RODIN'S INFLUENCE UPON MY SCULPTURE A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Art in the Department of Art by Don Foulds Saskatoon, Saskatchewan 1982 The author has agreed that the Library, University of Saskatchewan, may make this thesis freely available for inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised the thesis work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which the thesis work was done. It is understood that due recognition will be given to the author of this thesis and to the University of Saskatchewan in any use of the material in this thesis. Copying or publication or any other use of the thesis for financial gain without approval by the University of Saskatchewan and the author's written permission is prohibited. Requests for permission to copy or to make any other use of material in this thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Art University of Saskatchewan SASKATOON, Canada ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Bill Epp for his concern and help. Also, I would like to thank the College of Graduate Studies and Research for providing me with financial assistance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PLATES iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PERSONAL EXPRESSION 2 2.1 Personal expression in Rodin's sculpture 2 2.2 Personal expression in my sculpture 4 3.0 FRAGMENTS, COMPONENTS AND GROUPINGS 7 3.1 Use of fragments in Rodin's sculpture 7 3.2 Use of components and groupings in Rodin's sculpture . 7 3.3 Use of components and groupings in my sculpture . 9 4.0 SURFACE 12 4.1 The issue of surface in Rodin's sculpture 12 4.2 The issue of surface in my sculpture 13 5.0 PROCESS 15 5.1 The nature of process in Rodin's sculpture 15 5.2 The nature of process in my sculpture 17 6.0 SUMMARY 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY 24 REFERENCES 25 ii PLATES I Walking Man, Rodin, 1905, bronze. II The Three Graces, Rodin, 1890, bronze. III Flying Figure, Rodin, 1889-90, bronze. IV The Gates of Hell, Rodin, 1880-1917, bronze. V Linda's Flower, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. VI Madman's Interior, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. VII Fragmented Interior, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. VIII Spiral Interior, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. IX Interior Flip, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. X Edge of the Interior, Don Foulds, 1981, welded steel. iii 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to clarify Rodin's influence upon my own work. He has been a strong influence throughout my development in that his attitudes affected the formulation of my attitudes toward sculpting. The key relationships involve personal expression, use of fragments, groupings and components, use of surface and working process. These relationships can best be shown by comparing a number of Rodin's sculptures to my own sculpture of 1980-81. Rather than trying to present a complete view of Rodin's sculpture or the philosophy behind it, I will concern myself only with the considerations that have affected my recent work. While the differences between our respective forms of sculpting are many, the similarities are strong enough to warrant a comparison. 2 2.0 PERSONAL EXPRESSION 2.1 Personal expression in Rodin's sculpture Rodin's sense of expression showed itself in three ways. Firstly, he took responsibility for all aspects of his work and aimed at satisfying his personal attitudes about sculpting. The result was the creation of a private rather than a public based sculpture. Secondly, because of the subjective basis of Rodin's sculpture the viewer is also forced to be subjective in looking at his work. Finally, Rodin embued his sculpture with a quality that might be called 'personal touch'. Rodin took responsibility for all aspects of his sculpture; from its conception, through its making, to the sculpture's placement in, and relationship to the world. This stemmed from his belief that an individual should find his own answers to the question of how to make sculpture. These answers should be inspired by the experiences of his senses in coordination with his mind, as these are brought in contact 1 with life and thus with truth. That Rodin wanted to find his own answers rather than adopt prescribed limits on such things as subject matter or form is shown in his attitude to adopting a prescribed style: "He who sells himself to a style turns his statues into bad literature."2 The process of looking for the answers within himself made Rodin's a privately based sculpture that aimed at satisfying the sculptor himself. Rodin's sculpture was also private in another sense, that is, as opposed to public. For example, classical Greek sculpture was public in that it focused on satisfying the needs of the State; the manner of expression was intended to benefit or influence the public and was impersonally based on public concerns such as a moral or an ideal. The sculptor's sense of expression, although present, was not formative or integral to the primary expression of the sculpture. However, Rodin's philosophy made for sculpture that contained, in Barnett 3 Newman's words, "culture without cult". The sculptor's personal sense of expression affected both the formation and final form of the sculpture. For example, Rodin's Flying Figure (1890) contains various surface marks that are unexplainable. On the back of the sculpture is a large gouge and a mark as if an irregular block of wood had been dragged and then pulled away from the surface. Although these marks are "right" in the context of the sculpture, one cannot be certain of Rodin's reason for putting them there as his decision to do so was a subjective one. The element of personal expression also affects the viewer's relationship to the sculpture. In Flying Figure, the viewer is encouraged to empathize with Rodin's expression of private feelings and actions by interpreting the marks on the sculpture. Because Rodin's decisions within the sculpture were subjective, the viewer's reactions must also be subjective in interpreting them. This causes the relationship between the viewer and the sculpture to be direct and personal. As Rosalind Krauss stated in writing about Rodin, "This picture of the self as enjoying a privileged and direct relationship to the contents of its own consciousness is a picture of the self as 4 basically private and discrete." The final aspect of personal expression in Rodin's sculpture is a quality of 'personal touch'. This quality must be intuitively felt 4 rather than logically formulated, and can only be described as the 'something significant' that makes an artist's work uniquely his own. In Flying Figure a particular sensitivity was present in the decision making process and its effects upon the sculpture. The marks could leave one feeling that something violent or ugly had happened to the sculpture; instead, one feels strength, dignity and a sense of articulation. The making of a 'Rodin' was not dependent upon the use of Rodin mannerisms but upon the qualities and attitudes that Rodin possessed and subsequently embued in his sculpture. 2.2 Personal expression in my own sculpture One way in which my working process of 1980-81 was similar to Rodin's was in its quest for an organically arrived at style. Rather than adopting a known style, I looked for my own way of making sculpture. This required a dependence upon intuition, which became an integral and significant part of my sculpting process. The consequence of this was the development of my own vision of sculptural direction. My artistic development was not focused solely on the example of recent North American sculpture and its immediate stylistic predecessors. Rather, I had been exposed to sculptural styles from all over the world, from prehistoric to present-day sculpture. Through exhibitions, illustrations and travelling I had as easy access to African masks and Japanese haniwa as I did to contemporary Canadian art. My development of a sense of style was based on this exposure and my reactions to it. For the most part, I did not know the historical or philosophic context of these sculptural styles. My reaction to them was essentially intuitive. Rather than making 5 rational deductions about the development or philosophical significance of these styles, I reacted to specific aspects of sculpting within them. For example, Picasso is considered to be the originator of constructed metal sculpture; yet, by the time I understood his historical relevance I had intuitively looked to other sources for inspiration. In this way I was influenced by Rodin's assemblage of elements more than Picasso's even though the relationship of my sculpture to Rodin's is less logical than it is to Picasso's. The deluge of styles and periods from around the world made it impossible to understand them fully or assimilate them completely. I absorbed only that which fit within my intuitive framework of understanding. Thus, rather than deliberately choosing to work within the constructed metal tradition, I worked in that medium because it allowed me to deal with those aspects of sculpting that most excited me. In 1980 I realized fully my need to develop a personal sculpting process. However, without a prescribed method of working to guide me, I could only proceed by making sculpture and, as I worked, remain aware of my thoughts and feelings.