Further Speculations on The Sydney School of Sculpture

There has been the beginning of discussion here on what constitutes the SSS voice. Some clarification is available from understanding what the school is not.

How it is different from English Sculpture, (ES), has been discussed earlier.

Discussing how The Sydney School sculpture is different from Melbourne sculpture will add to that understanding.

Melbourne sculpture employs craft to manipulate material. Mastery of the medium becomes the language the sculptor employs, to speak. The Melbourne sculptor manipulates the material to conform to their intent.

Geoffrey Bartlett, Gus D’Allava, Tony Prior, Bruce Armstrong, David Wilson share this mastery of material. More recently Callum Morton, Patricia Piccinini, and much earlier, Inge King share this aspect.

The Sydney sculptor is the servant of the material. They are more guided by the voice of the material than the voice of the sculptor. Does the material speak or is it spoken to?

In order to allow the material to guide the language, there is little scope for leaving the mark of the individual sculptor. Ironically one forgoes ‘style’ in order to speak clearly. Narcissism and liberation are incompatible.

Dave Teer, Leo Loomans and Paul Bacon should be included as parts of the SSS movement. Their work is derived from the history of the movement. No tradition however, has value unless it provides a launching pad to new life and this is provided by the work of these sculptors.

While Robert Klippel, (among many SSS members), would be repelled by his inclusion here, his work also qualifies.