RFD: alt.sculpture
Andrew Werby
[Although I have no desire to split the existing readership of
rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom, and the various crafts groups, I think it is
time for a usenet group to form that focusses on the issues unique to
sculpture. This is a distinct form of art practice that should have a
group of its own, distinct from those dominated by two-dimensional
artists. A lot of professional sculptors are put off by the "recreation"
hierarchy designation, so this group would be in the "alternate"
category. I'm aware that one art group exists in "alt", but it does not
concentrate on sculpture, and many people are under the impression it is
dedicated to commercial announcements. (Also, "alt" groups are easier to
form.)
Alt.sculpture would be for discussion of: works of sculpture,
including reviews of shows, websites, books, and installations;
techniques of sculpture, including (but not limited to) carving,
casting, modeling, and assemblage in all three-dimensional media;
theories of art as they relate to sculpture, and opportunities for
creating, showing, and commissioning sculpture.
It is not intended as a commercial forum (alt art.marketplace fulfills
that function) but a limited amount of private advertising would be
tolerated, for instance equipment and supplies for sale, and pointers to
commercial websites. No binary files should be posted, due to space
restrictions. A discussion period begins now, and will continue for the
next few weeks. As this is a proposed alt group, there will be no call
for votes, but some consensus of opinion would be desirable. I am not
sure if it is possible to create it as a moderated group; perhaps this
would be a good idea- I am open to input on both sides of the issue.]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
AARD1VARK
I'm ALL for a sculpture group! (And thanks for including assemblage...
sometimes we fall in the middle as 2.5-D)
da
Hylton Joliffe
I too would love to see a group devoted to sculpture though i'm not sure
the audience for it exists.
--
___________________________________________________________
Hylton Jolliffe jhy...@ypn.com Wolff New Media
- - - - - - - - "What's on in Cyberspace" (R) - - - - - - -
> Your Personal Net -- http://www.ypn.com
> NetClock -- http://www.netclock.com
> NetBooks -- In bookstores everywhere!
> NewsGuide Live - Wednesdays at 8pm at
> http://www.ypn.com/mm-bin/genobject/conversestation
deni
In article <5b3ik0$2...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> writes
<snip>
>
> Alt.sculpture would be for discussion of: works of sculpture,
>including reviews of shows, websites, books, and installations;
>techniques of sculpture, including (but not limited to) carving,
>casting, modeling, and assemblage in all three-dimensional media;
>theories of art as they relate to sculpture, and opportunities for
>creating, showing, and commissioning sculpture.
>
>
Andrew, I think your ideas of 'reviews, books, etc. etc. are great. I
have discussed this in another thread with JKearman. What you are
proposing I believe needs to stay within this newsgroup.
Sculpture doesn't just apply to Sculptors, history has shown us that
many painters involved themselves in this medium also.
I for one would be interested in ready articles related to other mediums
and peoples ideas on work.
Start it here, if it becomes just too overwhelmed then think about
making another newsgroup, but don't shut the rest of us out......we want
to know and be involved too!
I look forward to you weaving the Sculpture thread!
all the best.
--
deni moore
jkea...@aol.com
In article <5bohfe$i...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
>
>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
>
Forgive me for saying this, but THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
In the time I've been reading this newsgroup, there have been so few
postings about sculpture that I can't remember the last one, and I'm
personally interested in the subject. You can blame it on anything you
want, Andrew, but I suspect your alt.sculpture is going to turn out to be
alt.sculpture.zilch.
For example, a posting I made yesterday, with the subject Sculpture, has
elicited no responses. I posted it to see what the response would be, and
the results are as I anticipated. Perhaps if you'll post something about
sculpture that is more stimulating, you'll get a greater response. Lacking
some sort of empirical test, though, I think your proposal to form yet
another alt site is a waste of time. There isn't enough interest in
sculpture on the Internet to support it. Someday, perhaps; not now.
I find it interesting that someone who, to my recollection, has never
posted anything about sculpture himself, now tries to drum up support for
a separate newsgroup devoted to the subject.
Or is your real reason merely that you are piqued over being told you
should learn to draw?
Cheers,
JK
Andrew Werby
deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <5b3ik0$2...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
><dre...@lanminds.com> writes
><snip>
>>
>> Alt.sculpture would be for discussion of: works of sculpture,
>>including reviews of shows, websites, books, and installations;
>>techniques of sculpture, including (but not limited to) carving,
>>casting, modeling, and assemblage in all three-dimensional media;
>>theories of art as they relate to sculpture, and opportunities for
>>creating, showing, and commissioning sculpture.
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>Andrew, I think your ideas of 'reviews, books, etc. etc. are great. I
>have discussed this in another thread with JKearman. What you are
>proposing I believe needs to stay within this newsgroup.
[How about I cross-post some of the sculpture material to this group. I
think sculpture is a broad enough topic to deserve its own newsgroup;
and it includes more than fine art sculpture. People do it for a lot of
reasons; fine art (especially the recreational variety) is just one of
them.]
>
>Sculpture doesn't just apply to Sculptors, history has shown us that
>many painters involved themselves in this medium also.
[Insofar as they did so, they were sculptors too. We are not forbidding
painters or anybody else from frequenting alt.sculpture; it is just
going to be a place where the discussion will focus on three-dimensional
work.]
>
>I for one would be interested in ready articles related to other mediums
>and peoples ideas on work.
[Then you would certainly be welcome there, but my articles aren't
exactly ready yet.]
>
>Start it here, if it becomes just too overwhelmed then think about
>making another newsgroup, but don't shut the rest of us out......we want
>to know and be involved too!
>
>I look forward to you weaving the Sculpture thread!
[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
Now at last you can see the art of Andrew Werby: sculpture, jewelry, and graphics.
Browse the "techniques" section for information on various art processes.
Link to places on the web with information useful to artists.
Be the first on your block to know what "juxtamorphic" art is!
David A. Nation
I think alt.sculpture is a good idea.
Dave Nation
Andrew Werby
jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <5bohfe$i...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
><dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
>
>>
>>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
>>
>
[Where have I heard this before?]
>
>In the time I've been reading this newsgroup, there have been so few
>postings about sculpture that I can't remember the last one, and I'm
>personally interested in the subject. You can blame it on anything you
>want, Andrew, but I suspect your alt.sculpture is going to turn out to be
>alt.sculpture.zilch.
[Perhaps. In that case, nobody's any worse off. On the other hand, it
may be that there is more interest in sculpture than is evident here.
You will be welcome to check out alt.sculpture when it is established,
and see if the presence of a group specifically dedicated to the
subject elicits more postings about it.]
>
>For example, a posting I made yesterday, with the subject Sculpture, has
>elicited no responses. I posted it to see what the response would be, and
>the results are as I anticipated. Perhaps if you'll post something about
>sculpture that is more stimulating, you'll get a greater response.
[Was that you, saying that architects sometimes put it in front of their
buildings? Sorry, I only respond to posts which arouse my interest for
some reason. I never pledged to answer everything headed "Sculpture". I
won't do so in the new group either.]
Lacking
>some sort of empirical test, though, I think your proposal to form yet
>another alt site is a waste of time. There isn't enough interest in
>sculpture on the Internet to support it. Someday, perhaps; not now.
[It's my time I'm wasting, if that's what's happening here. I think
there is some interest in matters sculptural, and I've received some
indications of support from people who are rarely heard from here. There
were similar objections raised to the last group I started;
alt.art.marketplace; and it seems to be doing fairly well, as far as
volume of posts is concerned.]
>
>I find it interesting that someone who, to my recollection, has never
>posted anything about sculpture himself, now tries to drum up support for
>a separate newsgroup devoted to the subject.
