I've visited art museums and galleries multiple times throughout my life, but I've never heard someone say they're searching for animals in the paintings, especially as a way to grab the attention of young children. Even in the last few years, I've never heard anyone say that.
"Collectively titled “The Animal That Therefore I Am” after a published book by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (more on that in a minute), these sculptures are smart and playful, like the classic works of Beatrix Potter (“The Tale of Peter Rabbit”), but also poignant messengers."
A well-known children's book is being used as a character reference for the sculptures, but at the same time, they are meant to convey sadness or regret. It is strange to mix something that appears joyful with a sad message. Perhaps it is depicted this way so that the viewer is at ease and willing to listen to the animals.
"They started off as sculptures carved from driftwood found in the Hudson River — mixed with clay and foam and other materials — then were digitally scanned, cast in bronze and colored with a time-consuming patina process."
Why doesn't Gibson display the original sculptures he creates? Why does he scan them to cast them from a different material? It makes me wonder if he feels comfortable creating his sculptures by carving them out of wood, but the material isn't his desired size, nor something durable enough to withstand being outside.
"The coyote — none of the animals are assigned genders — is titled “they are witty and transform themselves in order to guide us nashoba holba/wayaha/coyote” (2025)."
I find it interesting that none of the animals are given a gender, especially when one of the animals is a deer that has antlers, which is a feature of a buck. I wonder if it is done so that the sculptures only represent the message that they are trying to convey. Or perhaps it is meant to subtly convey Two-Spirit, a person who houses both a masculine and feminine spirit simultaneously, that is a gender within indigenous cultures, and outsiders wouldn't understand.
"Moreover, animals are often treated as “Others” — lower on a hierarchy of being — which echoes how we treat other humans."
It is true that humans are seen as being on top of animals in the hierarchy, and even within the hierarchy of humans, there are levels. At the top of the human hierarchy are the wealthy, and at the bottom are the poor. Some people who perceive themselves as better than those around them tend to view those whom they consider to be beneath them as similar to animals.
No comments:
Post a Comment