sculptural preferences

[john pitt <jrpitt01@zzzzzzzzzzz>]

Re- scale in Sculpture

Norman's question reminds me of the very earliest prehistoric carvings, such
as the Venus of Willendorf which is just 11cm high. See an image at
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/willendorf/willendorfdiscovery.html

(I started out as an archaeologist, long before moving into carving, so have
a passion for such figures which display the very earliest stirring of the
human imagination.)

Clearly the maker of this piece was constrained by the tools then available,
and presumably held the rough stone in the palm of the hand I am also a fan
of Cycladic art (c 4500 years ago) which was also "small" See an image at:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o35612.html

[And as an aside those interested in Henry Moore might be interested in
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/feature-2001-01.html which shows how he was
influenced by Egyptian./Oceanic/and Cycladic art in the British Museum]

At the other end of the scale are the huge Easter Island figures, which
served some ritual/tribal function and were "big" perhaps in the sense that
today people desire a big car, a big house - as an assertion of status. But
the Easter Islanders also had a more highly developed social hierarchy,
which allowed for the movement of large stones (also with the Egyptians, for
example).

My preference is for the more manageable and exquisite "small" peices - like
some of Brancusi's early heads (which have Cycladic influences - although
quite clealry Brancusi worked on the larger scale too with his Endless
Column)  or the Giacometti figures in metal. These pieces, and others, have
a haunting and quiet presence which is often missing in the "monumental". I
also feel that they are more difficult to achieve - but at the end of the
day one is comparing, say, a string quartet to a symphony - both are art -
both move the senses - and both have the ability to transcend.

Best wishes John Pitt

John Pitt

http://www.incisiveart.com