What inspires me in sculpture is primarily an end result. I see something and when I am truly inspired, I seek to recreate it or to recreate my interpretation of it. Earlier in the semester I chose five sculptors whose works I found interesting but as I explored them further, some were not necessarily inspiring.
Giambologna is a sculptor that I draw inspiration from in form but not material. As a sculptor in the mid 1500′s his work dealt with the classical themes favored at the time (and as the Medici court sculptor the themes favored by that family). I have a personal love of the mythological and admire his craftsmanship of the marble but I have no interest in pursuing marble sculpting. Upon reading further into Giambologna, I found that his style of mannerism was what I enjoyed most about his sculptures and led me to other artists such as El Greco, whom I have only had a passing experience to. The single greatest work of Giambologna’s in my opinion is the Rape of the Sabine Women. The way the figures interlock and occupy individual levels of the sculpture allows the narrative to remain whole but speaks to each of the emotions and actions of the three figures. I know that in my next sculpture, creating a flow and maintain a sense of unity will be a challenge, due to the random materials of my piece. Lucky for me, there is one of the five artists whose works caught my eye and who incorporates a wide range of found objects in his work. Pierre Richie.
Pierre Richie works with recycled metal to form sculptures of organic figures or creatures. His materials are limited but by choosing to use found objects, the sculptures he creates are viewed differently. He does work with ‘fresh’ steel in some of his works such as Melting Flag but I find these works weaker than his recycled ones. I also find a link in his philosophies towards his influences and my own. Despite his original inspirations for works, he acknowledges the obvious interpretations which appear in hindsight and concerns himself with finding an aesthetic beauty in his work, something which is amplified in his use of old/re-used metal (at least in my opinion).
Of the five artists I chose originally, I have found that Ron Meuck is the least inspirational. I was amazed by the lifelike sculptures he has created but I find that reaction is the same as anyone who has seen his work for the first time or is unfamiliar with his works. As I became fascinated with the scale and craftsmanship of his work I realized how that is different from my own personal style of sculpture. I can admire the well handled textures and surfaces (let alone shape) of his works but they lack a sense of the mechanical or construction. As for the scale of his works, it makes a powerful statement, something that definitely turns heads, but distortion of scale is something that I don’t actively address or choose to make a priority in my work. Acknowledging the size of a piece is required for sure, but simply changing the scale of an object to something unexpected or confronting by use of equivalent scale is not something I want to focus on. I am running out of ways to say “I like his work but I prefer meaning to lie in materials/construction” so I am just going to say it. I like his work but I prefer meaning to lie in materials/construction.
Henry Moore is another artist who doesn’t necessarily inspire me, but whose works I enjoy. His works have a motion about them which is heightened by the very fluid abstractions of the figure. I relate to his figures in a drawing sense because they seem planar to me. While some are not planar at all in actual form, the movement withing the works guides me from one point in the sculpture to another point and back again. My eyes may move on different paths as provided by the curves and abstractions but their is a definite, repetitive motion in the work. After doing some more research on Moore, I found his early background interesting compared to where he ended up later in his career. He was influenced by classical sculpture, notably Michaelangelo, and then, upon reaching higher education, abandoned it mentally in pursuit of the more abstracted style he is known for. To get back on track a little, I am inspired by his ability to create so masterfully large outdoor works though I do realize a lot of the structural success is due to the materials. I am planning a large outdoor piece and hope to achieve the same sense of motion and success that Moore’s works have.
Of all of the artists I have learned about, in my history here, I am most fascinated by Tony Oursler. His works are phenominal and a combination of the classical medium of sculpture and the futuristic technology of digital projection. I may be embellishing the futuristic quality but Oursler is paving the way for video art and has created a successful entity which is enticing in a way only video can be while providing substance and mass as sculptures do. Until holograms (the Sci-Fi kind, not the wimpy ones we have now) become reality, his work will be the closest thing to it. Thematically he works with narrative and its creation and destruction through context, repetition, and a viewers personal experience. These are themes which I deal with when working in 2D media because the materials used are typically functional for obvious reasons. Mark Y is created by tool X because thats why tool X is used. His works have encouraged me to develop my 2D theme into something sculptural, to explore the possibilities of space as a way to interact with a viewer to convey meaning and not just mass. He uses complex tools (complex == expensive) but his technique is simple and it spurs me on when I think about how I can use it, how empowering it is. I have a certain love of film and perhaps that is also why I am so inspired by Oursler’s work.
Oursler FTW
