Biological art

[Kilkenny]

I've been very interested in what I would call 'biological art' for some time, and am about to start a research project on the topic. I'm also intending to produce a few pieces that reflect the issues. In part I'm interested in the extent to which such art, often called abstract, may in fact be defined as figurative, if only we could release figurative as a category from its addiction to appearances (the biological form as SEEN by the observer of the, shall we say, surface appearance).

I'm attaching some jpgs of work by Alina Szapocznikow as an artist committed to the idea (now dead), and some of Henry Moore's pieces that exploit the joint in the human/animal skeleton. Both artists, I feel, have found a profound source of human meaning here, and perhaps intend a redefinition of what is human by their work.

Interested to hear from you all. (I'll come up with a few ideas of my own in the next week).

[Robson Valley]

Biological, figurative art yields several things to me:
Body symmetry = bilateral, radial, tetragonal, isodiametric/spherical
Body plan = body cavity, segmented & repetition
Skeleton = exoskeleton, endoskeleton, hydrostatic
Appendages = shapes, numbers, distribution

Then, I suppose, you might extend the research into the plant world with parastiches, orthosthiches (sp?) and the Fibonacci Series

I confess that I find myself looking for these things.
Interests led to a career as PhD Bio prof, total might run 50 years.

[evaldart]

While I am quite fond of finding NO significant differences in the aesthetic potential of representational art (this would include the figurative) and abstraction (which would include leaping variations of the recognizable as well as the abject non objective modes of creative operation), I would say that the biomorphically labeled abstractions that you are looking into will yield little relevance by being forcefully positioned amongst and against the "tradition" of figurative work.
Whether or not these abstractions cause a viewer to think about biology and interior anatomy or all brands of unseen life chartings will have nothing to do with the greater achievement of the arrangement of shape and mass.
It is never the point of abstraction to send a viewer off to solve a puzzle about where it came from or what it looks like (if it is properly achieved). The thrill to be had is always in the imagining of the "event" of the artifact not within its initial referencing. That is just history; and any history worth submitting oneself to will have to have been massively original (quite created); as much as any art.

But your tendency towards scholarship, if it manifests itself eventually as you hammering, will indeed bring about betterment. I will follow your progress with this for sure.

[Kilkenny]

Thanks, Guys.

My interest stems principally from an historical perspective, rather than making too much of the figurative issue as a category ('figurative'; 'abstract', etc) which is all very artificial. There does seem to be a number of artists of the 20th century who have found 'inspiration', shall we say, in the human and animal body, in particular its constituent parts, and in particular the inner workings. I'm interested in trying to catalogue this work to see what emerges. I'm also interested in what they are doing here. Is it an attempt to deal with something that a focus on the exterior body form does not fully deal with? Is it a 'philosophical' shift towards a post-personal view of human life (and art)? Has the value of the external changed? Have artists, for whatever reason, lost confidence in the human nude as a subject? If so, why?

My conclusions, I should say, will not be answers to these questions - rather, I'd like to see where the art leads and what the artists feel about their work in this area of activity.

I'm also interested in hearing from anyone who works in this kind of 'field' or who has issues that relate to what I'm vaguely outlining here.

[Kilkenny]

Originally Posted by evaldart

Whether or not these abstractions cause a viewer to think about biology and interior anatomy or all brands of unseen life chartings will have nothing to do with the greater achievement of the arrangement of shape and mass.

As you know, Evaldart, I am a supporter of the significance of 'shape and mass'. I think, however, I have drifted more and more towards a view of art activity that places our influences (cultural; evolutionary, etc) at the heart of the creation process. Shape and mass do not, I feel, come to us as abstract 'givens', things a fine aesthetic temperament will simply offer expression to. I'm more inclined to the view now that we PARTICIPATE in cultural and evolutionary contexts that determine the significance of what is good form and good 'shape'. In evolutionary terms there may be no validity at all to proposing that any art is 'abstract', since its significance will have a biologically determined 'value' to us (otherwise there would be no value in the art activity at all).

We also know now that 'good form' varies massively from cultural context to cultural context - that there may be no foundation of 'good form' that we all can key into, such is the overwhelming influence of context on our artistic prejudices. (Personally, I see the 'selfish gene' theme as determining 'good' artistic form, which is why I am interested here in artists who make a commitment to the biological theme).

The issue of 'interior anatomy' you refer to: This perhaps isn't the issue at all. Science in the 20th century has taken us INSIDE the objective world, whilst artists have traditionally focussed on the exterior of objects. We have got close to being left behind on this. Science has pointed out that what we see is NOT reality and even what we experience is quite deceptive. Art that focusses on external form is, then, antiquated. Pre-modern. Here I think of Picasso, who, with Braque, fostered a new understanding of the difficulty of our relational to objects, and the problem of perception. But even he did not go beyond the external visible world. His art is still the art of the medieval icon, offering visual tokens of a world that the visual does not determine. He stepped out from the ignorance of the accepted visual field, but then took no further steps, the logical ones that would have led to a further refining of the scientific principles that led to cubism in the first place.

