Quote:
|
Originally Posted by phoenix
I dont like the use of human forms... The thing(well one of) that appeals to me about goldsworthy's work is that it is completely and utterly timeless. It might have been created by someone or something, or it could have just occured. It is that untouched and pure, mathematical the way nature exists yet somehow almost unbelieveable in its beauty, that it could not be accidental.
a lot of this work seems far more 'cut in' to nature. where as to me, goldsworthy seems to work with the flow, and his works are never permanent. There is something not quite right about a red human form sitting amoungst the green. Or a square cut away from a trees roots. The images seem painful.
|
I'm not to keen with Nils-Udo's use of human forms in his work. It makes the viewer focus on the figure and forget the surroundings. You could say that Goldsworthy's work is sort of timeless in it's simplicity and pureness, but I don't think it presents itself as something that just occured. There's always a reminder of human intervention. Also, some of his work is definitely permanent. If left untouched, those stone walls and oval shapes can last for ages.