LIPPOLD, RICHARD - looking for pict. of his work - The SUN, 1956

hello, i'm looking for the picture of Lippold, Richard's Sun (1956) for my art project. i'm not quite sure, but i believe that it's now in the collection of the Metropilitan Museum of Art, New York City. if anyone has the picture of this piece (Sun by Lippold, Richard) please send me a link or send it to me directly at

thanks, moe

Moe, Because post-war sculpture is rarely the piece that most museums select for promotion on websites, publications, etc., it might not be all that easy to quickly obtain a picture of Lippold's Sun but Lippold contributed to a few art journals with some frequency and one in particular, Arts (no longer in print, known in the 1950s) Magazine (aka, Arts). There was an article called 'Lippold makes a sculpture.' And it was part of a series where post-war artists were interviewed and showed the process of their work, another popular one was 'Will Barnet makes a lithograph.' I know it sounds corny but they were very popular. Anyway, in that article, if my memory serves me, Lippold was making Sun. So, I'd bet a good art research library would have back issues of Arts and you could probably find it in the 1956 or so issue. If I can find the reference, I'll email it to you.

Why didn't the post-war artists receive the same critical and popular acclaim as their counterparts in painting? Why are these artists and their work so difficult to find? Well, simply, there are about 7 to 8 painters to every sculptor. Sculpture as a process has a slower production time than painting, and requires different and less accessible and more expensive materials than painting. In the post war era of the Abstract Expressionists, people were more interested in purchasing art that they could install over the sofa (paintings) rather than pieces that required them to excavate their backyard for installation (large scale sculpture). What's interesting about this period in sculpture is that the artists of the era, whether they were painters or sculptors, dealt with similar issues, themes, ideas in their art. A major theme of the period was the issue of renewal, rebirth, and the life, seasonal, and celestial cycles. It derives from the events of World War II and the widespread interest in trying to rebuild after the chaos and the crisis of the war. Sun by Lippold as well as pieces such as Constellation by Ibram Lassaw, and many works by the post-war painters dealt with the theme of the celestial cycles. The idea, simply, was that even after war, nature shows us that hope springs eternal, and the sun will always come up in the East. After the negativism that this generation had experienced from 1914 to 1945, a new optomism was on the horizon as evidenced by the homefront reunions, the baby boom, the building of the Levittowns in post-war America. Well, enough of that, I'll try to see if I can find a Lippold image and you can consider some of these suggested titles too. Good luck. Lori

If you are really interested in the topic, I suggest that you read Stephen Polcari's wonderful book, 'Abstract Expressionism and the Modern Experience' Cambridge University Press, 1991 or a recent issue of 'Art Journal' by guest editors Mona Hadler and Joan Marter on Post War Sculpture

me,(snip)

Nice write up Lori. The artists from the late forties to the end of the fifties represent a period of intense innovation for that time and a high degree of craftsmanship and masterful work. That was a time of what was considered daring experimentation regarding process. This is one reason for that particular interest. Looking back on some of those works I have a lot of respect for what was done and in fact this is my favorite period of American and British sculpture.

Much of the innovations we see today make the works of yesteryear pale by comparison perhaps but do keep in mind that the technology that was mainly employed was creative brain power and manual skills. Today we have unlimited technical resources at our disposal so we can more easily dazzle our audience without relying solely on our internal resources.

I might wonder about your remark Lori about how corny it might be for artists to discuss process in the articles written at the time. I think a bit more of this sort of thing in fact might benefit not only the public at large but artists working today as well.

I remember being at a sculptors conference in Washington some years ago (1970's). When Seymore Lipton was discussing his work dealing with process I was dismayed that so many artists at that time thought it was pretty corny too. I couldn't figure that out right away and was very annoyed at the discourtesy shown to him. Well I did figure it out actually and that is that it was a pretentious alignment with those who held the reigns in the artworld. These folks (critics, dealers and curators) were completely lost when it came to the how of sculpture (they were more comfortable with painting) so they considered process to be 'dirty' work and wanted to hear nothing about that. The sculptors trying to make their bones with the establishment picked up that idea and polished up the wording concerning the work they did. I guess we call that putting a spin on our story. Well it's a very up to date thing to do I suppose.

Why is it that we should be embarrassed to discuss how and why we do what we do? Can someone explain that to me?

Scupture in most forms is a very technical process and one doesn't simply grab a tool and go at it and produce worthy results right off. Assemblages and subcontracting fabrication work done by others, maybe, but not for many other forms. It's not a fun thing to do going to exhibitions and seeing so many works shabbily put together. Some of these ill conceived works may have a great germ of an idea but when the execution is flimsy then that idea loses it's power and fails to be fully expressed in sculptural terms. Sculpture is a form that states a concept, just like the words we use. A badly articulated phrase is as useless to convey a complex thought as a badly made piece of sculpture. The idea rarely comes though complete and whole.

Sculptors who become disconnected with their peers in terms of exchanging their experiences and skills leaves a lot of folks stuck on step one or maybe step two. I should think we would want to do better than that for ourselves. I don't know of anyone who woke up one morning and suddenly discovered he/she had mastered the techniques required for their profession.

Well, maybe I'm wrong about that and maybe it really does happen all the time.

