Art from wood is either turned (pretty bowl), roughly hewed (pure artistic impetus) or from selected ugliness regarding to the choice of wood. The flashy the material the less you see the sloppy work of the artist… Is that so? Roughness is part of the artistic expression of many sculptors, but not mine.
Why do I use wood after all? Besides hard and splintery beechwood?
The work is risky and tedious, demands concentration and sensitivity for the material’s structure – thus challenging craftmanship. Together with the subtle texture and unexitedly tint of beechwood that makes it my favourite material. Beechwood allows undisguised view towards the form language. The shiny smooth surface means a distance to „harsh“ nature to me. The outcoming piece is a picture, not a copy.
The tactile dimension: There is this invitation to the spectator to touch, to feel the inherent stored warmth of the sun deep inside of the material. The incorporated strings and muscles can be touch and open another dimension to phantasy.
Subject follows function. My abstract – as well as the anthropo- and zoomorphic sculptures emerge from the curiosity what other structures evolution could find – or improve – to add another niche in nature.
I mostly work without preceding drawings und start to work unintentionally; the „idea“ evolves during the progress – the work is the result of an undetermined process that is condensed to an aim quite late.
titles: „no title“ is so valid how it is boring and often disappointing for the spectator (who anyway is peeking to the labels for a helping hint towards the intention of the artist). My pleasure of spinning a yarn or to attract the audience on wrong trails or into traps let me weave titles that sometimes even might fit.
A spectator ones said, my work has – although it seems a bit crafty“ between all these progressive techniques of contemporary art – yet that special charme und skill that constrains people to touch – and buy – it. Thats how I see it.