Michał Haake
Towards Anti-Humanism
Around the Art by Sylwester Ambroziak
Quite a lot has been written about the art by Sylwester Ambroziak but I dare say, one does not understand it any better. In this text, I am attempting to consider why such an assessment is possible, and approach critically the discussions accompanying the author of „St. Anthony’s Temptation”. I conducted analysis of individual works elsewhere, and in my opinion, for the time being, they have won with the passing time, however, some of the issues dwelt upon then should be verified. 1
There have been attempts to sum up his works, facing the artistic achievements by Ambroziak, however they lacked a deeper thought over discursive conditions and general way of thinking they have been reflecting. 2
My comments have been grouped according to the following criteria: the artist’s intent, the work of art description and the interpretation status.
Trying to define the artist’s intent is quite universal, though one should rather mention unintentional attributing the artist with one’s own views. It is visible in numerous ways, by means of a repeated statement that Ambroziak has created his own type of a character. „Own” in art is not an equivalent to the intent, it can be achieved involuntarily, though the quoted examples proved that it is understood exactly in this way. A concept of „own” is to result from the fact that the artist „follows his own judgment on people and the world, as well as his own uncurbed imagination” (the above and further bolded fragments by M.H. 3)
_______________________
1 M. Haake, The Art by Sylwester Ambroziak. History Study of the Post 1980 Polish Sculpture [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak, the Arsenal City Gallery, Poznań 2001, p. 7-31; idem, Experience of the Work of Art Medium versus Critical Art Experience. Evaluation Problem in Contemporary Art [in:] Art Today. Art Historians Association Session Materials Warsaw, November 2001. Edited by Maria Poprzęcka, Warsaw 2002,p. 87-96.
2 E. Domanowska, New Mythology with Hybrids [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak. Sculpture, the Artistic Exhibitions Bureau Contemporary Art Gallery in Olsztyn and the Wozownia Art Gallery in Toruń, 2002, p.2-14; M. Szewczuk, Sylwester Ambroziak. Two Exhibitions in Radom, „O” 2-3/2003, p. 36-39.
3 The comment by Grzegorz Kowalski is quoted here after: G. Banaszkiewicz, The Anthropomorphic Figures by Sylwester Ambroziak, „AC” no. 4(73), April 2002, p. 19
I have written my previous text on the art by Ambroziak, in a sense, based on the issue of the artist’s „own style”, without confronting with the actual works of art, the above quote by Prof. Grzegorz Kowalski, who left his students a large margin of freedom to speak in their „own voice”. Today, I consider these remarks a manifestation of not sufficiently convincing rhetoric, though this does not pertain to the sections describing the art commercialization problem 4.
Further, one can read that the artist „has followed his own path” 5 and „shaped his own language” 6. His works also involve „the artist’s chosen people”, torn out of „the artist’s inner world, out of his thoughts on past of art, and his feelings giving always priority to a human being”. Then what, if thinking along the terms of a „human being” is merely a symptom of deeper or subconscious emotions? If human being is the only creature who approaches his own existence with understanding, thus we are faced with a permanent difference between experiencing one’s own existence as opposed to experiencing the existence of others – „the existence this being is concerned with, has always been mine” 7. There is no category defined a „man” which would eliminate this difference, stay primeval („primeval reason”) towards the existence of mine. Some have thought „only” about a man, though they have not served well the mankind. In other words, the „man” category is being introduced, in fact replacing an analysis on how Ambroziak approaches a human being. The latter, after all, would call for applying psychological or psychoanalytical tools that are available.
If in fact they (the sculptures by Ambroziak – H.M.) have been made not out of raw material they are carved in, but out of love for people, let me add here – for all people” 8, so what is the difference between his art and Konrad’s calling ” For millions…” or any other related concept?
