Radionica II

47

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

obilazak u osam jednakih sekvencigoing around in eight equal sequences

osmerokut = “uskrsnu}e”octagon = “resurrection”

uzdizanje - “nebo”accession - “heaven”

presjeci sections

46

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA II/1

MM EE TT OO DD EE II SS TT RR AA @@ II VV AA NN JJ AAKK II PP AA RR SS KK OO GG DD JJ EE LL AA

MM EE TT HH OO DD SS OO FF EE XX PP LL OO RR II NN GG AA SS CC UU LL PP TT UU RR EE

ODNOS OBLIKA - POSTAVE - POSTOLJA THE RELATIONSHIP OF FORM - SETTING - BASES

AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

a = b

os/osi su apstrahirane linije oko koje/kojih seorganiziraju mase/prostorikoliko usmjerenja toliko osi

axis/axes abstracted lines round whichmasses and spaces are organized

there are as many axes as there are directions

[[.. VVUULLAASS::SSKKUULLPPTTUURRAA//SSCCUULLPPTTUURREE,, 11997733..,,DDRRVVOO//WWOOOODD,, VVLLAASSNNII[[TTVVOO AAUUTTOORRAA//AAUUTTHHOORR ''SS CCOOLLLLEECCTTIIOONN

elipsasti oblik se pre-vodi, prizemljuje

the elliptic form is “earthing”

nejednaka va`nostunequal importance

napetotense

prizemljenje“earthing”

otvoren, aktivni odnos kip - okolišopen, active relationship sculpture - environment

a

b

apstrahirana linija ruba, granicamase i prostoraline abstracted from the edge,

from the boundary of massand space

obrisoutline

skokovit obilazakcirculation in jumps

klizni obilazakglide around

for the six horizontal sections (for the three forms intheir widest and narrowest parts). The other stu-dents go around and instruct the participants. Thefinal product is 3 x 2 sections. Homework is given tocopy the sections one on top of the other. c) Theparticipants get photocopies of four photographs ofVulas’s sculpture and they are instructed to draw theoutlines using traceing paper.3. Above the great pedestal of the sculpture wechange the small pedestals. They are in the form ofa rectangle, a square, a Greek cross, an octagonand a circle. All these forms implicate the differentpossibilities of relation to the form of the sculpture,to the environment and to the act of setting. a) Therectangular form of the base continually transposesthe elliptic form (a section of a flattened cylinder)onto an octagonal base, on to a quadrangle, as asort of “earthing”, pressing to the ground, but impli-cates the greater importance of the two sides. Itinvites the participants to circulate but in jumps,because the viewpoints are not equally important. Ifthe sculpture is set alongside the base it is coordi-nated with the flattened form of the sculpture andflattens too. b) The square form is similar to a rec-tangular one in its tendency of “earthing”. If the set-ting is diagonal, the further four are activated, alto-gether eight sights of equal value, which results in atense relation with the already existing base. c) Theform of the cross is an “open one” and so it trans-poses the concentrated mass into an empty environ-ment. If it is set in the direction of the wings, themovements left-right, forward-backward are accen-tuated, and if in a diagonal direction (like in the caseof the square shape) the flow is stopped and in spiteof the open form it turns the sight towards thesculpture itself and in this way the participantsbecome aware of an active interaction of the setting- sculpture - base. d) The octagonal form (the formof “resurrection”) suggests a round movement ineight equal sequences almost literally repeating thealready existing base, but the two possible settingsintroduce some variations. However the tensenessof the square shape and the “openness” of thecross-like one are missing. e) The circular form ofthe base instructs the participants to glide around itwithout jumps or standstills, looking from all sides,from viewpoints of equal value. It has a character ofaccession (“heaven”) and mostly directs the gaze atthe sculpture itself. The workshop leader changingthe pedestals and settings discussess with the par-ticipants to make them aware that these acts arecompostional acts. He asks about their opinions,which are the better ones, the more interesting onesand why etc.

Note: This very motivating workshop is finished withcomments that the results will help us in furtheranalysis.

Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections aredrawn: a student-instructor measures the sculpture

Istraùje se obris/The outline is explored

Po~inje istraìvanje Vulasove Skulpture: voditeljje postavlja/The exploration of Vulas’s sculpturebegins: the workshop leader sets it.

Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections aredrawn: a student-instructor measures the sculpture

Student crta presjek na plo~i/A student-instructordraws the section on the blackboard

Student pomaè ìcom konstruirati os/A student-instructor helps with a wire to constructthe axis

Istraùje se obris/The outline is explored Istraìvanje postave na razli~ita postolja/ Theexploration of setting the sculpture on different bases

Prva izvedba radionica: 1992.-93.

Radionice A n a l i z a u m j e t n i ~ k o g d j e l a se tako|er, kao i radionice P o ~ e l a i n a ~e l a, mogu smatrati uvodnima. Sadràjno se suzuju na upoznavanje triju djela kojasu se ve} pojavila u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a : na jedno ki-parsko ([.Vulas), na jednoslikarsko (O. Herman) i na jedno graditeljsko djelo (R. Nik{i}) u kojem se odvijaju radionice. Ta su djela(sva tri u Zagrebu) u àri{tu interesa, me|utim, njihovo se upoznavanje odvija uz veliki broj usporedbi.Usporedbe sluè tomu da se odabrana djela, u odnosu na kontrastna ili sli~na, upoznaju {to svestranije i{to dublje.Naglasak je na misaonom postupku-analizi kao osvje{tavanju na{ega pogleda koji optr~ava i takora{~lanjuje vizualne pojave, ali i na idealnoj rekonstrukciji cjelovitosti djela. Tomu sluè raznemetode: crtanje presjeka, materijalizacija osi, rje{avanje zagonetki, kartanje, nalaènje detalja, glumljenje uloga itd.

Namjera u p r v o j radionici je uvesti sudionike u razne na~ine istraìvanja kiparskog djela. Osimpromatranja crtaju se obrisi, presjeci, ìcom se modelira kompozicijska os, isku{avaju se postave kipana razli~ita postolja.

Ambijent: U sredi{tu prostorije, na stalku, postavljena je Vulasova Skulptura. Stolovi i stolice su ukrugu. Pripremljene su izrezane bakrene ìce, plastelin, milimetarski papiri, metar, fotokopije, paus irazli~ita postolja.

Struktura doga|anja1. Radionica zapo~inje kratkim uvodom o istraìvanju kiparskog djela ([. Vulas Skulptura) kojeg suupoznali u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a, u prvom redu iz o~i{ta odnosa mase i prostora.2. Obja{njava se pojam os, odnosno osi kompozicije kao apstrahirane linije oko kojih se organizirajumase u svojim razli~itim usmjerenjima - koliko usmjerenja toliko osi - i u vezi s time najavljuju se triistraìvanja: a) Studenti dijele bakrene ìce jednake duljine i malo plastelina tako da se ìca moèpri~vrstiti. Jedan student mjeri Vulasovu Skulpturu i obavje{tava o duljini masa okrenutih urazli~itim smjerovima. Njihov otklon mjeri kutomjerom i o tome tako|er izvje{tava. Ostali se studentikre}u me|u sudionicima i pomaù im u formiranju ìce sve dok svi ne dobiju “kostur” - materijali-zirane osi kompozicije. b) Jedan student crta na plo~i koordinatni sustav, a drugi mjeri kip i ~itato~ke koje dobiva tim mjerenjem (to~ke su ve} u pripremi zabiljeène na milimetarskom papiru da bise rad u radionici lak{e i brè odvijao). Ostali studenti obilaze i upu}uju sudionike u rad. Sudionici supozvani da unose to~ke na milimetarski papir. Na taj se na~in dobivaju to~ke za {est vodoravnihpresjeka (obuhva}ena su tri oblika na naj{irim i najuìm dijelovima). Na crteù su 3 x 2 presjeka.Zadaje se doma}a zada}a da sve presjeke prekopiraju jedan na drugi. c) Sudionici dobivaju fotokopi-je ~etiriju fotografija Vulasove Skulpture i traì se da preko pausa izvuku obrise.3. Iznad velikog postolja mijenjaju se mala postolja za Vulasov kip. Izmjenjuju se pravokutni,kvadrati~ni, kri`ni, osmerokutni i kru`ni oblik. Svi oblici sa sobom nose razli~ite mogu}nosti odnosaprema obliku kipa, prema okoli{u i prema samom ~inu postave: a) Pravokutno postolje nastavlja prevo|enje elipsastog oblika (presjeka spljo{tenog valjka) na osmerokutnom postolju, na ~etverokut, kao neku vrstu prizemljenja, ali sa sobom nosi ve}uva`nost dviju duljih strana i poziva na obilazak u skokovima zbog nejednakog zna~aja pojedinih o~i{ta.Ako se kip postavlja uzdu`, postolje je u suglasju sa spljo{tenim oblikom kipa i samo oplo{njava. b)Kvadrati~an oblik, sli~no pravokutnom, tako|er poziva na prizemljenje. Ako je postava dijagonalna,aktiviraju se jo{ ~etiri, dakle sveukupno osam jednakovrijednih pogleda, {to uspostavlja napetost uodnosu prema ve} kipu pripadnom postolju. c) Kri`ni je oblik”otvoren” i tako koncentriranu masuizrazito prevodi u prazni okoli{. Ako se kip postavlja na kri`no postolje u smjeru krakova, nagla{ava sekretanje lijevo-desno, naprijed-nazad ili, ako dijagonalno, tok se zaustavlja (sli~no kao kodkvadrati~nog oblika) i unato~ otvorenosti oblika okre}e pogled prema samom kipu (tako se osvje{tavaaktivni me|uodnos postava - kip - postolje). d) Osmerokutni oblik postolja (oblik “uskrsnu}a”) suge-rira obilazak u osam jednakih sekvenci skoro doslovno ponavljaju}i ve} postoje}e postolje, iako dvijepostave unose ne{to varijacija. Nedostaje “napetosti” kvadrati~nog i “otvorenosti” kri`nog postolja. e) Kru`no postolje upu}uje na klizni obilazak bez skokova i zastoja, gledanje sa svih strana izposve jednako va`nih o~i{ta. Ima karakter uzdizanja (“nebo”) i u najve}oj mjeri usmjerava pogled nakip u cjelini. Voditelj, mijenjaju}i postolja i postave, vodi razgovor i sudionicima nastoji osvijestiti te~inove kao ~inove komponiranja. Pita ih o njihovu mi{ljenju, koja im je postava bolja, zanimljivija,za{to itd.

Napomena: Ova naporna radionica zavr{ava napomenom da }e se rezultati istraì-vanja koristiti kaotemelj u analizi djela.

First perfomance of workshops: 1992.-93.

The workshops Analysis of the Work of Art, in thesame way as the first ones, can be considered asan introduction. Their content is reduced to a pre-sentation of the three art works which have alreadyappeared in Origins and Principles: a sculpture(Vulas), a painting (Herman), and a building (Nikšiæ)- the building being where the workshops actuallytake place. These works (all three are in Zagreb) arein the focus of interest but they are presented by alarge number of comparisons. The comparisonswith contrasting or similar artworks are used inorder to experience the chosen ones deeply andfrom many sides.The emphasis is on the mental procedure of theanalysis, the actual awareness of our gaze beforethe visual phenomena around which it circulatesand articulates and also on an ideal reconstructionof the wholeness of the artwork. Several methodsare used for this purpose: drawing sections, solvingpuzzles, looking for details, acting, materialisingaxes, playing cards etc.

The intention in the f i r s t workshop is to intro-duce the participants to different modes of explo-ration of a sculptural work of art. Besides observa-tion the participants draw outlines, sections, modelcompositional axis out of wire, and investigate thesetting of the sculptures on different bases.

Ambience: Sculpture by Š. Vulas is placed on apedestal in the middle of the room. The tables andchairs are around the room. There are some cutcopper wire, plasticine, graph paper, a tape mea-sure, photocopies, tracing paper and various basesprepared.

