Page 40 - Studio International - October 1967

2 The sense of 'Why not?': from this point of view is to miss the point of his work. As
he has explained, the choice to remain within a one-to-
George Segal on his art one system of proportions—cast figure to figure being
cast—is justifiable; for only in this way has he been able
to heighten and intensify the confrontation between the
'I have become interested in looking out at the
world. I don't want to report the world as a spectator and the plaster figures. Not only is this dramatic
reflection of my own blood vessels. I think that's effect achieved by correct proportions of figures cast to
the real reason I am still interested in using cast figures, but Segal's use of everyday objects—tables,
casting models.' chairs, etc.—demands a suitable scale relationship of these
plaster figures to the objects. The resulting play between
the mannikins and the objects upon which they sit, or
George Segal's palette is unique in that he deals exclu- lean and inhabit is composed in a highly dramatic way,
sively with plaster figures in an environment of objects with a sense of space and light that make his works
from the 'real' world. Like the relationship between the miniature scenarios, powerful vignettes of the world we
real and unreal in his work, Segal's affiliation with the know.
New York Scene is ambiguous. He is perhaps the most What becomes apparent in the following remarks of
excruciating naturalist composing with the human figure Segal on his art is his intense concern for surfaces of his
at a time when figurative art is still suspect. Yet because figures and the objects which he employs. Yet the epi-
of his tendency to create on a grand scale, of his incor- dermal considerations are no more or less than his
poration of highly controlled chiaroscuro effects through structural considerations, his sense of balance and design
the use of lights in and on his more recent pieces, Segal is governing the entire work. One is thus led to agree with
at the same time as radical as his contemporaries. the artist when he notes: 'I'm still working down an
The artist has often been criticized because of what area that I feel is virtually unexplored by either me or
seems at first to be a simple method of creating: casting anybody else.'
directly from the human figure. But to attack Segal's work

Ruth in the kitchen 1966
(second version)
plaster and mixed media
50 x 72 x 60 in.
Sidney Janis Gallery,
New York
`This is the second, stripped-
down version of Ruth in her
kitchen. The original was
crammed with a thousand of
her objects. They decayed. I
couldn't stand the mausoleum
effect so I removed them.
The whole thing is about
Ruth's life, not her tomb.'