cv | works | sculptures | site specific | environmental | land art | architectural | publications | exhibitions | symposia/lectures | cities | encounters | accounts
detail defines sculpture
Sculptures which are not detailed well cannot be good works of art. Detail and technique are interdependent and they determine whether a sculpture has quality. Detail alone, though, does not guarantee quality - don't get me wrong. But every sculpture with potential visual value will loose that initial prerequisite for quality when it is not detailed according to the demands of the material and the technique in which it has been executed.
The above not only applies to sculpture; all good design depends on it - be it architecture, industrial design, dance or anything which is visualized. They fail when no attention is paid to detail. Technical solutions are not good if they don't pass the visual test.
As I am a sculptor, I shall talk about only sculpture on this site. Whenever a sculpture reaches dimensions which necessitates the calculations and solutions of the engineering profession, I am as alert as possible. Only too often the best technological solution does not consequentially guarantee good visual quality; I don't want to become too aesthetic, but without visual perfection there is no art. I know, refinement is not a prerequisite for art - some of the wildest and most expressive works are void of any technical refinement. Their refinement lies in their creators' expression. There is a balance. The ramifications of technical solutions can be detrimental to the final presentation, and can make a work of art quite worthless.
Art which needs to be detailed must be detailed. It's that simple.
On these pages I'll tell the stories about constructions, structural demands and their solutions - as proposed by the technical experts and as they were finally executed.