limited but representative numbcr of works from within

the developmenl of modcrn sculpture. Therefo re, the

method used has more lo do with the process of the case· slud)' than with Ihe procedures of ;l historieal surve)'.

These case·studies are in tended lo develop a group of con·

cepts that is not only revealing of the sculplural issucs

imolved in the particular works in queslion bul ean 31so

be generalized lo apply lo Ihe widel" body of objects thal

form the history of scu!plure in the past cenlury. It is rn}' hope Ihat the gains lO be derived from a de·

tailed examination of a single work, 01" group of rel ated

scu!ptures, will off·set the losses this has meant for a

",holl}' inclusive historiea! survey. There are rnany scu lp.

tors, sorne of whorn have produced work of high quality.

who have been left out of Ihis lext , while olhers, sorne of

lesser merit, ha,'e been included. Guiding Ihese choices

was a decision to address lhe primar)' issues thal dislin .

guish modern sculpture from the work that comes befo re

it. So, for example, the conlinuation into the twenlielh

cenlury of a traditi onal treatment of Ihe human fi¡:wre is

nol given a place in lhese pages alongside ¡he olher mo\'e·

menls thal are discussed. Bul it is my eon tention ¡hal the

questions that bear on a deeision to depicl the human

form, whether by means of a primitivist, gOlhic, or archaic

vocabulary, are nol central lo th e subj ecI of Ihis hook.

There wiII be readers who wiII see Ihis as too na rro\\-' a

conceplion of modern Sculplure. However, the complex

manifeslations of a modern sensibility are whal 1 have

undertaken to explore. And it is my hope thal the issues

se! forth in the foll owing lext will act as a se! of rneaning·

fui probes in lo the large mass of sculptural production

through which this sensibility has heen given formo

•

6

• r),. 1 Néu"'atlve une: the questÍon 01 the Gates 01 He"

•

October, Eisenstein's epic film of the Soviet Revolution,

opens with a shot of a statue, harshly lit against a dark

sky. It is a statue of Nicholas n, the Czar of Russia

( fig. 3), which the film·maker explores detail by detail, building it ¡nto an image of imperial power . In the scene

that follows Ihis beginning, a crowd rushes into the square

which the monument occupies. Tying ropes around it, the

insurgents topple the statue from its mount, performing

an act by which Eisenstein symbolizes the destruction of

the Romanov Dynasty.

In that first scene Eisenstein sets up the two poles of

his film: the two opposing metaphors that establish both

his analysis of histol"y and the space in which it occurs. TIte crowd und the real space through which it moves

are asked lo represent the hero of the Revolution; while

7

•

the enem)" of th al Revolulion is cast as a series of ideolo.

gies and formal spaces. cach one symbolized by means oí staluary . In the film's re·c reatio n oí ¡he strug;::de lo retain imperial power in Russia, scu lplures are made inlo sur · roga le aclors: and Ihere is conSiSlen! ident ifica tioll of panicular icons with parlicular political views.

A compelli ng instance oí lhis idcnt ifica lion accurs when Eisenstei n introduces the fi ~ure oí Kerensk)'. Ihe elecled Presidenl of Ihe Provisional Covernment who has <lS '

sumed dictato rial po""ers. As Kerensk)' stand s al the door. .... ·ay lo Ihe throne room oí lhe Winler Palaee. Ei sensteill cuts back and forlh ht:tween shols of him aud shols of a peacock. Sign ifican ll )', Ihe objecl lo whidl Kerensk)' is compared is nol a live animal , 1I0r is jt a stalic represen la· tia n made 01 china, sa)' , or la pestry. The pcacock EiM!n . slein shows, in a whir oí ~Iittcrin ;!, metallic plumaj!e. is

8

3. Stl'Ú Eistluuin ( 1898-19-18) : OClolJer (slilf), 1927- 28. ( Pltoto, CoUrftSr f ilm Sfills Alrhht. Tht Mustum 01 II fotltrn ,4rl, Ntw )'ork )

, 111 automaton-an inlri catel y construeted mechanica l hird .

AmI whal Eisenslcin wanls the viewer to sec, in Ihe space of Ihnl nnsh of Ihe bird's precisioni st mo\"ement. is not nn ima,g-e of personal vanjly but Ihe symbol of an im· po\'erished, outmoded rali onalism. As an automaton. the bird reprcsen ls the rationalisl argument about ,he Creat Chain al Bein;!, whe re Cod as Ihe Firsl Cause of Ihe

uni ve rse \\'as likened lo Ihe supreme clockmaker. In Ihis

analo;!}' Ihc very ex islencc al Ihe clockwork (s)' mbolizin~

Ihe a rtfulness 01 human con lri \'ancel was used as proof

of Ihe log ic and "Cood Desigll " of an inherently jusI \\'orld" For EisclIstein , Ihis arg:ument waS identified ",i th a politica l philosophy opposed to chnnge and intent on usin:; " Ihings as they are" to le:; itimize oppress ion. When Kerensky enlers the Ihrone room, he does so lo resta re

capital punishmenl lO Ihe laws of Russia. In other scclions oC the film Eisenstein ex ploits other

kinds 01 sculpture : images of Na poleon. figures of Christ. and primilive idols .~ Al one point he shows ' female

soldiers. who are defending Ihe Winler Palace agai nst Ihe coming Bolshevik anack, eying 1""0 works by Rodin: The KiJs nnd The Eternal Idol. Using these sculptures in Iheir marble ,'e rsions, Eisenstein photographs them to look like 50ft mounds of Aesh , which lhe \\'omen observe with a rapl . ecslatic fascination. Through Ihi dev ice

Ei.senslein films a senlimenl he obviously abhors: a cloy· in:; nostalgia lor pasl fantasies of love.

The point or these sculptures-and 01 a1l sculplure­lor Eisenslein is nol its mimetic quality, not Íls capadly lo imilate Ihe look of living flesh, but its power lo embody ideas aud altiludes. It is Eisenslein's most basic assump· lion Ihal sculplure. a1l art, is fundamenlally ideological.

One of the ironies abou t the virtual museum of sculp. tural representalions employed in Octabe, is Ihe inelusion 01 Rodin, For hi lO career, which ended in 19 17, on the ver)' eve of Ihe Revolullon Eisenstein's film celebrates . produced all I1rt ¡nlensely hostile to rationalism, As a whole, Rodin's sculplure was lhe firs! extreme attack 011

Ihe kind of thinking represenled by the mechnnical bird. !ln ideo lo!;)' thal was deeply implanted in " coclassical sculpture, 6nd persiste<l in almosl all ninCleenth·century sculplure up lo the work of Rodin . The rlltionalist model.

9

on which neocJassism depends. holds wilhin il tw o basic

suppositions : Ihe context through which underst:lllding

unfolds is time: alld , for sculpture. the natural con text

oí rationality is lile medium oí relief. Logical argumcnls-procedures such as " ir x, Ihen Y"

- follow a temporal de\'e1opment. Al Ihe hen rt of such

reasoning is the notion of causalil Y, oí the connection

between effects and lheir causes which depend for thei r

very relatedness upon Ihe passage of lime. In lile eight­

eenth and nineleenth cen turi es ambilious painters and

sculptors accepted wilhoul dispu te the notion th al time

was the medium through which Ihe logic of social and

moral instilulions revealed ilself- hence lhe exalted posi­

lion they gave to histor}' painting as a genre and to his­

torical monuments. Hislory was understood lo be a kind of

narralive, involving Ihe progression oí a sel of signifi­

canees Ihal mUluall r reinforce and explica le each other. and that seem driven as if by adivine mechanism Inward

a conclusion, loward the meaning oí an event.

