Thrilled to see this serious discussion about the potential for figurative work, which has been problematized in all the ways you describe. I work with a figurative sculptor who creates work in a wide variety of styles and IMO treats the subject with respect and dignity. He focusses more on male figures, but when he chooses to portray the female it is for powerful reasons. This video covers an installation he did of a suspended kinetic sculpture at a local hospital. We've received incredibly moving feedback from patients who find the artwork empowering and soothing as they navigate their health journeys. https://youtu.be/ZBShqgyvuNM?si=eVBOBMPURHqUdkZa
He doesn't tend to pursue 'beauty' in his figures, but I see his work as striving for potentiality. In some cases I think that the less refined, less realistic style that he often sculpts can offer a broader interpretive bandwidth than the more classical ones. It's always a fine balance.
I get a front row view to seeing how he grapples with people's assumptions about the 'gaze' and the different ways male and female forms land to the viewer. It's incredibly fraught, but it's clear to me that our collectors and visitors get a lot of value from seeing humanity reflected in their artwork in an embodied way.
Alice Gribbin's essay makes art feel like something I can simply meet—no pretense, no academic scaffolding, just my lived experience, my senses, my eyes. She reminds me that engagement itself is enough, that I don't need permission or authority to have a relationship with what I see. Her argument feels both revelatory and inevitable, as if she's articulating something so fundamentally true that it's been waiting just beneath the surface of our conversations about art. Art isn't a puzzle to be solved or a text to be decoded, but a living experience to be encountered with full attention and open perception.
I find the first-person plural here bewildering. Is the author using the royal “we”? For example, to whom does this refer: “We are greedy and honest.” I don’t see myself in that. This peculiar stylistic choice made it very difficult for me to follow the argument.
Thrilled to see this serious discussion about the potential for figurative work, which has been problematized in all the ways you describe. I work with a figurative sculptor who creates work in a wide variety of styles and IMO treats the subject with respect and dignity. He focusses more on male figures, but when he chooses to portray the female it is for powerful reasons. This video covers an installation he did of a suspended kinetic sculpture at a local hospital. We've received incredibly moving feedback from patients who find the artwork empowering and soothing as they navigate their health journeys. https://youtu.be/ZBShqgyvuNM?si=eVBOBMPURHqUdkZa
He doesn't tend to pursue 'beauty' in his figures, but I see his work as striving for potentiality. In some cases I think that the less refined, less realistic style that he often sculpts can offer a broader interpretive bandwidth than the more classical ones. It's always a fine balance.
I get a front row view to seeing how he grapples with people's assumptions about the 'gaze' and the different ways male and female forms land to the viewer. It's incredibly fraught, but it's clear to me that our collectors and visitors get a lot of value from seeing humanity reflected in their artwork in an embodied way.
Thank you for your article.
Alice Gribbin's essay makes art feel like something I can simply meet—no pretense, no academic scaffolding, just my lived experience, my senses, my eyes. She reminds me that engagement itself is enough, that I don't need permission or authority to have a relationship with what I see. Her argument feels both revelatory and inevitable, as if she's articulating something so fundamentally true that it's been waiting just beneath the surface of our conversations about art. Art isn't a puzzle to be solved or a text to be decoded, but a living experience to be encountered with full attention and open perception.
I find the first-person plural here bewildering. Is the author using the royal “we”? For example, to whom does this refer: “We are greedy and honest.” I don’t see myself in that. This peculiar stylistic choice made it very difficult for me to follow the argument.