Angels of pain

Gianluca Drago

Well-Known Member
Angels of pain. Some kidnap you by tying you up with rose branches, others welcome you as if they were your mother, some mourn you in silence and others simply mind their own business.

dc-lx100m2-P1015074-bw.jpg


dc-lx100m2-P1015046.jpg


dc-lx100m2-P1015017.jpg


dc-lx100m2-PAN9702_01.jpg


Pardon me if some of these pictures have been posted in this forum before.
 
The iconography of this century regarding the Angel of Pain we see every day in shocking newspaper photos. Such things should not happen. The lucky ones just look at the pictures, others are inside those pictures.
 
Well, I haven’t seen these before. As photos they are fine. I’m just not liking the styles of sculpture. Where are they from, Gianluca, and who made them?
 
Well, I haven’t seen these before. As photos they are fine. I’m just not liking the styles of sculpture. Where are they from, Gianluca, and who made them?

@Rob MacKillop Your observation that you do not like the style of the sculptures prompts me to ask myself: do I like these sculptures? I think I did not ask myself this question before, perhaps because I did not find it interesting. I find these sculptures extremely fascinating for a number of reasons: because they reflect the style of an artistic period, because of the plastic strength or, on the contrary, the stylisation of the forms, because of how the artist has creatively solved the proposed challenge, because they reflect the personality of the author. Pure aesthetic judgement I would put aside, the question for me is not whether I like them, but whether I find them interesting. Yes, I find them interesting.

The photos were taken in two Catholic cemeteries in Padua, Italy.

The first photograph shows a funerary sculpture by Leonardo Bistolfi, a sculptor who was known as the 'Poet of Death'. The sculpture is from 1930, but the style is still the symbolist style that Bistolfi embraced in the late 19th century and never abandoned. I like the dynamism of the realisation and also its cruelty: at the moment of his passing, the deceased resists the angel of death (here in decidedly female form) who, without paying him any attention, almost drags him by force into the afterlife.

The second photograph depicts a much more compassionate angel, sharing in the suffering of the dead young girl, gently inviting her to follow him in an upward ascent. The poor deceased girl was the daughter of an important doctor in the city, Alessandro Randi the founder of the open-air schools, schools where lessons were held outdoors so as to favour children's health. The sculpture, dated 1914, is by Giovanni Rizzo.

The third is a 1953 sculpture by Amleto Sartori, perhaps the most famous Paduan sculptor of the last century together with Luigi Strazzabosco. Here the style is very static, and to some extent abandons realism (especially in the angel's wings rendered with synthetic geometries). Sartori had also been a sculptor during the Fascist era, and this work is still somewhat influenced by that style, but in other of his works of the period or later, we find great interpretative freedom and expressive force.

The last sculpture is by a controversial author (Luigi Strazzabosco? Enrico Parnigotto?) and of uncertain date, but in any case to be dated to the Fascist era. Here, the simplification of forms is even more extreme; it does not represent reality, but an idea.
 
"the question for me is not whether I like them, but whether I find them interesting."

I too can dispassionately study things that I find interesting, but at some point I must have a positive gut/emotional reaction (no matter how slight) for me to go on looking and contemplating. I think the problem I am having is not experiencing them in their positional context, which is an advantage you have over all of us here. And not just the room, but the building in its position within the city, and the act of 'going to' a gallery in a prepared state of mind to see 'art'.

Maybe it is that, or maybe I just can't read the minds of the sculptors. I either don't get or don't understand what they are trying to say.

I'm not discussing your photography here, of course.
 
"the question for me is not whether I like them, but whether I find them interesting."

I too can dispassionately study things that I find interesting, but at some point I must have a positive gut/emotional reaction (no matter how slight) for me to go on looking and contemplating. I think the problem I am having is not experiencing them in their positional context, which is an advantage you have over all of us here. And not just the room, but the building in its position within the city, and the act of 'going to' a gallery in a prepared state of mind to see 'art'.

Maybe it is that, or maybe I just can't read the minds of the sculptors. I either don't get or don't understand what they are trying to say.

I'm not discussing your photography here, of course.

I think I can understand you, Rob. Regarding the context: these sculptures are not in a building, they are outdoors, and they are not in a gallery, but in two cemeteries in the city that are still in use. Perhaps this coexistence of past and present, this being embedded in the everyday, makes them more meaningful.
 
Back
Top