[If I have interested someone, then all my efforts have not been in
vain. I can't answer for your recollections, but I have posted a
considerable number of items about sculpture. A selection of my
responses to technical questions are archived at my site, under
Techniques of Sculpture, if you would like to peruse them.]
>
>Or is your real reason merely that you are piqued over being told you
>should learn to draw?
[That has very little to do with it. I can draw competently, if not
brilliantly. I have devoted a considerable number of hours and
sketchbooks to acquiring this skill. I acknowledge it is a handy thing
to be able to do, even for a sculptor. But I don't have the arrogance to
claim that everyone who wants to be considered an artist needs
to master it, or modelling in clay, computer graphics, or any other
particular technique. Each is important if one wants to do certain
things, and is largely irrelevant to others.]
deni
Apologies for my delayed response Andrew, but my Server has taken
to downloading 'history' as opposed to 'news'.
>deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <5b3ik0$2...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
>><dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>><snip>
>>>
<<<snip>>
>>Andrew, I think your ideas of 'reviews, books, etc. etc. are great. I
>>have discussed this in another thread with JKearman. What you are
>>proposing I believe needs to stay within this newsgroup.
>
>[How about I cross-post some of the sculpture material to this group. I
> think sculpture is a broad enough topic to deserve its own newsgroup;
>and it includes more than fine art sculpture. People do it for a lot of
>reasons; fine art (especially the recreational variety) is just one of
>them.]
>
Go ahead cross post if you have too, but I for one will miss you, dont
forget to send the odd postcard now and then.
What other groups would you be cross posting to?
>>
>>Sculpture doesn't just apply to Sculptors, history has shown us that
>>many painters involved themselves in this medium also.
>
>[Insofar as they did so, they were sculptors too. We are not forbidding
>painters or anybody else from frequenting alt.sculpture; it is just
>going to be a place where the discussion will focus on three-dimensional
>work.]
Well I am glad that you aren't going to have 'bouncers' on the door of
your new newsgroup, but I will hide my pencils and charcoal in my
back pocket just incase anyone should take offence.
>>
>>I for one would be interested in ready articles related to other mediums
>>and peoples ideas on work.
>
>[Then you would certainly be welcome there, but my articles aren't
>exactly ready yet.]
>>
Type faster on those articles, I for one an *dying* to see them.
>
>>Start it here, if it becomes just too overwhelmed then think about
>>making another newsgroup, but don't shut the rest of us out......we want
>>to know and be involved too!
>>
>>I look forward to you weaving the Sculpture thread!
>
>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
>
Well it seemed like a good idea in the meantime, get some discussion
going whilst you do whatever you have to do to create your 'alt' group.
There's lots of postings with tiny voices shouting "talk about sculpture to
me", but I guess you want to save the 'good' stuff for your own forum,
so for the time being I guess these voices will remain silent or have to
rely on 0898 (TALK SCULPTURE TO ME) for 3-dimensional verbal
stimulation.
Dominated!! Now this is only the case because you aren't contributing
enough, chuck out some of those articles you said you wanted to do
and balance this arena up, I am all for reviews and everything else you
suggested, I thought your ideas were 'top hole'.
"Flattening everything onto a piece of paper ain't it" are you displaying a
little intolerence here Andrew? surely not!
I guess you have your mind made up about leaving without at least
testing out this forum first. This newsgroup does have the heading
rec.arts.fine, I didn't think that the fine arts were limited to two
dimensional work, but if that is the case I guess I and a few others
within this newsgroup should trot off also.
Good luck and keep me posted on when your new group will be up
and running, I shall supply the "Bolly, darling and we shall have a damn
good swinging three dimensional party, what!"
All the best and good luck, I look forward to your posting even if they
end up here by crossing.
--
deni moore
"Sculpture is the art of the intelligence"
Pablo Picasso
.
deni
In article <5bqsgc$3...@access2.digex.net>, "David A. Nation"
<dan...@access2.digex.net> writes
>I think alt.sculpture is a good idea.
>
>Dave Nation
Why?
--
deni moore
deni
In article <19970117212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com writes
>Forgive me for saying this, but THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
>
There you go again, you *love* that story don't you! If you want I
could post you some more fairy tales that you could quote from, I have
a rather good one about Goldie Locks and the three bears, it may
broaden your horizons.
Give us a shout and I'll send them off to you.
--
deni moore
"Man is a creature who lives not upon bread alone, but principally by
catchwords" Robert L. Stevenson
deni
In article <5c0iar$7...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>jkea...@aol.com wrote:
>>Or is your real reason merely that you are piqued over being told you
>>should learn to draw?
>
>[That has very little to do with it. I can draw competently, if not
>brilliantly. I have devoted a considerable number of hours and
>sketchbooks to acquiring this skill. I acknowledge it is a handy thing
>to be able to do, even for a sculptor. But I don't have the arrogance to
>claim that everyone who wants to be considered an artist needs
>to master it, or modelling in clay, computer graphics, or any other
>particular technique. Each is important if one wants to do certain
>things, and is largely irrelevant to others.]
I wont admit to being a sculptor Andrew, all I know is what my
grandfather taught me when he was alive, he always advocated drawing
as an intrinsic part of his sculpture making which he enjoyed, but then
again he never really took his art that serious!
--
deni moore
Andrew Werby
deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Andrew, I think your ideas of 'reviews, books, etc. etc. are great. I
>>>have discussed this in another thread with JKearman. What you are
>>>proposing I believe needs to stay within this newsgroup.
>>
>>[How about I cross-post some of the sculpture material to this group. I
>> think sculpture is a broad enough topic to deserve its own newsgroup;
>>and it includes more than fine art sculpture. People do it for a lot of
>>reasons; fine art (especially the recreational variety) is just one of
>>them.]
>>
>Go ahead cross post if you have too, but I for one will miss you, dont
>forget to send the odd postcard now and then.
[I never said I was leaving rec.arts.fine, etc.; I just thought that
establishing a group focused on sculpture would encourage more
sculpture-related postings. ]
>>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
>>
>Well it seemed like a good idea in the meantime, get some discussion
>going whilst you do whatever you have to do to create your 'alt' group.
>There's lots of postings with tiny voices shouting "talk about sculpture to
>me", but I guess you want to save the 'good' stuff for your own forum,
>so for the time being I guess these voices will remain silent or have to
>rely on 0898 (TALK SCULPTURE TO ME) for 3-dimensional verbal
>stimulation.
[ HOT SCULPTURE TALK: Real live 3-dimensional people are waiting for you to
call...(or will I be waiting by the phone for another long Saturday night). I'm
not exactly saving these brilliant articles up, waiting for the advent of the
new group to release them, it's more like I'm hoping for some stimulating
subjects to come up that will bring them forth.]
>Dominated!! Now this is only the case because you aren't contributing
>enough, chuck out some of those articles you said you wanted to do
>and balance this arena up, I am all for reviews and everything else you
>suggested, I thought your ideas were 'top hole'.
[That's a compliment in Britain, isn't it? I like your enthusiasm,
and there's nothing to stop you from posting some reviews, talking
about books, or even airing some provocative views on sculpture; do
it in in these existing groups and people will probably respond.
I definitely think that the usenet's potential for artistic
interactions has been underexplored.]
>
>"Flattening everything onto a piece of paper ain't it" are you displaying a
>little intolerence here Andrew? surely not!
[I think it is more a reaction against an extremely narrow view of
what constitutes art.]
>
>I guess you have your mind made up about leaving without at least
>testing out this forum first. This newsgroup does have the heading
>rec.arts.fine, I didn't think that the fine arts were limited to two
>dimensional work, but if that is the case I guess I and a few others
>within this newsgroup should trot off also.
