variations on a theme : sets in art
……….works of art (simple, uniform, interchangeable elements assembled in a regular, easily apprehended arrangement) that are conceived in series or as part of a larger group; often the individual work is regarded as incomplete in itself, needing to be seen within the context of the whole………...
……………artists working sets of images represent a dramatic shift in artistic thinking and theory of the twentieth century. With the artistic embrace of multiplicity, the print medium became increasingly more accepted. The individual markings by the artist’s own hand lost its relevance, leading to relative demise of the original………….works do not present final aesthetic solutions, but rather they express a moment in the infinite multitude of possibilities……………
……………..repetition, both an aesthetic and a poetic device, is linked to notions of tradition, to the idea of an original and its copies, originality, authenticity, and appropriation……….Why repeat? Do repetition artists use same motifs over and over again to achieve perfection?............readymades are marked as images that ridiculed the need of tradition to provide special meaning to the production and the choice of materials. Pop artists, minimalists, performance, and conceptual authors, adopted the concept of appropriation and repetition as a way to undermine ideas of authenticity and value……………..
deviation vs derivation
deviation—late 14c., "a going astray, a turning aside from the (right) way or course, a going wrong, error," from Late Latin deviatus, past participle of deviare "turn aside, turn out of the way," from Latin phrase de via, from de "off, away" (see de-) + via "way" (see via). From 1630s as "departure from a certain standard or rule of conduct or original plan."
derivation—the general meaning "origination, descent" is from c. 1600; that of "act or fact of drawing or receiving from a source" is from 1650s. the obtaining or developing of something from a source or origin……in generative grammar, the set of stages that link the abstract underlying structure of an expression to its surface form.
Rodin’s innovativeness resided in the fact that casting versions became a systematic part of his creative process…..…..Rodin also took advantage of the opportunities that multiplication afforded within a work, using the same figure in different positions: the inspiration for Three Faunesses (before 1896) was thus drawn from a figure Rodin employed four times on The Gates of Hell. Likewise, the male figures in The Three Shades (before 1886) were borrowed from Adam (1880-81, itself inspired by the pose of Michelangelo’s Slaves)……………In the late 1880s, in the period of intense activity revolving around The Gates of Hell, Rodin built up a large stock of models of complete figures and fragments, which he could delve into whenever he wanted to experiment with assemblages and transformations. In the early 1890s, Rodin continued his investigations into partial figures (commenced with the Torso of the Walking Man in 1878). He dismantled and reassembled existing sculptures in endless combinations. By casting different parts of figures separately, he could rework the overall composition of a piece, without having to rework everything. Rodin joined his sculptural studies, or bozzetti (c.1890-1900), onto other figures through a process he called marcottage, generally leaving the joins visible in the finished sculpture, thus reviving the idea of non finito borrowed from Michelangelo……….While Rodin drew his inspiration from ancient statuary and Michelangelo’s works, especially fragmentary figures, his own works should be discussed more in terms of partial figures. A fragmentary figure is initially executed as a whole figure, which is subsequently damaged. In a partial figure, only the elements that are visible were actually executed, as was true of Rodin’s works, even if most of his partial figures made after 1890 were casts and enlargements of earlier works. By enlarging fragments of figures, instead of whole figures, Rodin abandoned the practice of representing the body in its entirety, thereby freeing himself from Phidias and Michelangelo’s artistic canons and problematic issues of anatomical proportions. Flawless in form, the fragment thus earned its independence, broke away from the figure to which it had originally belonged, and became a work of art in its own right.