In the early twentieth century, sculptors like Auguste Rodin and Constantin Brancusi have contributed to the development of modern sculpture in significant while distinctive ways. In this essay, I would like to provide a formal analysis of two selected pieces of their works – The Shade by Rodin and Danaïde by Brancusi. From the configuration of the shape and bodily position to the final polishment of the surface, every element selected in their works has either directly or indirectly reflected their different sculptural philosophies, which were both turning away from the classical and forming a kind of modernism in the world of sculpture. Through the following analysis, I would like to show that, similar to the progress towards modernity in paintings, modern sculpture has also attended to aspects such as demotivating the narrative, centering on the phenomenological experience, and most importantly, appreciating the specificities of its medium.
Regarding the modes of production, casting and carving were practiced by Rodin and Brancusi to differential degrees. While Rodin mainly modeled the figure with clay and then cast it with plaster and bronze, Brancusi has a personal favor towards carving. Seemingly insignificant at first glance, carving is fundamentally a process of subtraction instead of addition or assemblage, which are usually related to casting. It is indeed an arduous and laborious process to remove the needless parts while not breaking into the as if pre-existing form beneath the original piece of raw material. It is almost like a process of discovery rather than creation, and this is actually closely linked to their distinctive ideas behind “the sculptural” side of their sculptures.
Although both works have used bronze as the raw material, Rodin and Brancusi have applied different patinas so that one looks dark and green while the other looks golden and brown (with black representing the hair). Similar to paintings, the choice of color in sculpture is closely tied to the overall expression of the theme and how its meaning is conveyed to the audience. For example, the dark green color of The Shade can elicit a feeling of solidity, strength, and power in the viewers. While looking at Danaïde, its warm and golden tone fits nicely with its theme as a female portrait, alluding to characteristics such as kindness and beauty. But in addition, other qualities of the material, such as its density, texture, and potential interactions with the environment (e.g. natural patina), may also play a more important role in sculpture than in paintings.
For the surface, Rodin has remained parts of his work in a relatively unpolished state, leaving some of the unique texture and marks of process on the final product. Under the light, the texture on this body of the male nude becomes even more evident such that the strength and tension involved in the muscles on his torso and legs can directly draw the viewers’ attention to his extremely twisted posture. On the other hand, the surface of Danaïde is highly polished and smooth, almost forming perfect geometric shapes, although not yet as shiny and reflective as Brancusi’s later works. Different from paintings, as sculptures are three-dimensional, their presentation in space inevitably involves more interaction with the environment and how light is applied onto the surface. Therefore, the polishment and texture of the surface are crucial and may reflect different philosophies underlying their sculptural creation.
For example, in the words of Rosalind E. Krauss, the marks on Rodin’s work have served as “the visual evidence of the passage of the medium itself from one state to another” (Krauss 29) and the meaning of the sculpture actually emerges from this process instead of the final product. But for Brancusi, it is the minimalism and abstraction of shape and volume that is most valued. What can often be seen from his sculpture is something called “the deflection of an ideal geometry” (Krauss 86). While the audience may think they are confronting with some simple geometric shapes, after closer examination, they will discover slight deformations from the perfection, which could be understood as a kind of signifier for the variability, the happenstance, and the contingency. To conclude, both of them have utilized these medium-specific characteristics of sculpture in ways different from the classical and found their unique ways to approach their desired meaning.
In terms of the subject, neither works has related to narrative stories like the classical sculptures did. Rodin has kept exercising the language of the human body and cast a standing nude of a male. However, in contrast with the bodies presented in the classical sculpture works, this body does not seem to assimilate any idealized form of beauty or symmetry. He is standing with an extremely awkward posture, with his head falling down to the left, extending almost completely in the horizontal direction. His left arm is also stretched away from the body, pointing towards the ground, and is pronated in a way full of tension and pressure. On the other side, his right arm is held tightly close to the body in an unnatural fashion that requires force exerted from the back and shoulder. One of his legs is flexed, and its length does not seem to match with the other if fully extended. All these elements have presented this figure in an extremely twisted and uncomfortable manner, which seems to signify a kind of tormented experience. But at the same time, the facial expression of the figure seems to be calm and peaceful. Focusing on the face, we can see no signs of struggle or pain. Some may even interpret him as sleeping or unconscious. This has formed a huge contrast with his bodily posture and afforded this work a sense of paradox and mystery.
Turning to Danaïde, we can see that Brancusi has thrown away the body and simply carved a portrait of a woman. Apparently, this head is not illusionistic in any way. Except for the essential characteristics constituting the human’s face – the eyes, nose, and mouth – Brancusi has remained the core structure simply as an ovoid. From the head to the base, the whole sculpture seems to be a combination of simple geometric shapes. And even for the nose and mouth, he has chosen to shape them in the most reductive style, eliminating all unnecessary elements and keeping the structure in its abstract form. This incorporation of abstraction and primitivism into sculpture was certainly avant-garde. It almost seems that the pure and balanced abstraction has replaced the classical ideal and became a new ideal by itself for Brancusi, which connects to his effort on polishing the surface. But at the same time, as mentioned before, there is slight deformation from perfection, and the facial expression of a human being is something so contingent and transient. This combination of the pure and absolute with the contingent and deformation is certainly modern in its connotation.
Sculpture is different from painting, as the subject of representation is no longer limited to the two-dimensional surface. Instead, the viewers are allowed, or even required, to view the work from various perspectives and angles. Although this seems to be obvious, some of the implicit connotations of this statement include the involvement of temporality and the more complex interactions of the work with the environment it was placed in, affording sculptures the ability to elicit a kind of exceptional phenomenological experience among the viewers, which cannot be done with other media.
For example, as we walk around The Shade, the posture of the body and the texture revealed through the contrasting light and shadow appear to be changing with the perspective. And for Danaïde, looking at it from various distances and angles, we seem to see her smile changing, sometimes gentler, sometimes more direct. Although Brancusi has only carved a soft curve to represent the smile, its expression and meaning can be interpreted differently based on the viewers’ empirical experience. This change can be interpreted as spatial and temporal at the same time, as it involves both physical movement in space and temporal movement through a certain period of time, of the observational process. Whether the sculpture is only capturing a moment in time or is it actually a complex mixture of a serial event is something extremely interesting to ponder.
In other words, the impossibility of perceiving the work in its totality comprises one of the most important features of sculpture as a medium. It is always a fragmented part of a complete work that can be perceived at every single moment in time. In addition, due to this feature, sculptures can become more dynamic, altering their meaning and expression with the action of viewing, making the process of unifying each fragmented experience together the most crucial step for the audience. And this phenomenological approach of art is absolutely modern for sculpture.
To summarize, from the modes of production, the materials, the finishing of the surface, and the subjects of these two works, we can see how Rodin and Brancusi have utilized these unique aspects of sculpture as the medium of representation and modernized the conception of sculptural creation. While distinct in style, both of them have focused on medium-specificity and provided future artists with unlimited inspiration.
Comments