Marcus Liburd
ND2 Group 3
Theme: Sculpture
November 2010
Appendix
Appendix 1 Appendix 2
Title: Object Title: Woven Child
Artist: Meret Oppenheim Artist: Louise Bourgeois
Materials: teacup, saucer and spoon Materials: Fabric, wood, glass
that the artist covered with fur from and steel.
a Chinese gazelle.
Date: 1936 Date: 2002
Size: cup 4 3/8 (10.9cm) in diameter, Size: 70x35x21inches (fabric
saucer 9 3/8” (23.7cm) in diameter, element) 70x35x21
spoon 8” (20.2cm) long, overall inches (vitrine).
height 2 7/8” (7.3cm)
In this essay I am going to compare two works of art which relate to my chosen theme of sculpture. Firstly I am going to describe both works of art separately considering their context as well as their formal elements then I am going to compare and contrast the two.
The first piece of work I have chosen is “Meret Oppenheim” (Appendix 1), This piece of work was created in 1936 and is a teacup, spoon and plate covered in fur from a Chinese gazelle .This piece of art work is a very good example of surrealist work because the fur as the top layer is very unusual. This catches the eye of the viewer because when you think of a cup, saucer and the plate you don’t expect to see them covered in fur. Looking at this piece of work it symbolises the culture of the caveman through the fur of the Chinese gazelle, this makes you think of wildlife and the outdoors, which relate to the way of the caveman. This piece looks very ancient and has significant features about it that gives the piece an effect of looking old.
The second piece of work I have chosen is by Louise Bourgeois (Appendix 2). This piece of work is called ” Woven Child” and was created in 2002 .This piece of art work is very smart because it shows the system of pregnancy through a manikin with a fetas wrapped in net on the women’s stomach . This makes the work a surrealist piece because you can see the baby, whereas in real life you can’t see the fetas through the women’s skin. The piece is very odd looking and uneasy to the viewer’s eye although it is easy to see the meaning of the piece. The way Louise Bourgeois has defined the meaning of this piece is simple and well thought through.
The similarities in the each piece of work (appendix 1) and (appendix 2) are as follows, they are both surrealist pieces. Both pieces of work are a form of sculpture; the colouring is neutral throughout both pieces of work. Each piece is unusual which makes you think what the point is and why the artist made the piece. They both express the meaning throughout each piece well. When the viewer looks at each piece they have to look again because there is an unexplainable meaning, this makes each piece eye catching.When looking at each piece you think about what the artist had to go through to create such a different, unusual piece of sculpture. You think of how they made the sculpture and how they came up with the idea of the piece.
I have compared the following two pieces (appendix 1) and (appendix 2) against each other to show the differences from the obvious ones you see to the ones you would think about just looking at the art work. Both pieces of art work have different materials used throughout to create the sculpture (appendix 1) using fur from a Chinese gazelle and (appendix 2) using fabric, wood, glass and steel. Each piece is a different object in life, they don’t relate to each other because (appendix 1) is to do with drinking tea and (appendix 2) is to do with a woman who is pregnant.
To conclude my essay I have found out the differences and similarities between the two pieces of work I chose. I have found that there are more differences between each piece than similarities although I have found a few similarities it was easier to find the differences within each piece.
Bibliography
Appendix 1
-Meret Oppenheim, Object 1936
Appendix 2
-Louise Bourgeois, Woven Child 2002
Art knowledge news online :