The thinking process reconstructing the artist’s intent is contained in the statement: „It is too simplistic to say so in order to grasp an essence of the task Ambroziak posed for himself and continued ever after” 9,
______________________________________
4 Haake, Creation, op. cit., p. 17, 29-30.I
5 Impression of Certain Sense of Purpose – Several Points of View. Helena Sienkiewicz Talks to Sylwester Ambroziak, „WiK „, 6/2003 (18), p. 62-63
6 P. Jędrowski, New Eden, „Gazeta Wielkopolska”, April 9th 2001, p.7
7 M. Heidegger, Being and Time, Warsaw 1994, p. 59.
8 A. Trzepacz, Ambrosia of Humanity, „Panorama legnicka” no. 35, August 27th 2002.
9 S. Sterna – Wachowiak, Understanding and Feeling, though Doomed, „Painters and Poets Gazette”, no. 5, 1994, p. 18.
in the judgment that the works are as they are, not different „because their author ordered „10, in indicating „the author’s ability to liberate our empathy for these slightly weird creatures” 11 (it is not the sculptures that liberate, but the author does M.H.), in a „brilliant” discovery that since Ambroziak – unlike the German Wild – presents a man behind the mask of their sculptures, it is because behind the mask there is really the artist himself with his type of sensitivity, the need to be accepted, the need to show tenderness and his fears” 12; or another remark: „The sculptures have been rooted in the artist’s sensitivity to the human body expression (…) the artists has given meanings to his works mainly through careful gestures staging” 13. How this description can distinguish the works by Ambroziak against the background of thousands figurative art works which authors have certainly been sensitive about their characters gestures.
General criticism of this type of judgments results from the doubts whether the artist has truly been in control of the creative process outcome. To be honest, every part of the work of art is subject to interpretation as being created by virtue of a conscious gesture, nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that it reflects the artist’s intent. I would rather agree more with Gadamer who says: „The one who created the work of art, faces the work of his hands just as anybody else. The planning and accomplishing on the one hand, and a successful result on the other, can be compared to a leap. And the piece of art is here, and now and forever: it is to be found by everybody who meets it half way. (…) When one is dealing with a work of art, intentio is intrinsic to the work of art itself, it cannot be looked for outside it, or prior to it. Works of art are detached form their genesis, and only then they have something to say, possible surprising their authors” 14. Shortcomings of the quoted examples pertain to the fact that they have been founded on apparent universal knowledge of their author, in turn obliterating the simple truth this or that remark has been said by an individual critic X or Y. This is one of the most common feature of the Polish art critical writing 15.
______________________________
10 J. Świerszcz, Sculpture by Sylwester Ambroziak [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak. Sculpture, op. cit. p. 16-22
11 Szewczuk, op.cit. p. 39
12 Banaszkiewicz, op. cit. p. 20
13 E. Klekot, Untamed Tenderness of Gesture, [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak, exhibition catalogue, the „C” Gallery, Artistic Exhibitions Bureau Ciechanów 1998.
14 H.-G. Gadamer, Romanticism, Hermeneutics, Deconstruction [in:] idem, Language and Understanding. Selected, translated and commented by P. Dehnel and B. Sierocka, Warsaw 2003, p.156-157.
15 P. Juszkiewicz, Paradoxes of Criticism, [in:] Art Today, op. cit., p.74-86
Approaching the sculptures as the reflection of the artist own intent and assuming their full compatibility force the audience to believe in an individual nature of the art by Ambroziak and the works similarity. I do not mean here to contradict the uniqueness or originality of his works (if one is to speak in these terms), I would like to indicate that such a judgment – if pertaining to the deliberations on intent – is not valid.
It seems that the issues of the works „uniqueness” and „originality” have been generally determined by writing about them as reflecting the artist’s 1989 debut intent
according to „St. Anthony’s Temptation”. It has been written that the work is such as it is, and not different, since the author was „forced” to follow his own path that was not „limited by many year canons” 16 – thus the direction individual character is marked by the intent, and „This is particularly strong and unique art. As early (…) as presenting his graduation sculpture (…), Ambroziak was fully aware about his path and philosophy” 17.
