.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Paddle Venus 2, 1986, is a wonderful example of Turnbull’s ability to imbue his work with the possibilities of metamorphosis, employing ambiguity and subtlety in order to achieve a moment of transformation. At first glance, Paddle Venus 2 appears as a utilitarian object reminiscent of an elegant Inuit paddle. However, when viewed front-on and through a contemplative lens, a moment of transformation occurs, revealing an ancient face – a Venus figure, with a calm and cold gaze, staring silently back at the viewer. This work is a celebration of Turnbull’s capacity to simplify form and employ subtle hints towards features, such as the suggestion of a nose in Paddle Venus 2: ‘I have always been very interested in metamorphosis. Ambiguity can give the image a wide frame of reference … It creates cross-reference between something that looks like an object and that looks like an image. For me making sculpture there is always that tension between the sculpture as object and the sculpture as image. I think it is quite different from the intention of naturalistic sculpture’ (the artist quoted in conversation with Colin Renfrew, exhibition catalogue, William Turnbull: Sculpture and Paintings, London, Waddington Galleries, 1998, p. 5).
Differing from many of his contemporaries, such as Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth, Turnbull assumed a predominantly frontal approach to his sculpture, stepping away from the classical ‘in-the-round’ perspective. Turnbull’s wish for the viewer to approach his work face-on can be traced back to his time in Paris, where he lived and worked between 1948 and 1950. It was during this period that Turnbull was exposed to the Parisian avant-garde and met innovative artists such as Giacometti and Léger: ‘I met Giacometti many times. I went to see Brancusi, went around his studio. I went to see Léger, who spent some time showing his work, and Hélion, and many other artists. You met them also at St. Germain des Prés: it was a very open art scene there’ (Ibid., p. 7). Turnbull was greatly influenced by these encounters, particularly his meetings with Giacometti, whose slender, spectral figures can be paralleled with Turnbull’s approach to composition – Richard Morphet explains: ‘Turnbull, like Giacometti, was more concerned with establishing an arresting, frontal image (as Giacometti once said, you don’t walk around a person you meet, so why do it in sculpture?), one which tends to dominate space and radiate out into it’ (P. Elliot, exhibition catalogue, William Turnbull Sculpture and Paintings, London, Serpentine Gallery, 1996, p. 34). It is this front-on approach which Turnbull employs in Paddle Venus 2, encouraging the viewer to draw closer in order to complete their interpretation.
Ambiguity is central to Turnbull’s later idols and it is this characteristic of uncertainty which provides space for interpretation and in turn allows his work to embrace fully the possibilities of metamorphosis. The viewer’s imagination and individual thought process is left as the final tool to reveal the face which Turnbull has subtly suggested. Paddle Venus 2 perfectly exemplifies this, as Turnbull’s understated reference to a nose transforms the paddle form into a stoic figure. Turnbull calls the viewer to take a closer look at the utilitarian objects which surround them and search for the mysticism and beauty harboured within them. It is this possibility of beauty to which the title of Paddle Venus 2 pays tribute – one moment the viewer sees simply a paddle, and the next, following further contemplation and appreciation, a Venus-like beauty is revealed.
Differing from many of his contemporaries, such as Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth, Turnbull assumed a predominantly frontal approach to his sculpture, stepping away from the classical ‘in-the-round’ perspective. Turnbull’s wish for the viewer to approach his work face-on can be traced back to his time in Paris, where he lived and worked between 1948 and 1950. It was during this period that Turnbull was exposed to the Parisian avant-garde and met innovative artists such as Giacometti and Léger: ‘I met Giacometti many times. I went to see Brancusi, went around his studio. I went to see Léger, who spent some time showing his work, and Hélion, and many other artists. You met them also at St. Germain des Prés: it was a very open art scene there’ (Ibid., p. 7). Turnbull was greatly influenced by these encounters, particularly his meetings with Giacometti, whose slender, spectral figures can be paralleled with Turnbull’s approach to composition – Richard Morphet explains: ‘Turnbull, like Giacometti, was more concerned with establishing an arresting, frontal image (as Giacometti once said, you don’t walk around a person you meet, so why do it in sculpture?), one which tends to dominate space and radiate out into it’ (P. Elliot, exhibition catalogue, William Turnbull Sculpture and Paintings, London, Serpentine Gallery, 1996, p. 34). It is this front-on approach which Turnbull employs in Paddle Venus 2, encouraging the viewer to draw closer in order to complete their interpretation.
Ambiguity is central to Turnbull’s later idols and it is this characteristic of uncertainty which provides space for interpretation and in turn allows his work to embrace fully the possibilities of metamorphosis. The viewer’s imagination and individual thought process is left as the final tool to reveal the face which Turnbull has subtly suggested. Paddle Venus 2 perfectly exemplifies this, as Turnbull’s understated reference to a nose transforms the paddle form into a stoic figure. Turnbull calls the viewer to take a closer look at the utilitarian objects which surround them and search for the mysticism and beauty harboured within them. It is this possibility of beauty to which the title of Paddle Venus 2 pays tribute – one moment the viewer sees simply a paddle, and the next, following further contemplation and appreciation, a Venus-like beauty is revealed.