DEFINING SPACE IN SCULPTURE
Defining
Space
“Space
is a difficult concept. It is less mysterious, less mystical, than time, but
more intricate, more
mathematical. Space, we feel, is the barest possibility of existence, and from
this we may argue that it must have the fewest possible properties, and be
undifferentiated…But is space anything then?”
J.R. Lucas (1973:95)
Defining space is never an easy task.
All by itself, it is intangible, limitless and ever presence. Yet it gives very
little clue on how human should interact with it. Generally speaking, the only
way that man is able to identify and define space is by creating meaningful
forms to mark the certain specific point in space and as the result; this
specific point can be differentiated from the rest of the undefined space. According
to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1974), space
carries several meanings of which one of them reads;
Space: that in all objects exists and moves:
the universe exists in space: interval or distance between two or
more objects. (p.917)
or;
Space-time: (also known as ‘the fourth dimension’)
fusion of time and the three dimensions of space, as a concept much used modern
physics and philosophy. (ibid).
do not really describe the
characteristic of space per se but
merely representing it by adding other elements such as objects
with mass, density, time or even measurement of the interval between these objects
situated in space. The question of what is the reality of space is still left
unanswered.
For example the spherical mass of planet
earth marks a point in the vast limitless space of the universe. This specific
space which is displaced by the mass then be identified as Earth. On a smaller
scale, a pebble on a deserted beach too marks a specific area of space and the
list may go exhaustively long but man can never fully explain space without
ever adding external elements such as mass, distance or time in order to
understand it.
In the world of philosophy and science,
various theories have surfaced to explain and rationalized the space; the
earliest being the Euclidean Space (circa 300 B.C) which postulated that space
can be understood through mathematical equations and based on theorems of
geometry.
Euclidean
(or Cartesian) space is the mathematical abstraction and extension of the
'ordinary' three dimensional space of everyday life. The first mathematical
treatment of this space is Euclid's
Elements, composed about 300 bce. The Elements begins with a set of definitions
and postulates from which it derives the theorems of geometry… (Heath, T. L,
1956)
Cartesian
Space (1596-1650), Lobachevsky (1793-1856), Riemannian Space (1826-1866), Newtonian
Space to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity came out with their techniques of
measuring space. All these theories
required mathematical formulation in
their
quest of quantifying the space; looks impressive and complex on paper but when
it comes to their application in the real temporal space, still needs form to
differentiate any two entities of space.1
The premise of space which is going to be
examined here is of different dimension from a physical one (physical in a
sense of its temporality) but it is also pertinent to discuss space as an
overview and eventually forming a departure point of the study. Basically
a sculptural exercise follows and extends this rule into the realm of
aesthetics.
Traditionally the
exercise is a process of aesthetically defining any given space. In other word,
the form which carries certain meaning understood by certain set of
people/culture over certain area of space. Therefore a sculptural exercise is
dealing with an issue of defining the space aesthetically, first and foremost. Yet
this essential element is most of the time been overlooked by Western
aesthetics to the point of relegating space as the by product of form.2
Tradition which
has been mentioned here refers to the evolution of sculptural exercise in the
Western culture- From Classical Greek to the present styles. This meaning of
‘tradition’ is used exclusively to illustrate the evolution of the Western
sculptural art. It is significantly different from the meaning of tradition
which is going to be explicated in the latter chapter and will be used in the
following chapters to come.
Space can only
be defined through symbolism by adding forms to it. It is simply because form
can be easily perceived by human’s perceptive faculties; it is given the pivotal
role of defining space – socially, culturally, scientifically or aesthetically.
As the result, most of the sculptural exercise revolves around forms, to the
point of relegating space as a mere by product of form which occupies it, thus
forgetting the real issue of defining the space.
This is quite
true in term of the Classical Greek3 sculptures such as Kroisos (c. 525 B.C.) to Neo-Classicism4 styles of
Antonio Canova exemplified in Perseus with
the Head of Medusa, (1808c. 865/8 in.) which the concern was
primarily on form and relegating space to the secondary status.
