I recently went to London and the Tate Modern to see the collection of minimalist work that they have including the work of Donald Judd, the focus of my dissertation. Although I have seen the work of several of the artists there a number of times, it is still great work to see in person. A lot of the work there was incredibly interesting in relation to my own work, seeing the veracity and similarity of materials and the use of materials in different sculptural ways.
One of the first artists that I took significant note of is that of Richard Serra and his large steel piece entitled Trip Hammer (1988). Two large steel plates, one standing upright and the other balanced precariously on the top, both looming over the viewer and threatening to fall. Although I am not using steel, the positioning and arrangement of the work and its evocation of threat to the viewer interested me when looking at the work. Using a simple and raw material in a very simple way and still being able to achieve an emotional and physical response in the viewer.
A lot of Richard Serra’s work involves the use of space, material and presence and he often uses only a couple or singular materials to create an effective use of space, and also creates a great atmosphere between the sculpture and the viewer, much like is grand sculpture pieces shown in the ‘Forty Years’ show at MoMa in 2007 [1]. Large and curled steel sheets that again, overwhelm the viewer and evoke significant emotional and atmospheric presence to the viewer.
A second artist in one of the main rooms was Susumu Koshimizu who had a large collection entitled ‘From Surface to Surface’ consisting of tall wooden planks with geometrically carved out patterns. Cutting away the wood to reveal the surface of the wood and explore its form. Much like my minimalistic shapes this is partly my interest, in the manipulation of the material and exploring forms that are considered, by me as the artist or the viewer, to be interesting to engage with.
Alongside Koshimizu was an artist with visually similar work is Kim Lim with the piece ‘Intervals II’ (1973) which consists of two symmetrical wooden objects that stood parallel to each other, but also can be assembled together, overlapped and interlocked to create a new visual. Like Koshimizu the piece visually explores the pine material, but also are an exploration of space, exploring the space between the wall and the floor – ‘the tension set up by the vertical, horizontal and the angle’.
The pine structures explore a small area of space against the wall they rest on, and emphasizing the space around it. This is something my work will do if I chose to occupy a region of floor space, and indeed it already does explore the surface of the floor with the coils of rope winding round it. Also involving the viewer will also allow them to explore the space the work sits on too.
[1] MoMA, Richard Serra, Sculpture: Forty Years http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2007/…
I have been carving away in the woodwork room creating different wooden shapes. I have tried to make these wooden structures interesting, and have used simple geometric shapes. Also there has been a large incorporation of thick hemp decking rope, making the two sole materials in this exploration wood and rope. I don’t want to add any more materials as I pleased with the combination of the two and don’t want to over complicate the piece with more materials. However I have considered burning the wood as a third kind of material in a sense but still keeping with wood.
With the rope, as I enjoy the material and its dexterity in usage, I have found that the process of using it is very calming and process driven. Laying the rope down and coiling it round in circles is a very methodical and repetitive process that I seem to keep doing… With the SNIP piece I made last year my focus was primarily on intricate rope knots and was also very methodical, but simple motions of wrapping the rope around itself has become something of a habit, or at least something that I keep doing.
As for the wooden structures, I find them visually aesthetic and find them wonderful to the touch. The cone like shapes, large at the bottom and coming to a point makes them interesting to physically interact with. Also they work well with the coils of rope, sitting in the centre of the circular patterns of rope.
Previously I may have stated my objection to viewer physical interaction with the work, as I didn’t want to tailor a piece specifically for that purpose. But observing the rope on my studio floor and repeatedly walking across the rope covered floor I find it to be a resemblance to a Japanese Zen Buddhist garden, with the rope patterned like the pebbles and rocks in the Zen gardens racked into circular flowing patterns. So the idea of covering an area with spirals of rope integrated among reductive shapes and allowing a viewer to walk across the area, even to do so bare foot would be a simple and none distracting way to give the viewer a more in-depth experience.
The base of the larger cone has been carved out in order for the cone to sit flat with the rope underneath, and also to coil the rope around without any gap or overlap. this can be seen in the 1st photo of this post and in the previous sketches of the intended design
While I was looking at the work of Robert Morris today I stumbled across the work of a constructivist artist named Vladimir Tatlin. His work visually shares the aspects and materials that are appealing to me in Morris’s work. His use of industrial materials and his combining of these materials in innovative ways.