Thereíore, when Fralll;:o is Rude undertook a sc ul ptural

commission for Ihe Arch oí Triumph . he underslood his

lask as transcending the simple represenlalion oí n mo·

menl from Ihe French Revolulion. The aspiralions behind

La Marseillaise , also known as Deparring Volunrccrs ( fi g.

4 ) oí 1833- 36, were lo fashion Ihe composilion inlo a

kind of temporal cut Ihat would knife through lhe dis­

arra}' oí historica l incident and uncover its meaning. This

aspiration, which Rude shared with his contemporaries.

had been articulaled al the end of the eighteenth centur )'

by Gotthold Lessing. The work of visual art, "in its co­existent compositions," Lessing argued, "can use hUI a

single moment of aClion, and must therefore choose the

moSI pregnanl one, the one most suggestive of whal has gone before and what is to follow."3 In La Mar5cillai5e Rude does capture that momenl of absolute prep;nancy,

of forms focused lo a point of utter sharpness from which

meaning will then be seen to spread outward , connccting this particular composition lo the events Ihat (orm ils past aod its future.

In arder to achieve this focus, Rude organizes Ihe co mo position along two axes: a horizontal axis thal divides the frieze of soldiers in the lower haH oí Ihe work íroro

10

4. FI(ftJ(;ois RlIlle (l i 84- 1855): La ) Iam illaise. 1833-36. Stone, CIl . sor .l 312". Arch o/ Tr iu lIlph. P(¡fi .~ (Ph Olo, Giffllldof/)

. .

..

•

- -

the splayed form of Ihe winged victory that fiUs the upper register ; and a vertical axis that plumbs the space from

the head of Ihe victor)' down the cenler of her body Ihrough the verlical juncture between Ihe two central

soldiers. The meaning of Ihe composition- and conse­quently oí the moment it depicts- revolves around the

poinl where these t\Vo axes join . Rude produces Ihe feel. in:; 01 movement rotating around Ihe vertical axis by over­

lapping the bodies in the lower register to form a semi­ch·ele. The line oí soldiers seems lO be issuing from Ihe far ri ght. out of Ihe very ground of Ihe arch, and lo be moving forward as il proceeds to Ihe leh . The point al which Ihal wave ol bodies crests is Ihe point ol contact wilh the vertical axis, as Ihe l\Vo central figures recognize the s}' mbol of viclory . Al Ihat juncture, as they mirror Ihe imnge suspended above Ihem, the soldiers soom to

n

arrcsl Ihc hori zo lllal 11 0"'" of movClllcnl Ihrou ~h space und

lime. By cx ploilin ¡:'. lhc forma l dcvice of symmelry , Ihulc

crea les [In icolI Ihal will sland for a particular momcnl :

Ihe da wnin g of consciousncss ahoul Ihe meanin~ of

libert )'. Ami Ihen, leftwllrd nlong Ihc horizonlal fricze.

Ihe fi gures seem lo cOl1l inue Ihe ir movemenl , Ihis lime inlo Ihe CUl ure.

The organiza lion oC tn Mar5cillai5c is cssenli all y nar ·

rali\·e. The va l' }' ing deg recs of I'elief, Ihe isola lion of

Ihe limbs 01 Ihe fi gures by means of drapery in orde r lo

inlensif)' tite rh )' lhmica l cfTecl of lil e pai red p:eslures, Ihe

lension belwccn Ihe latcral movement implied by Ihe

lower regisle!' a lld the icon like rigidit y of (he upper

figure-aH are ways in which Rude slructures Ihe narra ·

tive for ¡he viewer . And whal is crucial for a readin g of

thi s narrati ve is Ihal Ihe work is in rel ief. f or, by ils ver)'

nalu re. Ihe medium of reli ef makes Ihe readin g of Ihe

narrali \'e possible.

The fron lalily of Ihe re lief forces Ihe vie\\'er to place

himself direcll)' before Ihe wo rk in order lo see il, and

¡hus guaranlees Ihat Ihe effecl of lhe composilion \V iII in

no wa )' be dil uted. Furlher, Ihe medium of relief depcnds

upon a relalionship between Ihe sculpted fi gures and Iheir

ground . Since litis ground behaves like Ihe iIl us ionistic

backgroun d of a pai nting. il opens up a virtual space

through which Ihe fió'lJres can appear lo move. Inlo Ihi s

mO\'emenL- Ihis apparenl emergence froln backp; round lO

foregrou nd- lhe sculplor can projecl the lemporal values

of the narra live. MoSI important, Ihe med ium of relief

lin ks logether Ule visibilily of the SCulplure wilh Ihe

comprehension of ils meaning; heca use from th e single

viewing point, in front oI Ihe \Vork, a lJ Ihe implicalions

of gesture, all u¡e signifi cance of form, must naturall )'

devolve.

Relief thus makes it possible for lhe viewer lo under­

stand two reciproca l qualities simultaneousl)': Ihe form

as it evolves wilh in Ihe space of Ihe rclief ground and Ihe

meaning of Lhe depictcd momenl in its hislori cal context.

Even though lhe viewer does not acluall y rno\'e around

Ihe sculplure, he is given Ihe illusion of ha ving as much

information as he wo uld if he could circumnav igale Ihe

forms--perhaps even more, since wilhin a single percep·

12 •

5. AIIBII5te RQdin (J840- 191iJ Ga les of Hdl. 1880- 1917. IlrOIl :c. 21 6" .t 1""" x 33". I'h ila'/c/ph ia Muse/I//! o/ Arl. ( PhOIO, A . J . IfrutI, Sil/O p/lOIO¡;rttplwr)

tion he sees holh the developmenl of Ihe masses and their capacity lo signify. If Ihe sClllplol"S allilude lo Ihe rclicf

is that of an omniscienl narralol' comrnenlint?: upon the eause·and·effect rclationship of fOl'ms in hOlh hislorieal and plaslic spaee. Ihe viewer's correspondinp; allilucle is spellcd oul by Ihe nalure of Ihe relief ilself: he assumes

a parallel onmiscience in his reading of Ihe work in all

ils lucidity . Indeed, Ihe nineleenth.cenlury Iheorists who wrote

aboul seulpture demanded Ihat all form, whelhel' free·

standing in space Oi' not, mus! aehieve the clarity thal

seems to he the ver}' essence of relief. "AH delails of form musl unite in a more compl'ehensive form," Adolf von

Hildebrand \\'fites. "All separate judgments of depth must

enter into a unitary, all ·inclusive judgment of depth. So

that ultimately the en tire richness of a figure 's form

stands before us as a backward continualion of one

simple plane." And he adds, " Whenever Ihis is not the

case, the unitary pictorial effeet of the figure is losl. A

tendeney is then feh lo clarify what we eannot pcrceive

from our present poinl of view, by a change oí posilion.