As to ignorance pertaining to similarities, it is visible in general comments, like: „In spite of classification attempts, one cannot deny that Ambroziak has his own vision and persistence” 18 . Generally speaking, in whatever context the problem of inspiration is being discussed, the above defined understanding of the intent, turns the issue of works similarity into writing against these works of art. After all, „History of art starts with a simple statement of the works of art similarity” 19. Sculpture, as long as it is a work of art, makes its own, tradition suspending, self presentation
( uniqueness – an indivisibility of the work of art in its identity), and it stands in front of us here and now because it is set in this tradition. Thus, a question about a self presenting dimension of the work of art is the question about its links with the tradition. Listing similarities, and then considering them inessential means writing against the work of art, thus losing a chance to tell something vital about this work of art. Referring to the art by Ambroziak, one mentions similarities to ancient Greek sculptures, African sculptures 20 , the artist’s teachers such as Antoni Rząsa, Stanisław Kulon, the New Wild 21.
______________________
16 Trzepacz, op. cit.
17 Jędrowski, op. cit.
18 Banaszjiewicz, op. cit., p. 20
19 W. Suchocki, Tracing the Runaway Gods. Comments to Weddings by Ingress and Freedom by Delacroix, „Artium Quaestiones”, vol. VIII, Poznań 1997, s. 61-87.
20 See, inter alia: R.Jakes, Stackpole, Pembroke, March 1993 [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak. Sculpture, Drawing. Exhibition Catalogue, Capital Artistic Exhibitions Bureau. The Show (Pokaz) Critics Gallery, Warsaw, February – March 2000; Szewczuk, op.cit., p.37-38.
21 See, inter alia, Klekot, op.cit.; Banaszkiewicz, op. cit., p. 20; Haake, Creation, op. cit., p. 10-12
Apart from these general, style related similarities, some direct sources, mainly modernistic art (Gaugin, Picasso)22 are pointed out. Most analysis either lack links with the tradition, or seem not understand its role 23 which is a dialectic equivalent of negating the sense about speaking of references to the tradition at all. „Can the art by Amroziak be straightforward placed in the tradition. (…) On the surface, the sculptures by Ambroziak provide enough grounds to follow a safe style related discourse. Is it really so.”24 As an alternative for these who „would really like to learn something about his works” , one is offered the need „to look for within one’s
inner self”. 25 The approach of „looking for within one’s inner self” results in the fact that the works by Ambroziak – being, as any piece of art the ergon, i.e., a creation – are treated as humans: „Sylwester Amroziak ha undertaken an effort of carving a new man who resembles his author, but at the same time he differs from him, from us”.
Does what is meant by the author of the above words have to be necessarily compared with me? Lack of discussing the problem of the works visual resemblance has been turned into the „spiritual similarity” 26.
Before we dwell upon the issue – essential for the most of the hitherto interpretations – of „humanizing the works by Ambroziak, let us deal with the question of description which is not only related to the self representing dimension of the work of art (intent and tradition), but also conditions the interpretation. The interpretation is determined by cognition, and not by the problems pertaining to the watching experience through describing it.
Descriptions of the sculptures by Ambroziak do not meet the function of reporting a watching experience due to discrepancies between their form and content.
Thus, „the expressive force comes from (…) a number of contrasts, describing a man as such, focused in the sculptures, as though they were a lens” 27.
____________________________________
22 Haake, ibidem, p.16-21
23 Ibidem.
24 Świerszcz, op.cit., p. 18
25 Ibidem.
26 Banaszkiewicz, op. cit., p. 20-21. This analysis fails because the author, from the statement by Henry Moor „unpredictable nature is visible in incomplete shapes and unforeseen forms„, draws a conclusion that „Moor believed that the vast richness of nature awaited a sculptor, a skilled human hand armed with a tool to be able to create, to conjure up a new order out of the formless„.
