Hi everybody,
I was just thinking of the mails we have received
concerning writing books which feature carved stone. I
get asked occasionally about carving techniques or
properties of stone by people who want to mention
something the like in a story or novel. It just makes me
think about how a carved piece of stone is being read.
It usually has (or so I perceive it) a romantic notion
connecting this time with the past or talking about the
past in one way or the other.
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?
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.
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).
The great revolution in reading materials within western
art (I think) has begun with Deconstructivism and
especially the emergence of semiotics in the sixties of
the previous century (what a strange thing to write!).
By then, however, stone carving has become, for various
reasons, relatively out of fashion. Sculpture materials
were rather steel or plastic or anything experimental
than 'traditional' materials, such as bronze or stone.
Among the ideas of that period was that of an inherent
syntactic value of the material used. Mainly minimalist
'sculptors' explored in how far a society's relation
towards a given material adds or determines the reading
of a work of art. Post-Minimalist Arte Povera sought to
establish a 'material alphabet' which hoped to accord
each material a certain significance which then could be
combined sentence-like with other materials.
But these ideas have rarely been applied to contemporary
stone carving. This is changing, but still stone does
not feature all too often in books on contemporary art.
The question that arises for me, then, is whether stone
is too traditional a material to offer any way of
experimentation. (Just meant as a thought provoking
statement, I enjoy carving very much myself and believe
it to be as important to contemporary art as any other
material).
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?
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?
I would be extremely thankful if any of you have thought
along these lines and would drop me a couple of lines
about your experiences with this problem.
Thanks a lot
Richard
...........................................
FAQ info and help on using this list is on
http://www.learningstone.net/lslstfaq.html