[Actually, I've been haunting these groups for more than a year; I've
gotten a lot out of them (and have contributed some things as well.)
I find them an excellent way to clarify one's thoughts and generate
a written expression of one's feelings about art, which otherwise tend
to remain inchoate. It certainly works better for me than staring at
a blank piece of paper (or computer screen, whatever.) trying to come
up with an "Artist's Statement". I'm not trotting off, no such luck. ]
>
>Good luck and keep me posted on when your new group will be up
>and running, I shall supply the "Bolly, darling and we shall have a damn
>good swinging three dimensional party, what!"
[Oh rather! I really cahn't wait- does Fortnum's sell virtual caviar yet?]
de...@deni.demon.co.uk
In article <5c8bp0$1...@lanshark.lanminds.com>,
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
>
> deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >Well it seemed like a good idea in the meantime, get some discussion
> >going whilst you do whatever you have to do to create your 'alt' group.
> >There's lots of postings with tiny voices shouting "talk about sculpture to
> >me", but I guess you want to save the 'good' stuff for your own forum,
> >so for the time being I guess these voices will remain silent or have to
> >rely on 0898 (TALK SCULPTURE TO ME) for 3-dimensional verbal
> >stimulation.
>
> [ HOT SCULPTURE TALK: Real live 3-dimensional people are waiting for you to
> call...(or will I be waiting by the phone for another long Saturday night).
Oh I do apologise Andrew, I was just pulling your leg about a 'Chat
Line' I hadn't realised you had one up and running.
I'm
> not exactly saving these brilliant articles up, waiting for the advent of the
> new group to release them, it's more like I'm hoping for some stimulating
> subjects to come up that will bring them forth.]
I may be able to help with stimulating, give me something more to go on
and I shall do all I can to help you come forth.
>
> >Dominated!! Now this is only the case because you aren't contributing
> >enough, chuck out some of those articles you said you wanted to do
> >and balance this arena up, I am all for reviews and everything else you
> >suggested, I thought your ideas were 'top hole'.
>
> [That's a compliment in Britain, isn't it? I like your enthusiasm,
> and there's nothing to stop you from posting some reviews, talking
> about books, or even airing some provocative views on sculpture; do
> it in in these existing groups and people will probably respond.
> I definitely think that the usenet's potential for artistic
> interactions has been underexplored.]
"Top hole" is indeed a compliment, my dear. My enthusiasm knows no
bounds, and provocative is my middle name.
'Artistic interactions umm, that sounds interesting', but I digress.
Back
to the subject of sculpture....
You see Andrew we kind of differ on the subject of a new group for me
I believe that <<cyber>>interaction with other artists should be like a
big hot tub, everyone in and lets discover what concerns each of us, its
just the way I like to learn and the best way of learning is to see all
sides. We are ultimately in the same boat (there I go again back to
water!) and its fun to see other artists passions, because someone is
working in a particular medium/style/dimension doesn't upset me or
rock the way I create I think even in a 'trash can' there's always
something we can utilise.
Plus I have never liked the way artists tend to want to fragment
themselves, it all seems to cosy for me.
But maybe my concerns are that I am too lazy to go through two news
groups, I am more of a 'Mall' gal myself! I like my shopping all under
one roof.
>
> >
> >"Flattening everything onto a piece of paper ain't it" are you displaying a
> >little intolerence here Andrew? surely not!
>
> [I think it is more a reaction against an extremely narrow view of
> what constitutes art.]
I don't think it is as narrow as you seem to believe, but I live on a
small
island just off the coast of America, and artistically we are very
liberal
here, we don't seem to suffer such hang-ups over artists who like to
draw.....or don't, each to their own and good on everyone.
> >
> >I guess you have your mind made up about leaving without at least
> >testing out this forum first. This newsgroup does have the heading
> >rec.arts.fine, I didn't think that the fine arts were limited to two
> >dimensional work, but if that is the case I guess I and a few others
> >within this newsgroup should trot off also.
>
> [Actually, I've been haunting these groups for more than a year;
Oooooh that just sent a shiver down my spine, I'm scared of
ghosts!<brrrrrr>
I've
> gotten a lot out of them (and have contributed some things as well.)
> I find them an excellent way to clarify one's thoughts and generate
> a written expression of one's feelings about art, which otherwise tend
> to remain inchoate. It certainly works better for me than staring at
> a blank piece of paper (or computer screen, whatever.) trying to come
> up with an "Artist's Statement". I'm not trotting off, no such luck. ]
Andrew don't tell me you are flattening your ideas onto a piece of
paper! Now, now dear boy, think of that negative space, have you tried
origami?
But I agree with you, anything that can challenge us and prompt us to
define our ideas is a good thing, I think they call it dialogue.
Well that's good news that you aren't trotting off, I happen to have
already bought the case of <<cyber>> Bolly, shall we have that 3-D
party anyway?
>
> >
> >Good luck and keep me posted on when your new group will be up
> >and running, I shall supply the "Bolly, darling and we shall have a damn
> >good swinging three dimensional party, what!"
>
> [Oh rather! I really cahn't wait- does Fortnum's sell virtual caviar yet?]
>
Oh darling, Harrod's Food Hall has been selling the stuff for years, I
love it!!, drink and eat as much as one want's without putting on an
ounce! care for some Smoked Salmon dearie with that glass of Bolly?
deni
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
deni
In article <5bqsgc$3...@access2.digex.net>, "David A. Nation"
<dan...@access2.digex.net> writes
>I think alt.sculpture is a good idea.
>
>Dave Nation
There is a considerable time lag on my news, I received a reply to my
posting to David via email, I am not sure whether he posted his reply to
the thread as I can't download recent news!! I send my apologies, but
blame my server......here's my reply
In message <1997012321...@access5.digex.net>,
"David A. Nation" <dan...@access.digex.net> writes
David responded:
>I haven't kept up much with rec.arts.fine. I read it occasionally. I
>would be more likely to keep up with alt.sculpture daily as it would be
>more interesting to me personally.
The reason I posed the rather profound question to your posting was:
Andrew was kind enough to take the time initially to start this news
thread asking for a discussion on a subject that is very close to his heart,
Alt.Sculpture.
Now my understanding is that a discussion is something a bit more
indepth than a vote of confidence.
So far the only artists to discuss Andrews idea has been two artists that
have an interest in sculpture but aren't 'sculptors'.
If this is the extent of dialogue for 'sculptors' I dread to think what a
new newsgroup is going to be like, are all responses going to be 'one
liners'? Now that's going to be a really interesting group!
Or is it that you intend to save up all your ideas and thoughts on the
subject once Andrew has taken his time away from his work to form a
new newsgroup?
I think Andrew deserves a little bit more support in this discussion than
what he is currently receiving, or is it that you have made Andrew your
spokes person because you are all too timid to talk!
I am disappointed, the sculptors I have known and loved in my life have
had a bit more spunk than is being displayed here, but I guess they
haven't got a modem fitted yet!
--
deni moore
no skill....no art...oops!
Anthony Wright
deni wrote:
>
> Now my understanding is that a discussion is something a bit more
> indepth than a vote of confidence.
What exactly is there to discuss? There seems to be plenty of newsgroups
that have splintered off to form new groups. Take a look at the *alt.*
hierarchy.
> So far the only artists to discuss Andrews idea has been two artists that
> have an interest in sculpture but aren't 'sculptors'.
This may be attributted to your news lag, but indeed I did respond
(albeit just a vote of confidence), and I happen to be very much a
sculptor (see url in signature), I'm also a draftsman, have made prints,
painted, and taught, but really have no interest in reading about or
talking about those disciplines.