[fritchie]

Words change their meaning over time, as anyone reading ancient Shakespeare will know. The difficulty with forcing change more rapidly, as you seem to be doing, is that the meaning will be vague or even lost completely. My take on figurative or figuration is that it more or less faithfully reproduces the human body as seen by eye, or in the case of blind people, interpreted by the sense of touch.

Why not invent a completely new word for this interior or vegetative work, instead of calling it "figurative"? I agree that "abstract" may have become so broad as to be meaningless, but there is the case for modifiers such as interior figurative, imaginatively figurative, for example.

Decades ago I developed mathematical formulae which would draw "art" through a series of randomly chosen arcs, with length, curvature, and degree of following each arc also randomly chosen. I got additional forms by abruptly reversing the path, and later I extended this process to "solids" or forms covering an area by moving each line over a bit and altering the "solid" envelope smoothly.

This was done shortly after New Orleans, where I live, developed its Contemporary Art Center, and my motive was to explore the idea of machine creativity. Of course, I was the creator, but I felt a computer might explore these shapes more rapidly and freely than a person, and in turn inspire me or others to new work.

Ultimately, even I grew bored with this effort, I guess showing that the inspiration and limits were mine after all. But my point here really is the relation of words to objects. Why use an old and honored word like figurative to describe something well beyond its meaning? Make up your own word. "Biological art" is fine; it's the extreme stretching of "figurative" that I criticize.

[Kilkenny]

Originally Posted by fritchie

But my point here really is the relation of words to objects. Why use an old and honored word like figurative to describe something well beyond its meaning? Make up your own word. "Biological art" is fine; it's the extreme stretching of "figurative" that I criticize.

Yes, Fritchie, I'm sure you are right. Part of this for me, really, is my own response to work that I see and immediately identify as a biological form. I'm inclined to think that the word 'figurative' possibly comes from 'figure' in the sense of 'external human shape'.

I'm curious, really, about what this 'biological' art sets out to do. Moore's fascination with bone structures is well known, but I'm not so familiar with his reasons for this focus.

[rika]

Originally Posted by Kilkenny

I'm inclined to think that the word 'figurative' possibly comes from 'figure' in the sense of 'external human shape'.

But the internal human shape becomes external as well when carved or shaped. The internal is just brought to the surface and by that it loses its "internality".

[mantrid]

anatomical art maybe? refers to internal and external

[fritchie]

Anatomical art or sculpture sounds fine to me.

[evaldart]

I dont suppose that an official naming of anything is relevant; though it is the foundation of historical and critical vocations. I understood exactly what Cantab was getting at at the outset of this thread...but I cant imagine that there is anything other than diverting to be achieved by grouping or naming things that seem, on the surface ONLY, to be alike. Even if they are from the same era - if they are well achieved they will make no references to anything else. The idea is NOT to thin art by perceived similarities but to do the real work of imagining the uniquenesses. So call it what you want. Presumptions about artists aligning is weak observation. Artists who align are perhaps succumbing - concerned too much with their "place" amongst their ilk, those diluted masses.

[Kilkenny]

I take you point, Evaldart. It may be to distort everything to align artists because of a feature of their work that is determined by me rather than them.

[Duck]

Originally Posted by rika

But the internal human shape becomes external as well when carved or shaped. The internal is just brought to the surface and by that it loses its "internality".

*
* aint fertility an amazing process

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Duck

*
* aint fertility an amazing process

hey neat! off topic, but maybe not so: art of biology...

[AbstractErosion]

Great topic! This is an interest of mine too. When you mention Henry Moore and his "bones" it reminds me of our own Sculptor Sam. Not a historical figure... Yet! But, no doubt one of my favorite examples of biological sculpture when you take fame and being dead out of the equation.

I might add that the Suiseki, or "Chinese Scholar Stone" in the bottom right of the OP is amazing. Do you know the history of the piece? I draw a lot of my influences from such stones, and have a small collection myself.

[Kilkenny]

Abstracterosion - I don't know a lot about this tradition except that stones are chosen in a state of erosion, with interventions discouraged. I've seen some stunning pieces that often have a 'biological' quality to them. Eroded stone often does - is that the human eye at work? Eroded wood from the sea often does the same thing.

I'll post a few trial pieces in the near future - see what you think.
As for 'biological art' - a very large range of work going on under this title, as it turns out.

[Robson Valley]

"Organic" or "life forms" might be useful additions to the lexicon.

But, they come with a single rule attached to which there are precious few exceptions. There are no square (90 degree) corners. Hard, thin edges of volumes are inefficient, biochemical disasters.

[Kilkenny]

An image here from the show at the Gagosian Gallery in London - Moore's 'Late Forms'.