You are browsing the archive for sculpture.

Feeling their way through

April 17, 2011 in Responses

Looking again at opposite and complementary approaches to making incorporated within a single practice, I am focusing here on works by Nayland Blake and Franziska Furter, which, like Neil Gall’s, were represented in our exhibition, Undone.

Franziska Furter ‘Chlumpä’ (2006)

Franziska Furter ‘Chlumpä’ (2006)

Furter’s ‘Chlumpä’ (2006) appears as a tight crystalline ball, c. 5 cm in diameter, positioned above eye level on the gallery wall and so small that it might not be observed by a casual visitor to the gallery. It was made by the artist knotting nylon thread over and over on itself, at the end of a long day in the studio and over the course of several months, as a means of relaxing away from the intense process of drawing, which is another aspect of her practice. Furter’s pencil drawings are often on a large scale and worked up from photographs. They record fleeting effects, but require a great deal of planning in their execution. ‘Chlumpä’ meanwhile was started and finished ‘on the side’, without the artist knowing exactly how it would develop, when it would end or whether it would become an art work. It gained ‘density’ – as opposed to mass or scale – through time and repetition.

Nayland Blake’s ‘Untitled’ (2003) is a slender and delicate assemblage made from wire, chain, thread, beads, buttons, tags and sequins, collected by the artist in suburban ‘hobby shops’. Blake is better known for his large mixed media installations, which are camp, funny and provocative and for his explorations of the gay scene in New York, so that this work, in terms of its appearance (and indeed the origin of its components), may seem anomalous in terms of his practice. But his installations and assemblages represent two sides of the same coin. The former often use explicitly sexual imagery, whilst the latter enact sensuality and desire. Blake describes making his assemblages in a ‘touching-the-thing-and-fiddling-with-it, additive way’. For him, this is an entirely physical experience, as he makes spontaneous decisions in response to the opposing qualities of materials – hard and soft, smooth and textured, round and angular – and feels his way through.

Review of Statement of Practice – Maxwell’s Silver Hammer by Edward Allington

March 21, 2011 in Responses

I found Edward Allington’s prolific descriptions of hammers eloquent and deeply informative. I was captivated by his analysis of how hammers harness physics at the intersection of the hands, the mind and materials. I used his statement, “Tools are a mediating mechanism between aim, both literally and conceptually, a material and an action” as systems thinking to make tools to cast large paper funnels. Combined with his reference to Richard Serras conceptual use of verbs as ‘tools’, my hands were set in motion.

aim: big [graduate school] focus: [march 9th review]

conceptual: [receive – nurture – process]

material: abaca pulp

action: support, filter, press, cast, suspend, circulate, release, light

Although my mind did wander during the breadth and depth of descriptions, they sparked a brainstorm on an improvisational tool to felt wool. The aim is to compress and tangle the wool fibers into a dense matt.  When done by hand, it takes hard labor to impose adequate compression and friction. As I day dream, I wonder if the principle seen in the dead blow hammer where a cylinder contains lead shot might deliver extra compression to the wool fibers? What if the “heavy blow” was delivered along the length of a fluted tube? The answer, after an initial prototype most likely would be yet another prototype. Who knows if it would work?

The series of questions in the first paragraph is where I lingered. “Do children or adults know or have an understanding of how things are made?” As well as the rebuke that children must “understand that the world we inhabit is a product of labor.” I ask, “What transpires when “labor” does not accumulate in things?” Today, America’s primary labor is consumption of services. As a population of consumers whose energy demand stresses the ecosystem, the refrigerator Allington references, is an outdated tool. If we aim to achieve a zero carbon footprint, do the children of today have the conceptual tools to redesign a cooling device that reduces reliance on an inefficient electrical grid? Shall we work to prompt creative education and hope the next generation of children is as passionate as Edward Allington?

Neil Gall, ‘Unable to Separate their Identities’

March 13, 2011 in Responses

Neil Gall, ‘Unable to Separate their Identities’, Cast and painted resin, 15 x 15 x 15 cm, Photo: Bernd Borchardt (Courtesy the artist and Aurel Scheibler/Scheiblermitte, Berlin).

Neil Gall, ‘Unable to Separate their Identities’, Cast and painted resin, 15 x 15 x 15 cm, Photo: Bernd Borchardt (Courtesy the artist and Aurel Scheibler/Scheiblermitte, Berlin).

I wanted to focus here on a work by Neil Gall, ‘Unable to Separate their Identities’ (2008), because it probes the dichotomy between different types of making. It appeared in an exhibition I co-curated with Stephen Feeke, ‘Undone: Making and Un-making in Contemporary Sculpture’ (Henry Moore Institute, 30th September 2010 – 2nd January 2011), which examined sculpture through the prism of making and materials. The show looked at works which were made by hand using everyday materials and ad-hoc craft techniques. The works retained an air of spontaneity and improvisation – an elusive, intoxicating freshness, contingent on provisionality – but, as a corollary, they were not predicated generally on specialist technical skill.

Amongst these objects, Neil Gall’s ‘Unable to Separate their Identities’ was something of an imposter. It appears as an assemblage of ping pong balls bound together with yellow duck tape. In fact, it is a detailed resin cast of such an assemblage, painted meticulously by the artist. Gall identifies himself primarily as a painter. He makes sculptural constructions from discarded rubbish at his kitchen table in a swift, experimental and spontaneous way. He then uses them as models for his paintings, photographing them, and recreating them with extraordinary accuracy over the course of several months. ‘Unable to separate….’ is a development of this process: it is a highly-detailed model, cast in resin and coloured in minute detail by the artist, which serves as a three-dimensional painting. It is almost indistinguishable from the original construction – unless you were able to pick it up when its substantial weight would come as a surprise.

Gall regards the original constructive process as highly creative – ‘the object being made in the everyday rather than the rarefied atmosphere of the studio somehow releases the unconscious, it frees me up, gives me the ability to make something nonsensical’ – but he has never, to this point, considered or shown his ad-hoc objects as finished works. The planning, the patience, the hard labour and not least the professional, technical skill required to translate them into paintings (whether in two or three dimensions) seem to be equally necessary to his practice. By these means, he transforms playful constructions into something heavier both physically and conceptually. Like an ambitious alchemist, a master of the dark arts, he attempts to capture and make permanent a provisional act. He embraces the sinister undertones of such petrification, creating an ‘unnatural’ object which is the exact opposite of what it seems.

Bad Behavior has blocked 273 access attempts in the last 7 days.