27 Sterna – Wachowiak, op. cit.
However, one never learns how this human „nature” has been expressed in the works of art. The „contrast” category stresses the separateness between the form and content, since the form is just one of the opposites (pertaining to animals: ram and goat heads), while its genitive has nothing I common with the form (they are super human because of their pain and suffering”). And further, if the artist „with sharp, brutal strokes frequently exposes individual contents”, so why the poetics of all works is described as individual 28 . Why the artist’s „own language” is to interpret „ourselves” (meaning every viewer) – does the artist know anything about me? 29 .Just to be in the position to point out a universal nature of „Humans-Animals” or „Minotaurs” 30 . If these characters have some beast like features, does it necessarily mean that the human nature is also dual 31 ? Perhaps these sculptures have nothing to say about human nature? Or otherwise: if a dual approach and ambivalence are the features of the works by Ambroziak ( St. Anthony’s Temptation, Cain and Abel, Isaac’s Sacrifice analyzed here)32 , do they necessarily have to describe human nature 33 ?
Singling out craftsmanship problems has further contributed to the division between he form and the content; as a result of it the form description turns out into the description of a gesture, thus it has been identified with interpretation. The workshop related topics are being introduced by the remarks on an „unfinished surface of the works” 34 (it is assumed that it could have been finished, and the artist shows an uncompleted work! M.H.), on a „schematic lump” (the schematic lump has a its „own Language”! M.H.) 35 , on a „white patina, or pencil line” „due to which the sculpture additionally adopts painting qualities” 36. What is the result of it with regard to interpretation? One does not know either why these qualities are to intensify the impression of the „carnal” 37.
________________________________________________________
28 Trzepacz, op. cit.
29 A. M. Out of Proportion Art., „Ziemia Gorzowska no. 36/ January 16th 2003, p. 14.
30 Domanowska, op. cit., p. 4
31 Ibidem; Trzepac, op. cit.
32 Haake, Creation, op. cit., idem, Experience, op. cit.
33 Domanowska, op. cit., p. 4-5. In the footnotes, the author could have given credit to the texts she had based her comments on; while she drew invalid conclusions out of somebody else’s analysis.
34 See, inter alia, A.m., op. cit.; D. Jachimowicz, Horror Metaphisicus [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak. Sculpture.
35 Jędrowski, op.cit.
36 Ibidem.
37 J. Ciesielska, Question about Empathy, [in:] Sylwester Ambroziak – Sculpture, the exhibition catalogue, the Artistic Exhibitions Bureau contemporary Art Hall, Bydgoszcz, March 1997; Szewczuk, op. cit. p,. 39
This statement suggests that there is some kind of carnality hidden under the form. Why not to write simply about the way of presenting a body? What does it mean that „the artist works against the matter – as some define an intentional roughness of the blocks” 38 – exactly who? Thus, quoting an authority has released one from thinking.
We can also read that „with regard to the content – human relations dynamics, describing expressive movement and gestures, is the topic of the works by Ambroziak. The term expressive is the only expression pertaining to the form, since a gesture can be described in terms of human behavior – „soft, full of surprising tenderness” – „in spite of hard and persistently difficult form” and „schematic approach to the character” 39. Similarly, the statement „one should not only see but also touch the sculptures by Sylwester Ambroziak. What, at the first glance seemed rough, awkward, deformed, suddenly emanates warmth and the gentleness hidden from the outside world” 40. If the sculptures are characterized as „formally univocal”, why does not one learn anything about the experience of a critic watching them, merely that they have been „torn out of the artist’s inner world” 41. The author of this texts, however, withdraws this comment since it is too „straightforward” . But if they are so univocal”? Does this controversy mean after all that the sculptures carry „multiple meanings and there are numerous interpretations possible”? 42. The work of art, as opposed to nature, demands to be understood, and this delineates the interpretation frameworks.
The heads of the figures by Ambroziak exemplify the problem of describing the form. The artist, while talking about his kind attitude towards people, mentions „an apparently anonymous quality of his figures” 43. In the critic’s opinion, this remark grows into a statement that „the lonely creature, hidden behind a horrible mask covers a man” 44 . or I am rather to believe the one who writes that „Ambroziak has made an anthropomorphic figure with a new face” 45? But I have also read that „the faces lack even a shade of differentiation”. If they are such, can they be a manifestation of „tearing off masks” and revealing „a human being in his pure form” 46? The more so, since this complete uniformity is further defined as co-creating the „common human features” and the „expression of human universe”. Do not our faces slightly differ?