«
»

The Waldorf Panels on Sculpture (1965)

In the Spring of 1965, dozens of New York artists met for the two-part, invitation-only Waldorf Panels on Sculpture. Organized by Phillip Pavia, the proceedings of The Waldorf Panels on Sculpture were published in issue #6 of his magazine, IT IS. The discussions touch on a wide range of sculptural issues ranging from the status of found objects to thoughts on spontaneity vs. design to the expanding definition of sculpture to perspectives on Surrealism and Pop Art...and the list goes on.... In addition to heavy audience participation in both panels, Panel 1 includes Herbert Ferber, Reuben Kadish, Ibram Lassaw, Phillip Pavia, James Rosati, Bernard Rosenthal, and David Slivka. Panel 2 includes Isamu Noguchi, Claes Oldenburg, Phillip Pavia, George Segal, George Sugarman, and James Wines. These transcripts, reprinted for the first time since their 1965 original publication, convey a strong sense of a genre--and an artworld--in transition.

An excerpt from Waldorf Panel 1:


FERBER
But to be more pragmatic, what is meant by adventure? I mean, moment by moment, what does this mean? How is it possible to distinguish one man’s adventurousness from another’s? How does a man produce something adventurous?

KADISH
Herbert, what are your human possibilities visually? What has an artist ever done except see that thing that has never been seen before and put it down? Let history decide, as history is deciding about someone like Archipenko, whether that adventure was really worthwhile. I’m not going to decide that. Within yourself you’re left with only one thing: that’s your eye, an eye that must cut like a tempered knife.

PAVIA
Is that what you mean by adventure?

KADISH
No, I would say the human possibilities are these. today, there are things that have never been seen before on this earth—the exploration in space and the exploration in volume. that’s not any different than the time when perspective was invented. When the mathematicians—and also Uccello, della Francesca, and others—all thought about perspective. I think that just such a thing is happening with space today that we can have no idea where sculpture will go. Who knows, five hundred years from now, we may project a sculptural satellite that will hover over us in the sky. Now, do you like that jungle? I like it.

An excerpt from Waldorf Panel 2:


PAVIA
My idea of a perfect artist is a man who is spontaneous and whose work comes out like a breath. a designer is a bit more labored and has his eye on the audience.

ROSENTHAL
I just don’t think you can be so definite. there’s a little bit of good in everyone.

WINES
That is not true in sculpture because it takes a longer period of time than painting. a painter can have an idea, join the rat pack, and knock off a series of works in a short period of time.

VOICE
Oh, knock it off. [Laughter.]

WINES
It’s true. In sculpture, the idea must continue throughout the time of the execution. It can’t be lost midstream. A lack of spontaneity exists in almost all sculpture.

SUGARMAN
Let me ask a question, Phillip. You say we are all working artists, we are pragmatists, we are Americans (as if French or Italians are not pragmatic—let that go). What is the practical end or the working end of your question? What difference does it make to me, to anyone on the panel or in the audience, whether my work or someone else’s is spontaneous or designed? Yours is a question that interests those people who waste their time on the psychology of art, or the sociology of art. As working artists we are interested in results. each one finds his own way, his own combinations, and as long as he is satisfied with his own results he continues them. What difference does your question make to a working artist? It’s a question outside of art. It’s part of the fringe that feed on the artist’s world.

«
»