Some sculptures that resemble the shapes in Kunz’s drawings, and appear to me as three-dimensional manifestations of her drawings.
What’s interesting to me is that looking up at a (linear) sculpture creates such symmetry and shapes that could easily be flattened into a drawing. But when you stand back from the shape and look at the same sculpture from the side, the shape of the sculpture is revealed and the impression of the lines as marks on a page are replaced with the build of the structure.
For example, the sculpture in the top right could be a flat drawing on blue paper, but if you stepped out from underneath, the height and build of the shape would be revealed.
The same experience can be said for cathedral architecture. When one stands directly underneath the architecture, it resembles a flat drawing, with symmetrical, cyclical shapes. But when you move, the build of the shapes are revealed, the dome shape and the support columns are revealed too.
The same thing can’t be said for woodlands? At least there is no geometry or symmetry when you look directly up at a treetop canopy. But I think it is the same when you move around in the space, the height and shapes are revealed.
So now I know I want my sculpture to have this quality:
– to be symmetrical when looking directly up at it
– to have ‘legs’/columns that define the height of the structure and create an inside space that is a mini version of the experience of these great woodland canopies and cathedrals interiors.
Georgina Harris 