Structure of the Activity1. There is a brief introduction concerning theexploration of a piece of sculptural art work fromthe aspect of mass-space relationship (Š. Vulas: Sculpture) which has already been pre-sented mainly in the workshop Origins andPrinciples.2. The concept of axis is explained. The axis is anabstracted line around which masses are organisedin different directions - there are as many axes asdirections- and in relation to these three explo-rations are presented:a) the students/instructors distribute pieces of cop-per wire of the same length and some plasticine forfixing the wire. A student measures Vulas’s sculp-ture and informs the participants about the length ofmasses directed differently one by one. The inclina-tion is measured with a protractor and that informa-tion is given, too. The other students move amongthe participants and help them in forming the wire tillthey get the “skeleton” - the materialised axis/axesof the composition. b) A student draws the coordi-nate system on the blackboard, while another stu-dent measures the sculpture and reads the pointshe/she gets by measuring (the points are alreadyprepared/written on graph paper for the sake of effi-ciency). The participants are instructed to put thepoints on their graph papers. They obtain the points

48

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTIIII//11

49



II DD EE AA LL NN AA RR EE KK OO NN SS TT RR UU KK CC II JJ AAKLJU^NI VIZUALNO-TAKTILNI POJMOVI

II DD EE AA LL RR EE CC OO NN SS TT RR UU CC TT II OO NNMAIN VISUAL-TANGIBLE CONCEPTS

ZBIJENA MASAMONOLITHIC MASS

KONKAVNO-KONVEKSNA MASACONCAVE-CONVEX MASS

AA.. DD.. FFEERRNNKKOORRNN:: SSVVEETTII JJUURRAAJJ UUBBIIJJAA ZZMMAAJJAA//SSTT.. GGEEOORRGGEE AANNDD TTHHEE DDRRAAGGOONN,,ZZAAGGRREEBB

VISOKO PENETRIRANA MASAHIGHLY PENETRATED MASS

II.. KKOO@@AARRII]]:: FFIIGGUURRAA ((KKUUPPAA^̂))//FFIIGGUURREE ((BBAATTHHEERR)),,11995555..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,,5500 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

LINIJSKI ISTANJENA MASA

LINEAR MASS

5150

II/2 ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA -- KK OO MM PP AA RR AA CC II JJ AA AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS -- CC OO MM PP AA RR II SS OO NN

[[.. VVUULLAASS,, DDRRVVOO//WWOOOODD

II.. MMEE[[TTRROOVVII]],, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE

VV.. BBAAKKII]],, KKAAMMEENN//SSTTOONNEE

alatitools

STATUASTATUE

obrisoutline

AA.. AAUUGGUUSSTTIINN^̂II]]::SSTTIIDD//SSHHAAMMEE,,11994488..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,, 116688 CCMM,,ZZAAGGRREEBB

obrisoutline

II.. MMEE[[TTRROOVVII]]:: ZZDDEENNAACC @@IIVVOOTTAA//TTHHEE WWEELLLL OOFF LLIIFFEE,,11990055..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,, VVIISSIINNAA//HHEEIIGGHHTT:: 111100 CCMM,, PPRROOMMJJEERR//DDIIAAMM:: 118822 CCMM,,ZZAAGGRREEBB

RELJEFRELIEF

MOBIL - OBJEKT ZAMANIPULIRANJEMOBILE - OBJECTFOR MANIPULATION

II.. PPIICCEELLJJ:: ^̂EETTIIRRII TTOO^̂KKEE NNAA TTEELLEESSKKOOPPSSKKOOMMPPOODDNNOO@@JJUU ZZAA MMAANNIIPPUULLIIRRAANNJJEE//FFOOUURR PPOOIINNTTSS OONN AA TTEELLEESSCCOOPPIICC PPLLAATTFFOORRMM FFOORR MMAANNIIPPUULLAATTIIOONN,,11996666..,, PPLLAASSTTIIKKAA,, MMEETTAALL//PPLLAASSTTIICC,, 8899,,55 XX 8899,,55 XX 4400 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

FIGURATIVNO = TEMATSKI ODREÐENOFIGURATIVE=THEMATICALLY DEFINED

APSTRAKTNO = TEMATSKI NEODREÐENOABSTRACT = THEMATICALLY UNDEFINED

VV.. BBAAKKII]]:: RRAAZZLLIISSTTAALLAA FFOORRMMAA//

AA LLEEAAFFYY FFOORRMM,, 11995588..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,, 8800 XX 4422 XX 4400 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

PLOŠNO ISTANJENA MASAPLANAR MASS

emerge, or grow, look like? How many degreesshould we turn in order to see the relief from theside? Can we continue moving around? Where doyou notice that the represented figure is, in mass,free from the ground?) c) A mobile, the Object forMani-pulation by I. Picelj, 1966., plastic/metal, 89,5x 89,5 x 40 cm, Zagreb is shown with three slidesto get an impression of moveability or changeabili-ty. (From what parts is the sculpture composed?How many monolithic masses can you notice andhow many linear ones? How are they connectedand how are they balan-ced? Where is the sculp-ture placed? Where are the linear masses fixed?From where is it easier and from where more diffi-cult to look at? What is the essential differencebetween the already seen sculptures and this one?).3. a) A very close detail of Vulas’s sculpture isshown. We can clearly see that it is made of wood.We show a photo/drawing of the dif-ferent tools used in woodwork. An interview with astudent/sculptor about working in wood, about thetools which are used etc. is very useful. b) I. Meštroviæ The Well of Life (a close detail) Wecan see the shining, smooth surface of the bronze.(What is the material of the relief whose detail yousee? In what material did the artist primarily workand how did you come to that conclusion? What doyou see on the surface? Are they created by planesor lines? How is the sculptor related to the charac-teristics of the material? What characteristics hashe used? Which definitions are adequate for thesurface - soft or hard, open or closed, tense or flex-ible, sharp or blunt?) c) M. Vuco Tin Ujeviæ, (close detail). We can seethe rough surface of the bronze cast. (Before us isa detail of the sculpture. What material is it madeof? What are the characteristics of bronze?Compare them with the characteristics of wood.What do you think was the primal material in whichthe artist worked and how it can be seen on thefinal bronze cast? Looking at the forms what canyou conclude about the hand movements, about thetraces and characteristics of the tools? In howmany layers is the space of the detail articulated?How deep is it? Describe the behavior of light.Where is it broken, where does it slip and wheredoes it stop? Why?) d) V. Bakiæ Goran, 1964.,stone, 260 x 230 x 270 cm, Zagreb, close detail.The participants become aware of the hardness,harshness and fragility. (What material is the sculp-ture, whose detail we see, made of? What are thecharacteristics of stone? Compare them with thecharacteristics of wood and metal. How are thecharacteristics of the material manifested? Which

Namjera u d r u g o j radionici je misaonim postupcima analize i komparacije sti}i do doìvljajaslojevitosti umjetni~kog djela i povezanosti s drugim djelima na razli~itim razinama; u usporedbamakoristiti istraìvanja iz prethodne radionice; upoznati kipove u javnim prostorima Zagreba i gledati ih“novim” o~ima.

Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani prostorije, projektor je iza le|a. Stolci suraspore|eni rahlo, tako da je mogu}e pribliìti se svakom sudioniku {to olak{ava razgovor.

Struktura doga|anjaU ovoj su radionici uloge podijeljene tako, da voditelj govori uvijek uz projekciju Vulasova, a studentiuz projekciju ostalih kipova (naj~e{}e vlastitih snimaka).1. a) Pokazuje se jedan total Vulasove Skulpture i govori o tome da svako djelo posreduje u otvaranjushematskog opaàja, figurativno tako, da uvijek podme}e novu varijantu tzv. vizualne realnosti, aapstraktno tako, da otvoreno realizira - materijalizira doslovni opaàj. b) Pokazuje se kip A.Augustin~i}a Stid, 1948., bronca, 168 cm, Zagreb. Pitanjima se osvje{tava scensko (Što prikazujekip? Opi{ite stav prikazanog lika! Koja je razlika u poloàju lijeve i desne noge? Opi{ite poloàj lijeveruke! Opi{ite poloàj desne ruke! Gdje je smje{tena glava prikazanog lika?).2. a) Obilazak Vulasove Skulpture s ~etiri snimka da bi se upozorilo na mnogolikost njene pune plas-ti~nosti. Ona se ve} doìvjela uìvo, prilikom dodirivanja u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a.Upozoruje se na njenu statuarnost (doziva se u sje}anje problem postave). b) Pokazuju se dva detaljaZdenca ìvota I. Me{trovi}a, 1905., bronca, visina: 110 cm, promjer: 182 cm, Zagreb. Pitanjima sedolazi do pojma reljefnosti, razli~itosti od pune plasti~nosti statue (Pred nama je detalj reljefa - {toprikazuje? Moète li prikazana ljudska tijela vidjeti sa svih strana? Poku{ajte otkriti stupnjeveizbo~enja! Koje je izbo~enje najve}e, koje najmanje i koliko jo{ me|ustupnjeva otkrivate? Kako izgledapozadina likova, podloga iz koje izlaze, rastu izbo~enja? Za koliko bi se stupnjeva morali okrenuti dabismo reljef vidjeli sa strane? Moè li se kretanje nastaviti? Na kojim mjestima primje}ujete da jeprikazani lik u svojoj masi slobodan u odnosu na podlogu?). c) Pokazuje se mobil Objekt za manipu-laciju I. Picelja 1966., plastika, metal, 89,5 x 89,5 x 40 cm, Zagreb s tri snimka da bi se doìvjelapokretljivost odnosno pro-mjenljivost uslijed pokretljivosti (Od kojih se dijelova sastoji kip? Koliko zbijenih masa primje}ujete, akoliko linijskih? U kakvom su me|usobnom odnosu ti elementi s obzirom na ravnoteù? Gdje se kipnalazi? Gdje su linijske mase u~vr{}ene? Odakle je kip lak{e, a odakle teè gledati? Koja je bitna razli-ka prema ve} vi|enim kipovima?).3. a) Pokazuje se detalj Vulasove Skulpture snimljen iz velike blizine. Jasno se vidi drvo. Pokazuje sesnimak/crte` raznih alata kojima se radi u drvu. Intervju sa studentom/studenticom-kiparom/kipari-com o radu u drvu, o pojedinim alatima, ~emu sluè itd. b) I. Me{trovi} Zdenac ìvota, bronca, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Vidi se sjajna, glatka povr{inabronce (U kojem je materijalu ra|en kip ~iji detalj vidite na snimku? U kojem je materijalu umjetnik prvotno radio, po ~emu to zaklju~ujete? Kakvi su oblici povr{ine?Jesu li stvoreni linijski ili plohama? Kako se kipar odnosi prema svojstvima materijala? Koja svojstvakoristi? Koje se odredbe ~ine prikladnima - mekano ili tvrdo, otvoreno ili zatvoreno, napeto ili laba-vo, o{tro ili blago?). c) M. Vuco Tin Ujevi}, bronca, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Vidi se hrapavapovr{ina bron~anog odljeva (Pred nama se nalazi detalj kipa. Od kojeg je materijala napravljen? Kojesu karakteristike bronce? Usporedite s karakteristikama drveta! Što mislite, u kojem je materijaluumjetnik prvotno radio i na koji se to na~in o~ituje na kona~nom, bron~anom odljevu? Gledaju}ioblike {to moète zaklju~iti o pokretima ruku, tragovima i osobinama alata? U koliko je slojeva pros-tor detalja razra|en? Koliko je dubok? Opi{ite pona{anje svjetlosti! Gdje se lomi, gdje klizi i gdje sezaustavlja? Za{to?). d) V. Baki} Goran,1964., kamen, 260 x 230 x 270 cm, Zagreb, detalj, snimak izvelike blizine. Osvje{tava se ~vrsto}a, hrapavost, lomnost kamena (Od kojeg je materijala napravljenkip ~iji se detalj pokazuje? Koja su svojstva kamena? Usporedite sa svojstvima drveta i metala! Nakoji na~in dolaze do izraàja svojstva materijala? Koja svojstva kipar koristi, koja zanemaruje?

