Page 46 - Studio International - July August 1972

SOUTHAMPTON

Bryan Kneale

I have always varied the scale of my sculpture
considerably. Changes of scale, weight and
material are part of the vocabulary of sculpture,
and there are times when thousandths of an inch
are as critical as feet or yards might be on
another occasion. But the decisions taken relate.
Inevitably one's personal approach and concept
of sculpture remain unchanged no matter in
what circumstances the sculpture is conceived.
The opportunity to work on a massive scale
is pretty infrequent but the chance when it
comes — when it has a reason— has great point.
To be put at risk in this way enables a
variety of ideas to be tested and there is no
substitute for the experience.
I chose the site at Southampton for a specific
reason: it seemed that in this large rather
gloomy forecourt — a box with one side missing
and open to the sky — a sculpture could survive
on its own terms and be in fact a necessary and
logical structure to be placed there.
I was very conscious of the space and decided
to make a piece which would, as far as I was able,
use the space as something very much to do with
actual forms I made.
The site did not dictate the form the
sculpture took, but it did allow certain things to
happen which in working in a studio situation
could well not have occurred.
At the time I was working on the Stuyvesant
piece, I was also preparing my sculpture for the
`Sculptors '72' exhibition at the Academy and
the problems of these two situations were
radically different in nature.
In both cases I was strongly aware of the
space available. In the case of the Academy I
specifically did not want to occupy a complete
room, it was necessary for the sculpture I had in
mind— a totally symmetrical piece—to be
asymmetrically placed. Naturally the piece by sufficient interest not only to the visually trained
its form and exaggerated perspective would but also to those who might never have seen a
forcibly make the onlooker aware of the varied piece of contemporary sculpture. In other words
spaces and shapes which could be discovered by it must be self-sufficient.
physically moving around the sculpture. I was interested also in taking part in this
But it did need to be enclosed—the spectator project for quite another reason—the same that
had to be limited—by the physical space to influenced me in the organization of the
prevent him ever from seeing the piece except at `Sculptors '72' show. It seems to me that unless
comparatively close quarters. The levels and sculptors are given the opportunity to exhibit
spaces were made not only to work together but and work in a public arena the whole concept of
also to impose restrictions on the movement of art becomes relegated to a purely minority
teaching.
the spectator. occupation—accessible to fewer and fewer
In Southampton the situation was utterly people. In turn solely dependent on the
different. The sculpture could be seen from incestuous cycle of art schools and art
some considerable distance, under differing
weather—sunlight, rain—the movement of
shadows; the whole atmosphere and quality
gained by the fact that the site is on the top of a
hill.
The opportunities gained by placing work
outside are of course balanced by the demands Work for City Art Gallery forecourt, Southampton
made upon the work. It must justify its Painted mild steel
7.9 metres height
existence. If the object is to work it has to have Fabricated by Henry Hartley & Co. Ltd, London