> If this is the extent of dialogue for 'sculptors' I dread to think what a
> new newsgroup is going to be like, are all responses going to be 'one
> liners'? Now that's going to be a really interesting group!
Sometimes all it takes is one line. A worn saying but *I'm too busy
making art to talk about it*.
> Or is it that you intend to save up all your ideas and thoughts on the
> subject once Andrew has taken his time away from his work to form a
> new newsgroup?
I appreciate the fact that Andrew is willing to give of his time to
pursue this, and I cannot guarantee that I would be a regular poster to
the group although I'm sure that there are others who will step up to
fill that void.
> I think Andrew deserves a little bit more support in this discussion than
> what he is currently receiving, or is it that you have made Andrew your
> spokes person because you are all too timid to talk!
I would hope that the sculpture group would perhaps focus on more
technical subjects of concern to people working in industrial materials,
3 dimensions, often using technique not found in technical manuals. I
would also like to see discussion of what challenges there are to
showing large scale work(proposal submittals, site considerations, etc..
I don't think alt.sculpture should be a place for the *is it Art?*
ranting that usually turns into *he said*,*she said* flames. If I
wanted some of that stuff I could always come back to this group.
Being the quiet type, I'll sit back now and wait to hear more on the
subject. Better yet, I think I'll go out to the studio and work.
--
Anthony Wright
twr...@metronet.com
http://www.metronet.com/~twright/sculptur.htm
deni
In article <32ED97...@metronet.com>, Anthony Wright
<twr...@metronet.com> writes
<snip>
> This may be attributted to your news lag, but indeed I did respond
>(albeit just a vote of confidence), and I happen to be very much a
>sculptor (see url in signature), I'm also a draftsman, have made prints,
>painted, and taught, but really have no interest in reading about or
>talking about those disciplines.
URL, thats a good idea, I was toying with the idea of a tatoo.
<snip>
>
>I would hope that the sculpture group would perhaps focus on more
>technical subjects of concern to people working in industrial materials,
>3 dimensions, often using technique not found in technical manuals. I
>would also like to see discussion of what challenges there are to
>showing large scale work(proposal submittals, site considerations, etc..
>I don't think alt.sculpture should be a place for the *is it Art?*
>ranting that usually turns into *he said*,*she said* flames. If I
>wanted some of that stuff I could always come back to this group.
>Being the quiet type, I'll sit back now and wait to hear more on the
>subject. Better yet, I think I'll go out to the studio and work.
So why can't this be said within a fine art newsgroup? There's been a
couple of discussions here recently about sculpture technique and
neither have developed into 'flames', and I have seen no attack on
whether bronze casting is or is not 'art'.
The discussions that have developed into hostile attacks have been
discussions about particular philosophies on art (and personalities within
this newsgroup), those discussions will remain heated within and without
a newsgroup environment.
I don't see at this point in time enough interest and participation to
sanction a newsgroup dedicated to sculpture, the sculpture postings
here have received very few responses themselves.
Or are you suggesting that once a new group is set up, all the sculptors
will come out of the woodwork to finally discuss their interest when the
environment is 'cushy' enough?.
--
deni moore
.....10 days
jkea...@aol.com
In article <BX6G8ABm...@deni.demon.co.uk>, deni
<de...@deni.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The discussions that have developed into hostile attacks have been
>discussions about particular philosophies on art (and personalities
within
>this newsgroup), those discussions will remain heated within and without
>a newsgroup environment.
This woman speaks from personal experience, having carved me up severely
lately.
>
>I don't see at this point in time enough interest and participation to
>sanction a newsgroup dedicated to sculpture, the sculpture postings
>here have received very few responses themselves.
Where are ya now, Johnny Dean?
>
>Or are you suggesting that once a new group is set up, all the sculptors
>will come out of the woodwork to finally discuss their interest when the
>environment is 'cushy' enough?.
>
Please note, and this is not a cheesecake, merely an observation that
there has been more interest in the Cynic & Corgi Cyber Pub than in
alt.sculpture. I'm thinking of launching an RFD for an alt.cynic&corgi
newsgroup in fact.
Let the sculptors depart, they just raise clouds of dust, and all that
hammering...!
Cheers,
JK
D-9 days!
Jonathan Clift
In article <JOzUqaAX...@deni.demon.co.uk>, deni
<de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote
[ages ago]
in response to a posting by Andrew Werby
<snup, snap , snip, sorry scissors are a bit blunt>
>I guess you have your mind made up about leaving without at least
>testing out this forum first. This newsgroup does have the heading
>rec.arts.fine, I didn't think that the fine arts were limited to two
>dimensional work, but if that is the case I guess I and a few others
>within this newsgroup should trot off also.
>
If you aren't going off with the 3D (sculpture) people, but don't think
you should stay with the 2D people, does that mean that your own work is
one-dimensional? Doesn't that limit your possibilities rather - or, are
you not a purist and let a bit of 2D or 3D creep in? Sorry, don't take
this personally, just a (weak) link into the question...
Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
are there exceptions?
An (old) dictionary of art that I own suggests that it is all forms in
three dimensions, but then goes on to say that there are two ways of
achieving this carving and modelling. That doesn't seem to cover
installations, assemblage (is that the right word?), wrapping-up
buildings, rearranging the landscape etc. Is the word used to cover all
these, or not? It's not vitally important that I know - I can keep
applying the man-peering-in-the-antique-shop test - I'm just curious.
--
Jonathan Clift
jkea...@aol.com
In article <zV2bCAAD...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Clift
<jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>are there exceptions?
>
>
Good points, finally some discussion about sculpture!
Many of David Smith's sculptures were intended to be viewed from one side,
although they were three-dimensional. At some point I suppose the medium
takes a form not considered to be a painting or collage or assemblage and
becomes a sculpture.
I'd be very interested in seeing discussions of any of these forms on this
newsgroup or at the cyber pub.
JK
9 days
Andrew Werby
Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>are there exceptions?
[I'm leaning toward the all-encompassing definition, myself; anything
three-dimensional. Now in reality, even pencil on paper is
three-dimensional, because nothing is truly two-dimensional- even a
projected image requires something physical off of which to reflect. It
is perfectly possible to consider a drawing on paper a certain kind of
sculpture; and if you litter a room with them, you have an
"installation". Thus painting and drawing can be seen as subsets of
sculpture.]
>
>An (old) dictionary of art that I own suggests that it is all forms in
>three dimensions, but then goes on to say that there are two ways of
>achieving this carving and modelling. That doesn't seem to cover
>installations, assemblage (is that the right word?), wrapping-up
>buildings, rearranging the landscape etc. Is the word used to cover all
>these, or not? It's not vitally important that I know - I can keep
>applying the man-peering-in-the-antique-shop test - I'm just curious.
>--
>Jonathan Clift
[I'm not sure you are going to find any wrapped buildings or rearranged
landscapes etc. in the antique shop quite yet, but keep peering. For
the purposes of alt.sculpture, you won't even have to consider it to be
art; you can be someone who makes pissoirs without higher pretensions.
If this causes a lot of dissension in the group, we could
split off a subgroup called alt.sculpture.art.fine, I suppose. In the
meantime, "all forms in three dimensions" sounds alright to me. But
chain letters and off-topic commercial posts would still not be
countenanced.]
Silverlark
Well I've been looking for some 3D artists.
I do clay sculptures, kiln fired. And they're small, so I don't know if
they're sculpture or sculptural by whoever's definition, don't really
care. Just enjoy doing them, done 'em for 20 years.