In the wake of
the Modern Art5, specifically in the era of Constructivism6 sculptors have turned their
attention from solely in creating form to manipulation of space within their
sculptures. The pioneer of this transformation was Alexander Archipenko
(1887-1964) in his revolutionized work, Woman
Combing Her Hair, (1915). This transformation was finely articulated by
another constructivist, Naum Gabo in his
“Realist Manifesto” (1920);
Up to now, the sculptors have preferred the
mass and neglected or paid very little attention to such important component of
mass as space. Space interested them only insofar as it was a spot in which
volumes could be placed or projected. It had to surround masses. We consider
space from entirely different point of view. We consider it as an absolute
sculptural element, released from any closed volume, and we represent it from
inside with its own specific properties. (Gabo, N. qtd. in Burnham, J. 1968:150)
It is also noted
that the emergence of constructivism in the earlier part of twentieth century
was greatly influenced by the momentous scientific finding of the molecular
physicists which formed the underlying structure of the movement. Cubism, too
has contributed to the emergence of this movement; since constructivist space
was an extension of the Cubist ambiguous space and both were searching for the
solution to express the “fourth dimension.” Consequently this tendency led to
the inclusion of the element of time and motion which became a major concern of
the futurist7 and the kineticist
to the three dimensional space.
Scientific
attempt to define space has reached its end with the emergence of Quantum Theory and the General Theory of Relativity where
space and matter (form) arrived at the point of interchangeability. In the word
of Michael Talbot;
“In the new physics, matter and
empty space thus become one and the same.” (Talbot, M, …qtd. in
Wahid Bakhsh Rabbani, 1992:55)
Or in the word of
George Leonard (1978);
As we move closer to the nucleus, it too
begins to dissolve. It too is nothing more than an oscillating field, waves of
rhythm. Inside the nucleus are other
organized fields: protons, neutrons, even smaller "particles." Each of these, upon our approach, also
dissolves into pure rhythm. (p.32)
Any further
extension of these theories is a merely conceptions, notions and postulates
which cannot be realized in the real world space other than creation of another
more complex mathematical equations. Einstein, even after completion of his
Relativity Theory would hope that it flawed, that some other hidden variables
would surfaced to denounce the interchangeable entity of matter and space in
atoms;
Einstein had
even hoped that the quantum theory he helped create was somehow flawed, hoping
desperately, even in the face of the evidence of his own experiments, that
there would be a hidden variable that would establish order in the quantum
world. Later experiments, conducted at the University of California
in Berkeley on Bell's theorem, confirmed
the absence of any hidden variable,
(Mu Soeng Sunim,
1991)
When science,
specifically in the field molecular physics seemed to have exhausted its
logical explanation of this phenomenon, the solution came in the writing of Frithjof
Capra (1976 ) which clarified the relationship between the realm physics to the
sphere of Buddhist metaphysics through the concept of Sunyata;
the physicist's
interpretation of the subatomic world, in terms of the quantum field, is
closely paralleled by that of the Eastern mystic who interprets his or her
experience of the world in terms of an ultimate underlying reality. Buddhists
express the same idea when they call the ultimate reality Sunyata. "Emptiness"
or "the void"-and affirm that it is a living Void which gives birth
to all forms in the phenomenal world. (Pp.197-198)
In Islamic
worldview, this relationship can be related to the aspect of Sufism where the science of traditional
Islamic metaphysics, cosmology and their ontological connection were originated
and expounded. Of this relationship (molecular physics and the Sufism) is
clearly illuminated by Wahid Bakhsh Rabbani (1992) which mentioned;
…according
to the cult of Wahdat-ul-Wujud (oneness of being), God’s Being penetrates
everything in the universe including space, the building blocks of the
universe, which are nothing but God’s light which on devolution, appeared in
the form of wave-like particles or particle –like waves (as observed by recent
tests) penetrating the entire field of matter and space whose oneness already
been established by both scientists and the Sufis. (p.57)
In sculpture, it
can be understood that sculptures that showed the dominance of space with
minimal usage of form has exhausted itself by the end of 1930’s; what have
continued for the most part are improvisations on ideas generated by
Archipencko, Picasso, and the Constructivists. In the word of Jack Burnham (1968),
“Space, as a source of
expression, has become a dead issue for the present generation.” (p.152)
The
failure of the majority of the Western modern sculpture to induce space into
the sense of importance as had been achieved by form after Constructivism;
perhaps due to its inability to see space beyond the realm of temporality and
because Western art basically cannot see beyond the achievements of the modern
science.
