From:
"StoneSpider" <ukstonespider@zzzzzzzzzzz>
Date:
Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:57:25 -0000
Subject:
Travertine Moore
Thanks for the link to the Moore marble arch story Michael, as Clive says it
raises a long standing dilema. It also harks back to discussions we have
had here before: how much physical input 'should' the artist make to a
finished piece. I think I feel that the arch could be remade: it was a
second pressing in the first place; if the maquette still exists then a new
marble version could be made. That way the original remains, as Richard
Wentworth says in the article, the object Moore left, with all it's inherent
foibles. Clive's solution to preserving it would let it be seen too. The
copy would always be a copy - but might give a better idea of the form?
Thanks to everyone for responding to my provocation about travertine: I'm
enjoying the information flow and debate that's going on as a result.
Regards
Deb
- References
- message 00018: Travertine - don dougan (07 Jan 2006)
- message 00020: Travertine - michiel (08 Jan 2006)
- message 00021: Travertine Moore - Clive Murray-White (08 Jan 2006)
- Previous by Thread: message 00021: Travertine Moore - Clive Murray-White (08 Jan 2006)
- Next by Thread: message 00038: Travertine - don dougan (09 Jan 2006)
- Previous by Date: message 00021: Travertine Moore - Clive Murray-White (08 Jan 2006)
- Next by Date: message 00023: diamond saw - gary grossman (08 Jan 2006)
