Dear Reader:

If you will bear with me, I would like to comment upon a commonly held belief regarding sculpture in wood: that is, that sculpture in wood is somehow inferior to sculpture in either stone or bronze.  This misreckoning is often held by both collectors and dealers alike.

I believe the origin of this idea is that wood is fairly easy to acquire, as where there is a forest, there is wood.  Because of this ready availability, anyone who wants to sculpt can.  It is much like the instamatic camera, which allowed everyone to take photos; some were good, many were of dubious quality.

However, the material does not dictate the subject or the quality of execution.  One need only look at the wood sculpture of Ernst Barlach, Alexander Archipenko, Paul Gauguin, Elie Nadelman or Osip Zadkine, John Rood and Chiam Gross, among many others, to see fine work in wood.

What about durability?  There exist today sculptures in wood that are over 4,000 years old.  Stone sculpture around the world is degraded by the action of fungus; bronze sculpture is corroded by oxygen and airborne pollutants.

In the end, there are a multitude of materials with which to make sculpture: stone, metal, plastic, glass, television sets, grass, fluorescent tubes, bad attitudes, wood, etc.  One material is not inherently better than another.  It is the sculptor who makes all the difference.

Knox
October 12, 2011