DOI article:
Rydiger, Monika: "Ludzkie architektury": ze studiów nad relacjami pomiędzy rzeźbą a architekturą w sztuce XX wieku
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19069#0116
ments for a closer relation between architecture and the remaining branches of art within
the resumed problem of a synthesis of the arts. In 20th century art the relationship between
the rwo genres discussed here became deeper and at the same time more complex as
a result of the process of interpenetration of the two branches on a formal and especially a
theoretical level. Step by step traditional boundaries of a genre were extended. One could
freąuently observe the abandonment of its typical and characteristic features in favour of
new pnnciples and rules appertaining to the other, separate branch of art. This naturally led
to the obliteration of their identities but at the same time to a kind of synthesis.
The 20lh century idea of programmatic extension beyond the boundaries of all
branches of art has set its particularly clear-cut stamp on the relations between archi-
tecture and sculpture. Conseąuently, one would have to consider how far the two sister
arts have gone beyond the limits of their own principles and modes of expression, how
far they have interpenetrated. The process culminated in the works in which architecture
and sculpture coalesced into a single entity. In such cases the identity of the first and the
second genre was completely obliterated, a new ąuality emerging instead (e.g., sculptures
by Siah Armajani, installations by Mary Miss, Peter Shelton, or Anthony Caro's Tower
of Discoveiy, 1991; Rachel Whitered, Home, 1993). In order to establish to what extent
modern sculpture becomes "architectural" and architecture "sculptural", it would be nec-
essary to compare traditional definitions of the two arts. When intending in the first place
to separate examples that timidly depart from a traditional definition of sculpture, and that
only partly following the rules obtaining in architecture and assuming only some of its
features, one must examine the fortunes of 20lh century figurative art.
A tendency to "architecturalize" a human figurę first appeared in the works in which a
sculptured body began to shake off its real organicalness. In 1913 Guillaume Apollinaire
wrote that as soon as sculpture draws away from naturę, it becomes architecture. Early in
the 20th century sculpture began to free itself from the idea of mimesis, following in the
wake of changes that occurred in painting. Owing to a departure from the reproduction of
real human forms in favour of creation of their synthesis, sculptors gradually lost a feeling
for organie naturalness while seeking after a form with a precisely defined compositional
order. It was already Maillol who spoke about "composing" a figurę and - for the purpose
of explainmg its construction - about a search for the '"architecture" of the body, about
the architectural balance of forms. The acąuisition by figurative sculpture of architectural
values vaned in form, depending on the accepted principles of building a form. A tendency
to transform the body and its anatomical constitution into a geometrized structure became
particularly manifest in Cubist sculpture (ill. 1). It was in this way that also Henri Matisse
underscored the "architecture" of the female body (ill. 2). Subjected to precise geometri-
zation, the "human architectures" corresponded to the modemistic machinery-dominated
utopia of modernity. Likewise, Fritz Wotruba sought to show the architectonic ąualities of
the body, reducing a human figurę to cylindrical, columnar forms (ill. 4).
Furthermore, the architectural character of figural sculpture was clearly visible in the
process of disembodiment of a figurę through maximum reduction, drastic slimming of the
limbs down to the anthropomorphizing skeleton of construction. This kind of architectur-
alization of sculpture is connected with the abandonment of a traditional mode of shaping
it in favour of architectural logie and techniąue of constructing a sculpture. The relinąuish-
ment of mass and, conseąuently, of modelling, paved the way for industrial materials to
113
the resumed problem of a synthesis of the arts. In 20th century art the relationship between
the rwo genres discussed here became deeper and at the same time more complex as
a result of the process of interpenetration of the two branches on a formal and especially a
theoretical level. Step by step traditional boundaries of a genre were extended. One could
freąuently observe the abandonment of its typical and characteristic features in favour of
new pnnciples and rules appertaining to the other, separate branch of art. This naturally led
to the obliteration of their identities but at the same time to a kind of synthesis.
The 20lh century idea of programmatic extension beyond the boundaries of all
branches of art has set its particularly clear-cut stamp on the relations between archi-
tecture and sculpture. Conseąuently, one would have to consider how far the two sister
arts have gone beyond the limits of their own principles and modes of expression, how
far they have interpenetrated. The process culminated in the works in which architecture
and sculpture coalesced into a single entity. In such cases the identity of the first and the
second genre was completely obliterated, a new ąuality emerging instead (e.g., sculptures
by Siah Armajani, installations by Mary Miss, Peter Shelton, or Anthony Caro's Tower
of Discoveiy, 1991; Rachel Whitered, Home, 1993). In order to establish to what extent
modern sculpture becomes "architectural" and architecture "sculptural", it would be nec-
essary to compare traditional definitions of the two arts. When intending in the first place
to separate examples that timidly depart from a traditional definition of sculpture, and that
only partly following the rules obtaining in architecture and assuming only some of its
features, one must examine the fortunes of 20lh century figurative art.
A tendency to "architecturalize" a human figurę first appeared in the works in which a
sculptured body began to shake off its real organicalness. In 1913 Guillaume Apollinaire
wrote that as soon as sculpture draws away from naturę, it becomes architecture. Early in
the 20th century sculpture began to free itself from the idea of mimesis, following in the
wake of changes that occurred in painting. Owing to a departure from the reproduction of
real human forms in favour of creation of their synthesis, sculptors gradually lost a feeling
for organie naturalness while seeking after a form with a precisely defined compositional
order. It was already Maillol who spoke about "composing" a figurę and - for the purpose
of explainmg its construction - about a search for the '"architecture" of the body, about
the architectural balance of forms. The acąuisition by figurative sculpture of architectural
values vaned in form, depending on the accepted principles of building a form. A tendency
to transform the body and its anatomical constitution into a geometrized structure became
particularly manifest in Cubist sculpture (ill. 1). It was in this way that also Henri Matisse
underscored the "architecture" of the female body (ill. 2). Subjected to precise geometri-
zation, the "human architectures" corresponded to the modemistic machinery-dominated
utopia of modernity. Likewise, Fritz Wotruba sought to show the architectonic ąualities of
the body, reducing a human figurę to cylindrical, columnar forms (ill. 4).
Furthermore, the architectural character of figural sculpture was clearly visible in the
process of disembodiment of a figurę through maximum reduction, drastic slimming of the
limbs down to the anthropomorphizing skeleton of construction. This kind of architectur-
alization of sculpture is connected with the abandonment of a traditional mode of shaping
it in favour of architectural logie and techniąue of constructing a sculpture. The relinąuish-
ment of mass and, conseąuently, of modelling, paved the way for industrial materials to
113