The futurist
sculptors fascination with the element of time were manifested in form of
‘dynamism,’ in which they tried to arrest a sense of time through motions; like
photography or film in the static forms of their sculpture. Even though time
and motion denoted space; it is a space of temporality and the sense of
“presence” can only be felt fleetingly. Kineticism, on the other hand ventured
further to introduce the real physical motion in the sculpture. Besides
incorporating the ‘machine value’ into aesthetics, it tried to emulate this sense of
spiritual presence (anima) through physical motion. It is also noted that in
kinetic sculpture, the forces which generated the motion, either from
mechanical devices or from natural forces; such in the case of Jean Tinguely’s
self-destructive sculpture or Alexander Calder’s mobile were always hidden from
the spectators’ view. The reason for this is that it gives certain impact to
the viewer; a sense of “presence”. The Kineticist probably tried to evoke
spirituality8 in their sculptures but relying solely on the
scientific perspective, still embedded their sculptures in the temporal space.
On contrary, the
sacred architectures of the various religions of the East such as Buddhism,
Hinduism and Islam are imbued with the sense of space dominating the physical
manifestation of their arts. In other word forms are created in such a way;
with their signs and symbols that they evoked more compelling sense of
“spiritual presence” to the space. This special portion of space is certainly
not of the temporal entity but is more related to the metaphysical reality or
in the term of quality (sapientia)
rather than quantity (scientia).
Specifically in
Islamic art even the simplest form of a prayer mat; when properly designed and
decorated, will function as one of the most powerful tool to convert the
mundane temporal space into centered sacred space. It is simply due to the reason
that traditional Islamic perspective understands that space by itself is not from
the realm of the temporality nor can it be defined through quantitative
scientific method; but entirely of the qualitative, spiritual-metaphysical
entity. In other word, space is the only element that retains its
‘primordial state’ at this level of temporal existence, in the sense that man
can never fully comprehend its components nor manipulate it; in order to form a
link between the temporality to the Divinity. Schuon (1965) has explicitly
stated;
Space symbolizes
origin and immutability; time is the decadence which carries us away from the
origin while at the same time leading us towards the Messiah, the great
Liberator, and towards the meeting with God. (p.32)
The only
difference between the traditional and modern perspective of space is that in
the former, the qualitative element (sapientia)
is combined with its quantative element (scientia)
of space to form one cohesive form of understanding while the latter, following
the tenet of Cartesian Duality9 only regarded the scientia element as the only valid
explanation of space. Here space can be defined from two different angles; on
one hand is the perspective of modern science which put the space entirely
within the locale of temporality. Space is defined using quantitative
scientific methods which require complex mathematical formulae to rationalize
it theoretically. Yet space per se is
still unfathomable, inexplicable without ever adding forms or objects to define
it.
On the other
hand is the traditional perspective of space; in which the convergence of the sapiential and the sciential elements are manifested. Yet understanding the limitation
of the scientia; in this case the
natural science, space is more prominence in its the sapiential aspect in order to form a connection between the realm
of mundane to the realm of the spirituality through the science of metaphysics.
Thus, the other
logical extension of understanding space-form relationship in sculptural
exercise is by going beyond the rules of physical science and its quantifying
position which rely on
objectivity.10 It is not a rejection of the validity of physical
science but rather to draw an extension from it to the realm of quality. This
relationship has its logical sequence as clearly posited by Frithjof Schuon;
…there
are no ground for finding fault with the modern science in so far as it studies
within the limit of its competence – the precision and effectiveness of its
results leave no room for doubt on this point – one must add this important
reservation, namely, that the principle, the range and the development of a
science or an art is never independent of Revelation nor of the demands of
spiritual life. (p.35)
And as for “the demand of spiritual life” requires
the ontological connection between the form which is basically of objective manifestation
and their origin which is the subjectivity in space;
The hiatus
between nothingness and the least of objects is absolute, and the fast analysis
this absoluteness is that of God. (Schuon 1965:39)
The proposed
study is to understand the metaphysical aspect of space through the parameter
of Tradition which will be
explicated in the next chapter and hopefully is able to connect ontologically
the physical space to the Truth as the point of departure.
Mehmet Q Sauda'
4 Oct 2019