Noticed some discussion about sculptures meant to be viewed from one
angle. Mine aren't, but I have noticed when photographing them that each
piece seems to have one best angle, more if it's a really well designed
piece.
I've also noticed that some sculptures can't really be adequately
photographed, that they have to be viewed in the round to really
experience them.
I've never been able to draw a piece before sculpting, I'd rather make my
rough out of clay. Conversely I find I can paint better with a clay model
to work from, so for me 2D and 3D are intertwined.
Theresa
Jonathan Clift
In article <19970131001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com wrote
>In article <zV2bCAAD...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Clift
><jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>
>>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>>are there exceptions?
>>
>>
>
>Good points, finally some discussion about sculpture!
>
>Many of David Smith's sculptures were intended to be viewed from one side,
>although they were three-dimensional. At some point I suppose the medium
>takes a form not considered to be a painting or collage or assemblage and
>becomes a sculpture.
>
>I'd be very interested in seeing discussions of any of these forms on this
>newsgroup or at the cyber pub.
>
>JK
>9 days
It's interesting to me that your 'definition' is a negative one.
Anything that's not x, y, z, gets dumped in the bin called sculpture.
(Note: I'm not a sculptor, so I don't have any particular agenda here).
By contrast Andrew's (in my view narrow) definition is totally
inclusive, and just calls everything sculpture (though his reason is
probably to avoid getting dragged into a nit-picking, and not useful to
him, discussion). Given the 'debate' about alt.sculpture, I find these
positions fascinating.
I haven't seen any of David Smith's work (is there any, here in the
UK?), though I have seen some of his pieces reproduced in books. The
best picture I have here is of a piece called Voltri VII. I can't judge
whether you are right about his intentions about viewing, but I can see
immediately that he was very interested in relationships between 2D and
3D forms. This particular work divides into two. The bottom section is a
pair of metal wheels attached to a long shaft which is held horizontal
by a flat, narrow rudder or keel at the far end. It looks like a piece
of old farm machinery that's been abandoned. The top section is five,
similar forms welded to the shaft. The forms are roughly cut, from sheet
metal, and I find it impossible to view them other than
anthropomorphically; sometimes a group of armless men (post-modernists
examining their navels?), and sometimes the legs of people doing
handstands. The lower part is quite still and static. It has the
potential of movement, but no energy of its own. The higher part is full
of movement and energy, and there's a tremendous tension, and ebbing and
flowing, between the five forms. (Something I didn't say is that they
remind me of brush strokes on a flat surface.) It seems to me (and I
could well be wrong!) that he was exploring some of these questions
about what is 2D and what 3D. (It could almost be a metaphor for this
newsgroup!) In some ways it looks quite rough, as if he was working at
such a pitch that he was bursting to get onto the next one and did just
enough, but no more. It's interesting, but something about it repulses
me, at the same time as it holds me fascinated.
Sorry, more of a monologue than a discussion. I must be the pub bore!!
What sort of position does David Smith hold in your art world over
there? Was he generally known, even amongst people who didn't take a
particular interest in the arts, in say the same way as Henry Moore or
Barbara Hepworth were in this country?
--
Jonathan Clift
deni
>
>Sorry, more of a monologue than a discussion. I must be the pub bore!!
No, you certainly are not a pub bore, quite the opposite in fact, you are
interesting to listen to, and you have no pretensions and you don't
confess to know it all, you are searching for knowledge and
understanding that is the basis of being an artist in my books (I don't
care what anyone else says).
Jonathan your postings are a bonus to this newsgroup, don't stop.
I would gladly share a drink with you in a pub anyday.
With my sincere best wishes to an enquiring artistic mind,
--
deni moore
...6 days
Jonathan Clift
In article <5ctfnm$8...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> wrote
>Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>>are there exceptions?
>
>three-dimensional. Now in reality, even pencil on paper is
>three-dimensional, because nothing is truly two-dimensional- even a
>projected image requires something physical off of which to reflect. It
>is perfectly possible to consider a drawing on paper a certain kind of
>sculpture; and if you litter a room with them, you have an
>"installation". Thus painting and drawing can be seen as subsets of
>sculpture.]
>
Although your definition is accurate, at a certain level, I feel you are
cheating and avoiding the real question (though I can well understand
why you might want to). What I was trying to achieve with my original
question was map out the complexity of the field (and it seems to have
got to the point where my common-sense approach doesn't work too well),
and how people who work in the different media see the relationship
between different methods and approaches to creating art.
You sound very determined about setting-up alt.sculpture; I would guess
your mind's made up already. A lot of it seems to come down to how you
view a newsgroup (and I'm in the dark here, because I'm not really even
sure what rec.arts.fine is all about). If it's a closed group of
practitioners, mostly discussing techniques and practical issues, then
there's probably a strong case for a separate sculpture group. Speaking
for myself, and I'm not a sculptor, I would prefer everything to stay in
one (fine art) group, where I can pick-up easily on things that interest
me (and there is a lot about sculpture, in general terms, that does
interest me).
>>
>>An (old) dictionary of art that I own suggests that it is all forms in
>>three dimensions, but then goes on to say that there are two ways of
>>achieving this carving and modelling. That doesn't seem to cover
>>installations, assemblage (is that the right word?), wrapping-up
>>buildings, rearranging the landscape etc. Is the word used to cover all
>>these, or not? It's not vitally important that I know - I can keep
>>applying the man-peering-in-the-antique-shop test - I'm just curious.
>>--
>>Jonathan Clift
>
>[I'm not sure you are going to find any wrapped buildings or rearranged
> landscapes etc. in the antique shop quite yet, but keep peering. For
>the purposes of alt.sculpture, you won't even have to consider it to be
>art; you can be someone who makes pissoirs without higher pretensions.
>If this causes a lot of dissension in the group, we could
>split off a subgroup called alt.sculpture.art.fine, I suppose. In the
>meantime, "all forms in three dimensions" sounds alright to me. But
>chain letters and off-topic commercial posts would still not be
>countenanced.]
>
>
>
>Andrew Werby - United Artworks
>
>http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
>
>
--
Jonathan Clift
deni
>Jonathan Clift <jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>>are there exceptions?
>
>[I'm leaning toward the all-encompassing definition, myself; anything
>three-dimensional. Now in reality, even pencil on paper is
>three-dimensional, because nothing is truly two-dimensional- even a
>projected image requires something physical off of which to reflect. It
>is perfectly possible to consider a drawing on paper a certain kind of
>sculpture; and if you litter a room with them, you have an
>"installation". Thus painting and drawing can be seen as subsets of
>sculpture.]
>
'All-encompassing' are the words I would agree with in your definition.
So I therefore continue to not see the point of a 'sculpture' newsgroup
because as you correctly point out it includes everything.
--
deni moore
....5 days
jkea...@aol.com
In article <AULHSDAy...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Clift
<jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <19970131001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>jkea...@aol.com wrote
>
>>In article <zV2bCAAD...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Clift
>><jona...@ipsart.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Can somebody tell me, what does the word sculpture actually cover (in a
>>>technical sense, I mean)? Does it cover all three-dimensional work, or
>>>are there exceptions?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Good points, finally some discussion about sculpture!
>>
>>Many of David Smith's sculptures were intended to be viewed from one
side,
>>although they were three-dimensional. At some point I suppose the medium
>>takes a form not considered to be a painting or collage or assemblage
and
>>becomes a sculpture.
>It's interesting to me that your 'definition' is a negative one.
>Anything that's not x, y, z, gets dumped in the bin called sculpture.
>(Note: I'm not a sculptor, so I don't have any particular agenda here).
