Sculptural Multiples Theory and Practice

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Woodward, R en Aust, Jacqueline en 2012-04-17T21:24:46Z en 2011 en
dc.identifier.uri en
dc.description Full text is available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland only. en
dc.description.abstract A critical evaluation of the character of the sculptural multiple often begins, simply, with a consideration of the techniques of its production, followed by a more complex discussion about ethics, authenticity and authority. Exploring the relationship between the notions of ‘authentic original’ and ‘multiple copies’ with reference to the work of Auguste Rodin, Rosalind Krauss1 touches on the role of the artist as a form-giver who celebrates the concept of individual originality relative to the process of creation through repetition. The sculptural multiple is revealed as a paradox. On the one hand ‘original’ is considered authentic and ‘duplication’ is discredited, while on the other hand, the copy reinforces the value of the concept of original. Although sculpture had been reproduced as multiples of an originating form for centuries, by the late nineteenth century artists began to integrate the ethos of mass-production into their processes and aesthetic. The sculptural multiple became a tool used by artists to critique prevailing ideology and the distinction between non-art and art, mechanical technology and manual craftsmanship, became blurred. The artist became an organiser of a machine aesthetic, moving away from the role of individual creator of hand-crafted objects, and distancing artistic authority from the process of production and the object produced. Seriality emerged as a system of ordering multiples so that meaning was made out of the relationship between one object and other similar objects. Thus a discussion about issues of the authenticity and originality of sculptural multiples begins with the mechanics of production - not just who makes the art work and how it is made, but also how it is perceived in its context. The discussion continues, however, with artists from Rodin to Marcel Duchamp, Claes Oldenburg and Donald Judd to Elizabeth Thomson, Eddie Clemens, Gregor Kregar and Antony Gormley, who have each developed aesthetic conventions whereby individual, visually similar objects gain relevance in their relation to each other, and to the united logic of the whole. As a paradox the sculptural multiple exists at the interstice of corresponding opposites, the individual and the group, identity and anonymity, singular and multiple. en
dc.publisher ResearchSpace@Auckland en
dc.relation.ispartof Masters Thesis - University of Auckland en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights Restricted Item. Available to authenticated members of The University of Auckland. en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.title Sculptural Multiples Theory and Practice en
dc.type Thesis en The University of Auckland en Masters en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en en
pubs.elements-id 343682 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2012-04-18 en

Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace