This maquette is OK, but it doesn’t have the oomph of my ‘Resurgence’ maquette completed in the earlier project work. I wonder if this was because I didn’t have a context in which I was constructing this sculpture? Having a context allowed me to think what related to the site and would work within it. Having no context for this piece, it was more about following a whim, with the lack of any constraints actually not helping my creative process.
In designing this work, the rods through the structure were intended as a bit of fun. However, these have ended up looking more violent, spearing the structure or protruding from it like spikes. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on what the sculptures purpose is. For me it didn’t feel like I had been successful in achieving my aims.
I posted images of the work on a Facebook group and had a number of people all commenting that it had war associations, looking like:
- a WW1 Dreadnaught
- a Paul Nash painting (interesting – not an artist I am familiar with – I can see the link made with his bare war ravaged trees and the implied violence)
- a trench
- a protective barrier.
The colour and hunkered down form of the structure add to this perception.
Maybe the structure could work as some kind of war memorial? Maybe it wouldn’t work at all? I think the site and purpose of a sculpture is important to be able to judge if it would work and not having this specified it is hard to do so. Maybe I should have picked a location in the same way the projects were site specific?
It is very interesting through the Facebook posts to see how different people view work which you have produced and come to different emotional responses / interpretations than what was intended. My view of it as a failure now changed to seeing that it could work in some circumstances.