I'll start by admitting I don't know jack about sculpture, although I like Richard Serra's work. I'm not a big fan of the "broken button" or "dueling tampons" stuff seen on the Penn campus though.
So I guess I'm wondering: what makes sculpture "good"? Is it like what makes architecture "good" (some indefinable quality that attracts people)?
serra's work is generally hit or miss for me, his work at the basel kunstmuseum has been reconfigured as a public toilet, which i thought was rather appropriate (it looked like shit)
donald judd has always been really influential for me as well.
worked on a project w/ a really old woman that had a giacometti and she used to regale us w/ her stories of meeting him in his hovel in paris. she wanted it placed directly opposite the door so when visitors walked in, they would be a little startled. kick-started my obsession w/ alberto. i really like his drawings as well.
Richard Deacon + Tony Cragg - my two all-time favorites. Also Rachael Whiteread, although architects tend to dumb down her work for their own purposes. These folks are material and craft-forward artists, which seems markedly different than their more conceptually-driven peers. "High art", such as that mentioned above, is generally talked about and judged as a product of art history, as well as within the "scene" of art, so you generally need some knowledge of both to be able to participate in the conversation. But one can simply have a visceral reaction to art that is equally valid. I think the best art can do both.
I don't see many similarities between art and architecture, although I think architecture can be done artfully. But than anything can be done artfully. Both deal with material and form in a compositional way, but the agenda for architecture is so specific and framed in comparison to sculpture.
did anyone else think that despite how impressive serra's work is, the indoor part of the show at moma sucked? the lighting as terrible and sterile. t he ones outside in the garden were great though.
a lot of people, especially out in the wider world, see architecture as this sort of lame functional get-things-done get-things-built profession without much art too it. and sadly, that's how it is a lot of the time in the professional world - a few principles are in charge of the artistic content of the building (or lack thereof...) and everyone else has to grunt and make it happen.
on the other hand, a lot of people in the wide world also for some reason thing that architecture is awfully cool. you'd be amazed how many (rich, successful) middle-aged people have told me how amazing they think architecture is and how they envy me for having gone into it
Nov 12, 07 8:50 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
sculpture thread
I'll start by admitting I don't know jack about sculpture, although I like Richard Serra's work. I'm not a big fan of the "broken button" or "dueling tampons" stuff seen on the Penn campus though.
So I guess I'm wondering: what makes sculpture "good"? Is it like what makes architecture "good" (some indefinable quality that attracts people)?
Good thread idea.
Color, line, proportion, composition, scale, texture, shape, material....
elvis-ness makes sculpture good.
impact, mass, difference, unnatural-ness
i'm thinkin' turrell, serra, and goldsworthy as my favorites
Seen at 90 mph on I-80 West:
smaller scale japanese bamboo sculpture/art blows me away.
Jin Morigami
no computer scripting necessary...all hand made...craft is a good thing.
yes, definitely goldsworthy. recommend renting "rivers + tides"
serra's work is generally hit or miss for me, his work at the basel kunstmuseum has been reconfigured as a public toilet, which i thought was rather appropriate (it looked like shit)
donald judd has always been really influential for me as well.
worked on a project w/ a really old woman that had a giacometti and she used to regale us w/ her stories of meeting him in his hovel in paris. she wanted it placed directly opposite the door so when visitors walked in, they would be a little startled. kick-started my obsession w/ alberto. i really like his drawings as well.
George Rickey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOD8iIcrEB8
(How many sculptors need video to display their work ?)
'nother one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-LSe9c6l7M
Sorry, but
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSOwv37XRt8
"Naked lady" atSilver Screen Galleri, Per Corell.
Richard Deacon + Tony Cragg - my two all-time favorites. Also Rachael Whiteread, although architects tend to dumb down her work for their own purposes. These folks are material and craft-forward artists, which seems markedly different than their more conceptually-driven peers. "High art", such as that mentioned above, is generally talked about and judged as a product of art history, as well as within the "scene" of art, so you generally need some knowledge of both to be able to participate in the conversation. But one can simply have a visceral reaction to art that is equally valid. I think the best art can do both.
I don't see many similarities between art and architecture, although I think architecture can be done artfully. But than anything can be done artfully. Both deal with material and form in a compositional way, but the agenda for architecture is so specific and framed in comparison to sculpture.
Sculpture as "free architecture"; architecture as "constrained sculpture" ?
Barbara Hepworth
did anyone else think that despite how impressive serra's work is, the indoor part of the show at moma sucked? the lighting as terrible and sterile. t he ones outside in the garden were great though.
I still don't understand why some people don't think great architecture can't be art...?
Calatarava and Gehry are the obvious ones. If someone else did the sculptural part and they did the bs arch stuff, would it be sculpture or art then?
I fail to see the point in any distinction between the two. There is good art and there is bad art, good architecture, bad archtiecture, etc., etc.
a lot of people, especially out in the wider world, see architecture as this sort of lame functional get-things-done get-things-built profession without much art too it. and sadly, that's how it is a lot of the time in the professional world - a few principles are in charge of the artistic content of the building (or lack thereof...) and everyone else has to grunt and make it happen.
on the other hand, a lot of people in the wide world also for some reason thing that architecture is awfully cool. you'd be amazed how many (rich, successful) middle-aged people have told me how amazing they think architecture is and how they envy me for having gone into it
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.