53


The intention in the s e c o n d workshop is togain some experience of the many layers in artwork through the mental process of analysis andcomparison and also through a connection withother art works at different levels; to use the explo-rations of the previous workshops in the compar-isons; to get acquainted with some sculptures inthe open-air public places of Zagreb and to seethem in a new way.

Ambience: The chairs are turned around to faceone of the narrower sides of the room; the projectoris behind. The chairs are spread out, so that thestudents/instructors may approach every participantand thus enable communication.

Structure of the ActivityThe roles are divided between the workshop leaderand the students so that the workshop leaderalways talks about Š. Vulas’s Sculpture and the stu-dents about the other sculptures (mostly pho-tographed by them).1. a) The total of Vulas’s Sculpture is shown andthe talk concerns the role of every work of art inopening shematic perception, in figurative artworksby imputing always a new variation of the so calledvisual reality and in the abstract by openly realising-materialising literal perception. b) We show Shame,a sculpture by A. Augustinèiæ, 1948., bronze, 168cm, Zagreb. Through discussion we became awareof the scene (What does the sculpture represent?Describe the position of the represented figure.What is the difference in the position of the left legand the right one? Describe the position of the arm.Describe the position of the right arm. Where is thehead of the represented figure placed?).2. a) With the help of four slides we circulatearound Vulas’s Sculpture and discuss the many-sidedness of the sculpture in the round. The partici-pants experienced this sculpture with their handsduring the workshop Origins and Principles.Instructions are given about its statuarity (we recallthe problem of the setting). b) Two close details of I. Meštroviæ’s Well of Life,1905., bronze, height: 110cm, diam: 182 cm, Zagreb are shown. Through questions wecome to the concept of relief, different from the fullplasticity of a statue. (Before us there is a detail ofthe relief - what does it represent? Can you see therepresented human bodies from all sides? Try tofind out the grades of convexities. Which one is thehighest; which is the lowest and how many gradescan you perceive? What does the background ofthe figures, the ground out of which the convexities

52

IIII//22 ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

mass-space relationship do you notice in this sculp-ture? Except for the planar mass, what kind of rela-tionship can we find? What kind of surface does theplanar mass have? What is the shape of the spaceactivated by the mass? What is more present - thespace or the mass?). c) As another contrast the totalof I. Koûariæ’s Bather, 1955, bronze, 50 cm, Zagreb,made of linear mass is presented (What kind of rela-tion between the mass and the space do you no-ticehere? What kind of surface does the linear masshave? How much is the space defined in differentparts of the sculpture? What kind of form does thespace activated by the mass have?). d) The thirdcontrast detail of A. D. Fernkorn: St. George and theDragon is shown as an example of a highly penetrat-ed mass. (In this detail what kind of relationship between thespace and the mass is dominant? Besides a highpenetration what other kind of relationship do younotice? What kind of surface?). e) As the fourth contrast (a monolithic mass) I. Koûariæ: Sphere, 1971., polyester/bronze, 200 cm, Zagreb, is shown (it may be the white varia-tion because of the preserved surface). (By whatmeans is the form given in this sculpture? What kindof relationship is there between mass and space?What form is the mass? What form is the space? Isthe inversion of their relationship imaginable? Whatdoes the surface look like? How does it define theencounter of mass and space?).

Note: If the workshop lasts too long; it is re-commended that it is divided into two parts.


55characteristics does the sculptor use which does heneglect? Describe the behaviour of light. Whatstops the light on a macro level and what on amicro level? What breaks the light? What kind ofencounter of mass and space do you notice?) ) A close detail of I. Meštroviæ’s Woman near thesea, 1926., marble, 149 x 116 x 68 cm, Zagreb.The neglected characteristics of stone in Bakiæ’ssculpture are manifested here in smoothness, andshine. This is also a detail of the stone sculpture.What characteristics of stone are used here? Followthe roundness and the breaks. Follow the lightmovements on the surface; what do they dependon?).4. a) The workshop leader shows a new detail ofVulas’s Sculpture to make the participants aware a) of the role of colour (the colour of the material butintensified); b) of the movement of light on a smoothbut smoothly grained surface. b) Z. Lonèariæ: StampLicker, 1975., wood, height 45 cm. To becomeaware of the colour added to a somewhat harshwooden surface to emphasise the particular “func-tional” elements (What material is the sculpturemade of? What is the natural colour of the material?Which colour is it covered with? What is the way inwhich the paint is added to the surface of the massand what forms does it make? What is the role ofcolour and what of paint?).5. a) We show again the total of Vulas’s Sculptureand the participants are asked to look at the draw-ings they have already prepared. There is a discus-sion about the characteristics. b) Four slides ofAugustinèiæ’s already seen sculpture are projectedand the drawings of outlines. A comparison ismade with the outlines of Vulas’s sculpture.(Compare the outlines of Vulas’s sculpture that youhave prepared and the outlines of Augustinèiæ’s.What essential differences do you notice? Followthe line. What kind of inflections; straight, curved?What characteristics, hard, loose? Is it the effect ofcalmness or of agitation, of tenseness or of relax-ation? What kind of linear rhythm are there? Whichforms, curves, directions, changes repeat them-selves? What do they alternate with?).6. a) Vulas’s Sculpture is shown again to instruct theparticipants about the crucial visual-tangible con-cepts in this work of art: concerning the concave-convex mass, plane, textural surface and the latentmonolithic mass. b) As a contrast (planar mass) weproject the total of V. Bakiæ’s: Leafy form, 1958,bronze, 80 x 42 x 40 cm, Zagreb (What kind of

54


Opi{ite pona{anje svjetlosti! Što zaustavlja svjetlost na makro, {to na mikro razini? Što lomi? Kakavje susret mase i prostora?). e) I. Me{trovi} @ena kraj mora, 1926,. mramor kamen, 149 x 116 x 68cm, Zagreb, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Osvje{tavaju se kod Baki}a zanemarena svojstva kamena- mogu}nost gla~anja, sjaj (Ovo je detalj tako|er kamenog kipa! Koja su svojstva kamena ovdjekori{tena? Pratite zaobljenja i lomove! Pratite kretanje svjetlosti po povr{ini, od ~ega ovisi?). 4. a) Voditelj pokazuje novi detalj Vulasove Skulpture radi osvje{tavanja uloge boje (boja materijalapoja~ana istobojnim bajcom) i kretanja svijetlosti po glatkim, ali bla-gim namre{kanim povr{inama.b) Z. Lon~ari} Liza~ maraka, 1975., drvo, visina 45 cm. Osvje{tava se mogu}nost prisutnosti bojekao dodane na neznatno hrapavu drvenu povr{inu da bi se naglasili pojedini “funkcionalni” elementi(Od kojeg je materijala izra|en kip? Kakva je prirodna boja materijala? Kojim je bojama prekrivena?Na koji su na~in boje nanijete na oplo{je mase i kakve oblike tvore? Koja je njihova uloga?).5. a) Ponovo se pokazuje cjelina Vulasove Skulpture i pozivaju se sudionici da pogledaju crteè obrisakoje su priredili. U razgovoru se dolazi do imenovanja svojstava. b) Proji-ciraju se ~etiri snimkaAugustin~i}eva ve} vi|enog kipa i crteì obrisa. Uspore|uju se s obrisima Vulasova kipa (Usporedimoobrisne linije Vulasova kipa, {to ste vi priredili i obrisne linije Augustin~i}eva! Koje bitne razlike primi-je}ujete? Pratimo liniju! Kakva je toka, ravnog, zakrivljenog? Kakva karaktera, ~vrsta, labava?Dijeluje li mirno, nemirno, napeto, opu{teno? Kakav je ritam linije? Koji se oblici, zakrivljenja, promjene usmjere-nja ponavljaju? îme se izmijenjuju?).6. a) Ponovo se pokazuje Vulasova Skulptura da bi se upozorilo na klju~ne vizualno-taktilne pojmoveu tom djelu: na konkavno-konveksnu masu, plohu, teksturalnu povr{inu i na latentnu zbijenu masu.b) Kao kontrast (plo{no istanjena masa) pokazuje se cjelina Razlistale forme V. Baki}a, 1958., bronca,80 x 42 x 40 cm, Zagreb (Kakav odnos mase i prostora primje}ujete u ovom kipu? Osim plo{noistanjene mase kakav jo{ odnos otkrivamo? Kakvo je oplo{je plo{no istanjene mase? Kakvog je oblikaprostor kojeg masa aktivira? Koli~inski ~ega ima vi{e - prostora ili mase?). c) Kao drugi kontrast (linijski istanjena masa) pokazuje se cjelina Kupa~a I. Koàri}a, 1955., bronca, 50 cm, Zagreb, koja jebitno sazdana od linijski istanjenih masa (Kakve odnose mase i prostora ovdje primje}ujete? Kakvo jeoplo{je linijski istanjene mase? Do koje je mjere prostor odre|en u pojedinim dijelovima kipa? Kakvogje oblika prostor kojeg masa aktivira?). d) Kao tre}i kontrast (visoko penetrirana masa) pokazuje sedetalj Svetog Jurja A.D. Fernkorna (Kakav odnos mase i prostora dominira u detalju kipa? Osimpro{upljenja mase kakav jo{ odnos primje}ujete? Kakvo je oplo{je?). e) Kao ~etvrti kontrast (izrazitozbijena masa) prikazuje se Koàri}eva Kugla, 1971., poliester/bronca, 200 cm, Zagreb - mo`da bijelavarijanta radi u{~uvanog oplo{ja (îme je u potpunosti dan oblik u ovom kipu? Kakvim odnosommase i prostora? Kakvog je oblika masa? Kakvog je oblika prostor? Moè li se zamisliti inverzija njiho-va odnosa? Kakvo je oplo{je? Kako odre|uje susret mase i prostora?).

Napomena: Radionica traje dulje od uobi~ajenog vremena, te je prikladno podijeliti je na dva dijela.

56 57


AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA -- KK OO MM PP AA RR AA CC II JJ AAOSOBINE OBLIKA

AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS -- CC OO MM PP AA RR II SS OO NNCHARACTERISTICS OF THE FORMS

VALJAKCYLINDER

KUGLASPHERE

RAZVEDEN NEPRAVILAN (OBLIK PRENESEN U RAVNINU)CONVOLUTED IRREGULAR (FORM IS TRANSFERRED INTO A PLANE)

ODNOS MEÐU OBLICIMA (SINTAKTI^KO PRAVILO) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FORMS (SYNTACTIC RULE)

TRANSLACIJA SPOMAKOM

TRANSLATION WITHSHIFT

USMJERAVANJE PROSTORA DIRECTING SPACE

SPLJOŠTEN VALJAKFLATTENED CYLINDER

DD.. DD@@AAMMOONNJJAA:: SSKKUULLPPTTUURRAA AAKKZZ//SSCCUULLPPTTUURREE AAKKZZ,,11998877..,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

ROTACIJAZRCALJENJEPOVE]ANJEUMANJENJE

ROTATIONREFLECTION

AUGMENTATIONDIMINUTION

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA II/3 AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

II DD EE AA LL NN AA RR EE KK OO NN SS TT RR UU KK CC II JJ AAODNOS MEÐU VIZUALNO-TAKTILNIM POJMOVIMA

II DD EE AA LL RR EE CC OO NN SS TT RR UU CC TT II OO NNRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VISUAL-TANGIBLE CONCEPTS

konkavno-konveksna masa UKIDA zbijenuconcave-convex mass ABOLISHES the monolithic mass

plošno/teksturalno oplošje AFIRMIRAplanar/textural surface CONFIRMS

KONTRASTCONTRAST

penetrirane mase i linijski istanjene masethe penetrated mass and linear mass

II.. MMEE[[TTRROOVVII]]:: RR.. BBOO[[KKOOVVII]],, 11993377..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,,

228855 XX 220000 XX 222200 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

STUPNJEVANJE penetracijeGRADUAL TRANSITION of penetration

linijsko istanjenjelinear mass

5958



II.. MMEE[[TTRROOVVII]]:: PPOOVVIIJJEESSTT HHRRVVAATTAA//HHIISSTTOORRIIAA CCRROOAATTOORRUUMM,, 11993322..,, BBRROONNCCAA//BBRROONNZZEE,, 116622 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

ZLATNI REZ GOLDEN SECTION

a

a

b

44 cm

66 cm

106 cm

100 cm

62 cm

1/2

1/2

a : b = 0,6...

AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA UU MM JJ EE TT NN II ^̂ KK OO GG DD JJ EE LL AA II/3 AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

II DD EE AA LL NN AA RR EE KK OO NN SS TT RR UU KK CC II JJ AAOMJERI I RAZMJERIUPRAVLJANJE VREMENOM

II DD EE AA LL RR EE CC OO NN SS TT RR UU CC TT II OO NNRATIOS AND PROPORTIONS

GOVERNING TIME


kutevi pomaka: 15°, 10°, 9°angles of shift

obujam dolje: 27, 29, 28 cm, gore: 17, 25, 26 cmcircumference down up

5,5

+

6,5

7,5

6,3

+

5

7,9

+

3,5

3,3

+

7,8

6,8

5,5

+

6,5

7,5

1/2

1/2

a) 7,5 : 5,5 + 6,5 = 0,6... b) 6,8 : 3,3 +7,8 = 0,6...

a : b = b : (a + b) = 0,618

23 cm

60 61


II DD EE AA LL NN AA RR EE KK OO NN SS TT RR UU KK CC II JJ AAKIP I OKOLIŠ

II DD EE AA LL RR EE CC OO NN SS TT RR UU CC TT II OO NNSCULPTURE AND ENVIRONMENT

II.. KKOO@@AARRII]]:: MMAATTOO[[,, 11997733..,, 9900 CCMM,, [[IIRRIINNAAKKLLUUPPEE//TTHHEE WWIIDDTTHH OOFFTTHHEE BBEENNCCHH:: 113300 CCMM,,ZZAAGGRREEBB

VV.. BBAAKKII]]:: IIVVAANN GGOORRAANN KKOOVVAA^̂II]],,

11996644..,, KKAAMMEENN //SSTTOONNEE,, 226600 XX 223300 XX 227700 CCMM,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

SIMULACIJA SIMULATION RAVNOTE@A BALANCE


AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA -- KK OO MM PP AA RR AA CC II JJ AASAGLEDAVANJE

AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS -- CC OO MM PP AA RR II SS OO NNAPPREHENSION

0,5 mm

1-2 cm

udaljenosti:distances:

45° 23,5 cm

27° 47,0 cm

18° 70,5 cm

udaljenosti:distances:

45° 3 m

27° 6 m

18° 9 m

FF.. RROOSSAANNDDII]]:: RRIIBBAARR//FFIISSHHEERRMMAANN

How do the bodies interact? Look at the detail. Howdo they interact here? (Insertion).) The detail of thesculpture represents a bather in a position whichemphasizes the reflex symmetry of the humanbody. But something disturbs that reflex symmetry.(What is it? Look at a larger detail of the composi-tion. How many figures can you see now? In whatkind of relation are they? What is the shift manifest-ed in? Look at the whole composition now. Wherecan we recognise the shift now? Is there someother relationship except the translation with shift?)c) V. Bakiæ: The Leafy form (a sequence of slides).A drawing of the form transposed into the plane isprojected. (The form is convoluted and asymmetric.The form is transferred to the plane. Look at it andsay what kind of form it is. Return to the sculptureand look at it. How does the sculptor use the factthat he is working in space and not in two dimen-sions? Describe the changes of directions. Whichparts and in what direction do they turn? How dothey direct the space? Can you recognize some ofthe laws of symmetry known to you here, even as astarting point? Where can you notice a deviationfrom symmetry or even a negation of it?) d) Threeslides of D. Dûamonja’s sculpture AKZ, 1987,Zagreb. We recognise the form of a flattened cylin-der and the syntactic rule of rotation, reflection,augmentation and diminution. (What forms do younotice? Isolate them. How many large forms andhow many small ones can you find? Try to find aform which is, by its origin like Vulas’s (the seg-ment of flattened cylinder). What makes the forms?What kind of space-mass relationship is there? Inwhat kind of relation is there? (rotation) What kindof relation do you notice between the larger formsand the smaller ones? We have already met thisrelation in Ostoja’s sculpture. Look (turn 90º), whatkind of rule is now noticeable? (the reflexion of thefront and back sides). What is the sculptor opposedto with this sort of monotony and exaggeratedlucidity of the relations on the macro level? Whatkind of surface can you see in this slide? Whatkinds of forms do you perceive on the surface?What are their characteristics?) e) V. Bakiæ: Goranpresented by two slides. We see an irregular poly-eder. The relation between the forms is close pack-ing. (What is the form of the sculpture? With whatkind of space-mass relationship is the form given?On what basis can you conclude that it is an irregu-lar polyeder and not an ellypsoid one? Look at thedetail. What geometric shapes do you notice? Howare they formed? What is worth noticing? What isthe relation between the visual and tangible experi-ence? What kind of sensation do we get by touchand what kind by sight? Here is a systematisationof the geometric shapes which we find on the sur-face of that sculpture. We get about thirty triangles,about as many quadrangles and six polygons. Whatis the relation between these shapes? What shouldwe name this relation?)f) Using slides we circulate around the HistoriaCroatorum by I. Meštroviæ, 1932., bronze, 162 cm, Zagreb. We show the materialised axesand the sections (it is a pyramidal form in a hierar-chical relation). (We have materialised the composi-tional axes of the statue. How many such axesexist? Compare it with Vulas’ Sculpture, or betterstill with your former explorations. What is theessential difference between the axes of sculpture?What are the relations between the axes? Do theyall have the same value? If not, how do you arriveat this conclusion? What relation exists between themain direction and the other ones? What kind of

Namjera u t r e } o j radionici je analizom i komparacijom osvijestiti osobine oblika, zakonitostiveza: simetrije, omjere, razmjere, ritam i, na kraju, i kutove mogu}eg lagodnog promatranja, sagle-davanja cjeline i razabiranja dijelova.

Ambijent: Isti je kao i u prethodnoj radionici.

Struktura doga|anja1. a) Ponovo se kre}e od projekcije Vulasove Skulpture i osvje{tavaju se odnosi koji vladaju me|u poje-dinim vizualno-taktilnim pojmovima (zbijene mase se u me|usobnom odnosu ukidaju, u konkavno-konveksnim masama su unutra i nisu, plo{ne i teksturalne povr{ine afirmiraju i zbijenu i konkavno-konveksnu masu). b) Slijedi usporedba s kipom I. Me{trovi}a Ru|er Bo{kovi}, 1937. (1940.?), bronca,285 x 200 x 220 cm, Zagreb (tri snimka). Na detaljima se uo~avaju stupnjevanje penetracije i kon-trast izme|u penetrirane i linijski istanjene mase (Pogledajte detalj! Posebno desnu stranu! Kakveodnose mase i prostora - vizualno-taktilne pojmove - primje}ujete?) Upozorenje na kuglasti oblik zbi-jene mase i oblik {to ga sugeriraju linijski istanjene mase! (Kakav je taj drugi oblik? U ~emu je razlikaizme|u ta dva oblika, u ~emu je sli~nost? Sli~nost izme|u dva oblika jo{ vi{e isti~e temeljni odnosizme|u pojmova mase i prostora koji vlada u ovom detalju! (/kontrast/Koji je taj odnos? Pogledajtekako se zbijena masa odnosi prema ostalim masama i prostorima kipa! Kako biste opisali taj odnos?Upozorenje na izvjesnu dvosmislenost u tom odnosu. Primje}ujete li je? Ako da, u ~emu se sastoji?Moè li se zbijena masa odvojiti od ostalih? Do koje mjere da, do koje mjere ne? Što ona predstav-ljau odnosu na okolna udubljenja? Sada pogledajmo cjelinu! Što mislite koji je temeljni odnos mase iprostora u cijelom kipu /konkavno-konveksna masa/). c) Slijede snimci pet detalja Koàri}eva Mato{a,1973., bronca, 90 cm, {irina klupe: 130 cm, Zagreb. Vidi se izraziti kontrast izme|u linijskog istanje-nja i konkavno-konveksne mase (Pogledajte detalj kipa! Vjerojatno uo~avate da se opet radi o izrazi-tom kontrastu - imenujte izme|u kojih vizualno-taktilnih pojmova! Evo jo{ jedan detalj! Istanjenje jeovdje jo{ uo~ljivije, s ~ime je u kontrastu? Sada pogledajte jo{ jedan detalj! Odakle je snimljen? Kojidio kipa zahva}a? Kakav je tu odnos mase i prostora? Primje}ujete li prijelaz u jedan druga~iji odnos,koji vi{e nije kontrast? Koji je to odnos i kakav je prijelaz /stup-njevanje/).2. a) Osvje{tavaju se osobine oblika Vulasove Skulpture (spljo{teni valjak) i zakonitosti veza me|uoblicima (translacija s pomakom). Koriste se rezultati istraìvanja: materijalizirana kompozicijska li-nija i presjeci. Slijede usporedbe. b) T. Ostoja Pliva~ice (3 snimka). Uo~avaju se valjkasti, elipsoidnioblici i odnosi umetanja, zrcaljenja, translacije s pomakom. (Koja geometrijska odnosno stereometrij-ska tijela prepoznajete u skulpturi? Imenujte i opi{ite preinake u odnosu na pravilnost! Kako seme|usobno odnose tijela? Pogledajte detalj! Kako se tu odnose /umetanje/? Detalj kipa prikazujepliva~icu i to u stavu koji isti~e zrcalnu simetri~nost ljudskog tijela. Ipak, {to remeti to zrcaljenje?Pogledajte ve}i detalj kompozicijske cjeline! Koliko sada ima likova? U kakvom su me|usobnomodnosu? U ~emu se sve o~ituje pomak? Pogledajmo sada cjelinu! U ~emu je sada pomak? Postoji lijo{ neki odnos osim translacije s pomakom ?). c) V. Baki} Razlistala forma (slijed snimaka). Pokazujese crte` oblika prevedenog u ravninu. Oblik je razveden, asimetri~an (Oblik je prenesen u ravninu.Pogledajte i recite kakav je to oblik? Vratimo se snimku i pogledajmo! Na koji na~in kipar koristi toda radi u prostoru a ne u ravnini? Opi{ite promjene usmjerenja! Koji se dijelovi savijaju i u kojemsmjeru? Kako usmjeravaju prostor? Prepoznajete li neku vama poznatu zakonitost simetrije, bar kaopolazi{te? U ~emu je otklon od simetrije, dapa~e njena negacija?). d) D. Dàmonja Skulptura AKZ,1987., Zagreb (tri snimka). Uo~ava se oblik spljo{tenog valjka i sintakti~ka pravila rotacije, zrcaljen-ja, pove}anja, umanjenja (Koje oblike primje}ujete? Izdvojite ih! Koliko ima velikih oblika, kolikomalih? Poku{ajte prona}i oblik koji je porijeklom isti kao i Vulasov oblik /odsje~ak spljo{tenog valjka/!îme su dani oblici? Kakvim odnosom mase i prostora? U kakvom su me|usobnom odnosu? /rota-cija/ Kakav se jo{ odnos primje}uje izme|u manjih i ve}ih oblika? Taj smo odnos ve} susretali uOstojinom kipu. Pogledajmo /zaokret za 90°/ koje pravilo postaje sada uo~ljivo /zrcaljenje prednje istra`nje strane/! îme se kipar suprotstavlja izvjesnoj monotoniji i pretjeranoj preglednosti oblika iodnosa na makro razini? Kakva je povr{ina? Što o njoj moète re}i na temelju ovog snimka? Kakveoblike primje}ujete na oplo{ju? Kakvog su karaktera?). e) V. Baki} Goran (dva snimka). Vidimonepravilni poliedar. Odnos me|u oblicima je prilagodba /close packing/. (Kakvog je oblika kip?Kakvim je odnosom mase i prostora dan oblik? Na temelju ~ega zaklju~ujete da je nepravilnipoliedar, a ne elipsoid? Pogledajte detalj! Koje geometrijske likove primje}ujete? îme su oblikovani?Što je potrebno da bi ih uo~ili? Kakav je odnos izme|u vizualnog i taktilnog doìvljaja? Kakvu namsenzaciju daje opip, a kakvu pogled? Evo sistematizacije geometrijskih likova koji se pojavljuju u tomkipu! Trokuta ima tridesetak, kao i ~etvorokuta, dok je mnogokuta {est. U kakvom su odnosu ti obli-ci? Kako bi mogli nazvati taj odnos?). f) Slijede snimci Povijesti Hrvata I. Me{trovi}a, 1932., bronca,162 cm, Zagreb. Pokazuju se materijalizirane osi i presjeci (Materijalizirali smo osi kipa. Koliko ihima? Usporedimo s Vulasovim kipom, odnosno s va{im istraìvanjem od prepro{log puta! Koja jebitna razlika izme|u osi jednog i drugog kipa? Kakve su veze me|u osima? Postoje li va`nije i manjeva`ne, ako da, po ~emu to zaklju~ujete? Kakav je odnos izme|u glavnog i ostalih usmjerenja? Nakoju simetriju nailazimo u me|usobnom odnosu usmjerenih masa? Ponovo obi|imo kip! Poku{ajtena}i mjesta na kojima smo presjekli kip! Gdje je napravljen prvi, najve}i presjek? Gdje drugi? Gdjetre}i? Kakvi su se oblici dobili presjecanjem Vulasova kipa, koja je razlika? Po ~emu je odnos izme|uoblika druga~iji od onog u Vulasovom kipu /hijerarhijski odnos/? Usporedimo “rast”, “uzdizanje”Vulasova i Me{trovi}eva kipa! Kakav je rast kod Me{trovi}a? U ~emu je razlika ? /promjena oblika,promjena veli~ine/ Na koje geometrij-sko tijelo upu}uje Me{trovi}eva skulptura ? /piramidalni oblik/)

