to work from). It may very
well be a 'nostalgic' or 'romantic' idea that the stone itself has
something to say to the artist and eventually to the viewers of the
piece, however I have found that the work which is done taking the
actual piece of material into the process, has, usually, a greater
coherence as a finished art work. Forms which have been forced into a
given piece generally look like they have been forced. I find nothing
neutral about a piece of stone. Metal, on the other hand, is a far
more neutral substance to work with.
> Rodin could still use stone simply because it was an art
> material: you develop a form and transscribe it into a
> medium, either bronze or marble, because that was what
> you did, end of discussion. Brancusi's ideas of direct
> carving did not at first have an impact on the status of
> stone as art material in itself, allthough the
> 'neutrality'of the medium has begun to be questioned.
Brancusi did not, by any means, originate the idea of direct carving.
He mearly used that idea to promote his work, as did Michaelangelo.
However, direct carving is probably the most ancient method for
producing a carved sculpture or relief.
> Especially nationalistic notions in Europe and North
> America have placed value in 'home-grown' materials.
> There have been discussions about which stone to use
> throughout art history, but they tended to revolve
> around the question whether to use Cararra marble or
> something different. (Exepting, of course, early
> historic and prehistoric use of stone, for example the
> use of Porphyry in Egypt).
Common sense and availability make 'home-grown' materials more
desirable, unless you are wealthy or your patrons are, and can afford
to import exotic materials. While Cararra certainly has had the snob
appeal it is my least favorite of all the stones to carve as it has
little 'personality' of its own.
The other aspect that arises to me is the following:
> Imagine the 'material alphabet'. Every material has an
> inherent significance in itself and a culturally imposed
> one. What, then, about techniques?
Technique is like grammer, mastery of technique, in any given media,
allows an easier, more fluid transition from left brain to right. <
www.raymis.com/buchenholz.htm > for a discussion on this topic and the
essence of art.
> Carving has the inherent meaning, that it enables us to
> bring out a certain form out of a given material. But
> does it automatically have the culturally invested
> reference to the past? Is it unavoidable or how can it
> be incorporated within a work of art?
It is inherent in the medium. You are working with something millions
of years old when you approach a piece of stone. While it can convey
something very 'modern' it can not lose its basic characteristics.
Why would anyone want it to? Is that a problem?
Thanks for letting me put my two cents in. I would be very interested
in hearing others' thoughts on these subjects,
Susan Buchenholz
www.ccfa.net
...........................................
FAQ info and help on using this list is on
http://www.learningstone.net/lslstfaq.html
