Sculpture by John Dean

Press, 3 May 1984, Page 25

Sculpture by John Dean

An exhibition of sculpture by John Dean. At the Canterbury Society of Arts Gallery until May 4. Reviewed by Evan Webb. When art works do not depict objects we usually have to look for other relationships that explain why the works appear as they do. Often these relationships are abstract, they cannot be seen but are implied by the elements in the work and their placement relative to one another.

In 1961 Robert Morris, an American artist, constructed a sculpture called “The box with the sound of its own making.” And that was exactly what it was — a cube containing a tape recording of its construction.

What Morris was saying was that the process of artmaking was important rather than the finished product.

In a similar way, John Dean explores the relationship of “construction” (and “destruction”) within his work while at the same time implying a similar process in the greater environment.

Seven works make up this show and although their material similarity suggests that they may relate to one another as elements within an installation, reading each as a discreet entity reveals more about the show as a whole.

Superficially the collection of logs, sand, shingle et cetera can be read as a political statement about our lack of care for the natural environment. After all, living in Upper Moutere, near Nelson, Mr Dean is only too aware of one of the most controversial afforestation programmes in New Zealand. Furthermore, the work entitled “Black poplar for sale by tender only — proceeds to the N.F.A.C.” (Native Forests Action Council) affirms his concern and political stance, if somewhat ironically. After all, a tree was cut-up to make this sculpture! However, seeing this exhibition as only a political statement does it little justice. For example, even though “Fallout Shelter” represents a desolate landscape much like the “day after,” it is the cynical humour implied by

the ambiguous relationship of the words and their meanings within the title that provides the clue for viewing this work. A raised marble slab supports a desert terrain, sand is allowed to “fall out” though holes in the slab which look (for all the world) like spent missile silos. This work is simple yet portentously strong.

An equally simple work but one with a tighter visual form is “Expansion Chamber.” A cone of sand supports the corner intersection of two upright sheets of glass. The relationships between the glass and the sand are numerous. A main constituent of glass is silica which is got from sand. So a relationship of process is established. Sand supports the manufacture of glass, a process echoed by the cone of sand supporting the glass plates. Yet the structural characteristics of glass and sand are self-contradictory. They are not as they appear to behave. Molecularly glass behaves as a fluid yet it seems quite rigid. Conversely sand, in a collective state, is quite fluid yet in this instance it visually behaves as a rigid joining mechanism.

Consequently the intrigue of this work is that it evokes a play between what is seen and what is known.

Five of the works in this show relate to one another in type. They are static works standing as evidence of some process. The two ritual “Fonts,” however, are an enigma and inconsistent with the exhibition as a whole. Their candles burn filling

reservoirs with molten wax alluding to some rite still being enacted. Sculpturally, these works refer to a different time and place from that in which the other works exist. Rather than standing as generalisations they read as specific events and it is this incongruity that makes them a confusing element in the rest of the show. Fortunately this is one of the few aberrations in an exhibition that otherwise rewards the thinking viewer.