63


The intention in the t h i r d workshop is to gainan awareness through analysis and comparison ofthe characteristics of forms, the laws of their rela-tions: symmetries, ratios, proportions, rhythm andeventually of the angles of easy apprehension of thewholeness and the discrimination of the parts.

Ambience: The same as in the former workshop.

Structure of the Activity1. a) We again begin with Vulas’s Sculpture tryingto gain an awareness of the relations which domi-nate in the visual-tangible concepts (the monolithicmasses are in interaction and abolish each other,they are and are not in the concave-convex mass-es; the planar and textural surfaces confirm themonolithic masses and the concave-convex ones,too) b) I. Meštroviæ: Ru|er Boškoviæ, 1937.(1940.?), bronze, 285 x 200 x 220 cm (threeslides) is next. Using the details the gradual pene-tration and the contrast between the penetrated andlinear masses are perceived. (Look at the detail.Especially on the right side. What kind of relationbetween mass and space is there - what kind ofvisual-tangible concepts do you notice?)Instructions are given about the spheric form of themonolithic mass and about the form suggested bythe linear masses. (What kind of form is it? What isthe difference between these two forms, and whatis similar? The similarity between the two formsemphasises the basic relationship between the con-cepts of mass and space which dominates in thisdetail (contrast)) (What kind of relationship is it?Look how the monolithic mass relates to the envi-ronment. How would you describe that relation?)An instruction is given about a certain ambiguity inthe relation of the monolithic mass and the environ-ment. Do you notice it? If so, what is it like? Is itpossible to separate the monolithic mass from theenvironment? How much so, how much not? Whatdoes it represent concerning the environmental con-cavities? Cast a glance over the wholeness. What isthe basic relation between mass and space in thewhole sculpture? (the concave-convex mass)). c) Five details of I. Koûariæ’s Matoš, 1973., bronze,90 cm, the width of the bench: 130 cm, Zagreb, arepresented. We can see a very evident contrastbetween the linear mass and the concave-convexone. (Look at the detail of the sculpture. You proba-bly notice that there we find again a very evidentcontrast - name between which visual-tangible con-cepts. Here is yet another detail. The thin mass hereis even more present, what is it contrasted with?Now look at the detail again. What angle is the pho-tograph taken from? What part of the sculpture iscaptured? What kind of relation between space andmass can you recognise here? Can you notice atransition to another relationship, not a contrastanymore? What kind of relation is it and what doesthe transition/gradation look like?)2. a) Awareness is gained about the characteristicsof forms (flattened cylinder) and about the laws ofthe relation between the forms (translation withshift) Vulas's sculpture. We use the results of theprevious explorations, the materialisation of compo-sitional line and the prepared sections.Comparisons follows. b) T. Ostoja’s Bathers is presented with threeslides. We notice the cylindrical, ellipsoid forms andthe insertions, reflections and translations with shift.(What geometric or stereometric solids do werecognise in the sculpture? Try to name anddescribe the modifications concerning regularity.

62


(benches, trees, houses, fences, possibility of theview)? What does the sculpture simulate? Whatelement of the environment you can see in thisslide and what does this element imitate (a mansitting on the bench - the representation of Matošon the bench?) How has the girl grasped the inter-action between the sculpture and the environment?(in the slide: a girl is sitting “in the sculpture”);Questions about Meštroviæ's Woman: Where is thesculpture? What kind of environment is it?Describe it. Which are the elements of the environ-ment, what are their characteristics, their use, howdo they function? How do you experience thissculpture concerning the environment? Why is itplaced here? What is the function? Is it included oris it in contrast with the environment? By what?Can you imagine an entirely different environmentfor this work? If so, what sort and why? Can youimagine this environment without the sculpture?What would it look like? What did it look like beforethe setting of the sculpture, what would it look likeafter the deplacement - the same? If so, why, or,why not?; Questions about Bakiæ's Goran: What isrepresented in the slide? Do you notice the sculp-ture? Which sculpture? What does it look like fromthis distance? What are the essential characteris-tics of the park, of the vegetation, of the roads?How do the organic environment and the geometri-cal human art work relate to each other ? How isthe sculpture adjusted to the environment and doesit contrast with it? What is your impression fromwhere we are looking at it now?)]

Note: If this worshop becomes too long it should bedivided into two sessions.

3. a) Ponovo Vulasova Skulptura snimljena s razli~itih strana. Daju se mjere (u cm) za ~etiri pozicije.b) Pokazuje se Me{trovi}: Povijest Hrvata i daju se veli~ine (u cm),.Visina kipa s postoljem: 162; visina do sredine plo~e: 62; visina od sredine plo~e do vrha: 100; {irinamarame: 44; {irina ramena: 66; {irina plo~e: 106(Usporedimo {irinu marame, {irinu ramena i {irinu plo~e! Usporedimo visinu do sredine plo~e i odsredine plo~e do vrha! Usporedimo {irinu plo~e i visinu cijelog kipa! Prisjetimo se {to je omjer a {torazmjer! Tragamo za zakonitostima koje povezuju u cjelinu pojedine mase u kipu i njihova usmjerenja.Postoji li odnos me|u omjerima i, ako da, kakav je taj odnos? Usporedimo s Vulasovom Skulpturom!Postoji li mo`da neka sli~nost u zakonitosti ucjelovljavanja, unato~ svih razlika koje smo do sadauo~ili?)4. a) Ukazuje se na varijacije u postavi Vulasove Skulpture. Daju se podaci: udaljenost: 70,5 cm,kut: 18°; udaljenost: 47 cm, kut: 27°; udaljenost: 23,5 cm, kut: 45°. Rubovi su veli~ine 1-2 cm, {toodgovara manje-vi{e FS (0,5; 0,8; 1,2). Lagodno se razabire 0,5 mm, {to pak odgovara sitnoj

namre{kanosti na oplo{ju. b) Problem sagledavanja se upoznaje jo{ na primjeru T. Rosandi}evaRibara. Pokazuje se tlocrt Jezuitskog trga u Zagrebu i istraùju se mjesta odakle se kip najbolje sagle-dava i razabiru pojedinosti (Istraùjemo odnos izme|u kipa i okoli{a sa stajali{ta mogu}nosti sagleda-vanja! Evo podataka, a vi }ete sami isku{ati. Kada se kre}ete oko kipa na udaljenosti od oko 9 m,vidite ga pod vrlo lagodnim okomitim kutem od 18 stupnjeva. Istraùjte dalje!).5. Radionica zavr{ava primjerima koji pokazuju razli~iti me|uodnos kipa i okoli{a: a) A. Mato{ I. Koàri}a simulira ambijent; b) Me{trovi}eva @ena ispred Privredne banke je u kontrastus okoli{em; c) Baki}ev Goran uspostavlja ravnoteù. (Pitanja vezana uz Koàri}eva Mato{a: Što snimakpokazuje? Što se sve nalazi na {etali{tu? Koji kip? êga sve ima u okoli{u? Kako se kip odnosi premasvim tim elementima /klupe, stabla, ku}e, ograda, mogu}nost vidika/? Što kip simulira? Što je na ovomsnimku element okoli{a i {to taj element imitira /~ovjek na klupi - prikaz Mato{a na klupi/? Kako jedjevojka shvatila interakciju kipa i okoli{a /na snimku: “djevojka sjedi u kipu”/? Pitanja vezana uzMe{trovi}evu @enu: Gdje se nalazi kip? Kakav je okoli{ u kojem se kip nalazi? Opi{ite ga! Koji su ele-menti okoli{a, kakva su karaktera, ~emu sluè, kako funkcioniraju? Kako doìvljavate taj kip u odnosuna okoli{? Za{to je tu postavljen? Koja je njegova uloga? Uklapa li se ili je u kontrastu? îme? Moète lizamisliti bitno druga~iji okoli{ za isti kip? Ako da, kakav i za{to? Moète li zamisliti okoli{ bez tog kipa?Kakav je? Kakav je bio prije postavljanja, kakav bi bio poslije uklanjanja - da li isti? Ako da, za{to da,ako ne, za{to ne? Pitanja vezana uz Baki}eva Gorana: Što snimak pokazuje? Jeste li uo~ili skulpturu?Koji je to kip? Kako se doimlje iz te udaljenosti? Koje su bitne osobine parka, raslinja, puteljaka? Kakose me|usobno odnose organski okoli{ i geometrijska ljudska tvorevina? îme se kip prilago|ava okoli{u,~ime mu kontrastira? Odakle sada gledamo, kako vas se odavde doimlje?)

Napomena: Ova je radionica, poput prethodne, preduga, preporu~a se podjela.