>By contrast Andrew's (in my view narrow) definition is totally
>inclusive, and just calls everything sculpture (though his reason is
>probably to avoid getting dragged into a nit-picking, and not useful to
>him, discussion). Given the 'debate' about alt.sculpture, I find these
>positions fascinating.
>
>I haven't seen any of David Smith's work (is there any, here in the
>UK?),
<snip>
> (Something I didn't say is that they
>remind me of brush strokes on a flat surface.) It seems to me (and I
>could well be wrong!) that he was exploring some of these questions
>about what is 2D and what 3D. (It could almost be a metaphor for this
>newsgroup!) In some ways it looks quite rough, as if he was working at
>such a pitch that he was bursting to get onto the next one and did just
>enough, but no more. It's interesting, but something about it repulses
>me, at the same time as it holds me fascinated.
Smith began as a painter and switched to welded steel sculpture in the
30s. He’s credited with doing the first work of that type in the US. I
don’t know what there is of his in the UK but there must be some, as he
was prolific.
>
>Sorry, more of a monologue than a discussion. I must be the pub bore!!
>
Although I am reluctant to publicly agree with Deni, I’d be glad to share
a pint in the pub with you. Someone has to kick off discussions or they’ll
just take their marble and go home.
Your impressions of Smith are especially clear considering you’re viewing
his work in a book.
>What sort of position does David Smith hold in your art world over
>there? Was he generally known, even amongst people who didn't take a
>particular interest in the arts, in say the same way as Henry Moore or
>Barbara Hepworth were in this country?
>
He’s now considered our best 20th century sculptor. He was recognized in
his lifetime (d. 1965) but has become more appreciated since then. The
plethora of (boring IMO) steel-cube sculpture in the 60s and 70s was
probably influenced by his Cubi series. Storm King Art Center is a
400-acre site devoted to outdoor sculpture and I think you could safely
say most of the work there was somehow influenced by Smith (Hepworth and
Moore (Henry) are both in their collection as well). I doubt most
Americans outside of a small circle of friends know him, but we don’t do
an adequate job of educating our population about art, IMO.
Cheers,
JK
…5 days
Andrew Werby
deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>Andrew defined sculpture:
>>[I'm leaning toward the all-encompassing definition, myself; anything
>>three-dimensional. Now in reality, even pencil on paper is
>>three-dimensional, because nothing is truly two-dimensional- even a
>>projected image requires something physical off of which to reflect. It
>>is perfectly possible to consider a drawing on paper a certain kind of
>>sculpture; and if you litter a room with them, you have an
>>"installation". Thus painting and drawing can be seen as subsets of
>>sculpture.]
>>
>
>'All-encompassing' are the words I would agree with in your definition.
>So I therefore continue to not see the point of a 'sculpture' newsgroup
>because as you correctly point out it includes everything.
>--
>deni moore
[Perhaps there is a need for a more all-encompassing news group.
Rec.arts.fine certainly isn't very inclusive. The "rec" or recreational
hierarchy, to begin with, puts off many of us who are professionally
involved in the creation of new forms, who believe that it is a primary
and not a peripheral concern of mankind, and who are distressed at this
enshrinement of marginalization in a brand-new medium. The "arts.fine"
part seem to be mainly productive of eternal debate over whether
something is or isn't art, and if it is, whether it is "fine" or not. A
lot of sculpture (according to my definition, anyway) is made by people
who don't consider themselves to be doing "art" in the first place, and
who certainly wouldn't consider it to be fine art. This group excludes
them; alt.sculpture will give them a place to discuss what they do, and
how they do it, without getting bogged down in justifying their presence.]
Jonathan Clift
In article <19970204201...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jkea...@aol.com wrote
...I've removed the long-winded bit I (JC) wrote about a particular
sculpture by David Smith...and started with JK's response...
>Smith began as a painter and switched to welded steel sculpture in the
>30s. He’s credited with doing the first work of that type in the US. I
>don’t know what there is of his in the UK but there must be some, as he
>was prolific.
>>
>>Sorry, more of a monologue than a discussion. I must be the pub bore!!
>>
>
>Although I am reluctant to publicly agree with Deni, I’d be glad to share
>a pint in the pub with you. Someone has to kick off discussions or they’ll
>just take their marble and go home.
>
Typical artist, very generous when it's only virtual beer!
Don't tell everyone you've got a marble, they'll all want one. I lost
all mine when I was about 10. And, don't spread it around, but I'm also
one colour short of a palette!
>Your impressions of Smith are especially clear considering you’re viewing
>his work in a book.
>
Although viewing art in books is problematic, it can help when focusing
on a particular aspect, in this case the ideas about 2D and 3D.
Strangely, I find looking at sculpture in books more rewarding than
looking at pictures - it ought to be the other way round. I think
possibly it might be to do with pre-judging pictures, but always
encountering a sculpture (for real) in ways that the reproduction can't
prepare you for.
>>What sort of position does David Smith hold in your art world over
>>there? Was he generally known, even amongst people who didn't take a
>>particular interest in the arts, in say the same way as Henry Moore or
>>Barbara Hepworth were in this country?
>>
>He’s now considered our best 20th century sculptor. He was recognized in
>his lifetime (d. 1965) but has become more appreciated since then. The
>plethora of (boring IMO) steel-cube sculpture in the 60s and 70s was
what's IMO?
>probably influenced by his Cubi series. Storm King Art Center is a
>400-acre site devoted to outdoor sculpture and I think you could safely
>say most of the work there was somehow influenced by Smith (Hepworth and
>Moore (Henry) are both in their collection as well). I doubt most
>Americans outside of a small circle of friends know him, but we don’t do
>an adequate job of educating our population about art, IMO.
>
Did he influence people directly, by working with them or taking
assistants? Many sculptors in this country spent time with Henry Moore
as assistants, the same was true of Barbara Hepworth.
>Cheers,
>
>JK
>…5 days
--
Jonathan Clift
kajoj...@aol.com
My curiosity has me on a scavenger hunt for information about Oscar
Bluemner and his paintings... The only 'net reference I can find shows
that he is in very good company in a NYC gallery... Any clues?
Thanks...
.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Jonathan Clift
In article <19970131233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Silverlark
<silve...@aol.com> wrote
>
>I do clay sculptures, kiln fired. And they're small, so I don't know if
>they're sculpture or sculptural by whoever's definition, don't really
>care. Just enjoy doing them, done 'em for 20 years.
>
Can't see why there should be a size limit on sculpture. It doesn't have
to be monumental pieces in sculpture parks, though I suppose, as with
painting, it's the way to get noticed.
>Noticed some discussion about sculptures meant to be viewed from one
>angle. Mine aren't, but I have noticed when photographing them that each
>piece seems to have one best angle, more if it's a really well designed
>piece.
>I've also noticed that some sculptures can't really be adequately
>photographed, that they have to be viewed in the round to really
>experience them.
>
Last year I took some photographs of outdoor sculpture, around the town
where I live, for a web site. I was amazed when the pictures came back
how badly I had done. It isn't easy trying to represent a sculpture in
this way. I certainly learnt a great deal in the process (I mean
generally about sculpture, rather than just how to take photos); it
forces you to think about what you are seeing. It also helps in focusing
attention on just one or two aspects of a work.
>I've never been able to draw a piece before sculpting, I'd rather make my
>rough out of clay. Conversely I find I can paint better with a clay model
>to work from, so for me 2D and 3D are intertwined.
>
>Theresa
--
Jonathan Clift
vincent bilotta
Can't see why there should be a size limit on sculpture. It doesn't have
to be monumental pieces in sculpture parks, though I suppose, as with
painting, it's the way to get noticed.
