|
|
The answer to this question will perhaps forever remain clouded
|
|
|
What is really needed here perhaps, is some
clarification of terminology. While the definitive distinction will probably forever remain embroiled in debate, along with that between art and
craft, I may as well input my own interpretation so there might be less confusion as I apply them. I define what I do as Wood Sculpture
for the simple reason that the word sculpture
is much more general in its scope and
refers simplistically to a three dimensional object, whereas the word carving describes more accurately the process used. In point of fact a stone sculpture is as much a carving as a wood sculpture is, yet stone sculptures are seldom referred to as carvings. Also the term carving refers more to the process of cutting into a surface, as one would do for incising, or engraving, as in intaglio.
This type of carving is more in context with the meaning in the term carving. Sculpture on the other hand is specific in it's reference to three-dimensional work. Perhaps of greater
importance still, is the importance in making a distinction which in not found in a dictionary. That is the exception that woodcarvers take to the use of the term
"wood carving". Many wood carvers have told me that this term refers specifically to wood sculpture which has been
"hand carved", which in turn refers specifically to a work which has been done using only knives and/or chisels and mallet. These are the
purists of the wood carving trade that will not use electric tools or sandpaper or files, or anything that otherwise grinds wood. I have no argument with the exclusive use of this term
for this purpose. When I do Wood Sculpture I use any tool that is suitable for the purpose of removing wood, which includes all of the tools not used by the purists of wood carving, and I
am therefore content to refer to the result of my efforts as wood sculpture.
|
|
|
Using wood as a medium for artistic expression has been the driving force to my inspirations. Though I have a great appreciation for other sculptural media, particularly for large monumental works, I prefer the warmth and richness of tone provided by wood for the finished work. I also feel that wood has the greatest latitude for manageability when working direct sculpture. Though my formal education in Art was in Painting and Drawing, I at once developed a reverence for wood while working on a woodcut for a printmaking class. I have always favored the human figure as a subject, but I was never satisfied with using foreshortening in two dimensional work to create the illusion of depth I found myself drawn also to sculpture where I could use the third dimension to give my figures the freedom they to deserve.
|
|
|
Sculpture: An Appreciation Primer
|
|
|
3D vs. 2D or Sculpture Vs. Painting
|
|
|
 Forget about wood specifically for a moment, and just consider Sculpture in
general. To avoid confusion, and for the sake of brevity I will refer to the two major existing divisions in the art world, three dimensional and two dimensional work. These
respective disciplines are predominately represented as sculpture and painting. These counterparts in the art world are vastly different in the aesthetics they provide to
lovers of art, and equally disparate in the approach the artist takes in using one or the other to produce his work. To better understand and appreciate the merits of
sculpture in our world, it may be helpful to gain an awareness of the three dimensional aspects that make sculpture distinct from it's counterpart of two dimensional painting
and drawing. I can think of no better way to accomplish this then to begin by examining the inherent contrasting differences between them. Although many are
obvious when brought to our attention, they are not always consciously apparent. And as you will see the differences between these two are not just those which are
conspicuous in the resulting image, i.e. one hangs on the wall and the other sits on a shelf; but those as well that exist in the artists approach to the work. The latter are
more nuanced and more elusive to the view, but are there just the same. The difference in artist approach is largely determined by restrictions which are imposed on him artist
by the media itself. This can be simplistically illustrated if you could for a second, imagine trying to make a sculpture using paint alone, or painting on a canvass using
stone or clay. Since the use of these materials for other than there intended purpose is inconceivable, so you must understand and appreciate the vast chasm that exists
between the mind set of the individual in his approach using his media of choice, to that of his counterpart. It can only stand to reason then, that the choices one makes, in
the creative process of his artwork, is likely to be as radically different as the materials he works with.
This assumption becomes even more evident when you consider the work of a
single artist who chooses to work in both two dimensional and three dimensional media. With most artists there exists a signature style to there work, a style so
distinctive that it makes an artist work almost as recognizable as a persons voce makes him recognizable to those familiar to him. But In most cases it is impossible, without
prior knowledge, to trace authorship of both a sculpture and a painting made by the same artist back to that artist. There is little available between the two media forms
that will allow a clue as to a characteristic style (see Illus. I & II) that would reveal the identity of the author as being the same for each. When this is possible it is usually
because the artist has made a concerted effort to make it so, rather than by happenstance. For example an artist could decide to make paintings and sculpture that
always represented a one-eyed blue dog, if he did this throughout his lifetime he would certainly have his name first and foremost on the lips of anyone who ever came across
this image in artwork.