65


symmetry do we find between the masses? Weobserve again all around. Try to find the placeswhere we have made the sections. Where have wemade the largest section? And the second one?And the third one? What kinds of forms have weobtained by “cutting” Vulas’s sculpture? What is thedifference? What relation exists between theseforms? What makes the difference? Compare the“growth” the “ascension” of Vulas’s andMeštroviæ’s sculptures. What are the differences?(change of form, change of dimensions).3. a) We show again Vulas’s work with a number ofslides photographed from all angles all around. Wegive the measurements (in cms) in four positions.(See the figure in Croatian text). b) The slides aboutMeštroviæ's Historia Croatorum are shown and thedimensions (in cm) are given. The height of thesculpture with base: 162; the height to the middle ofthe slab: 62; the height from the middle of the slabto the top: 100; the width of the scarf: 44 cm; thewidth of the shoulders: 66 cms; the width of theslab: 106 cms. (Compare the width of the scarf, theshoulders and the width of the slab. Compare thewidth of the slab and the height of the sculpture.Remind yourself what the ratio is and what the pro-portion is. We search for the rules which unite all themasses and their directions into a whole. Have youfound a relation between the ratios and if so whatkind is this relation? Compare it with Vulas’s sculp-ture. Can you possibly find any similarities in spiteof the differences we have already discovered, in therules of making a whole?)4. a) Instructions are given about the variations inthe setting of Vulas’s sculpture. The measurementsare given in distance: 70.5 cm angle: 18°; in dis-tance: 47 cm, angle 27°; in distance 23.5 cm,angle: 45°. The edges are 1-2 cms and correspondmore or less to FI (0.5; 0.8; 1.2 cm). We can easilydistinguish 0.5 mm which corresponds to a slightharshness of the wooden surface. b) We experiencethe problems of apprehension using the example ofT. Rosandiæ’s Fisherman too. A plan of a publicsquare is shown (the Jesuit Square in Zagreb)where the sculpture is set and we explore theplaces from where we can best apprehend and dis-tinguish the details at the same time. We explorethe relation to the environment. (We explore therelation between the sculpture and the environmentfrom the view-point of the possibility of apprehen-sion. We give this information: Here are the dataand you try it by yourself. When you go round thesculpture about 9 m from it you can see it under avery easy vertical angle of 18°. Explore further)5.) We finish the workshop with examples showinginteractions between the sculptures and their envi-ronments: a) I. Koûariæ’s Matoš simulates the envi-ronment, b) Meštroviæ’s Woman in front of theTrade Bank in Zagreb, 1929., bronze, 250 cm,Zagreb, is in contrast to it, c) V. Bakiæ: Goran -establishes a balance [(Questions about Koûariæ'sMatoš: What can you see in the slide? What youcan see on the promenade? What sculpture? Whatcan you all see in the environment? What is therelation of the sculpture to all these elements

64


PozicijePosition

I

II

III

IV

PostoljeBase

3,5

3,5

3,5

3,5

Prvi oblikFirst form

7,5

7,9

6,8

7,5

Drugi oblikSecond form

6,5

5,0

7,8

6,5

Tre}i oblikThird form

5,5

6,3

3,3

5,5


SINTAGMA (PRIRODNI KOM-PLEMENTARNI PAR) SYNTAGM (NATURAL COMPLEMENTARY PAIR)

KONTRASTCONTRAST

NARANÂSTA (C + @) ILI ZELENA (P + @)

PREOSTAJE KOJA LATENTNO DJELUJE

ORANGE (R + Y) OR GREEN (B + Y)

THE REST IS WHICH ACTS LATENTLY

PLAVA traì NARANÂSTUBLUE searches for ORANGE

MODULACIJA ZELENO @UTOMODULATION GREEN YELLOW

MODELACIJA PROMJENA TONA/VALERAMODELATION A CHANGE OF VALUE/CHROMA

67

CRVENA traì ZELENURED searches for GREEN

PSEUDOSINTAGMAPSEUDO-SYNTAGM

CRVENA - ZELENARED - GREEN

DVOSMISLENA SINTAGMAAMBIGUOUS SYNTAGM

66


MM EE TT OO DD EE II SS TT RR AA @@ II VV AA NN JJ AA SS LL II KK AA RR SS KK OO GG DD JJ EE LL AASINTAKSA BOJA

MM EE TT HH OO DD SS OO FF EE XX PP LL OO RR II NN GGAA PP AA II NN TT II NN GG

COLOUR SYNTAX

OO.. HHEERRMMAANN:: SSUUZZAANNAA II SSTTAARRCCII// SSUUZZAANNNNAAHH AANNDDTTHHEE EELLDDEERRSS,, 11996699..,,UULLJJEE//OOIILL,, 8811 XX 110033 CCMM,,GGSSUU,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

OKO PROIZVODI PRIRODNI/KOMPLEMENTARNI PAR THE EYE PRODUCES A NATURAL COMPLEMENTARY PAIR

KONTRASTCONTRAST

Nakon gledanja u CRVENU mrlju neko vrijeme ako pogledamo na neutralno bijelo desno, pojavit }e se pa-slika u ZELENOM

After looking at a RED spot for sometime and then at a neutral white to the right, we see the afterimage in GREEN

2. a) The participants sit at small tables and theyreceive a diagram of Herman’s painting. The work-shop leader projects the painting and the partici-pants helped by the students make a note of theplaces of colours which they have perceived in 3Donto the diagram. b) the participants are invited tofind the colours which they have on their “cards”on the projected reproduction and to write thenumbers on the diagram. The students assist withany problem.3. Four or five details of Herman’s painting are pro-jected, beginning with the easier, leading towardsthe more difficult ones. First the participants areinvited to find the detail in the painting, and after-wards the syntactic rule is explained which is per-ceiveable in the detail (modelation, modulation,contrast: syntagmas, pseudo-syntagmas, ambigualsyntagmas.4. We finish the workshop by deciphering theartist’s choice of colours and their relationship (pro-cedure). We enter more and more into the happen-ing of the painting as a “magic of colours”, a freeflow of colours or their subdueness, a liberation oflatent colours or a ba-lancing of the opposite ones.5. The participants keep the diagram and the“cards” if they so desire.

U ~ e t v r t o j radionici namjera je uvje`bati snalaènje s trima dimenzijama boja; vje`bati iden-tifikacije boja na reprodukciji O. Hermanove slike Suzana i starci; traènjem detalja (rje{avanjemzagonetki) intenzivirati gledanje i upoznati glavne aspekte sintakse u djelu.

Ambijent: Na po~etku radionice u sredini prostorije je stol, a oko njega stolice. U drugom dijelusudionici sjede uz male stolove s jedne i druge dulje strane prostorije. Projektor je na uobi~ajenommjestu. Pripremljene su “karte boja” dobivene na temelju istraìvanja s DIN 6164 sustavom uradionici P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a. Pripremljen je i shematski crte` Hermanove slike.

Struktura doga|anja1. Sudionici su okupljeni oko stola, dok studenti stoje iza njih. Najavljuje se igra “kartanja” ~ija se pravila tuma~e. “Karte” se kupe na temelju najve}eg kontrasta ili najve}e sli~nosti usve tri dimenzije boja - kromatske kvalitete, jarkosti (intenziteta), svjetline (tona). Kada su sudionicipokupili dosta “veliki” broj “karata”, svaki bar 2-3 (sve, naravno, ovisi o broju, spretnosti i brzinisudionika), mijenja se raspored u prostoriji.2. a) Sudionici sjedaju do bo~no postavljenih stolova i dobivaju shematski crte` Hermanove slike.Voditelj projicira total slike, a sudionici, uz pomo} studenata-instruktora, ozna~avaju u shematskomcrteù mjesto boja koje opaàju (u 3 D). b) Sudionike se poziva da na projiciranoj reprodukciji prona|uboje koje imaju u svojim “kartama” i da upi{u njihove {ifre u shematski crte`. Pomaù studenti.3. Projicira se oko 4 do 5 detalja Hermanove slike i to po~ev od “lak{ih” prema “teìma”. Prvo se odsudionika traì da na|u detalj na slici, a nakon toga tuma~i se sintakti~ko pravilo koje se jasno moèuo~iti na detalju (modeliranje, moduliranje, kontrast: sintagme, dvosmislene sintagme, pseudosin-tagme).4. Radionica zavr{ava odgonetavanjem izbora boja i odnosa (postupka). Sve se vi{e ulazi u inter-pretaciju doga|anja slike kao “~arolije boja”, njihova slobodnog toka ili prigu{ivanja, osloba|anjalatentnih ili uravnteàvanja suprotnih.5. Sudionici zadràvaju shematski crte` i, eventualno, “karte”.

69


In the f o u r t h workshop the intention is to prac-tice orientation in the three dimensions of colours; totrain colour identification using the reproduction of O.Herman’s painting Suzannah and the Elders; tosearch for details (solve puzzles) to intensify obser-vation and to learn the main aspects of colour syntaxin a work of art.

Ambience: At the beginning a table is in the middleof the room and the chairs are all around it. Later,in the second part of the workshop the participantssit at small tables along the longer sides of theroom. The projector is in its usual place. “Cards”are prepared on the basis of the exploration withDIN 6164 chips in the workshop Origin andPrinciples. A shematic diagram of Herman’s paint-ing is prepared too.

Structure of the Activity1. The participants are gathered and the students-instructors are behind them. The game is intro-duced and the rules are explained. “The cards” aresorted according to the greatest contrast or great-est similarity in all the three dimensions of colours- hue, chroma, value. When the participants havesorted a “large” number of “cards” each partici-pant two or three (naturally it depends on thenumber of participants and how clever and quickthey are), then the organisation of the roomchanges.

68


Igra kartama (karte su uzorci boja koje susudionici priredili istraùju}i Hermanovu sliku/A card game (the cards were made by the partici-pants exploring Herman’s painting)

Igra kartama/A card game

Studentica tuma~i dimenzije boja/A student-instructor explains colour dimensions

Studentica tuma~i igru/A student-instructorexplains the game

Igra kartama/A card game Studentica tuma~i dimenzije boja/A student-instructor explains colour dimensions

Igra kartama/A card game Identifikacija boja uz pomo} karata naHermanovoj slici/Colour identification on Herman’spainting with cards

71


FOCUSES OF THE PICTURETHE PICTURE IS A STRUCTURE OF PLACES


@ARI[TA SLIKESLIKA JE SKLOP MJESTA

b

b

b

aa

aa

b

70


MM EE TT OO DD EE II SS TT RR AA @@ II VV AA NN JJ AA SS LL II KK AA RR SS KK OO GG DD JJ EE LL AASTRUKTURALNE MOGU]NOSTI ODABRANOG KADRA (ARMATURA)

MM EE TT HH OO DD SS OO FF EE XX PP LL OO RR II NN GGAA PP AA II NN TT II NN GG

STRUCTURAL POSSIBILITIES OF THE CHOSEN FRAME (ARMATURE)

81 cm

103,6 cm

zeleni pojasthe green zone

1/2

a b

1/4 1/3

a1

b1

a : b = b : (a + b)

bottom and left and only by the inertia of the glanceit continues towards the right side; that the quarters in the horizontals are carried upwards byrepresented hills and downwards, somewhat weak-er by the lower edge of the tree and the right hand;the vertical division is partly carried by the place-ment of the figures mainly to the right and the land-scape to the left, further by the old man’s eye andby a great abstract form - a structure of sphericforms; in a certain shift, but still, we can notice thevertical quarter divisions (the valley left, the orangemass right); c) we go to the Golden Section divid-ing left-right, the right line of the Golden Section(the touch of the heads, Susannah’s eyes) while theleft one is less noticable but together they empha-sise the central vertical belt which is the densestone; d) we ask the participants how much they feelit and we speak about the importance of intuition ofthe wholeness of all the relations which could notbe caught analytically but with analytical direction oftheir attention, the intuition is educated for such agrasp of all the relations; e) further we check thediagonal divisions and in the glances of the partici-pants more and more the places/focuses are estab-lished, which are prepared for balancing the move-ments and standstills of the glance (the power ofthe movements towards the centre, the powertowards the sides and angles); the painting can beconsidered as a structure of the prepared places(place is a balance of the opposite powers ofmovements).

Namjera u p e t o j radionici je ste}i iskustvo o slici kao kadru, istraìti strukturalne mogu}nosti for-mata kojeg je O. Herman odabrao za svoju sliku i osvijestiti na koji su se na~in te mogu}nosti realiziraleu kompoziciji slike.

Ambijent: Sjedi se kraj malih stolova s po jednim studentom-instruktorom uz svaki stol. Potrebnisu milimetarski papir i ravnalo.