Quoting David Smith (from memory so it might be only close)
it may be a sculpture to hold in the hand, that will not seek to outdo
by bulky grandure.
that will give to each beholder in their own time, a wish , a vision,
correlate forms of woman and nature,
stimulate recall sense of pleasureable emotion,
that momentarelly rewards for the battle of being.
>Noticed some discussion about sculptures meant to be viewed from one
>angle. Mine aren't, but I have noticed when photographing them that each
>piece seems to have one best angle, more if it's a really well designed
>piece.
>I've also noticed that some sculptures can't really be adequately
>photographed, that they have to be viewed in the round to really
>experience them.
if it can be apprehended from one angle it's cheaper to work in a 2D
medium.
the experience should only be senseable by going round the piece,
every sculptural deity i've ever read(interviews, notes, anecdotes,
biographies) talks about letting the mind assemble sense impressions
made up of different views.
in film the mind puts 24 frames per second together, and
cinematographers exploit this to great final effect, overcoming the
camera's strong POV.
myself, if i could draw, i wouldn't bother spending months and years
working things out in the round.
vincent
>
David Hulks
deni <de...@deni.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, more of a monologue than a discussion. I must be the pub bore!!
>No, you certainly are not a pub bore, quite the opposite in fact, you are
>interesting to listen to, and you have no pretensions and you don't
>confess to know it all, you are searching for knowledge and
>understanding that is the basis of being an artist in my books (I don't
>care what anyone else says).
Yes, ok. But surely David Smith is just as well known here in
England, largely as a result of Anthony Caro bringing his ideas about
welded sculpture across the Atlantic. I mean where did all this
'heavy metal' sculpture taught (to the exclusion vertually of all
other sculptural methods) originate? All my teachers were certainly
very aware of Smith -- and preferred his work to the lumpy parochial
stuff of Moore and Hepworth, who by the sixties were looking very
out-of-date. By the way, this move also introduces colour in
sculpture -- perhaps a crossover with the painters who want
discussions on sculpture to stay here, but an issue which I would say
was a particular issue for sculpture, even though it came from
Post-painterly Abstraction.
David Hulks,
London
David Hulks
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
I agree that sculpture has enough of its own issues germain to
three-dimensional studies to justify its own newsgroup, and sculpture
discussion does get rather lost in rec.arts.fine, which is far too
broad a catogorization to make any sense. Also your point that simply
having another newsgroup doesn't constitute an unbridgable split
is correct.
What I'm not so comfortable with is the notion of sculpture as somehow
being 'larger' than 2D artforms. Perhaps this would be a good
discussion to start the new group off with, but I don't think you
really want to start a competition about whose discipline is the most
important.
My own interest is in the post-war period in the history of western
art. This is a moment where the distinction between painting and
sculpture becomes blurred, and issues in painting become more
important to the development of contemporary sculpture than its own
issues and traditions.
Do let us know when alt.sculpture is up and running. I would certainly
like to contribute.
David Hulks,
London
David Hulks
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
>[Although I have no desire to split the existing readership of
>rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom, and the various crafts groups, I think it is
>time for a usenet group to form that focusses on the issues unique to
>sculpture. This is a distinct form of art practice that should have a
>group of its own, distinct from those dominated by two-dimensional
>artists. A lot of professional sculptors are put off by the "recreation"
>hierarchy designation, so this group would be in the "alternate"
>category. I'm aware that one art group exists in "alt", but it does not
>concentrate on sculpture, and many people are under the impression it is
>dedicated to commercial announcements. (Also, "alt" groups are easier to
> form.)
>Andrew Werby - United Artworks
>http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
Good idea!
My own specialism is the history and theory of sculpture, and I find
it too time consuming to wade through the mish-mash of discussion in
rec.arts.fine. So I tend not to bother contributing.
A moderated group might keep things in order.
Or howabout a mailing list?
Good luck with this iniative. Please keep us all posted.
David Hulks
2x4
I am also interested in a Sculpture usenet group. Please add my name to
those interested in this idea.
Nancy Little
Andrew Werby
David Hulks (cha...@dircon.co.uk) wrote:
Surely David Smith is just as well known here in
England, largely as a result of Anthony Caro bringing his ideas about
welded sculpture across the Atlantic. I mean where did all this
'heavy metal' sculpture taught (to the exclusion vertually of all
other sculptural methods) originate? All my teachers were certainly
very aware of Smith -- and preferred his work to the lumpy parochial
stuff of Moore and Hepworth, who by the sixties were looking very
out-of-date.
[You were in art school in the sixties? By the seventies, when I went,
most people seemed to feel Smith too was out of date, along with the
sculptor's traditional concern for materials, form and surface. At the
time, Concept was King, and the hip attitude was a pious horror that
anybody would spend their time making more "commodities". The idea was
to come up with art so rarified that it could not be sold and thus add
to the world's production of "luxury goods". Organic forms of all sorts
were considered hideously old-fashioned; Modernism's reductive esthetic
was coming to its logical conclusion in Minimalism, then in the
freshness of its youth, but most of us could sense that there would be
only a limited need for makers of large steel cubes. Sculpture seemed
destined to melt into performance, with only photographs being left to
document the "happening".
"Heavy metal" sculpture; mostly the assemblage of I-beams and other
uncompromisingly industrial-looking elements under the influence of
Richard Serra and Marc diSuvero, was still being taught, but few
students took to it with much enthusiasm. Latent post-modernists, we
were all trying to piece together our own esthetics from the
miscellaneous bits of history and the disparate techniques we found
attractive; consequently we all tended to wander off in different
directions. As the art scene became dryer and more academic, many of the
would-be sculptors gravitated towards the crafts; even as many
craftspeople began to crave the freedom and respect that seemed denied
to them but accorded to fine artists.]
By the way, this move also introduces colour in
sculpture -- perhaps a crossover with the painters who want
discussions on sculpture to stay here, but an issue which I would say
was a particular issue for sculpture, even though it came from
Post-painterly Abstraction.
[Color has been a part of sculpture since its inception. While the
renaissance rediscovery of classical marbles and bronzes kicked off a
fad of monochrome work, this was, as we now know from the analysis of
pigment traces, based on a misinterpretation of the ancient pieces'
original appearance. Increasingly, modern sculptors are including color
as an integral part of their art, even if they care little or nothing
for "Post-painterly Abstraction".]
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
>[Although I have no desire to split the existing readership of
>rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom, and the various crafts groups, I think it is
>time for a usenet group to form that focusses on the issues unique to
>sculpture. This is a distinct form of art practice that should have a
>group of its own, distinct from those dominated by two-dimensional
>artists. A lot of professional sculptors are put off by the "recreation"
>hierarchy designation, so this group would be in the "alternate"
>category. I'm aware that one art group exists in "alt", but it does not
>concentrate on sculpture, and many people are under the impression it is
>dedicated to commercial announcements. (Also, "alt" groups are easier to
> form.)
Good idea!
My own specialism is the history and theory of sculpture, and I find
it too time consuming to wade through the mish-mash of discussion in
rec.arts.fine. So I tend not to bother contributing.
A moderated group might keep things in order.
[After researching the duties of a news-group moderator, it became
apparent that this was too demanding, in terms of time and energy, for
me to take on as a volunteer. Just ignore the spam.]
Or howabout a mailing list?
[Having signed up for one once, I could not support this alternative.
Dealing with a flood of irrelevant e-mail every day is a major pain in
the butt- it is a lot less hassle to follow a news-group.]
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
>[I think sculpture deserves more than a thread in a forum dominated by
>people who think art is defined by drawing. While I specifically don't
>want to get into saying what it is defined by; I know that flattening
>everything onto a piece of paper ain't it. As I see it, sculpture
>includes painting; it's not the other way around.]