Chris Ray - sculptor

Well conceptual work has been around a lot longer than that although this particular form began to take hold with a larger audience from the 60's onward. There is a definite craft associated with this form although I believe it's misunderstood sometimes. Conceptual work is more akin to the craft of the theater arts than dimensional work in my opinion and this still requires a high degree of skill to be successful rather than a boring excercise in mental gymnastics.

In a way I think it's as demanding in terms of process as the art of caligraphic brush painting. What I mean by this is that often enough a concept is expressed in a very abstract and a sometimes obscure minimalist way that can only be understood in terms of its own process. There shouldn't be any difference between these forms in terms of fulfilling our expectations.

If the crafting of a concept alone through unconventional means is to have the power of essential ideaness then I think that the means is the only avenue we have available to understand that thought. It's not enough just to assemble what is thought to be related material, writing and action into a meaningful whole but like theater should be choreographed into a well knit orchestration. Caligraphy is done in a similar way since it is conveying the essense of idea through a combination of visual form and verbal ideas not easily understood at first blush. However the well executed form itself becomes very important since the integration of idea and process together produces a third element of a kind of defined reality. Of course this is true of all works of art regardless of form.

I don't think that conceptual works are any different in this regard than dimensional pieces and from my point of view ought to be judged or evaluated based on the same principles that we judge any other art form. Who among us will sit through three acts of a badly acted stage performance? Not many and so why should we be more tolerant with works that may be well conceived but inadequately executed. Nothing turns me off more than coming face to face with a piece that has perhaps a brilliant concept but is so poorly executed that it defeats itself. What a let down of legitimate expectations.

Perhaps with some works, whether conceptual or otherwise, understanding of a basic idea without depth (similar to signage or graphic works), is all that's really required. I think that in this case laziness or indifference on the part of the artist becomes the accepted norm if such works are indiscriminately integrated into the whole of the arts. There's nothing inherently inferior about one art form or another the problem arises when amatuerish efforts are raised to the level of a fine art.

<Here in Canada's univercitys and art colleges though, it is impossible to find an <instructor who is willing to teach the importance of a technical vocabulary. Is it <the same in the States?

No, not really but one might have that impression based on the more visible practioners of the arts. I know a number of teaching professionals who do in fact stress process as an important part of their curriculum. Of course I'm also aware of institutions that aggressively discourages such practice as well.

Chris Ray - sculptor

Gentlemen, It seems as if there is a great deal of interested and knowledgeable parties responding to Moe's question about Lippold et. al. Having spent a pretty long time studying sculpture and this issue of process vs. subject matter, I am happy to hear your thoughts about this interesting issue. I hope to continue this conversation on gallery talk at http://www.masterpiece-galleries.com/talk and I hope you won't mind if I make some comments here too. Thanks for the response. I'm thrilled to hear your ideas and thanks for sharing your info. Lori Lori Verderame, Ph.D Director, Masterpiece-Galleries http://www.masterpiece-galleries.com

That's how many see it. With Tony Smith and the minimalists and the movement towards conceptual art, this is what happened at least based on my research, I've found that to be the case.

I agree that conceptual work does in fact require a high degree of skill, thinking, and background in a variety of subjects.

I think most of us would agree with that.

well.

I agree with Chris about the educational practices in most US colleges and universities. As for the post-war artists, the critics and curators had difficulties discussing these technical (aka, dirty work) processes and thus, ignored these artists and decided to leave the works 'out of the loop' in terms of exhibitions and scholarship because the processes were not part of the vocabulary. Brazed metal, spot welding, and manipulating sheet metal is far afield from the context of 'art' for many. I'd be interested to know if you think your students have a good sense of the history of sculpture.

I often think of the late Albert Elsen, Stanford Professor, who was interviewed shortly before his death and was asked if he had a comment on why sculpture did not have the same status as painting in the 'hierarchy of the arts' and he replied that it is not taught. And it is not taught in the same way that one approaches teaching painting or other media. Universities don't set sculpture as a priority and the curriculum and the discipline suffer. Interesting. Lori

[Yes, it's nice to have some theoretical-type discussion here, as well as the technical. Perhaps we should change the name of the thread, though, if we're going to continue. Some interesting questions have been raised: Is sculpture a stepchild of modern art because it's so indissoluably wedded to process? Is it capable of being a vehicle for 'conceptual' art? Is a theoretically excellent work compromised by uncraftsmanlike execution, or should only the artist's intent matter? Is sculpture given short shrift by educational institutions, and if so, why?]

I hope to

[The site looks interesting, Lori, but the 'talk' URL above gave a 'not found' message. When I went to the site and clicked the 'gallery talk' link, Netscape crashed with an error of type 2. So if you haven't been getting much traffic there, it might not be because nobody's interested in talking about art.]

Andrew Werby

UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff http://unitedartworks.com http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools

My apologies. I am happy hear that we can continue this art conversation at http://www.masterpiece-galleries.com/talk.htm

I hope you'll try again. Lori

HTTP/1.0 403 Access Forbidden (Read Access Denied - This Virtual Directory does not allow objects to be read.)

The page won't load in Netscape 4.5 but it's fine in IE 3.0