tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415550129726272006.post8976331073321535394..comments2016-04-24T15:54:16.993-07:00Comments on Grey Eminences: Moore and MinimalismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415550129726272006.post-63233713210051334412016-04-24T15:54:16.993-07:002016-04-24T15:54:16.993-07:00Hi Sam, Thanks for commenting on these very rough ...Hi Sam, Thanks for commenting on these very rough speculations. Looking again I seem to be conflating two quite different things, Moore's 30s idea of there being a right physical size for every idea, and the maker's physical size being present in the work in some way. My reason for doing that was seemingly that Moore was an artist who did make these small maquettes whose sizes were governed by the amount of clay he could easily manipulate in his hands, or whatever, and that for Sylvester the viewer experienced a kind of empathy in looking at them that he didn't necessarily when the work was blown up to a much larger size. I see your point about scale for Moore being an issue it isn't for Whiteread (insofar as the quotation about physicality characterizes her work- it was a long time ago that she said that). But I still think Sylvester is right to wonder about how concerned about scale Moore was, which no doubt has a lot to do with context. <br />'Sensitivity to scale' is an odd expression, but to be clearer I suppose you could put the question as: once you've made something in one size, why make it in another? Apart from financial gains etc, the answer is presumably that you think the work will do something different if you make it larger or smaller. And in a sense of course it will, but then does that difference merit the remaking of the work? This is why I love that Sylvester passage on Locking Piece, which I'll quote here at greater length: <br />'The version 42 inches high relates itself to human scale as something to be manipulated: one feels one's arm muscles straining as if one were twisting it round to unlock the pieces. The version nearly 10 feet high gives an impression of impregnable density and overwhelming weight, also provokes the sort of wonder engendered by the walls of a fortress that it seems both a part of nature and man-made'.<br />So I don't think, and I don't think Sylvester thinks, there's necessarily one correct size but that, if you work in the way Moore does, is there any sense about what the work does in different sizes to stop you just offering each one in a small, medium or large. And I don't think Sylvester is always using his body as the measure. Rather that in the case of Moore, the way that you can imaginatively explore the interior spaces of his works, for instance, varies a lot depending on the size of the work. <br />As for Fried on Caro and how he devises way to stop his pieces seeming like maquettes, the more interesting question in this context would be: could Caro have made works of that size *without* using precautionary devices (handles etc), and still not have ended up with works that looked like maquettes? Ie could he have used the same vocabulary and structure as in the large works but communicated something different, as in the Locking Piece quote? In that sense it's the opposite problem to Moore. <br />Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13339240692364184610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-415550129726272006.post-6341307132877074462016-04-23T23:10:02.261-07:002016-04-23T23:10:02.261-07:00Hi James, I thought this interesting. However I...Hi James, I thought this interesting. However I'm not convinced that Whiteread is more sensitive to scale than Moore. When she says she hasn't made anything which didn't relate to her own sense of scale, or own physicality, this seems to me to imply a lack of sensitivity to scale. Her sculptures come with their own built-in sense of scale, one which has been pre-formed by the objects she chooses. Pretty much everyone in a society filled with chairs, rooms, mattresses is to some extent sensitive to their particular scale - in the sense of being unthinkingly aware of, and able to judge even small deviations from generally created norm. For Moore - and not just because of his idea about the rightness of size for any given idea, but for the more direct reason he has to create things that are not at a literal and familiar size - sensitivity to scale is an issue that it just isn't for Whiteread.<br /><br />And come to think of it 'sensitivity to scale' is quite a odd expression isn't it? Without extended explanation such as Sylvester gives is it any more meaningful than, say, 'rightness of form'? Does it just mean 'the right overall size' or, when it goes out of wack, 'the wrong overall size'? When I'm looking at a work of art, scale seems to me to a much more internal thing - i.e. the ability for the work to connect larger to smaller structures, or to hold larger against smaller. Which leads me to wonder whether it is best judged in relation to our bodies overall size? Although Minimalism does't give you very much else to think about, this seems unhelpful for considering Moore. Don't we have lots of different senses of scale (which Whiteread's sculptures short-cut to)? Perhaps imagine dancing with someone who was the right height, but who had hands hugely out of proportion to your own!?<br /><br />Fried on Caro's table-pieces - and on the means Caro employs to make them not seem like moquettes - might be interesting in this context.... Not that I'm just about to rush off and re-read him!Sam Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07836387844810128817noreply@blogger.com