Thus we are driven all around the fi gure without ever

being able to grasp it once in ils entirety."4

This, then, is the sense in which Ihe mechanical hird,

Octaber's golden aulomaton, is tied lo Rude's sculpture

of La Marseillaise. The aulomalon is part of a proof

ahout the order of the world. Man's eapaeity to ereate the

hird is taken lo herald his eapacity to understand , by analogy, !he endeavors of !he world's Crealor. His own

arl of contrivance is seen as giving him a conceptual

foothold on the logic of a universal designo JUSI as the

cloekwork bird carríes wilh il the aspiration lo un der·

stand, by imitation, the inner workings of nature, Rude's

relieí aspires lo eomprehend and projeet the movement of historieal time and man's place within it. The narrative

art oí reJief is Rude's medium, which makes this work paradigmatie for aH of nineteenth·century sculpture ...

except for Rodin. Yet, one might ask, why not for Rodin as well? In a

sense Rodin's career is entirely defined by his efforts on a single project, the Gates o/ Hell, which he began in 1880 and worked on until the time of his dealh-a project for which almost all of his sculpture was

14

• ort er • o

6. Rodin.' Cates of Hell (architectura{ TIIodef), ca. Terra cotta, 39%" x 25". Musée Rodin , Paris. ( 1""'., GeoDrey C{emcnts)

I

inally fashioned. Like La Marseillaise, the Gates 01 Hell (fig. 5) is a relief, the sculptural decoration for a monu­mental set of doors that were to serve as the entranee for

a projeeted museum.5 And, again like La Marseillaise, the work is lied to a narrative seheme, having been eom· missioned as a cycle of iIlustrations oí Dante's Divine Comedy.

In Ihe beginning Rodin pursued a eoneeption oí the Gates that aceorded with the conventions oí narrative

reJief. His early architeetural sketeqes for the project divide the face of the doors into eight separate paneIs,

each of whieh \\follld carry narrative reliefs arranged

sequentially. The obvious models for this formal were the great Renaissance doorways, partieularly Ghiberti's Cates

01 Paradise, the portal for the Baptistry of !he CathedraJ

of Florence. But by the time Rodin had finished the

third arehiteelural model in terra eoUa (fig. 6), it was

clear that his impluse was to dam up the Aow of sequential

time. In that model the divisions between the separate

panels are nearly al! erased, while at the same time a

large, static ieon has been implanted in the midst· of the

dramatic spaee. Composed of a horizontal bar and a

vertical stem, topped by the looming verticaJ mass of

The Thinker, this cruciform ¡mage has the effecl of ceno

tralizing and Aattening the space of the doors, subjecting

aH oí the figures to its abstract presence.

In its final version !he Gates 01 Hell resists all attempts

lo be read as a coherent narrative. Oí the myriad sets of

figures, only two relate directly to the parent story of The Divine Comedy. They are the groupings of Ugolino

and Bis Sons and Paoio and Francesca (fig. 7), both of

which struggIe for space on the lower half of !he leít door. And even the separateness and legibility of these

two "scenes" are jeopardized by the fact that the figure

of the dying son of Ugolino is a twin of the figure of Paolo.o This aet of repetition oeeurs on the other door,

where at the Jower fight edge and halfway up the side,

one sees !he same male body (fig. 8), in extreme disten­tion, reaehing upward. In one of his appeatances, the

actor supports an outstretched femaJe figure. His baek is arched with the effort of his gesture, and the stram across

the sudace oí his torso is completed in the backward Ihrust of his head and neck. This figure, when cast and

IS

J6

7 . I.r.n Rodi l? : Gal es of HeH (dclall 01 Jorver 11'/1 panel). "h if(¡({c!phia M I/sell//! 01 Al /. f Pho/Q, A. J. f(1 )'I1ll, slaD ¡¡}¡(HOBfllphcr )

8. rA lllUC IIT l(odil1: Galcsol Hcll ( IICluíl 01 Ti!;"1 fJllllelJ. (/~hoto: Farrell Grehl/n)

IIr

9 . NF.A I! IUCII T Uod!n: The Prod iguJ SOIl, be/ore /889. IJron ze, 55lh;" ,l ' 4/:):í" x 27%", Mu sé.: Rodill. " aris. (PIlO/O, /Jr uno Jarret) 10. Allon u :n Rodín: Fugil Amor. be/ore 1887. MaTbte. J 7XI" :x 15" x 6% ". MI/ set Rodí" . I'flfi s. ( /'/'010, Ade/)'sJ

ex hibi tcd singly away from the doo rs, is called Tlle

Prodigal 5011 (6g. 9). When coupled wilh Ihe remale and reo riented in space in relation to her bod)', the male

fi gure becomes par! of a group called Fugit Amor ( fi g.. 10). On Ihe surface of th e right door. lhe Fugit Amor

co upl e appears twice, unchan ged excepl for the angle al which il relates lO Ihe ground plane of the work. The double appearance is extremely conspicuous. and the ver )'

pe rsistence of that doubling canno! be read as accidental. Halher, it seems lo spell Ihe breakdown of Ihe principIe of spa lio. lemporal uniqueness thal is a prerequisite of log ical narrati on , for doubling tends lo destro}' Ihe ver}'

possibil il}' oC a logica l narralive sequence. Al Ihe 101) of Ihe Cates Rodin again has recourse lo

this sl rlllegy of repetilion. There, T" e Three Shades ( tig. 11 ) are n Ihreerold represenlalion oC Ihe sallle body­Ihree idenlical cnsls radi ating away from Ihe poinl al which Iheir ex tended leÍl arms converge. In Ihis w!l y

"'"!! Tltr!!/! 51/(/(/c$ acl lo parod y the lradilion 01 grou ping tri ple fi p, lII'cs th ll t was central lO neoclassiclll sculpllll'e.

17

Wanl in,g l O Ira nscend lhe partial information thal any single aspe-c l oC a hf! ure can cO Il\'ey, Ihe neoclass ical

Sculplor devises slralep. ies lo presenl Ihe human body Ihrough multiple \' it"\\'s, His inleres l in rnull iple \'anI3f!.e

poin ls comes {rom a conyiClio n Ihat he musl find nn ideal

,'iewpoinl. one thal \\'ill contain the tolali ly oí informalion

oecessary lor a conceptual f! ra sp of Ihe ohjecL To sayo {or example. thal one " knows" whal a cube ¡s. cnnnol

simpl y mean thal one has seen such an objecl. since anr

single \'iew oí a cuhe is necessa r ily partial and incom' plele, The ahsolule para ll eli srn 01 the six si des and t\\'eh'e

edges Iha! is essen lial lo Ihe meaning 01 the cube's georn ·

etr\" can ne\"e r be revealed b,' a sinde look, One's kn owl, " " "

edge oC th e cube mus! be knowled:;e of an object that Iran ·

scends lhe parli culariti es of a single perspecl i\"e in \f hi ch onh' lhree sides, al mosl. can be seen, It musl he a kllO\d ,

edge thal , in sorne sense. ennbles one lo see Ihe objecl

{rom e\'erY\\'here al once, to understand lhe objecl (','e l)

while "seeing"" il.

In c1assicism the Iranscendence oí tll e sillf! le poin l oC

\'iew was oflen explicil lr dealt with by u sin~ fi f! urel' in

pairs and in Ihrees. so lhal Ihe Cron l \'iel\' o f olle fi ;! ure

UI

J J. I.En Rflf/i,, : The Thrrt 13. u :n lJert, ·' T/lo"t'f,liIsCII !-.ha' ¡" ~. IRHO. llron:e, 74% " J (/ 76/1 IR,I,I) .- Tlw Tllre,· Gruc(' ~, 7/" :r .10" . MII.\f:" Rodin, PIJfU lM/ , 11 ,,,/,/, .. "tllu;;o IJ"·,,,.