Struktura doga|anja:1. Najavljuje se rad. Podsje}a se na istraìvanje u devetoj radionici P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a.2. Uz pomo} instruktora sudionici crtaju pravokutnik 8 x 10 cm na milimetarskom papiru, dijele gapo uputama na polovicu lijevo-desno, gore-dolje, zatim ponovo na polovicu i onda po zlatnom rezu.Kutovi se povezuju s po deset to~aka na nasuprotnim stranicama i nastaje gusta mreà.3. a) Projicira se cjelina Hermanove slike i voditelj interpretira sliku kao doga|anje boje u odre|enimomjerima na odre|enim mjestima odabranog kadra (Što nosi pojedinu liniju, na koji se na~in struktural-na linija pretvara u kompozicijsku, ~ime se vodi promatra~ev pogled, ~ime se zaustavlja?). Traì se odsudionika da po osje}aju odrede glavne podjele i glavna àri{ta slike. b) Studenti metrom provjeravajustrukturalne linije na projekciji slike, podjele po polovici, ~etvrtini, lijevo-desno, gore-dolje i ustanovljujuda {iroki pojas zelenog poja~an crvenim potezom dvosmisleno nosi podjelu gore-dolje, lijevo i, inercijompogleda, produùje se i prema desno; da su ~etvrtinske podjele u horizontali gore no{ene prikazom brije-gova, dolje, ne{to slabije, doljnjim rubom stabla i desnom rukom; da je okomita podjela djelomi~nono{ena razmje{tajem likova prete`no desno a krajolika lijevo, zatim okom starca i jednim velikim tematski neodre|enim oblikom - sklopom sfernih oblika; da su, iako u stanovitom pomaku, ipak uo~ljive~etvrtinske okomite podjele (dolina - lijevo, naran~asti nos - desno). c) Prelazi se na zlatnoreznu podjelulijevo-desno, desna linija zlatnog reza (dodir glava, Suzanino oko) je izrazitija od lijeve, ali zajedno isti~usredi{nji okomiti pojas koji je najzgusnutiji. d) Sudionike se pita u kojoj mjeri to osje}aju i govori se ova`nosti intuitivnog zahva}anja cjeline svih odnosa. Naime, cjelina se analiti~ki ne moè zahvatiti, ali seanaliti~kim usmjeravanjem pa`nje intuicija odgaja upravo za zahva}anje cjeline svih odnosa. e) Slijediprovjera dijagonalnih podjela i sve se vi{e, u pogledu promatra~a, uspostavljaju mjesta/àri{ta slike kojasu prire|ena za uravnoteàvanje kretanja i mirovanja pogleda (snaga kretanja prema sredi{tu, snagaprema stranama i prema uglovima). Stoga se slika moè shvatiti kao sklop tako prire|enih mjesta(mjesto je ravnoteà suprotnih snaga kretanja).

73


The intention in the f i f t h workshop is to gainexperience about a painting as a frame and toexplore the structural possibilities of the frame O.Herman had chosen for his painting and to becomeaware of the possibilities which were realised in thefinal composition.

Ambience: The participants sit at small tables withone student-instructor beside every table. Graphpaper and rulers are available.

Structure of the Activity1. We begin by reminding the participants of theexplorations in the Origins and Principles.2. Helped by the students-instructors the partici-pants draw a rectangle of 8 x 10 cm, on the graphpaper according to the instructions. They divide it inhalf left to right and top to bottom, afterwards inhalf again and then according to the GoldenSection. The angles are connected with ten pointson the opposite sides and a dense networkappears.3. a) The whole of Herman’s painting is projectedand the workshop leader interprets the painting as acolour happening in definite ratios, in definite placesin a chosen format. (What carries a particular line,how a structural line transforms into a composition-al one, by what is the observer’s glance carried, bywhat is it halted?) The participants are invited todivide the painting mainly according to their feelingsand place the most important focuses; b) the stu-dents check the structural lines on the projectedpainting with rulers, the division in half, in quarters,left to right, top to bottom and find out that thebroad green belt which is strengthened with a redstroke ambigually divides the format from top to

72


Istraùju se kompozicija Hermanove slike/ Thecomposition of Herman’s painting is explored

Studentica mjeri Hermanovu sliku/A student-instructor is measuring Herman's painting

Crta se armatura Hermanove slike/The armature of Herman's painting is drawn

Studenti tuma~e u malim grupama/The students-instructors explain in small groups

Diskusija u malim grupama/Discussions in smallgroups

Diskusija u malim grupama/Discussions in smallgroups

75


II DD EE AA LL NN AA RR EE KK OO NN SS TT RR UU KK CC II JJ AA II DD EE AA LL RR EE CC OO NN SS TT RR UU CC TT II OO NN

RREEMMBBRRAANNDDTT VVAANN RRIIJJNN::SSUUZZAANNAA II SSTTAARRCCII// SSUUZZAANNNNAAHH AANNDD TTHHEE EELLDDEERRSS,, 11664477..,, UULLJJEE//OOIILL,, 7766,,55 XX 9922,,88 CCMM,, BBEERRLLIINN

HERMAN

moduliranjemodulation

b

a

a

a b

b

1/2 1/2

REMBRANDT HERMAN

gradtown

staracold man

pribliàvaju seapproaching

staracold man

filmsko pribliàvanje, stiješnjenost, redukcija tematskih elemenata“film-like approach”, straightening,reduction of the elements of the scenery

srednji planmedium shot

kontrastcontrast

impasto namazimpasto

modeliranjemodelling

crvenared

mrljedots

a

1/2

1/2

1/4 1/3

b

a

b

74

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELAII/6 AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT

AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA -- KK OO MM PP AA RR AA CC II JJ AATEMA - SCENA

AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS -- CC OO MM PP AA RR II SS OO NNSUBJECT - SCENE

staracold man

skrivaju sehiding

staracold man

crveno-naran~astored-orange

modeliranjemodelation

ARMATURE ARMATURES

bb

a a

1/2

1/2

IZVOR: STARI ZAVJET SOURCE: THE OLD TESTAMENT

vrtgarden

SuzanaSuzannah

lazurni namazthin layers of glazes

J. TINTORETTO

ruì~njakrose-garden

potrepštineaccessories

JJ.. TTIINNTTOORREETTTTOO::SSUUZZAANNAA II SSTTAARRCCII//SSUUZZAANNNNAAHH AANNDDTTHHEE EELLDDEERRSS,, 11555577..,, UULLJJEE//OOIILL,, 114466,,66 XX 119933,,66 CCMM,,BBEE^̂//VVIIEENNNNAA

SAGLEDAVANJE APPREHENSION

ties of the rectangle are realised although we alwaysfind divisions in half and divisions according to theGolden Section. In Tintoretto’s and Rembrandt’spaintings several viewpoints and slant projectionsare inserted into the network and in this way in thespace continuum a sort of shift is attained in bothcases. 4. The workshop leader interprets the noted simil-iarities and differences in all the three paintingsconcerning the possibilities of apprehending thewhole and distinguishing the details. All three paint-ings can be apprehended from the easy verticalangle of 27° and at the same time the horizontalangles are also easy (36°; 33°; 41°) from the dis-tance of 3.0 1.5 1.6 metres. The FI (foveal image)is congruent with the articulation of the landscape,accessories and the robes in two of the paintingsand in Herman’s painting with the articulation of theface, for instance Suzannah’s eye. In Tintoretto’spainting our eyes very easily distinguish the brushstrokes in the representation of the landscape andthe Elders but not in the case of Suzannah’s body,which increases the impression of flatness andgives the body, in spite of its nudity, an impressionof abstraction, nonsensuality. In Rembrandt’s paint-ing we can easily distinguish the brush strokes andin Herman’s painting they are very large and makean impression of aggressiveness and demand agreater distance.

Namjera u { e s t o j radionici je da se komparativnom analizom, putem uo~avanja razlika isli~nosti s drugim slikarskim djelima iste teme bolje upoznaju razni aspekti Hermanove slike Suzana istarci.

Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj, uòj strani prostorije. Projektor je iza le|a sudionika.

Struktura doga|anja1. Analiziraju se scene u trima slikama s istom temom Suzana i starci: a) J. Tintoretto (vrt, Suzaninpoloàj, potreb{tine i njihov razmje{taj, mjesto staraca u ruì~njaku); b) Rembrandt van Rijn (polumra~ni, pomalo neodre|eni ambijent, grad u pozadini u polusvjetlu,Suzanin stav, me|uodnos likova, geste staraca); c) O. Herman (“filmsko” pribliàvanje likovima,velika me|usobna blizina - stje{njenost, redukcija tematskih elemenata).2. Analiziraju se izbor boja i sintaksa kod triju slika. Na detaljima se vidi: a) lazurni namaz i modeli-ranje crveno-naran~astom bojom (Tintoretto) ; b) veliki broj tonova iste, crvene boje - modeliranje,namaz u vidljivim velikim mrljama i potezima (Rembrandt); c) veliki broj boja u grubim impastonamazima, kontrast i moduliranje (Herman).3. Uspore|uju se tri formata, tri armature: a) Tintoretto 146,6 x 193,6 cm; b) Rembrandt 76,5 x 92,8cm; c) Herman 81 x 103,5 cm. U trima kompozicijama realiziraju se razli~ite mogu}nosti pravokut-nika, iako se u svim primjerima radi o polovi~noj podjeli i o zlatnom rezu. U Tintorettovoj iRembrandtovoj slici u mreù su ugra|ene i kose projekcije i vi{e o~i{ta i time je svaki put postignut svo-jevrsni pomak u kontinuitetu prostora.4. Voditelj interpretira uo~ene sli~nosti i razlike triju slika i u odnosu na mogu}nost sagledavanja cjeline irazabiranja detalja. Sve se tri slike sagledavaju iz lagodnog okomitog kuta od 27° a da je pritom ivodoravni lagodan (36°; 33°; 41°), iz udaljenosti 3, 1,5, 1,6 m. FS se poklapa s razradom krajolika,potrep{tina, haljina u obje slike, a u slu~aju Hermanove slike s razradom lica, npr. Suzanino oko. U slu~aju Tintorettove slike o~i lagodno razabiru poteze u prikazivanju krajolika i staraca, ali ne iSuzanina tijela {to pove}ava dojam plo{nosti, tijela i unato~ nagosti, daje dojam apstraktnosti, neosjetil-nosti. Na Rembrandtovoj slici potezi se lagodno razabiru, a na Hermanovoj, zbog veli~ine, proizvodedojam agresivnosti te navode na odmak.


77The intention in the s i x t h workshop is to learnHerman’s painting better by noticing the differencesand similarities through a comparative analysisbetween the painting and some others of the samesubject.

Ambience: The chairs are turned towards the wallwhere the projection will be. The projector is to therear of the participants.

Structure of the Activity1. The students analyse the scenes represented inthe three paintings with the same subject: Suzannahand the Elders: a) J. Tintoretto (Garden, Suzannah’sposition, her accessories and their placement, theElders’ positions in the rose-garden), b) Rembrandtvan Rijn (halfdark, gloomy, a rather indefinite envi-ronment, a town in the background lighted slightly,Suzannah’s position, the interaction of the figu-res,the Elders’ gestures), c) O. Herman (“filmlikeapproach” to the figures, medium shot - straighten-ing, the reduction of the elements of the scenery).2. We analyse the colour choice and the syntax in thethree paintings. In the details we can see: a) a thinlayer and modelling with red-orange colour(Tintoretto); b) a great deal of the value of the samered colour - modelling, in large noticable dots andstrokes (Rembrandt); c) a great deal of colour hue inthe rough impasto layers, contrast and modulation(Herman).3. The three formats are compared and so are thethree armature: a) Tintoretto: 146.6 x 193.6 cm; b)Rembrandt: 76.5 x 92.8 cm; c) Herman: 81 x 103.5cm In the three compositions the different possibili-

76


79


R. NIKŠI]: RADNI^KO SVEUÎLIŠTE, ZAGREB (mjesto odvijanja radionica), 1960.THE WORKERS' UNIVERSITY, ZAGREB (where the workshops took place), 1960.

