William R. Weidner
Statement on My Artwork
My portion of this exhibition of 13 artists is represented by works from The Golden Section Series, The Urban Landscape Series, The Ice Series, The Knife Series and figure drawings and sculpture.
It is my work on sculpture that has certainly dominated my studio time over the last three years. And this is a big shift for me since my entire career as an artist has previously been dominated by the production of paintings. Visually, the sculptures picked up where the Golden Section Painting Series left off. However, with the sculptures, not until the most recent one (still incomplete) have I employed the mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 as I do with the paintings.
In many ways I find sculpting to be way more demanding on my critical eye than painting. A painting is normally only held responsible for looking aesthetically pleasing from one frontal view, more or less. Whereas a sculpture is normally held responsible for looking good from about 360 views as the viewer circles it. Actually it is even more than 360 views as this accounts for only one steady eye level as one circles around the sculpture and takes it in. In reality, one may also wish to look down upon the piece or up upon the piece along the journey. And while I believe this is not necessarily mathematically accurate, I have to wonder if all of these possible views don't come quite a bit closer to 360 x 360, equaling 129,600 Maybe it’s a little absurd to think of viewing my sculpture in this way. In any case, my critical sculptor’s eye has an enormous responsibility when evaluating the visual harmony and unity of my three-dimensional work. In short, the making of good, strong, sculptures is as complicated as anything I have attempted. Yet it is also so rewarding.
With or without rulers and compasses, everything visual about these carved, sanded and painted plaster (and now hydrocal) pieces is still measured; concave against convex, small against large, details against simplicity, left against right, top against bottom, dominance against subordination, height against width against depth and so on. And the process continues to remains a matter of finding just the right ratio of all of these considerations to achieve a harmonious yet at least somewhat contrasted and aesthetically pleasing whole piece where all parts belong and contribute to oneness. In fact, when my work is at its best, the “parts” should not even appear as parts at all but rather as a continuation the form where I must always compromise and alter any one area in favor of the whole piece. For example, I will inevitably focus in on one area, even if only for a while and work very hard at improving it. Yet when honest and sensitive I may later realize the need to ignore the time and energy put into that one area and carve away at it or possibly even eliminate it altogether if it begins to take away from rather than add to the unity of the whole piece.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments and thank you for visiting The WAG. I hope you enjoyed your stay.
William R. Weidner
Director of The WAG
Associate Professor of Art
Lakeland University
It is my work on sculpture that has certainly dominated my studio time over the last three years. And this is a big shift for me since my entire career as an artist has previously been dominated by the production of paintings. Visually, the sculptures picked up where the Golden Section Painting Series left off. However, with the sculptures, not until the most recent one (still incomplete) have I employed the mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 as I do with the paintings.
In many ways I find sculpting to be way more demanding on my critical eye than painting. A painting is normally only held responsible for looking aesthetically pleasing from one frontal view, more or less. Whereas a sculpture is normally held responsible for looking good from about 360 views as the viewer circles it. Actually it is even more than 360 views as this accounts for only one steady eye level as one circles around the sculpture and takes it in. In reality, one may also wish to look down upon the piece or up upon the piece along the journey. And while I believe this is not necessarily mathematically accurate, I have to wonder if all of these possible views don't come quite a bit closer to 360 x 360, equaling 129,600 Maybe it’s a little absurd to think of viewing my sculpture in this way. In any case, my critical sculptor’s eye has an enormous responsibility when evaluating the visual harmony and unity of my three-dimensional work. In short, the making of good, strong, sculptures is as complicated as anything I have attempted. Yet it is also so rewarding.
With or without rulers and compasses, everything visual about these carved, sanded and painted plaster (and now hydrocal) pieces is still measured; concave against convex, small against large, details against simplicity, left against right, top against bottom, dominance against subordination, height against width against depth and so on. And the process continues to remains a matter of finding just the right ratio of all of these considerations to achieve a harmonious yet at least somewhat contrasted and aesthetically pleasing whole piece where all parts belong and contribute to oneness. In fact, when my work is at its best, the “parts” should not even appear as parts at all but rather as a continuation the form where I must always compromise and alter any one area in favor of the whole piece. For example, I will inevitably focus in on one area, even if only for a while and work very hard at improving it. Yet when honest and sensitive I may later realize the need to ignore the time and energy put into that one area and carve away at it or possibly even eliminate it altogether if it begins to take away from rather than add to the unity of the whole piece.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments and thank you for visiting The WAG. I hope you enjoyed your stay.
William R. Weidner
Director of The WAG
Associate Professor of Art
Lakeland University