Rascally? Pushing sculpture to the limit?

charles ray.jpg
 
Those were the "edgiest" I saw from the article. The rest look like traditional sculpture and poses, just in modern clothes and varied materials.
 
I looked him up and have seen some of his work in the mid 2000s in real life. I would not say he does traditionalist or "classical" sculpture because much of his work is just plain creepy if you've seen it in real life. There is something very ....I want to say subversive about it. The stainless-steel stuff seems to be suited for public work, or at least private outdoor pieces. They aren't necessarily typical "bronzes" of the old-skool type. The work that are in color are the oddest, I'd say. Especially the German-looking children, if you've seen any of those, or that one with the woman with the flowers stuffed in her pants. I didn't see that one in person, but I saw the children, which I remember being a little larger than scale. They were kind of sarcastic. Or at least that was the vibe I got. The ones that looked like plaster (they are probably not plaster in media) were also not typical or classical, and I remember them being nudes. They seemed contemporary. I don't know what the article said about him, but I can see how he may be pushing the envelope in terms of viewer's reactions to some of his work. There is an unsettling feeling to a lot of it. This is my opinion anyway. Sometimes it can also be context, or at least context can contribute quite a bit to how the viewer sees the work.
 
Funny, Arty, I would have expected your reaction to be otherwise, but I really don't know you.
To me they are "traditional" in that they are anatomically realistic. Some of the poses are clearly take offs on classical pieces I know of, but you are right in that he does add something emotional or messaging or whatever to that base. So did Rodin, BTW, and I still consider his work classical (not in his day of course!), compared to some of the more abstract, bizarre or totally unrealistic stuff others put out there these days.
This isn't Giacometti nor Neri, both of whom I love, nor commercial like Botero either.
Goya painted edgy stuff, but it's still got classical bones. Compare a Neal or a Hockney portrait to a Bacon and you can see where I see the difference.
But again, that's just my opinion.
 
SLG: I have no idea about the ones up against the wall. I have never seen those in person, but his other ones are absolutely sculptures and look so errily real, it's kind of uncomfortable to be in the room with them, especially the colored/painted ones.

Bart: I find it very odd that you have come to "expect" any reactions of me, because yes, you do not know much about me at all, or my personal views on art or other subjects. Everyone's reactions to art vary so much, and it's highly subjective and personal. I have also read your opinions/judgements about aspects of my personality elsewhere, but you have a right to your opinions despite having the same exact aspects in your own personality. I do not judge anyone for having opinions, strong ones, or weak ones, and actually respect you for yours.

I can see your point about Goya. For the time, I bet it seemed edgy. Rodin probably seemed that way too. Like I said, context factors into a lot, in my opinion. The context of the era included.

Anyway... I don't even know if I like this guy's work. I am only stating my personal impressions of it when I was in the room with some of it. It did not strike me as particularly compelling compared to other sculpture I have viewed.
 
Artyczar said:
SLG: I have no idea about the ones up against the wall. I have never seen those in person, but his other ones are absolutely sculptures and look so errily real, it's kind of uncomfortable to be in the room with them, especially the colored/painted ones.

Bart: I find it very odd that you have come to "expect" any reactions of me, because yes, you do not know much about me at all, or my personal views on art or other subjects. Everyone's reactions to art vary so much, and it's highly subjective and personal. I have also read your opinions/judgements about aspects of my personality elsewhere, but you have a right to your opinions despite having the same exact aspects in your own personality. I do not judge anyone for having opinions, strong ones, or weak ones, and actually respect you for yours.

I can see your point about Goya. For the time, I bet it seemed edgy. Rodin probably seemed that way too. Like I said, context factors into a lot, in my opinion. The context of the era included.

Anyway... I don't even know if I like this guy's work. I am only stating my personal impressions of it when I was in the room with some of it. It did not strike me as particularly compelling compared to other sculpture I have viewed.
Click to expand...
Meant nothing hard or offensive about my expectation of your views, Arty. Only that I thought you would be more inclined toward the expressive modern views than my own. That's just from your prior posts. As I said, don't know you well at all!
 
I can't see anything classical about his sculpture at all. IMO, being anatomically correct
does not make it classical.
I think it's distinctly creepy and horrible.

Patricia
 
Goya was an interesting artist. His career straddled the period from the late Rococo through Romanticism. His earliest paintings are clearly Rococo in style...

128.jpg


Returning to Spain in 1775, Goya continued to employ elements of the Rococo but merged these with darker elements of the Baroque... inspired especially by Velazquez.

71XDP6I4B6L.600.jpg


Francisco_de_Goya_y_Lucientes_054.small.jpg


DT822.650.jpg


He was never a "classical" or Neo-Classical artist. Neo-Classicism became a dominant style in Germany, England, and especially France after the Revolution when artists and art critics felt that art should reject the focus on pleasure and the aristocracy. The sensual painterly manner of the Rococo was abandoned for a strongly linear style deeply rooted in Roman sculpture and the paintings of Raphael.

With the invasion of Spain by the French and the collapse of the Spanish Court, Goya's work became even darker and clearly Romantic in style... even pointing toward Expressionism and arguably Surrealism:

Goya_y_Lucientes_Francisco_de-Brigand_Murdering_a_Woman.600.jpg


BeFunky_goya-1-589x1024.jpg.jpg


Dog.650.jpg


694px-Francisco_Goya_Self-Portrait_with_Dr_Arrieta_MIA_5214.600.jpg


His late paintings are certainly among some of the most innovative works of the era... along with those of Blake and Turner. Like Blake, Goya was something of an "outsider" working in Spain which had become one of the most backward nations of Europe of the time.

Looking at Charles Ray again, I find I quite like his most recent work, Archangel:

merlin_200795850_0d5614ed-be90-4dba-8620-e77e3ea6bfb4-articleLarge.jpg


I can't give him too much credit, however, considering the work was carved from cypress by woodworkers in Japan and Ray wasn't even able to oversee the project due to travel restrictions because of the pandemic.
 
"Archangel" was the first one that reminded me of a Greek statue I have seen. There are others. I consider them classical in form and pose, and I'm not speaking of "Classical" as in an era of painting here. The clothing may be different in some, but I hardly see them as radical at all. Look at the other poses of the kid and what appears to be a reclining nude in the background. Also classical, except for material and clothing. That's my point. Yes, he has some that are edgy, but they're still primarily representational without the distortions and contortions, much less abstraction, that characterizes so much "modern" sculpture.
 
Bart, I don't, or wasn't "offended." I'm just stating a fact. That was all. It's actually more boring, or maybe irritating (that I typed a bunch of words for possibly no real reason) than anything else. And I say that just so you can stop repeating your other assumption about me feeling "offended." ;)
 
Bartc said:
"Archangel" was the first one that reminded me of a Greek statue I have seen. There are others. I consider them classical in form and pose, and I'm not speaking of "Classical" as in an era of painting here. The clothing may be different in some, but I hardly see them as radical at all. Look at the other poses of the kid and what appears to be a reclining nude in the background. Also classical, except for material and clothing. That's my point. Yes, he has some that are edgy, but they're still primarily representational without the distortions and contortions, much less abstraction, that characterizes so much "modern" sculpture.
Click to expand...

'Archangel' reminds me of Rodin's 'The Age Of Bronze'

These 3 sculptures that you are referring to are certainly not radical, as you say . However
some of his other sculptures, especially the painted ones, are not classical in form
[even though they are anatomically correct and not abstracted in any way] and are distinctly creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bartc
Polychromy in ancient sculpture
Replies
7
Views
503
Bartc
Bartc
Back
Top