12 " e Milllll . (I'hO/o. IJruG¡;i ) , A HO\ ,: A,,/¡w,o a/1Ot'/I

f J757_IHII2): Tlw Thrcc 1,4, 1I1r.ltT },·ml.IJII/,/ÚlC G racl'~, IH/J. ¡\f¡" hlr:. [ur/ICUIlX ( /R2 7- iS); TIll' 11 " " 1" Danc.' 111 71 , ". " ', 90" " ",m,/ulle, 1."IIIII#rl/ll. ( 11 01" .. ' ., ,rrtl fU ti, .1

Afill"ri ) 56 ' OJl"'¡¡, /'m i.\'. (I'JIO/O, Arch. 1'110/. 1'lIf i .~ )

would be avail nble s imultaneously wi th Ihe back v ie~ of

ils mate. Wi lhoul destroy ing lhe uniqueness of Ihe indio

vidua l formo there ar ises, Ihen , a perception o{ a gener ic

idcal o r type in which each separate figure is seen lo

I)a rlicipnte ; nne! from this displnyed in sequence, in n

scries of rotntiolls- the meanillg of Ihe tone body is

eSlllbli shcd. Ouring Ihe ea rl y nineteenth .century, in bOlh

ClI nova's anel lllO rw aldsen's neoclassical sculplures of

.,.IIe .,.ltree Graces ( fi gs. 12 nnd 13) , olle hnds Ihe ma io·

lenance oí thi s trndilioll II10 ng with the meaning that

ullderlies il. llle vi ewer sees nol a single figure in rota ·

lioll bUI , m lher, Ihrcc {emule nudes who present the body

in three difTerenl angles. As in relief, this presentntion ananges the bo(lies alo ng a single, frontal plane, so that

il is leg ihle al 11 glance,

'fhe pers istence of lhis slrategy as a des ideratum for

sculplure occurs decades ¡a ter in Carpeaux's ensemble fol' lhc fÜ <;llde ol Ihe Pa ris Opern. There, in The Dance

( fig. 14) ol 1868-69, Ihe two nymphs lhat fl ank the

ccnlrll l müle fIgure perform for lhe viewer in much lhe sume wll y liS Cll llovn's Graces had done. Mirroring each

olhcr's poslurc, lhe two fi gures rotate in counterpoint, i'l illlLlh llllcously cxposing the front nlld back of lhe body lo vic\\' o Wilh Ihe symmetry oC thcir movement com ft

19

satisfaction aboul the wholeness of one's pcreeption of the form, aud about the way il fuses wilh Ihe nolion of balance thal suffuses the enlire composilion. [,'en Ihough

The Dance breaks with Ihe surface qualili es o f neoclassical slyle, it ca rries on lhe underl )'i ng premises, and satisfies

in e\'er)' noay Hildebra nd's diclum aboul Ihe !leed for all

sculplure lo conform lo Ihe principIes of relief.

It is Rodin's lack of conformation lo Ihese pr incipIes

that makes TIIe Three Shades dislurbing. By simpl ),

repeating Ihe same fi gure three limes, Rodin slrips away from lhe group the idea of composition-Ihe idea of

rhythmic arrangement of forms, lhe poise and counler·

poise of whieh are inlended lo revea l the latenl meaning

of lhe body. The ael of simply lining up idenlica l markers

of the human form, olle alter Ihe other, ca rries wilh il

none of Ihe Iradilioual meaning of composilion. In place of Ihe intended angle/ reverse .angle of Canova or Caro peaux, Rodin imposes au un )' ielding, mute, blunlness on his Shodes. This he does in Ihe artless, almosl primili ve.

plaeement of the Ihree heads al Ihe same level, o r in Ihe

strange repetilion of lhe identical bul separate pedeslals

on which each member of Ihe group slands. The arlful

arrangements of Canova and Carpeaux had made the

external views of their fi~ ures seem transparent lO a

sense of interna l meaning. But Rodin's apparent artless · ness endows his fi gures with a sense of opacity. The

Shodes do not form will1 each other a relalionship thal

seems eapable oC significalion, ol crea ting a sign thal is transparenl to jls meanin g. Instead, the repetition of the

Shades wo rks lo create a sign tha! is totally self·referenli al.

In seeming lo refer the viewer lo nothing more than

his own triple production of the same object. Rodin replaees the narrative ensemble with one that tells of

nothing bul the repetilive process of i15 own creation. TIte Shades, which stand as both an inlroduclion and a climax lo Ihe space of the doors, a re as hoslile lo a narrative

impulse as the "scenes" that occur on Ihe face ol the doors themseIves.

The corollary lO Rodin 's purposeful conlusion of na rra · tive is his handling of the actual ground of Ihe relief. For lhe ground plane of the Gates is sim¡)I)' nol conceived oí as the illusionislic malrix out or which Ihe fi gures emerge. Relief, as we have seen, suspends Ihe full volume

20

15. NEAR HI CIIT Thomas Eaki¡ (/844-1916) : Spinning, ca. 1882-83. nrol1:e, 19" x 15". Philade/p/ria M I/sc/lm o/ Arl. ( Ph oto, A. j . fTltatl. slaD photo&ra/l/r er) 16. FAR HI C H T Adol! von Hildebrand ( 1847- 192/ ): Archery Lceson, 1888. Stone. SO" x 4-1" fflalfra f. Richart: MI/set/m , C%gae.

ol u fi gure halfway belween its literal projeclion above

the ground and i15 virtual existence within lhe " space" ol the ground. The convention oC rel ief requires that one not take lilerally the fael thal a fi gure is only partia1ly released from i15 solid surrounds. Ralher, the ground of relief operales like a piclure plane, and is inlerpreted as an open spaee in whieh the backward exlension 01 a lace or a body oecurs.

Throughout lhe nineteenlh eentury, sculptors contin . uall y tried to provide the viewer with information about

those unseen (and of course unseeable) sides oC whole objecls imbedded within Ihe relieC ground. Given the

unassa iJable Cronlalily of relief, inrormation about the

eoneealed side of Ihe fi gure had to come simultaneously with the viewer's perception of its front. One strategy

for doing thi s we have already seen : the acting·out of the body's rotati on Ihrough several figures, as in Canova's

Three Graces. This information was also supplied, and

increasingly so lhroughoul lhe nineteenth cenlury, by

Ihe intentional use of actual shadows casI onlo the

relief ground by the raised figuralive elements. In

11

Thomas Eakins' bronzes of contemporar )' gen re scenes (fig. 15 ) or Hildeb rand's antiquarian plaques (fig. 16 ), there is a unifying formal impulse. Whether one looks at lhe work of an ardent rea list OT of a determined classicist, one sees that forms are marshaled so thal Ihe shadows they cast will direct the viewer's attention lo the buried and unseen si des of the figures.

In a sculpture by Medardo Rosso, which is contem­porary with Rodin's early work on the Gates, the use of cast shadow operates as it does in Rude or Eakins or Hildebrand . For Rosso's Mother and Child Sleeping (fi g. 17) contains not two but three figurative elements. The firsl is lhe gentl y swollen circle of the infant's head. The second i8 the voluptuous fabric of Ihe side al the íemale íace in which the concave and convex forms oí forehead , cheek, and mouth are galhered in10 the simple contour oí lhe profile. The third , which lies bctween them, is lhe field oí ¡¡hadow cast by Ihe molher onlo Ihe

22

17. LEFT Afedardo Rosso (1858-1928) : Molher and Chil d SI~ping.I883 . Bron:e, }31,1. ".

. collcction.

RICHT Rodin: "J e suis belle:· 1882. Bron:e, 29lh " x

x /1%" : MlIsée Rodin , '.,i', .. ( I'holo. Adelys)

face of the child . What i5 striking about this ~hadow is tha t it does 110t function, as one would expect, by inject­ing a quantity of open space ¡nto the c1enched forms of the sculpture, no r by serving as a fulc ru m of darkness 0 11 which two Iight-drenched volumes are balanced. In­slead, the shadow produces visual testimony about lhe other side of Ihe woman 's head .