Tatlin was a constructivist artist whose sculptural work freed him from painting and its depicted content. Much like my own desires, his work was visually engaging and was based around a simple desire to create from material. In particular Corner Counter-Relief (1914), was the most interesting piece of Tatlin’s work, because it made beautiful use of the rope. Rope is one of the main, and most important materials in my work, as I feel it to be the most beautiful to work with.
Much like the constructivist’s and tatlin I am making visual work, but I have also been thinking about viewer interaction with the work. As part of my concept is using and creating with material, I have considered making work designed for the viewer to interact with, as to allow them to feel the grain of the wood or the texture of the rope. But I have been put off the idea of making work specifically for interaction. But when Tatlin’s counter-reliefs were first exhibited, visitors were allowed to touch them. Tatlin insisted: “Let us place the eye under the control of touch”. His point was to give the materials a role of their own beyond merely their visual reception. This does give the work more depth, and does allow the viewer to engage a lot more with a piece of work, thus giving my work much more support in sustaining itself as art with purely a visual object.
I recently made several drawings before I stumbled across Tutlin’s work, and now I fell more inclined to approach these ideas as a touchable piece of work. Although they are not designed with physical interaction in mind (thus changing their form to suit an ‘interactive’ piece), they can still be suitable in form for touch. After all, rope interests me far more for its feel than its appearance, so the viewer should also be able to appreciate its texture?
I feel that clarification is needed on what my intentions for my work are when I say that it should be ‘interesting enough to sustain itself’. Wanting something to be interesting is rather a broad statement, much like Donald Judd’s statement ‘a work needs only to be interesting…’
Firstly I believe that for a work to be interesting it needs only to sustain interest for the viewer. Providing enough to look at, that the viewer can visually interact with to engage ones intrigue and satisfy the viewers visual requirements form a piece of artwork. This does not mean that I am simply trying to provide the viewer with enough of a visual, as I believe it possible to create an impact with simplicity. Much like Judd’s notions of the whole, an object that is reduced to all it needs to be is uncomplicated and defined, ‘the main things are alone and more intense, clear and powerful.’
Secondly, I believe that it is possible to create a piece of work that is interesting without it having a purpose. As my work is about the process of me making, and the use of material, making something intriguing out of these materials, this is to be the focus of my artwork. I intend to make Minimalistic visual objects and arrangement of objects.
I don’t believe that my work, or any work necessarily needs to have a purpose, or a meaning behind it. A work can be interesting without deep political or social connotations and can be sufficient in itself, and with only its visual aspects to consider.
Continuing to work with the materials that I used last year I have been drawing up several ideas that focus on the use of the simple shape and combination of materials. The main focus of these ideas for future work is to explore simplistic forms and material combinations that are interesting enough to evoke visual pleasure and sustainability of a sculpture as a piece of art, sustained by the work being enough in itself.
The use of the simplistic shape is important to understand. The use of a minimalistic shape is to remove any sense of relation of reflection of something that the viewer can relate to. Removing the form and figure from the shapes avoids the complication of the viewers experience, and removes the possibility for the work to be interpreted for more than it is in its simplicity.
But however, the shapes and material combinations need to be visually enough to hold themselves as a piece of sculpture. Providing enough familiarity to create an aesthetic piece, as the relation of the parts to each other, and the relation to the viewer are the two key elements that stimulate an opinion or reaction in the viewing.
Reading through Robert Morris’s 1931 Notes On Sculpture, he discusses the significance of shape and how the use of a simplistic shape can unify a piece of work much more effectively than complex shapes, in that there simplicity allows the separate and unified parts of a work to be unified. Also the sculptural elements of a piece, i.e. shape, scale and material, are more unified and the relations between these elements are easily understood.
Morris states that ‘Simplicity of shape does not necessarily equate to simplicity of experience’. Morris suggests that using simple shapes allows the viewer to visually understand an image or object. This simplicity presents the viewer with an object that they understand and gives them the opportunity to accept the shape as a whole, as they can immediately comprehend the shape. This also allows them to engage in the relationships between the parts and materials. Unitary forms do not reduce relationships.