The reverse could also occur, wherein for whatever reason, an artist should make a
purposeful attempt to make each work so disparate in style as to render them untraceable to himself except by signature alone. I personally know of no case where
this has happened except I suppose it could serve a person interested in creating forgeries. But the success this crime has enjoyed is testimony that it can be done.
In any case the transference of an artists personal or signature style is more difficult
if not impossible to accomplish across media boundaries, because of the demands the
media places on the artists approach. For this reason, it is essential to the appreciation of both painting and sculpture to realize that the
variant in the resulting image, is not so much a result of differences inherent to the use of the respective materials as determined by that
media, it is rather the different thought process that that media forced upon the artist.
|
|
|
 It may be rightly concluded that the media itself, by it's limitations, plays the greater part in the outcome of the work of art; perhaps more
than the artist would like to admit. Considering this fact, it should become apparent that sculpture is more confining than painting in most respects.
To illustrate some of the limitations the sculptor must contend with
lets begin with one I consider to be major to the artists freedom of composition
. I refer to the artist ability or inability to compose a work which would require a suspended object. While this is without
difficulty for the 2d artist it is impossible for the sculptor to execute within his composition. This is due to the simple fact that the sculptor
works with "real space" while for the painter it is illusionary space. This becomes no less obvious then when one considers the prospect of creating a bird flying in the  sky. The bird can be done in a flying posture
in scul ptur e but it cann ot be susp ended in space without a visible attachment to something. Even if accomplished by the most masterful execution, with the most discreet
connection, it can in the end, at best, only suggest flight. The illusion is shattered by the physical connection by whatever device. The painted
bird in the painted sky, however; can accomplish the illusion with the greatest of ease in a most believable way. The incredible power the
painter has in conveying the image of a bird by it's positioning can be further exemplified by the fact that the painter does not need to fuss
with making the bird look very much like a bird. In most cases the simple "V" shape most of us leaned in kindergarten will suffice. The reason for this is the simple logical leap that the mind makes to determine what it "sees" on the basis of location. The mind only looks for identifiable
shapes in the sky from the memory pool of things it has seen in the sky before. The sculptor does not have the luxury of using the sky as
part of his pallet, and must devise other methods by which to construct his illusion, or otherwise not go there at all.
|
|
|
Of course as you might have already noticed there is a distance factor at work here as well. Another advantage to the painter is that he controls the distance a which an object is viewed. What a luxury! Take the case of the bird in the sky. You will never get any closer then the artist has intended. Stepping closer to the painting will not enhance visual aspects that would in real life make the bird more identifiable as a bird. The painter has no worry of anyone ever pulling out a pair of binoculars or a magnifying glass to see the detail in the feathers. For in the given distance he has defined on his canvas, in reality, if you were standing inside the actual painting, it would not allow you to take a closer examination either. In truth, taking this a step further and using yet another 2d medium... photography, you would most likely have little better detail of a bird against the sky than that presented by the painter. In contrast, again with 3d media, all objects are subject to close examination and a bird as part of the composition would demand detail equal to the detail of all other elements of that composition.
In actuality, in painting too much detail can many times
detract from the focus of the painting itself. It can distract the viewers attention away from the central subject of the artists intent.
If you consider the example of the bird in the sky again. If it were fully rendered in every detail it might cause undue viewer attention. Particularly if it were meant to create nothing more than added ambiance to the central
subject of the artist's statement. The sculptor, on the other hand does not control the distance from which his work is viewed, and therefore
along with having to "ground" his flying bird, he must always give careful consideration to the accuracy of the attachment of all it's appendages. In
short his bird must be exact, his viewers will demand it, at least if the intent is pointed toward realistic figurative sculpture. This is so even
when the bird is not the central subject in the sculptor's composition. The sculptor has but two options with the bird: To present  it in exacting
detail or turn to an abstrac t represe ntation. Of course if the latter is his intent the constriction of detail is thrown out all
together, but then so is it for the entire sculpture. It is the deviation from
continuity in form, texture and substance that can get a sculpture out of balance and the composition in trouble. Of course these elements
are of concern in all media but they are far more constraining to the sculptor as well as most 3d media. Once again this example reflects the
more restrictive nature of working in the medium of sculpture, as opposed to the freedoms inherent with painting.
