I have recently seen the work of Sherrie Levine. The exhibition consisted of twelve pink, glass skulls in display cases and twelve bronze mirrors. The work was highly crafted. It seems that she forms her objects to make them look like ready-mades or found objects. There is an intriguing irony in this. They are crafted, functional objects which are recognised as art.
Levine’s originality derives from the recognition and reproduction of the aesthetic properties of a seemingly ordinary object through appropriation and re-presentation. This is especially relevant to my own work at the moment given that I am inspired by utilitarian objects that I have studied and have ‘re-presented’ in a form closely resembling the original.
The repetition of Levine’s mirrors and skulls, together with their excellent crafting, questions why an artwork should be reproduced to the point of becoming a commodity. We are surrounded by thousands of utilitarian objects on which we depend. We often pay little regard to their form or their craft. We just use them. Levine asks us to re-evaluate their status.
My next projects will use contrasting materials with cast concrete. Currently, two objects interest me. One is a leather-handled ball used in the game of pato and the other is a classically shaped lota or purification vessel.
I have just benefited from having feedback from fellow students in our scheduled conversations session. This has given me some new thoughts to process over the Christmas holidays which include the conviction that my work is on the right track.
I presented five sculptures all of which refer directly to, or hint at, some utilitarian use. It was fun for the group to try to imagine their potentially useful possibilities. One observation was that there was an element of humour in the work, which I was pleased about because I do not want it to have any issues attached to it other than the exploration of material, craft and an element of possible functionality.
For this reason I think it was important to show the sculptures as a collection. If one had been shown on its own it may have led to speculation that I had other underlying agendas, which I do not. For example, one piece, had it been shown on its own, could have inferred that there were feminist issues within the work. This led to questions about whether, without prior knowledge, it could be determined whether the work had been made by a man or a woman.
There was an observation that I had combined hard and soft material as in concrete or resin combined with sewn cloth. This is a theme that has been reflected in my drawing for some time. It was also noted that the pieces had been well made and that the polish on the concrete (achieved by casting against parcel tape) made an ordinary material into something more special.
The plan now is to continue with this exploration. There will be a necessary trip to the British Museum and another to the Victoria and Albert for research into objects. I will also make a trip to see the Sherrie Levine exhibition because there is a small element of appropriation and re-presentation to my work. I want to see where this leads.
I have recently made more of the sort of drawings that initially interested me when I started sculpture. I also want to talk about my recent assessment and about how question rather than suggestion is more helpful in pushing work forward.
I showed some drawings that I subsequently decided I didn’t like. They seemed to be all about surface. Tony Cragg said that drawing should be about the ‘avoidance of the expert, the articulate, the known and the humourless’. With this in mind I have been studying objects by drawing them. I feel that what I have produced is more genuine because it relates to the study of form which, in turn, propels the imagination of possibilities. The process is one of tentative exploration.
I have also been taking inspiration from an essay by Rungwe Kingdon on sculptors’ drawings and about how drawings can ‘vary enormously from their three-dimensional work’. This was interesting as I had been concerned that my drawing was not related visually to my sculpture. A good example of this is the work of Bryan Kneale whose anatomical drawings ‘look’ very unlike his sculpture. While drawing he is studying form that exists due to function, and this has to be of great interest to a sculptor. Knowledge learnt through studying form can provide the basis for a wide range of interpretation.
During a recent tutorial a number of suggestions were made. Later I realised that if I followed them through the work would not be truly mine. Advice that I gained from my assessment was that everyone would have different questions and answers in response to my work and that I should question their answers. When the work is answering to my questions and my answers then ownership will be indisputable.
I think my work in the near future should try to more demonstrably describe the search process rather than show a superficial surface.
Following on from a very informative tutorial with our visiting tutor I have been re-evaluating what I am trying to do. She suggested that some of my work is unresolved and this has made me realise that I have not been thinking about the materials I am using in a productive way.
In particular, I have cast concrete using cardboard yarn cones as the formers without giving enough thought as to what the cones are used for. For example, yarn is wound onto them by machinery and the yarn is soft and coloured. I realised that I had not questioned my use of concrete or the copper which I had included in the piece. The tutor suggested that by extending my investigation of the cones other work would evolve.
In essence I need to start thinking about what a material or object is used for because that will help me to know what I can do with it. This sounds obvious but until now I have been too hasty in inventing new work without developing what I have already made. I need to look back at good work and investigate its potential.
The connection of yarn cones with my grid drawings is interesting because I have been spraying paint through punched cards which were originally used to programme textile looms. The result is a kind of photographic image which I have further developed by spraying through old plastic netting and other woven or grid materials. By highlighting elements within the resulting pattern I have been able to achieve depth within the drawings.
The punched cards suggest that I can make my own cards with their own ‘code’. They could be coated with shellac, similar to the originals, and then be used to make prints or left as objects in their own right.
Cones can be further developed by casting with something other than concrete and incorporating the yarn within the material. Metal elements can be introduced as a way of association with the machinery that winds the yarn onto the cones.
Following on from our presentations to students and staff this week, I have realised how important it is to keep my work consistent with my statement. It is easy to stray away from the essential concept of one’s work.
With this in mind I have had to re-evaluate some aspects of what I am doing. I keep in mind my interest in how objects can evolve through the process of making and how craft skills may be related to this. I am also interested in how a non functioning object is either developed or seen as art. This notion is closely linked to my interest in utilitarian objects and structures and the creation of form.
Some of the objects I made from cardboard tubes earlier this month were not working. However I have subsequently made one from paper and wire that almost looks like an everyday object. This is what I am aiming for. I am now casting cement from cardboard tubes and attaching metal elements to make something that is almost familiar. This partly extends my paper objects which include graphite and metal rivets and reflects my interest in some of the crafted objects that I have been studying in Oxford’s museums.
I try to keep a constant dialogue going between my sculpture and drawing because it helps to extend my ideas. I feel that recently my drawing has veered away from my concept and that I need to bring it back into line so that it is consistent with the objects that I am making. It must not be illustrative but must explore the invention of new objects and hopefully inform the crafting process. This could take the form of a diagram.
With little time left on my course I am aware that it is necessary to focus intently on a specific enquiry and not get distracted by other possibilities.