The exposed surfaces of lhe faces, which carry lhe continual reminder ol lhe sculptor's touch as he modeled them, become, because of lhe shadow, the most intense and poignanl area oC touch: ¡he contact between the hidden cheek of the mother and lhe bu ried forehead of ¡he child. It is as though Rosso felt it was not enough simply to excava le fi gures from the ground oí the relief; he also supplies data about Ihe realms of interaction so immersed within Ihe material of the sculpture thal neither the probe of his fin ge rs nor our gaze could reach Ihem. It is surel y part of Rosso's meaning that beyo nd the bril ­liance 01 his rnodeli ng, which permits light to open and penetra te his surfaces, lies an unseeable area of the form

aboul which he is compelled to reporl.' In Rodin's Cates, on lhe other hand , cast shadow scems

to emphasize the isolalion and delachment oC CulI·round figures Crom lhe relieí ground and lo enCorce one's sense of Ihe ground as a solid objecl in ils own right, a kind oC objecl thal will nol permil the iIlusion thal one sees through it lo a space beyond.

In addition , lhe shadow underlines the sense that lhe figu res are intentionall )' fragmenled and necessa rily in ­complete, ralher than only perceptually incomplete, as in Rosso. For the first time, in Ihe Cates, a relieí ground acts lO segment the figures it carries, to present them as ¡itemUy trunca led, to disallow them the ficlion oC a virtual space in which lhey can appear lo expando The Cates are, lhen, simultaneousl)' purged oC both the space and time that would support Ihe unfolding of narra ti ve_ Space in Ihe work is congealed and arresled ; temporal rela­tionsh ips are driven toward a dense unclarity_

There is still another level on which Rodin worked this almost perverse vein oí opacity: this is the wa)' he related, or Jailed lo relate, the outward appearance oC ¡he body lo ils inner slructure. The outward gestures rnade by (lodin 's figures do nol seem to arise froOl what one

23 •

kn ows of the skeletal substructure that should support

the body's movement. One has onl)' to compare, fol' example, Rodin 's group calJed " fe suis belle" (fig. 18) R

with a more classicizing work, Pollaiuolo's Hercules and Antaeus ( fig. 19) , to see how this occurs. In bOlh , a standing maje nude supports a second , airborne fi gu re . The moment al struggle that Pollaiuolo shows is full y explained in terms 01 the body's system of internal supo porto TIte pressure 01 Hercules' arms encirclin .... and o crushing Antaeus at a point on his spine causes a reaction in which Antaeus is arched and splayed ; while Anlaeus, pushing down on Hercules' shoulders, forces the doublin ....

o backward al the lower formo Every action of the two figures involves a thrust and counterthl'ust that reveal the

24

I

To r Antonio Pollaiuolo : Hercules and

ca. 1475. Bronu, 18". ,",<1" Floren ce.

BOTTOM Canolla : Hercules Lichas, 1812- 15 (o riginal

AJarble, 138". Gallery :,::;~ Art, RQme. (Photo,

response of the skeletal system to exlernal pressure. Clea rly, in Ihis work, gesture is both a result of that inner

system and a revelation oC it.

The cladty oC con tour that one finds in the Renaissance hronze is heightened and exaggerated when one turns to

a neoclassical work that exploits the same gestural system oC weight and support. Canova's Hercules and Lichas ( li g. 20) explores the relalionship between two strug'

gling hodies within an even more radically defined single contour, and from an even more explicit frontality. The

sa tisCaction one has in considering Canova's work is the

sa tisfaction that comes from a sense of resolution- a sense that one's own particular vantage on the work,

looking at its front , allows one to know with absolute

certai nty Ihe mechanics oC stress that consume the two hodies and invest the sculpture with meaning. The con·

lour that unifies the fi gures resolves itself into a single wedgelike shape Íls leading edge thrusting Corward

against the backward drag of the force resisting il. This c1arity of con tour is the first thing one misses in

"l e suis belle," Cor Rodin has obscured it by seaming

together the chest of the male and the torso of the Cemale he supports. The bodies are therefore fused into a single

contour Ihat makes the reciprocity of their gesture highly

ambiguous. The arched back and spread feet oC the male figure indicate thal it is both falling under the weight of the load il bears and rising to grasp or catch the other

figure. Readíng simultaneously as collapse and expansion, the gesture contains an arnhivalence that one's knowledge

of the body's slructure cannot grasp rationany. SimilarIy, the female figure, doubled over into a ball of flesh, pro­jects the feeling oC both weight and buoyancy. One cannot

penetrate lo the skeletal core of the body to discover the

meaning of these gestures. lt i5 not simply that one is looking al the group from

an incorreet angle but that, unlike the Canova or the Pollaiuolo, Rodin's work has no angle of view that would be "correct"- no vantage point that would give coherence to the figures. The opacity that Rodin imposes on the relief ground al the Gates, and on the unfolding of narra· (¡ve relationships upon it, is the same opacity that be here builds inlo the bodies of bis figures: an opacity between the gestures through which tbey surface into the

2S

world Il nd thc inlcrnal nnalomiclIl syslem by ",hicl! Ihos(' gcslures would bc "cxplnincd ."

Thís opacíly of gcslurc in " l e 5uis bcllc" is CVCIl morc

appnrelll in Lhe s ingle fi gLl re o f Arlo1/l ( fig. 21) nnd in ita thrccfold nppcaru ncc as lhe Sl/(fde.~ surmounli ng r he Cates o/ Hell. In Adm/l. olle noli ccs Ihe exlreme c1 ongn.

tion of the figure's neck ull d Ihc massive swelling of ita

ahouldcr. Dne secs Ihe wa y in which Ihese two pa rls oí

lhe bod)' are worked i!llo all almosl Icve! planc. as though

an enormous weight has pulled Ihe fi ;;ure's head nround

and oul of joint so thal the shoulder strains backwn rd lo nid in its support. And Ihe rcla liollship of Ihe legs- one

stiffened, lhe olher f1exed- docs 11 0 1 give Ihe rclnxed efTecl

of conlrnposto, in which Ihe weight tnken up by olle leí!

releases Ihe other i!llo HII ells)' curve. Instent!, Ihe benl

leg of lhe Adam is racked and pulled, its thigh drawn out to nead )' twice Ihe lenglh of lhe olhe)'.

What oUh"ard cause produces lhis tormenl of hearing

in lhe Adam? What internal nrmaturc can one ima ... ine o ,

as one looks on Crom Ihe outsidc, lo cx plain the possi.

biJities oí their distention? Again one feels backed

against a wall of uninlelligibilit)'. For il is not as though

there is a diDerenl viewpoínt one could seek from which

to find those answers. ExcepL one ; and tIlal is not exactl )' a place írom which lo look aL the work- an)' of Rodin's

work-but, rather, a condition. This condílion might be

called a belief in the maniCest intelligibiJity of surlaces, and that entails relinquishing certain notions of cause as

it relates to meaning, 0 1' accepting the possibilit)' of

meaning without the proo f or verification of cause. It would mean accepling effects themselves as self-explanator)'

- as significant even in the absence oí what one might

thínk of as the logical background from which the)'

emerge.