I agree that sculpture has enough of its own issues germain to
three-dimensional studies to justify its own newsgroup, and sculpture
discussion does get rather lost in rec.arts.fine, which is far too
broad a catogorization to make any sense. Also your point that simply
having another newsgroup doesn't constitute an unbridgable split
is correct.
What I'm not so comfortable with is the notion of sculpture as somehow
being 'larger' than 2D artforms. Perhaps this would be a good
discussion to start the new group off with, but I don't think you
really want to start a competition about whose discipline is the most
important.
[There was a famous dialogue between Michaelangelo and Leonardo (who
cordially detested each other) on this subject- but I think I'll leave
it to them.]
My own interest is in the post-war period in the history of western
art. This is a moment where the distinction between painting and
sculpture becomes blurred, and issues in painting become more
important to the development of contemporary sculpture than its own
issues and traditions.
[My view is that this was due to the vast publicity accorded to painting
at the expense of sculpture, starting with the French impressionists
and culminating in the Triumph of the New York School in the 'fifties.
Painting got all the bread, and sculpture was left with the crumbs. Now
painting seems to be in eclipse, and all the buzz is over digital media,
which is starting to spread into the third dimension.]
Do let us know when alt.sculpture is up and running.
[It is now.]
I would certainly like to contribute.
David Hulks,
London
[Since I cross posted this to alt.sculpture; you just did.]
GAUSS
In article <5eajar$o82$3...@newsserver.dircon.co.uk>,
David Hulks <cha...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Do let us know when alt.sculpture is up and running. I would certainly
>like to contribute.
>
alt.sculpture is already being carried on some sites. You have to ask
your own site to begin carrying it.
Jonathan Clift
In article <5eajau$o82$4...@newsserver.dircon.co.uk>, David Hulks
<cha...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>Yes, ok. But surely David Smith is just as well known here in
>England, largely as a result of Anthony Caro bringing his ideas about
>welded sculpture across the Atlantic. I mean where did all this
>'heavy metal' sculpture taught (to the exclusion vertually of all
>other sculptural methods) originate? All my teachers were certainly
>very aware of Smith -- and preferred his work to the lumpy parochial
>stuff of Moore and Hepworth, who by the sixties were looking very
>out-of-date. By the way, this move also introduces colour in
>sculpture -- perhaps a crossover with the painters who want
>discussions on sculpture to stay here, but an issue which I would say
>was a particular issue for sculpture, even though it came from
>Post-painterly Abstraction.
>
The original comments about David Smith, that you are responding to,
were mine. I'm sure if you have an art education, and/or are a sculptor
that his work would be well known to you.
I am an engineer, with an interest in art. I've only discovered all this
in the last few years and I now realise that I know much more about
painting than I do sculpture. Why is that? Is there a lot less to
sculpture than to other forms of art? Now that I'm starting to seriously
look at it, I wouldn't say that's the case. Why do so many artists
paint? Is it to do with education and what we're exposed to? The fact
that we've all heard of numerous painters, but that some of us would
struggle to list ten 20th century sculptors (I include myself in this
group). And yet, there seem to be such possibilites there.
As far as I'm aware this isn't a group for painters only, it's for all
those interested in fine art. You are also making presumptions about
those who want the discussions to stay here - they aren't necessarily
all painters.
How much of an effect did your teachers' thinking have on your own work?
I'm just curious, since you say his work was fashionable and excluded
other forms. Did it 'channel' you in this direction?
BTW - alt.sculpture is already up-and-running. If you can't subscribe,
then your service provider probably isn't carrying it.
--
Jonathan Clift
Jeffrey Z Rothstein
A news group that addresses the specific concerns of sculpture is a good
idea, but a lot of recent developments--which have contributed to
expanding notions of just what sculpture is--make arguments regarding
definitions problematic. For example, Where does an artist like Joseph
Cornell fit precisely? Of course that all depends on the criterion one
uses to define a particular medium. One of the challenges of post-modern
art has been its ability to stretch boundaries and to make the
rigid-post-Renaissance categories imposed on art seem insufficient. Not to
suggest that there ought not be some way of focussing on particular
methods and materials. Even the most pedantic amongst us, knows that there
are forms that are best suited to aparticular nomenclature; Richly
textured objects such as rodin's figures from *The gates of hell and their
Offspring*, or even something as dissimilar as Duchamps notorious R-Mutt
urinal are objects that take up physical space in 3-dimensions, utilizing
palpable forms that are not limited to the flat planes of a canvass. The
Duchamp piece however, an object originally used for a utilitarian purpose
transformed through appropriation into a kind of object-de-art--something
that posessed all the forms of sculpture without being "sculpture" in the
sense that the term was then understood--presents problems, not only
attributable to issues of intention, but because it universalized notions
of what sculpture, and by extension all art, actually was\is. Once that
epistemological door had been forced open--permanently transforming the
landscape of the art-historical discourse, by changing the physics of its
environment (Meaning, that suddenly all sorts of objects, configurations
and combinations were becoming acceptable)--the old boundaries between
media began to erode. This does not mean that they have disappeared
entirely, nor that the process happened that quickly; but the emergence of
a whole style of installation-site-specificoriented forms, especially over
the last 20-years, makes fundamental divisions almost impossible to form
where much contemporary work is concerned. Again, i am not trying to
generalize, or to suggest that the categories--painting, sculpture--are
outmoded, but artists like Anselm kiefer, robert Morris(referred to by
Rosiland krauss as representing a kind of anti-sculpture), Jonathon
Borofsky, Lucas samaras and Nam June paik (I refer here to a mixed-media
piece called TV Buddha), just to skim the tip of the glacier, have helped
to change the entire focus of the dialectic and push the boundaries beyond
the old divisions. It seems as if an entire generation of artists have
chosen to reconcile painting, sculpture--and anything else that
works--rather than prize one form over another. even david salle, who some
say has helped revitalize painting and give back to it its
representational complexity, uses the occassional chair, hat and umbrella
in his work. I suppose one could still argue that it is painting because
the canvass remains the primary focus, but such a debate would invariably
be rhetorical and hollow, since it asks the wrong question. The real issue
here seems to be one of meaning rather than media.
Marliyn
Jonathan Clift wrote:
>
> In article <5eajau$o82$4...@newsserver.dircon.co.uk>, David Hulks
> <cha...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>
> >Yes, ok. But surely David Smith is just as well known here in
> >England, largely as a result of Anthony Caro bringing his ideas about
> >welded sculpture across the Atlantic. I mean where did all this
> >'heavy metal' sculpture taught (to the exclusion vertually of all
> >other sculptural methods) originate? All my teachers were certainly
> >very aware of Smith -- and preferred his work to the lumpy parochial
> >stuff of Moore and Hepworth, who by the sixties were looking very
> >out-of-date. By the way, this move also introduces colour in
> >sculpture -- perhaps a crossover with the painters who want
> >discussions on sculpture to stay here, but an issue which I would say
> >was a particular issue for sculpture, even though it came from
> >Post-painterly Abstraction.
snipped here
To Andrew Werby
I enjoyed the discussion you had with David Hulks regarding
the recent history of painting and how it got pre-eminence
over sculpture after WWII. Art history is not separate from
history. The war must have had untold influence on what artists
were able to accomplish in terms of materials and space.
Think of Emile Nolde, when he did the "forbidden paintings"
in Nazi Germany. Obviously, it would be easier to be an
underground painter, than an underground sculptor. Think of
the sculpture which was destroyed, whereas paintings could
be taken off their stretchers, rolled up and hidden away.
Painting has become more sculptural since WWII. I think of
Frank Stella as an example.
Marilyn
Canada