The painter has power to place an object in virtually any setting and at the same time fix the distance from which it is viewed. Yet as if
this were not enough... the painter has, as well, the luxury of fixing the point of view, the perspective, depth of view, and the lighting
direction and intensity. All of which are beyond the control of the sculptor. In point of fact the painter enjoys having near complete
control over what his viewer sees. About the only thing beyond his control is how the work is displayed after it is completed. The height
at which it is hung on the wall, the amount of light illuminating the surface, and the distance the viewer is able to stand away from the work,
are all factors that could affect the artists statement. Understanding these attributes and how they favor the freedom of composition for the
painter, or two- dimensional artist to create; are essential in understanding how their subsequent absence imposes limitations upon the
sculptor. Once understood, you immediately become aware of the individual challenges imposed upon three dimensional artists, which are unique to the sculpture process.
|
|
|
I make no attempt to here to elevate the stature of sculpture
above that of painting.
I am foremost a sculptor in practice, but I have painted extensively and am as nearly as attracted to painting as sculpture. In fact all of my college work was in painting. My extensive involvement with both 2d and 3d media is veritably why I recognize the attributes and limitations of each. I enjoy both media for there individual restrictions as well as their liberties. The restrictions imposed by the individual media, challenge the creative notion in a problem solving way. For me the creative process is closely related to scientific discovery. I initiate each work in an almost analytical way, as a continuous problem solving experience. I approach each piece I do as a series of corrections. These corrections are being made upon the media at hand, so that it will conform to the mental image I have loosely grasped in my mind. When you consider this explanation, it is fair to say that because of the restrictions inherent in the sculpture medium as sited above; sculpture is more daunting than paint in accomplishing
|
What do you Appreciate?
In a painting, you are in the hands of the painter. You as the viewer cannot change the
perspective, the point of view, or the lighting. This is not the case with sculpture.
In effect, sculpture is more interactive than painting. You move, and the sculpture changes. If the lighting is changed, the sculpture changes. Put the sculpture in a different environment, and the sculpture changes. You touch it and it responds to reinforce what you see.
|
this image. Here again I must say the word is "daunting." One might too easily jump to the conclusion that I am implying
that sculpture is more difficult to accomplish than painting, and therefore superior to it. That's a far to simplistic an inference to be drawn from my statement. To help
illustrate the meaning of what I am trying to convey I will attempt to use a visual reference here, of the differences I am trying to describe between these to forms of art.
Consider a car and a bulldozer. Both of these vehicles are suitably designed for
their obvious respective uses. One would never consider putting a blade on a passenger car and use it to move dirt. No more than one would jump into a
bulldozer to drive coast to coast across the United States. Now try and decide which vehicle is the more noble, or worthy for our praise. It can't be done. This is what I
am trying to say when I describe the differences between 2D and 3D art. A sculptor will never carve a scene of grapes ripening in a vineyard. And a painter will never
paint both sides of the same horse in the same painting. The constrictions that separate these to forms of media are self-evident if not obvious, after the following
statement of the fact. That the difference between two dimensional and three dimensional art is... the third dimension. There... I have done it... I have stated the
obvious. But I think you will agree that with some of the points I have made here, that when it comes to the obvious, sometimes there is "more there than meets the eye."
|
|
|
The Whole is Greater than the Sum of it's Parts
|
|
|
As you look at a painting your eye darts around drinking in the various areas of contrasting shapes presented
in varying degrees of light and color. Few would criticize a singular square inch of a four foot square of canvas on it's individual merit. But no one would deny it's essential contribution to the composition as a whole. To do so, would be as is said in verbiage, to be taken "out of context". It would be the same, as to attempt to derive any satisfaction from a novel by reading only a single sentence or paragraph. Likewise, it is impossible to to attempt to appreciate sculpture or any other fine art by scrutinizing specific areas without the ability to reference them to the entire work. Pictures do not do justice. Full appreciation can only come from being near enough to touch it, and certainly to view it in it's entirety. To photograph a painting I need only one picture. To photograph sculpture though it's many points of view, I need a multitude. And even then the result would fall short of a true representation. In taking the picture of a painting, granted there are problems to consider such as the size constraint, and perhaps true color rendering. But in can be captured entirely within one photo. Whereas taking a single picture of a sculpture, from only one of it's viewpoints, could be compared to taking a picture of a single square inch of a four foot square painting. To understand this more fully, consider the pursuit and struggle of cartographers over the centuries past to provide a single flat map that would provide an accurate depiction of the earth.
|
|