The significance of what 1 have called this "condition"

can be gauged by lhe force of its challenge to the normal picture one has of the self and lhe way that self relates to

other selves. For we normally thi{lk oí the self as a sub­jectivity with spedal access lo its own conscious sta tes , an access simply denied to others outside it. Because each individual regislen sensory impressions upon hi s or her

own mechanisms of touch or sight, what 1 see or hear or

feel is available to me wíth a special kind of immediacy

26

21. Rodin : Ada m, 1880. Bron::e, 751h" x 29 lh H

Phi/ade/phia Museum

I

that is unava ilable lo s nyone else. Similarly, my thoughts

seem lo be Iransparent to rn y mind or my consciousness in a way that is direcl and present onl )' lO me_ It would scem that what 1 think can be merely inferred by a noLher

pe rson, can only reach him ind irectly ir 1 choose to report on m)' thoughts_

This picture of the self as enj oying a privil eged and di rect relaliollshi p lo the contcnts of its own consciousness is a picture o( Ihe self as basicall y priva le and discrete_

It is a piclu re which conju res up a whole set of meaning5

dcri ved from a range of private experiences lo which each oC us has subjecti ve access, meanings lhat exist prior lo

OUT communica tion wilh each other in lhe presento They

a re, one mighL say, lhe ver)' foundation on which such

communication musl be built, the background from which

it musl arise. It is onl y because 1 have th is experience

prior lo my contact with another person that 1 can know what he means in his va rious aels, his va rious gestures,

his "arious reports.

If this observation is transferred lo the real~ of sculp­

ture, it would seem that a sculptural language can only

become coherent and intelligible if it addresses itself to

these same underlying conditions of experience. 1 know

that certain conlractions oí muscles in my face occur

when 1 expe rience pain and therefore became an expres­

sion of pain, a representation of íl, so to speak_ 1 know

that cerlain configurations of the anatomy correspond to

certain aclS I pedorm, such as walking, lifting, turning,

pulling. Thus it would seem that the recognition of tbose

configurations in lhe sculptural object is necessary for

lhe meaning of that object to be legible ; that 1 must be

able to read back from the surface configuration to the

anatomical ground of a gesture's possibility in order to

perceive the significan ce of that geslure. It is this com­

munication between the surface and the anatomical depths

that Rodin aborts. We are left with gestures that are

unsupported by appeals to their own anatomical back­

grounds, that cannot address themselves logically to a recognizable, prior experience within ourselves.

But what if meaning does DOt depeod 00 this kind of

prior experience ? What if meaning, instead of preceding

experience, occurs within experience; what if my knowI.

edge of a feeling, pain for example, does not depend on

a sel of sensor)' memories bUI is invenled freshl y and

uniquely each lime il occurs lor me ? Further, \\Ihal if, in order lo experience il , I musl feel m)' bo<l y's very regislralion 01 il in relalion lO Ihe wa y anolher person

watches me and reacls lo m)' gestures of pain ? And, wirh rega rd lo someone elsc's sensalions, we might ask whelher

there is not a cerlain sufficienc)' in Ihe express ion of Ihem thal he makes, one {hal does nol require our consuhalion

of our own priva te lexicon of meanings in order lo co mo

plele Ihem. lo comprehend Ihem-whether, in fact. hi s

expression does nol enlarge ou r own lexico n, addin g lo il a new lerm, leaching us something new in the ver)'

originality of ils occurren ce.

This piclure oí meanin g being synchronous with experi­

ence, rather Ihan necessaril y prior lO il. is one that \Vas

deveJoped by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), a philos­

opher working al the time of Rodin's malure co reer .JI

Addressing himse lf to whal has heen called " Ihe paradox

of the alter ego," Husserl queslioned Ihe notion oí a seH

that is essentially privale and inaccessible (except indio

rectly) lo olhers. If one were lo belie\'e in this nolion of

the private self, he argued , each of us would be one

person lo ourselves and someone elsc for anolher. In

order lor Ihe "1" lo be Ihe same entity bOlh (or myself

and for Ihe pe'rson lO wh om 1 am speaking, 1 must become

myself as 1 manifest m)'self lo olhers; m)' seH must be

íormed al Ihe junclure between Ihat seH of which I am

conscious and thal external object which surfaces in a1l

the acls, gestures, and movements of my body.

Although Rodin had no contact with Husserl's philos­

ophy, so lar as we know, his seulptures manifest a notíon

oí the self whieh that philosophy had begun lo explore .

rhey are about a lack of premeditation, a lack of {ore·

knowledge, that lea ves one inlellectually and emolionally

dependenl on Ihe gestures and movements of figures as

they externalize Ihemselves. Narratively, in relalion lo the

doon, one is inunersed in a sense of an evenl as jt

coalesces, without Ihe distance from Ihal event that a

history of its causes would bestow. With the Gates as a

whole, aa with each individual figure, one is stopped at

the 8urface. The surface o( Ihe body, that boundary between what

we think of as inlernal and private, and what we acknowl-

28

22. NE"R RICHT Rodin: Mall\ Torso, 1877. Bronze, 20%" :c!1 .t 7%1" . MlI s¿e dll Pe/it Palai~ Paris. (Photo, B/llfo;) 23. FloR IlJCHT Rodin: The Walkin g Man ( backview detaif) , 1877. Bronze, 33*-· National Gafferr, Washinl/'" D.C. (Phata, Henry Maore) I

I

I

I

edge as external and public, is Ihe locus 01 mea ning (or

Rodin's sculpture. And il js a surfaee that expresses

equall y Ihe resulls oC internal and external (orces. The

inlerna l forces that condition the surface o( Ihe figure

a re, of coursc, analomical, muscular. The forces that

shape the fi gure from oUlside itself come from the a rtisl :

the aet oC manipulation , artífice, his process of making.

Ce rta in sculptures by Rodin could almost serve as

iIlustra ti ons for a manual on bronze-casling, so clearly do

lhey doeument Ihe proeedures of formalion . Sculptures

such Ihe Torso of 1877 (fig. 22) are riddled with

Ihe aecidents of Ihe foundry: air-pocket holes which have

nol been plugged ; ridges and bubbles produced in the

casling slage which have nol been filed away- a surface

marbeled wilh Ihe marks of process tha t Rodin has not

smoothed out but le(t, so that they are lhe visual e, 'idence

of lhe passage of Ihe medium itself from one slate lo

allother . This documenlation oC making is nol Iimited to the

accidents of mohen bronze during casting. Rodin's figures

are also brande<1 with marks that teH oC their rites o(

passage during the modeling stage: the lower back oC

The Walkillg MaTl ( lig. 23) was deeply gouged in ils

malleable clay (orm and the ¡ndentation was never filled

29

in: (he F1yif/g Figure t fig. 241 shows a knife cul Ihal has sl iced parl of the caH musd e 0 11 lhe ext('lIded leg-bul

no addi lional da)' has replaeed Ihis 1055: and Ihe lower

back and upper bUllocks of Ihe same fi ~'lJre bea r Ihe

mark of some hea"y obje<:1 Ihal has brushed the day when wel, fla ttening and erasing Ihe analomica l develop.

ment, making Ihe surface testi f)' 001)' lo Ihe fael Ihal something has dragged ils \Va)' ove r il. lO

