Putrid Pisa pulpit?
26 February 2008 4 Comments
Iconia notes a post by the Cranky Professor, who derides a recent addition to the cathedral at Pisa.
I might have to agree with him. As a piece of furniture in a gorgeous medieval cathedral, this work is very strange. I’m all for contrast — in fact contrast is a necessary and sometimes underutilized aspect of the visual environment — but there seems to be very little visual communication between this modern pulpit and, well, anything else in the church!
The green foliage atop the structure seems quite out of place, and in fact looks like a ceramic glaze applied to this marble sculpture. The space between the figures and the background is akward, mostly on account of the background’s lack of modeling. It’s very curious to me why the artist didn’t three-dimensionally render the tree’s trunk and limbs.
However, I like the figures. In and of themselves they are beautiful pieces of sculpture, a combination of tranquil minimalism in the bodies and passive authority in their countenances. Were these figures detached from the mish-mash behind them I would appreciate the work.
As a whole, though, it is unsuccessful.
Oh, my.
Uggh.
I can understand tension, informal composition… but this is just awkward, both in the internal harmony of the piece (between the individual elements) and in relation to its environment. I think the bit that appears to be melting over the step and onto the floor is meant to be inspired, but it’s just obtuse. What overriding force of symbolism or visual balance gave rise to THAT?
I try, in my mind anyway, to focus on works that I like. This doesn’t always happen though, and as artists we always need to be ready and able to take constructive criticism ;-} And when I review openings, everything’s up for grabs anyway!
This one was just too good to pass up.
Remember, there’s going to be a fourth figure behind them – the preacher!! Yikes!
–the Cranky Professor
Pingback: Semi-accidental Stumbled-upons : the way you worship is the way you live