Moore, Marini, et al
Jeff - Iím continuing this Moore - Marini, etc. commentary in a new ďFigurativeĒ thread, as Russ finally and properly closed the earlier one.
I admit to probably never having seen a Marini in person, though Iíve seen lots in art books and mags over the years. On the other hand, I have seen quite few Mooreís in person, locally in New Orleans, in NYC I think, in London at the Albert probably, before there was a Tate, and again at the Tate, plus elsewhere. Iím 65+, so Iím of your vintage or better, and I do agree that age, nationality, regionality, educational and cultural background, and many other factors go into evaluating art.
However, on the gumbie issue, Henry Moore actually may have been the inspiration for this character. He has had many followers and even imitators over the years, but none are to my eye as good as the original.
I am less enchanted with his colossal nonobjective stone piece in front of the East Wing of the National Gallery in DC, which I have seen in person, and with another in a similar vein in front of the UNís Childrenís (UNICEF)? Headquarters in Paris, which I have seen only in pictures.
But someone this prolific isnít necessarily perfect all the time. I listen to classical music programs frequently, and Beethoven is criticized from time to time as having published some clunky pieces. However, he was a selfmade figure, born the son of a barkeep who made him entertain customers during his early teen years, so he had to make a living early on, so to speak, and didnít have the advantage of say, Mendelsonís or Mozartís upbringing.
Re: Moore, Marini, et al
[quote]However, on the gumbie issue, Henry Moore actually may have been the inspiration for this character.
Hi Fritchie, I had to laugh when I read that, never crossed my mind and I'll bet Moore's rolling over in his grave at the thought. How ironic is that! He's the inspiration for gumbie and then I criticize his figures for being too gumbieish! Actually, one of my sculpture teachers used to say to the students, "What are you making, a gumbie figure, there's no feeling of bone structure in those arms."
I don't care how prolific an artist is, I think that a critical eye is needed before letting the work out into the light of day. I had an acquaintance once who showed EVERYTHING that he did and although that may help the public understand the process better, my thought was "how could he show that?" and I think it affected his reputation. Of course just like in a garage sale, one mans trash is another mans treasure. I've done my share of "stinkers" over the years but usually consign them to the scrap pile. Hey, but that's me, and I try to keep a very critical eye on and control over what leaves my studio.
Have a nice day, Jeff
Re: Moore, Marini, et al
I consider Moore a giant. He opened up sculpture to a whole new way of seeing Nature and the workings of processes which inform "naturally occurring" forms like bones and worn surfaces and grown shapes, and surfaces worked with tools, in addition to the earlier-ok subject matter for Sculpture. There are now many umpteenth casts of 3rd rate Moores on prominent display all over the place now. But that's not his doing. Marini, I think, was much more limited in his scope. Nearly pathologically so when it came to the figure ahorseback. But I love his craftsmanship. As a side note, one thing he did was, after a bronze casting was completely cleaned and sandblasted down to bare metal, he would apply his patinas very carefully - and then, on some pieces, add back crusty areas of what appears to be mold material but is really not - to give the impression that the casting is right out of the mold. That shows a wird kind of love for the process, I think, and also an appreciation for the aesthetic qualities of "accident" resulting from processes. That was way ahead of its time.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 PM.|
Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.