an abstract-expressionist point of view of bravado in
the work. The found objects—the wheel and the
semi-spherical bases with their nautical references—
are delightful,” Poling added.
Although the style of di Suvero’s work is radically
different from that of Kenneth Snelson’s “North-
wood III,” Poling found the two of them to be
“clearly the best works in the Construct show.” The
works reflect two extremes of abstract-expressionist
temperament, the romantic and the classical. Di
Suvero’s work is exuberantly emotional, whereas
Snelson’s is clean, clear and controlled. The ten-year-
old work of Snelson’s, chosen for the convenience of
its relatively small size, is a system of aluminum tubes
of different diameters, delicately suspended in space
by the tensions of steel cables. Snelson’s work is
concerned with the organization of force in space,
and with the tensions and counter-tensions that hold
structures together. At first glance, “Northwood III”
has a deceptive look of mathematical simplicity. On
closer inspection, one marvels that the long, solid
looking, metal tubes don’t come tumbling down in
the slightest breeze.
John Henry’s “Rocher du Diamant” occupies
some middle ground between Snelson’s and di Suve
ro’s works. The yellow, rectangular, upward-
thrusting beams are, at the same time, cleanly simply
and exuberantly playful, affecting one’s experience of
the space they occupy. Lyman Kipp’s “Red Flag"
elicits a similar response to its two intersecting planes
of red-painted steel elements, two of which lie in a
vertical plane, crossed by a slanting beam with a flat,
shovel-like attachment at its base.
The work that Millard and Sandman found the
most exciting was Charles Ginnever’s “Forth Bridge.”
This geometric structure of four parallelograms
defined by ribbons of rusted steel joined at the
corners, plays tricks with perception. Montague des
cribed it as “drawing in the air.” The box-like ele
ments, although not coplanar, appear to “flatten out
as you get closer,” says Sandman, who found the
illusion captivating. The work bridges some shad
owy, half-world between two- and three-dimension
ality, that gives it a quality of “transcending its physi
cal presence,” according to Millard. “Ginnever, of the
whole group, did something potentially exciting,” he
added.
Linda Howard’s “Kegon II” looks a bit like a
conventional garden trellis gone awry. Thin, rectan
gular aluminum strips of uniform width but varying
height, are spaced evenly apart along two semicircu
lar base lines, forming two curving sides that are
connected along a diagonal axis by a “wall of
stacked, horizontal stnps. This connecting wall beg
ins to curve in on itself near the top as the heights of
the two sides vary in opposite directions. “I enjoy the
way the work twitches in on itself," says Montague,
who chose this as her favorite among the Construct
group’s sculptures because of Howard’s work with
“illusion and energy to make negative space become
positive space.” Howard’s work is characterized by
classically controlled and understated variations on
the arrangement of like units that result in surprising
shapes and patterns.
The eight Construct works cover a broad range of
tendencies in abstract metal sculpture, from the min
imalist geometricity of Kipp’s and Ginnever’s works,
to the exuberant excess of di Suvero’s and Peart’s .
All of the artists have taken the hard, unlovely,
mechanical materials of our industrialized, deper
sonalized, 20th century environment, and restruc
tured them into non-threatening forms that celebrate,
on the one hand, man’s participation in some natural,
rational order and, on the other hand, his triumph
over the irrational element of chance.
None of these ideas is new, but they are still
relevant. Each work is typical of the artists’ previous
works. Is this just tired redundancy, or evidence of a
consistent statement of their concerns? Clark Poling
notes that “there has been an expectation since World
War II that there will be rapid, radical stylistic
changes in art." But, he adds, “1 don’t think that’s
necessarily healthy.” Caroline Montague sees the
consistency as an ongoing effort of the artists to
“continue defining their own particular reality.” Have
these artists broken new ground in the exploration of
their metaphysical territories, or are they wandering
in aimless circles over the same old ground? Mon
tague’s personal feeling is that it is difficult for herself
and for other artists to work on something that does
not interest them. Still, some art is more compelling
than others, if only because some artists’ “particular
realities" are more interesting than others.’
The Construct show may have been boringly
“safe” to those who were overly familiar with the
processes and ideas involved. But for its less expe
rienced audience, if it opened a door to greater appre
ciation of more challenging artistic territory, it served
the highest function of art. SmXnSS