Again and again Rodin forees the viewer lo ack nowl · edge the \\'ork as a resul! of a process, an act thal has

shaped the figure over lime. And Ihis aekn owledgmenl becomes another factor in forcing on Ihe viewer Ihat

condilion of which 1 have spoken: meaning clocs 110 1

precede experience but occurs in lhe process of cxperi­

enee iLself . lt is on lhe surfaee of Ihe work Lhal two senses of process coioeide- there the ex ternal iza tion of

geslure meeLs with thc imprinl of Ihe artis!'s aet as he

shapes the work . Nowhere in Rodin 's oeuvre is this lodgin;;, of meaning

in the su rface as eloquenll y and directl)' effeeled as in Ihe Balzac monument ( fi g. 2S ), whieh Hodin produ ced on eommission in 1897. Allhough Rodin's preliminar y sludies

for the work are of a nude figure, the final version com·

pletely swalhes the hody of the wriler in his dressiug gown. 'fhe arros and hands can barely be delccted under·

30

24. Anoy.: /( odin : Fl ying Figure. /890-9/. Bronze, 20'4" x 30" x JJ% ". Musée /(fuJin, PI/ris. ( fJlwto , E,ic Poffitzer )

25. NEAII RI C IIT Rodin; /897. Bron :l:, Jl 7" x 471,t.í " . Colleclion, The 01 M orlrrfl ..In, Nf:w York. ( Pholo . Rosali fld E. Krauss)

26. ABOYE IU C II T Rosso : The GolJclI A¡;c, 1886. fPax over ¡, fuster . 17~;Í<". el/lluia d' Ar/f, ROlllf:.

nea lh the robe as Ihey reaeh from inside lo hold it fas t :

and so lill le does the gown d isplay of the bod)', as the

fabri e plunges from shoulders lo toes with the empt y ar ms of the g¡¡ rment reinforcing the vertica lily of ·its falJ ,

Ihat Hilke was mO"ed to describe Ihe head of the Balzae

as somelhing enti re ly aparl from the bod)' . The head seemed lO be " Ii \,jng al Ihe surnmil of Ihe figure." Ril ke

wrote, " Iike those halls that dance on jels of waler." 1I

Rilke's metaphor. in its stunning accuraey, poin ls lo the

\Vay in whieh Rodin engulfs the Balzac bod)' wilhin a

single gesture whieh beeomes a representalion of the sub­

jeel's will. Wrapping his gown around him, the figure

makes his writer's bod)' through Ihat momenlary, ephem­

eral arrangemenl of surfaee; he molds his own flesh inlo

a columnar support as though his genius, eoncenlrated iolo the eonlraeled fea tu res of his faee, \Vere being held

aloft by a single ael of delermination.

It is the inlervention of a pieee of clolh between viewer

and sculplural figure whieh, Iike the Balzac, characlerizes Ihe work by Medardo Rosso Ihat is closest in spirit lo

Rodill 's OWIl . AIl Italian contemporar)' of Rodin , Rosso spenl Ihe last Iwenl)' )'ears of his ca reer in Frauee, where

he was illlensely envious of Rodin's growing repuhltioll . Feeling Ihat much of whal was "original" in Rodin 's a rt

was sha rcd alld even anticipated in his own, Rosso

31

pointcd lo his own clCva lioll of lhc úo:.::elfo, 0 1' rough sketch, into lhe slalure of ;'finishcd" work. He saw his

OWIl roughened sll rfaccs. cloqucnt ",i lh Ihc impr in l of his

fill gers as he "'orkcd Ihem alld his own presenlalion of

ges lure Ihrough fmgmclllalion of Ihe hody. as furthering

thal claim. Yel. as we saw in Ihe 1883 MOIJ,er (md e hild Sleepillg.

Rosso's work fro m Ihc ea rl )' parl of his career rcmains

within lhe tradilional vein of sculplural relicf. No matle r

how ruffied amI bruised Ihe skin of Tite Golde" Agc, 1886 ( fi g. 26 / . or VciJed W OI1l0Tl, 1893. Ihcse surfaces

do nol ach ie\'e the ki nd of self·sufficiency and opacily

that Rodill 's do. 1::! The)' continue lo refer beyond them·

selves lo an llnseen si de. lo a prcvious mamen t in Ihe

narral ive chain, lO projecl inward loward an inlernal

emolional condit ion. Only in l11u ch laler 1I'0 rk- in Ihe 1906-0; Ecce PI/ er! ( fi g. 27) - does Rosso dra", close lo

!.he deepest resources of Rodin 's ar t.

Tite story surrou nding this late work places its ori ,!! ins

in a " isil Rosso paid to some friends in Paris. Therc he

caught a glimpse of Ihe ~' oung son of Ihe fam il y hall

hidden behind lhe curtaill ed entn' lo Ihe li \'in!! room. . ,

shyl )" lislening to Ihe aduhs talking wilhin . Surprised by

Rosso's glance. lhe hoy started back. and Rosso disco\'ered

32

27. FAR U:FT ROSJO : Eccc I'ucr !' /906-07. fflax Ol/er

17" 14" 8" plaster, x x . Col/eetion 01 L ydir/ K . (lf!d lIarry L. rflill5tQn (Dr. (lnd Mrs. Bamett ¡\falbin, New York).

28. NEAR LEn He etor G/úmard (1867-/942): Sidc Tablc ( Jeta;/), ca. /908. Pear WOOI/,

29%" . Col/ection, The M/acum o/ Mod ern Art, New York . Gilt 01 Mme. H ecto' Guimard.

in thal visua l melee of drapery , shadow, and expression a momentary fusion of limidity and cu rios it y. In that

f1eeling moment Rosso lea rned whal the amhivalent sel oí feeHngs looked likc. Wi lh Ecce Puer! Rosso expresses

hOlh Ihat knowledge and lhe act of its coa lescing. The chUd 's features are "eined by the folds of curtain which groove the wa x sudace of lhe sculplure, so Ihal the

solidi ty o f lhe flesh is irretrievably soÍlened h)' a depic.

lion of lhe speed wi lh which lite appari lion formed and

d isappeared befo re Ihe artisl's eyes. Thus, the surface lhal obscures anel shrouds Ihe ¡mage oí the child simul ·

taneously carries lhe meaning of the boy's expression.

Ecce Puer.' hegins and ends in this sudace ; nothing is

implied beyond il. This emphasis on sudace and Ihe wa y meaning is

lodged within it by fac tors that are partly external­

whelher Ihe accidental patle rn of light 0 1' the casual

impress of the artis t's thurnh--were nol restricted to the

IwO grea l sculptural personal ities of the last decade of

the nineteenth cenlury and the firsl decade of the ·twen·

lieth . Ahhough Rodin and Rosso broughl this to its fullest

pitch oí meaning, one finds ev idence of a corresponding

sensibility within Ihe decorati\'e arls of Ihe time, par·

ticularly wilhin the st)' le called arl nouveau. Whether we are talkin "" about the melal inkweUs and candleslicks of o

Victor Horta 0 1' Henry Van de Velde, 01' the carved

íurniture of Hector Guimard (fig. 28), Ihe decorated

vases of Louis Tillany and Emile Gallée, 01' the architec·

tural falSades of Anlonio Gaudí , we find a design style that cloes llol concern ilself with lhe internal structure oí

an object. Generally speaking, art nouveau presenls vol.

ume with an undifferentiated sense of the interior, con·

centratint'Y inslead on its surface. As in the sculpture 01 o Rodin and Rosso, the surfaces of these objects bear

evidence of an external process of formalion. They are

execu ted in such a wa)' that we feel we are 100king at somelhing thal was shaped by the erosion 01 waler over

rock, or by the Iracks of waves 0 11 sand , or by the ravages o f wind ; in shorl, by what we think oí as the passage of

nntura1 forces o\'er the surface of maller. Shaping those substnnces {rom Ihe ou tside, these forces act with no

regn rd lo the illlrinsic structure of the material on which the)' work. In Ihe furniture of lhe French and Belgian

S3

arl-nOlll'eall dcsip, lle r5_ one neve r finds a clearl)' slaled

di sli nclioll be t\\'ccll ve rtica l. 10:1(!·beari n1; mcmhers nnrl

hor izo nlnl slII'faces. Tlle jUllclure helwecn Inb le 10p nnd

lable lee. Oo\\'s in lo a single cu n 'C Ihal is ex press ive onl )'

of the applica tio ll of some kind of exte rn al pressu re­

like wind bend illg reeds. 0 1' Ihe lides sha pi llg Ihe slems

of wa le r plnnls.

