paulsari on webjam

My Blog » Art and a hippopotamus from the hood

Back to Home Written on 01-Jul-2008 by paulsari

Recently, I received this sculpture as a present. The way in which the head glances upwards fills me with much joy. The form of the long nose and its curve at the end are of course exaggerated, but they give me the impression that the distance between the ears and snout is intentional, so that it all functions better aesthetically.

It brought me to thinking about how incomprehensible art is. I do not mean that in the sense of the pure aesthetic interpretation of a work, but in the sense of how its charm effects us. This piece from Kenya is one whereby it is easy to imagine the recreation of that which is observable in our surroundings. In other cases, this process of how a re-realisation of the observed object became a piece of art is more difficult (and when Kandinsky says that he was inspired by music, then one just has to believe him, because those various triangles could just as well have found their inspiration in an oddly lying pack of Ritter Sport). Some paintings, sculptures etc. are seemingly very far removed from their source, but, nevertheless, I am convinced that all forms and structures represent a re-interpretation of other visual impressions.

Where this artwork found its inspiration does not, however, really come to answer my question of how art can bring us joy per se, and so I would like to return to this animal. It looks similar to a hippopotamus, but what leads a person to the idea of producing this visual form one more time in stone and then to use it as decoration of our home? Why is the form not always recreated with exactitude? Does the reason lie in the fact that we are not capable of such? Or preferable to me seems the possibility that we do not actually want it like that (i.e. exact)? Why do we often want to have a reproduction of that which we view every day anyhow? Does it lie purely in the fact that this sculpture does not have any obvious function for me that I classify it as art, but not my saucepan or frying pan? (which, of course, can be art, too)

No doubt, Barthes has already answered these questions and also asked them more skilfully than me, but he did not have a blog, and I am not familiar with all the photos which he refers to in his publications. Be it, because I want to keep a distance from academia, or be it, because I am lazy or lack the time, neither can I look at all all of his sources to see if I agree. You, however, can tell me straight away what a load of nonsense I have written here.

The animal was made by a family in Kenya from Kisii-soapstone. Dimensions: ca. 470mm(l) x 180 mm(w) x 300 mm(h)

bad ass hippo

Kandinsky Chops:

g029b kandinsky tr ln

Post to Facebook

Send to a friend

Comments

written on 01-Jul-2008

paulsari says:

p.s. I strongly presume there is no real answer to my questions, and as such, they are not really questions, but more expressions of appreciation.
written on 01-Jul-2008

chickerino [http://www.chickerino.com] says:

It depends on one's state of mind at point of observation. Think of it as a quasi quantum physics comparison - i.e. it is art at the same time as not being art. Whether said art is actually good is simply in the eye of the beholder.

How about THAT for insight!
written on 01-Jul-2008

chickerino says:

p.s. I like the hippo too
written on 01-Jul-2008

paulsari says:

Thanks for that insight, Marcus. Everything I would like to say about that can be summarised in that I find it a very enlightening comment.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?ke ... =CALD
written on 01-Jul-2008

albertob says:

good one marcus!
Art is ruled by the "uncertainty principle": a given object is and isn’t an art work until the very moment it’s observed.

Building on the analogy: a work of art is a box with the Schrödinger cat inside. The uncertainty of the observer before opening the box is the reason why artworks can create open meanings.

Take a normal object, put it in a box (move it into the art context, build a frame around, tell people that its art) and tell the observer that it has a hidden meaning.

Duchamp did something similar with this work “With Hidden Noise”, where he hid a mysterious object inside:
written on 01-Jul-2008

albertob says:

really good Marcus...
check this out:
"Human counciousness is non-algorithmic".
"Quantum mechanics play an esential role in understanding it".
Roger Penrose: The Emperor's New Mind

If Art is an expression of human couciousness, then Quantum mechanics can help us to understand how it works.
written on 02-Jul-2008

paulsari says:

A none too daft contribution from you either, Alberto!

I've seen Penrose in interviews / roundtables a few times. He
has a lot to offer.

This discussion reminds simultaneously of something else Marcus repeats that "there are different forms of intelligence". The idea that the creation of and people's enjoyment of art is non-algorithmic, i.e. not realised by a series of selections from options x,y,z is appealing.

You must be registered and logged into Webjam to leave a comment on this blog.

Page navigation

My Blog » Art and a hippopotamus from the hood

Comments