Architecture and sculpture: what's the difference?
Richard Serra's work at the Grand Palais is in constant dialogue with the building's architecture, but remains clearly distinct from it at the same time. What is the nature of the relationship between architecture and sculpture? A brief history of their interactions…
The classical 18th-century definition of the 'fine arts' encompassed painting, architecture and sculpture, each with its own distinct identity. Painting was the art of the two-dimensional surface, while architecture and sculpture existed in three dimensions. The latter were both rooted in the concept of three-dimensional space, but pursued quite different aims.
Above all, architecture is functional. It exists to be 'inhabited'. This is not a priori the case with sculpture. Traditionally, architecture creates of places while sculpture creates objects, resulting in significant differences of scale between the two, to the extent that sculpture may often exist as an integral element within a work of architecture – the statues on the facades of Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals are just one example. The opposite occurrence is rare indeed. Furthermore, works of architecture are seldom created spontaneously, in the absence of any formal commission. This is not so in the case of sculpture, seemingly a more autonomous medium.
The Eiffel Tower: a sculptural work of architecture?
From the end of the 19th century, however, the distinction between the spheres of architecture and sculpture became increasingly blurred. The Eiffel Tower, opened in Paris for the Universal Exhibition of 1889, is a good example. How should it be regarded? Is it a work of architecture serving no purpose other than tourism? Or is it an immense, 'inhabitable' sculpture?
The Russian and German avant-garde
During the 1920s, a number of international avant-garde artists sought to establish a dialogue between the arts, and reflected on how to set about creating 'a total work of art'. Writing in the Dutch review De Stijl, Theo van Doesburg (1883-1931) called for the creation of 'a plastic architecture'. At the same time, in the Soviet Union, Kazimir Malevich (1878-1935) created a series of reliefs entitled 'architectones' (Arkhitekton), which he saw as models for potential, full-scale buildings. In 1924 he declared that Suprematism, the artistic movement of which he was the founder, was 'displacing its centre of gravity towards architecture'. The architectones never gave rise to actual buildings, and for this reason it is tempting to see them as sculptures. In Germany, during the same period, the teachings being handed down by the Bauhaus clearly promoted the concept of integration between the different arts and architecture. Max Bill (1908-1994) was brought up in Germany at this time, and his work as an architect, sculptor, designer and painter was strongly influenced by Bauhaus ideas.
American artists of the 1960s
From the 1960s onwards, a number of American artists demonstrated the tenuous boundaries between sculpture and architecture in a quite different way. Superficially, they were abstract sculptors, but their works nonetheless marked a break with tradition – they were not, for example, placed on pedestals. Carl André (born 1935) in particular plays with the limits of sculpture as a medium: rectangular or square surfaces are placed directly on the ground, barely visible to the viewer, who may perceive them as part of their architectural setting. Dan Graham (born 1942) and Richard Serra (born 1939) work in three dimensions, on the other hand, and their works are so closely integrated into their surrounding spaces that they are sometimes referred to as 'installations' rather than sculptures. The spectator is indeed invited to 'inhabit' the space of the work, to 'take part in it' in a very physical sense. Their sculptures are no longer works that can be held in the hand, or embraced from a single viewpoint: they are spaces through which we move, quasi-architectural spaces. The key question is how Richard Serra's work relates to the medium of sculpture as a whole, and how his practice succeeds in clearly defining the frontier between the two disciplines. What happens to a work of architecture in the presence of one of Richard Serra's sculptures? And vice-versa?
For more on the dialogue between architecture and sculpture since the 18th century, see ArchiSculpture (exhibition catalogue, ed. Markus Brüderlin; bilingual English/German edition, Fondation Beyeler, Basel, 2005). Or follow the link from the Fondation Beyeler Web site.
Comments (2)