The desig-Jls wilh which Tillan )' ve ins Ihe su rfnccs of

his glass objecls likew ise obscure fU llcti ona l 0 1' slruclu rnl

divisions. sucll as the sepa ra lio ll between fool. hod)'. neck

and li p of ti Ya se. Inslcad. one fin ds pa llern s dcrived from

olher natural. melllbranous tissue- fen lhers, Oowe r petals.

cobwebs. leaves-graft ed ont o Ihe swol1en ex te ri o r of ¡he

glass. ex pressing nn even puH of tcnsion ove!' Ihe surfnce.

In the lhree·d imensiona l work of anothe r la lc·nin eleenlh .

ccntury arli sl there is a corresponding vision of sculp­

tural expression ns Ihe surface deco ra ti on oí holl ow

vessels. Most oC Paul Gauguin's scul pture. wheth er carved

or modeled, occurs as the nppliea ti on of anatomical frag.

roent to the surfaee of hollo\\' shapes. Consisten t with the

impu lses 01 orf nouveau in genera l, Ihe eX le rnal articula­

lion of these \·essels- as in Ihe pot here ( fi g.. 29) 01'

The Altemoon 01 a Foun- indicates nolhing of th e

internal slructure of the objecl, so thal Ihe arra ngemenl

of one par! of lhe faee of the object in relation to another

has no feelino: of being rationa1\ y or structu rall y com­

pelled. The bulges and swells of these surfaces speak nol

so much of a composi li on lhat co uld logicall y be kn own

beforehand as they do 01 magical or primitivc forces

which the artist has discovered in the act of creating lhe

parlicular cOllstell ali on of images wilhin an)' g iven ohj ect.

Ga ugu in's sculpture mukes reference lo narrati ve onl y lo

generate U sense 01 irralionalil y, 0 1' mystery. Gauguin

presents the pieces of a slor)' bU I withoul a seq uell ce lhal

.,..,ou ld give lhe viewer a sense of acc ural e 01' ve rifiahle access lo Ihe meanin g of lhe cl'ent lo which lhe a rtisl

altudes. The proced ures Ih al Gauguin uses lo deny Ihe viewer

access to Lhe na rratil'e mean ing of his sculplure are closc lo Rodin's procedures on Ihe Gates 01 IJell. Vi olenll)'

fragmenling the vari ous prolagonists wilh in Ihe na rrali ve

ensemble, enlorcing Lh e di sconlinuil )' und disrupli oll wi lb which they move ac ross Ihe surlace, a rclj ef such as !le

34

29. L[rT Paut Cauguin (I848-1903): Pot in [he Shape of the Head and Shoulders o( a Youog Ci rl . cu. 1889. Sloneware. i~" . PriL'a/e collre/ion. Paris. ( Ph%, Archives Plr%graphiqlles. Poris )

30. 11IC IlT Cal/ guin: Be in Love. You Will Be Happy. /90/ . P(¡inled lUood relie! . 28~8" x 28% ". Courlesy MuseuII! 01 Filie Arts. BosIO II . Arth11r Trr¡cy CabOI FUlld.

in Love, You Will Be floppy ( li g. 30 ) subverls Ihe tradi ­

li onal log ica l fun cti on of Ihat mode of sculplure .1a

As we have seen, Rodin used )'et another slrategy in Ihe

Cales (flg. 5) lo defeat Ihe co nvenli ona l mea ning of

na r rativc, and Ih at was lo repeal fi gures, as he had done

wilh Ihe Shades ( li g. n ), and to present Ihese ident ica l

units, one nex l lo Ihe other. Th is kind of repeli li on forces

a self·conscious accou nt of process lo usur p attention from

Ihe object's role in Ihe overall na rra tion. It \Vas this ki nd

of refe rence lo the process of creation that informed the

sculpture of Rodin's mosl progressive foJl ower- Henri

Mati sse.

Working for the most part \\' ilh small -seale b ronze

figures, Matisse ex plored much of the territor y Rodin had

a lready covered. The surlaces of his figures fo llow Ihe

o lder a rlisl's exa mple in the lest imony the)' bea r lo th e

procedures of modeling: Ihe gouging and pinching, the

min or add itions and subtractions of ma lerial, the traces

of Ihumb and hand as they worked the clay . Matisse' l?

inclina tion lo express Ihe human form through anatomical

ss

íragments deri"es frorn Rodin, as do certain actual poses

taken from Rodin's work, such as the way Matisse's Serl repeats the stance of Rodill 's Walkillg Man. In addition,

one finds sculptures by Matisse- such as Stan din g Nude with Arms Raised (1906 ) and The Serpentine (fig . 31)

(l909) - that express the arrns and legs of the figures as

undifferentiated rolls oí clay echoing Rodin 's figurines

oí dancers in which representation of the body is arrested

at the first stage of a sketch done in clay coils ( fig. 32).

Indeed, it was out oí this fascination with process that

Matisse's rnost original and radical formulatÍon of the

possibilities of sculpture carne.

•

36

31. fAR LEFT Henri Matisse (1869-1954): The Scrpentine, 1909. Bronze, 2214". Collection, The Ml/ seu II! o/ Modern Art, New York. Gi/t 01 Abby Aldrich Rockelefler.

32. NEAR LEFT Rodin : Dance Movement A, ca. 1910-1911. Bronze, 28" x 8%" x 13 t,{¡ " . Musée Rodin , Paris.

33. ABOVE LEFT Mat isse: Jeannett e. 11. 1910- 13. Bronze, 10%". Collection, The MlIseum 01 Moden¡ Art, New York. Gilt o/ Sidney f anis.

34. ABOVE CEl'·;TER Marisse: Jeannelte, I1I, 1910- 13. Bronze, 23*". Collection, Th e Musuem 01 Modan Art, New York. Acquired Ihrough the Lillie P. Bliss Bequest.

35. ABOVE RICHT Matiss e: JeanneUe, V, 1910- 13. Bronze, 22%". Col/celion, Th e MI/seum 01 Modern Art, New York. Acqllired thro/Igh lhe Liltie P. Bliss Bcqllest.

In 1910-13 Matisse rnodeled five versions oí a female

head , producing the series of Jeannette I- V (figs. 33, 34,

and 35), which arranges in linear progression the artist's

analysis of physiognomic formo In this series, Matisse

takes the notion oí a linear string oí events that concep·

tion which we have been calling narrative and reorients

it to become a kind oí analytic ledger on which is written the account oí formal conception and change.

With the serialization of the head oC Jeanneue, one

finds oneself very íar from the kind oí concentration of rnany historical moments into a single " pregnant" image that was found in Rude's La Marseillaise ( fig. 4). Instead,

one is confronted with a single perception prolonged

over the various moments of its development each one projected as a separate image. JeanT"fette I-V is the logical completion of what the Shades had begun; the ambition to interpret snd condense the meaning of history has contracted to a presentation of steps in an object's

farmation .

37