|
|
|
| It
was a communion with people I was interested in. Portraits were a
gregariousness. Making the claim to be ruthlessly non-conceptual perhaps doesn't hold true with portraiture. James MacNeill Whistler said of his 'The Artist's Mother: Arrangement in Grey and Black': to me it is interesting as a portrait of my mother; but what can or ought the public to care about the identity of the portrait? The imitator is a poor kind of creature. It is for the artist to do something beyond this... to paint the man as well as his features. Yet Edgar's subjects are often clear. He acknowledges that there is (or should be) interest in these characters of the day. For him, naming the works makes their viewing more accessible. The energy associated with tracing, inviting and interacting briefly with his sitters - those whose have an independent stance he is appreciative of - is a vital part of the inquisitive nature of his work. It might result in a greater chance of something magical happening in the clay. But recognition is a curious thing. Some works may have topical, legendary or local interest, and yet as one generation passes, recognition fades and portrait sculpture needs to stand on its own visual merits, with universal qualities that have no bearing on the subject. The objectivity of portraiture is seen from the asymmetries revealed when working with clay, always direct from the sitter. Edgar rejects measurement, relying on the deviation between eye and hand to yield any qualities that may emerge in the work. Over- or under-playing of the form is thus subconscious, rather than applied. Sculptor Alan Thornhill refers to having to override our notions of normality in observational work.
|