WP3: Fourth Post

After researching the background of my sculpture and its sculptor, my perceptions of “Story” have altered dramatically. William King grew up in Florida where his father was an engineer and his mother a school teacher. He father actually built the house that they lived in which inspired William’s brother Blake to become an engineer. His father dealt with many bits and pieces and was able to construct them in a suitable manner. This heavily influenced King’s work through set pieces that had slots to connect them. Researchers have divided King’s career into two sections, before “Self” and after “Self”. During his first ten years he constructed sculptures that were based on observations of people. He used abstraction to convey satirical or political arguments. However, most of these pieces were one entity and were made out of similar materials. The 1957 sculpture “Self” was a career defining creation that embodied both his past work (abstraction of observations) and future work (attached and assembled creations). I feel as if “Story” and “Self” are cousins because the both employ long legs, a fragile appearance, a uniform outer skin, and a mock-hero contemplating his life story.

King had many influences in his life, but one of the most prominent was his mother. Viewed as a powerful and respected woman by King, his mother told him to follow whatever path he wanted. One grand example of this is when his mother gave him $100 and told him not to come back to Florida for 20 years. She wanted him to chase his dream of becoming an artist and for him to create his own path. It seems that he had a deeper connection with his mother than his father, possibly because his father worked long hours and was more compatible with his brother, Blake. In his sculptures, King portrays women as powerful and confident with abounding charm and delight. Men are shown as exaggerated beings bent on success, even if that requires rudeness or aggression. Women are shown as more straightforward while men will put on “societal disguises” to get what they want. Using this information, I am still a little divided when assessing “Story”. While the sculpture does comply with King’s affinity for “figures of society”, it has attributes of both sexes. Evidence such as the cigarette and disproportionate body parts point to a male character, while the long leg symbolizes power and is usually a trait of women. However, when one factors in that he was heavily influenced by the females in his life the decision leans in the feminine direction.

Overall, this is a classic King piece for the post-“Self” era. It embodies his juxtaposition of human warmth and social artificiality and contains set pieces that have been crudely put together. Taking simple human gestures and flipping their meaning upside down is a King trait that is present in this sculpture. Also, using aluminum helps contribute to a lightweight and delicate feel that appeals to pathos of delight and lightheartedness.

WP3: Third Post

With the sculpture I selected, there are multiple ways to analyze its rhetorical strategies, appeals, and concepts. One prominent feature in the sculpture is the use of shadows. When the shadows change, so does the rhetorical argument. During one session with my sculpture, the shadow from the massive leg made it seem as if the figure was crossing its legs and indeed had two legs. This contributes to the reality of the figure and is interesting that it only occurs at certain time periods during certain days. When viewing the figure from the right side I noticed a multitude of new rhetorical appeals that contribute to a variety of arguments. First of all, I observed that the leg, especially the between the knee and ankle, was extremely emaciated. Yet when I directed my eyes to the foot I was shocked at how elongated it was. The juxtaposition between the elongated foot with a bump on the top and the smooth, thin leg was intriguing and perhaps represents that the first step in doing something is the largest. Another juxtaposition I noticed was between the arm that was in close proximity to the torso and the leg which extended far from the torso. I felt as if there two conflicting feelings within this figure. One persona wanted to stay sitting and relax with a cigarette while the other wanted to leave this safe haven and explore the world. However, it was ironic that the foot was supposed to represent freedom, yet was bolted down, not able to move. The arm was loose and could swing with the wind, yet wanted to stay close to its owner and safety.

When viewing the figure from the side and a little behind I became aware of how prominent the shoulder blade was since it protruded to a great extent. It made me wonder if our shoulder blades really stick out that far. The buttock was also blown out of proportion and had small indentations so it wasn’t a perfect curve. I was intrigued because the shoulder blade gradually descended into the back while the buttock was simply a semi-circle with no smooth connection between it and the torso. This piece tinkers with our normal perceptions of body parts and challenges us to question what is “normal” or “attractive”.

One final concept is the presence of two bumps on top of the cigarette. It is assumed that the viewer recognizes these as two fingers holding the cigarette in place. In society the accepted way to hold a cigarette when smoking it is with one’s index and middle fingers. If one looks closely though, the picture doesn’t make sense. Looking from the side, the cigarette is visible with two bumps above it (the fingers). However, in reality only one finger would be visible with the view of the other one being blocked by the first one. A play on perspective is meant to make sure the audience can identify with the object, even if it’s in an unorthodox way.