St –stubi{te/stepsU –ulaz/entranceDv –dvori{te/courtyardZh – zahod/toiletKh –kuhinja/kitchenSp – spavanje/bedroomH – hodnik/corridorP – predvorje/entrance hallD – dvorana/hallBl –blagovanje/dining-areaBo –boravak/living-areaVr –vrt/gardenKp –kupanje/bathroomSr – spremi{te/storehouseG –garderoba/cloakroomV –verandaO –oltar/altarKnj –knji`nica/libraryTr – trgovina/shopT –terasa/terrace

78


MM EE TT OO DD EE II SS TT RR AA @@ II VV AA NN JJ AA GG RR AA DD II TT EE LL JJ SS KK OO GG DD JJ EE LL AAKOMUNIKACIJSKE STRUKTURE U POVIJESTI GRADITELJSTVA

MM EE TT HH OO DD SS OO FF EE XX PP LL OO RR II NN GG AA NN AA RR CC HH II TT EE CC TT UU RR AA LL WW OO RR KK OO FF AA RR TT

COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE

kineska ku}a jednocentri~na struktura

Chinese house monocentric structure

rimska vila dvocentri~na struktura

Roman villa, bicentric structure

srednjovjekovna venecijanska ku}a jednocentri~na struktura

Medieval Venetian housemonocentric structure

muslimanska ku}a hijerarhijska struktura

Islamic house hierarchical structure

indijska kraljevska pala~a interakcijska struktura

Indian Raja’s palace interactive structure

firentinska renesansna pala~ajednocentri~na struktura

Florentine Renaissance palacemonocentric structure

directing attention which is not only articulation buta discipline of gaze. We interpret the similaritiesand differences in relation to architecture. We donot only observe the architecture and not only hearit but we live in it with all our senses and we aremuch more limited by it or liberated by it than by apainting or a piece of music.2. The participants on the basis of the plans drawgraphs helped by the students-instructors of a) a traditional Chinese house, b) a Roman house;c) an Indian palace; d) a Moslem house; e) a medieval Venetian house; f) a FlorentineRenaissance palace and finally g) of the first levelof Nikšiæ’s Workers’ University. They are remindedof the Baroque castle in Fertöd and Villa Savoyshown in the series of workshops Origins andPrinciples.3. All the planes and graphs are projected. a) The participants check and correct their drawings.b) All the examples are read and interpreted collec-tively.

U s e d m o j radionici namjera je osvijestiti sli~nosti i razlike u usmjeravanju samo jednog osjetilaslikom i usmjeravanja svih osjetila arhitektonskim djelom; primijeniti znanje o komunikacijskim struk-turama i o crtanju grafova ste~eno u petoj radionici P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a na R. Nik{i}evo Radni~ko sveu~ili{te (prostore u kojima se odvijaju radionice) ina primjere tipi~nih komunikacijskih situacija u arhitektonskim ostvarenjima raznih razdoblja i kultura.

Ambijent: Stolovi i stolice razmje{teni po cijeloj prostoriji. Uz svaki je stol jedan instruktor-student.

Struktura doga|anja1. Pokazuje se: a) Tintorettova slika Suzana i starci vi|ena u prethodnoj radionici da bi se sudioniciprisjetili na koji na~in usmjerava pogled i na koji ga na~in artikulira; b) plutej iz Koljana vi|en u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a. Obnavlja se iskustvo o usmjeravanjupa`nje koja ne samo artikulira nego i disciplinira pogled. U interpretaciji se ukazuje na sli~nosti i raz-like s arhitekturom. Arhitekturu ne gledamo samo, ili ne slu{amo samo, nego u njoj ìvimo svim na{imosjetilima i u daleko smo ve}oj mjeri njome ograni~eni ili njome oslobo|eni nego npr. slikom iliglazbom.2. Sudionici, uz pomo} instruktora i na temelju tlocrta, crtaju grafove: a) tradicionalne kineske ku}e;b) anti~ke rimske; c) indijske; d) muslimanske; e) srednjovjekovne venecijanske; f) renesansnefirentinske i, na koncu, g) prizemlja Nik{i}eva Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta. Prisje}aju se baroknog dvorca uFertödu i Ville Savoy iz radionica P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a.3. Projiciraju se tlocrti i grafovi svih primjera. a) Sudionici provjeravaju i ispravljaju svoje crteè. b) Primjeri se zajedni~ki ~itaju i interpretiraju.

81


In the s e v e n t h workshop the intention is tomake the participants aware of the similarities anddifferences in directing only one sense using apainting or directing all the senses using an archi-tectural work of art; to use the knowledge aboutthe communication structures and about drawinggraphs gained in the workshop Origins andPrinciples concerning R. Nikšiæ’s Workers’University (where the workshops took place) andconcerning the examples of typical communicationstructures in the architecture of different times andcultures.

Ambience: Tables and chairs are placed scatteredall over the room. Beside each table there is a stu-dent-instructor.

Structure of the activity1. We show: a) Tintoretto’s painting Suzannah andthe Elders already seen in the former workshop, toremind the participants how it directs and how itarticulates our gaze; b) the pluteus from Koljanialso already seen, in the series of workshopsOrigins and Principles. We revive the experience of

80


U~i se kako crtati grafove/The participants aretaught how to draw graphs

Prou~avaju se tlocrti/The plans are studied

Voditelj tuma~i/The workshop leader explains Studenti rade u manjim grupama/The students-instructors work in small groups

U~i se kako crtati grafove/The participants aretaught how to draw graphs

Crtaju se grafovi/The graphs are drawn

acting of other functions and to “act”, perform, themain relations in the house (for example the mainfunction of the courtyard is linking all the roomswhich are separated from each other). “Acting”the Roman house begins with a tablinum placedbetween two centres, two courtyards. The Moslemhouse is also policentric but the centres do nothave equal rights (the entrance to the women’scourtyard is through the men’s one). In theMedieval Venetian house the transitoriness is“acted” (two entrances: one from the sea and theother from the dry land). The transitoriness is“acted” also in the Florentine Renaissance palaceplaced between a square and a street and alsogoing round the rooms is also “acted”. In theBaroque castle a student guides the participantsfrom a guestroom through all the “obstacles” tothe princess’s apartment, which in the perfor-mance looks like a long chain and the hierarchybecomes evident. The game ends with “acting”the connection in Villa Savoy by Le Corbusier. Theworkshop leader guides it as a great roundabout(interaction). With that the workshop ends.

Namjera u o s m o j radionici je, uìvljavanjem u pojedine funkcije i glume}i njihove razli~iteveze, doìvjeti razli~ite komunikacijske mogu}nosti koje se uobli~uju u arhitektonskim ostvarenjima;osvijestiti da boravak i kretanje u arhitektonskim prostorima predstavlja temeljni odgoj svakoga~ovjeka.

Ambijent: Sjedi se na stolicama raspore|enim u krug oko praznog sredi{ta.

Struktura doga|anja1. a) Najprije se poku{ava ra{~laniti pojedine funkcije jednog predmeta - od ~ega se sastoji npr.funkcija `lice (sadràvanje, grabljenje, lijevanje, drànje, spremanje, itd.). b) Nakon toga se pita {toje funkcija dvori{ta. Pozivaju se sudionici na “glumu”. Poziva se jedan sudionik da se uìvi u ulogudvori{ta, da se s njime poistovjeti i da kaè {to je i {to se u njemu zbiva. 2. Slijedi uìvljavanje odnosno “glumljenje” razli~itih temeljnih funkcija arhitekture i njihovih tipi~nihveza (izvode studenti i sudionici). Po jedan student zapo~inje “glumu” za svaki od povijesnih tipovapoistovje}uju}i se s jednom funkcijom i vodi dalje “predstavu” da bi se dobila tipi~na situacija. Jedanstudent “glumi” dvori{te tradicionalne kineske ku}e i traì sudionike da mu se pridruè kao drugeodre|ene funkcije i tako zajedno “glume”, izvode glavne odnose u ku}i (npr. glavna uloga dvori{ta jepovezati sve prostorije koje su me|usobno odijeljene). “Gluma” rimske ku}e po~inje s tablinumom kojise nalazi izme|u dva sredi{ta, dva dvori{ta. Islamska je ku}a tako|er vi{ecentri~na, ali centri nisume|usobno u ravnopravnom odnosu (u ènsko se dvori{te ulazi preko mu{kog). U srednjovjekovnojvenecijanskoj ku}i “glumi” se prolaznost (dva ulaza, morski i kopneni). Prolaznost se “glumi” i u rene-sansnoj firentinskoj pala~i smje{tenoj izme|u trga i ulice, s osim toga “glumi” se i kruènje izme|upojedinih prostorija. U baroknom dvorcu pomo}nik vodi sudionike iz gostinjske sobe preko svih“zapreka” do kneginjina apartmana, {to u izvedbi izgleda kao duga~ak lanac i na taj na~in hijerar-hija postaje o~ita. Igra se zavr{ava “glumom” veza u Le Corbusierovoj Villi Savoy koju organiziravoditelj kao veliko kolo (interakcija), ~ime se zavr{ava radionica.

83


The intention in the e i g h t h workshop is toshare the feeling of particular functions and, actingout their different relations, to gain experience ofdifferent communication possibilities which havetaken shape in architecture; to become aware of thebasic education of every man which takes placewhen staying and moving in architectural spaces.

Ambience: The chairs are placed in a circle aroundan empty centre.

Structure of the activity1. a) First we try to divide the functions of a partic-ular object (What are the functions of a spoon forinstance (containing, grasping, pouring, holding,storing), b) later we put a question about the func-tion of a courtyard. The participants are invited “toact”. A participant is invited to enter into the spirit ofa courtyard, to identify him/herself with it and todescribe what happens inside him/her. 2. Afterwards the feeling or “acting” of differentbasic functions of architecture and their connec-tions follow (the students and the parti-cipantsperform). For each of the historical types one stu-dent begins with “acting”, identifying him/herselfwith one function and guides the “performance”further to obtain/create a typical situation. A stu-dent “acts” the courtyard of a traditional Chinesehouse and invites the participants to join in the

82


Glume se komunikacijske strukture arhitekture(centristi~ke, hijerarhijske,interakcijske)/Communication structures in archi-tecture are acted (centristic, hierarchical, interactive)

Voditelj - sudionici - studenti/The workshopleader - participants - students

85



RADNI^KO SVEUÎLIŠTE U ZAGREBU, 1960. THE WORKERS' UNIVERISTY IN ZAGREB, 1960.

84



CISTERCITSKA OPATIJA, LE THORONET, 12. ST. CISTERCIAN ABBEY, LE THORONET, 12TTHH C.

abbey is circumambulated from the outside andfrom the inside. After each slide the participants areasked where it was taken from and instructions aregiven about how to orient in the space.3. The same procedure is used concerning theWorkers’ University. Circumambulating from the out-side and from the inside using about twenty slides.The participants are instructed to mark on the planthe place where each slide was photographed.4. The wholes are projected of: a) Le Thoronet andof b) the Workers’ University and a comparison ismade about the communication in them c) the slidesand the plan of the madrasah (Moslem religiousschool) in Poèitelj are projected, (a school fromanother culture). Instructions are given concerningthe similarities and and differences.

8786 Namjera u d e v e t o j radionici je osvijestiti razli~ite komunikacijske strukture komparacijomtriju javnih objekata sli~ne namjene koji pripadaju razli~itim kulturama i razli~itom vremenu;vje`bati snalaènje u prostoru uz pomo} snimaka, tlocrta i grafova.

Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani i projektor je iza le|a.

Struktura doga|anja1. Dijele se tlocrti cistercitskog samostana u Le Thoronetu, 12. st. i Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta u Zagrebu,1960. Najavljuje se na~in rada i projicira se prvi snimak cistercitskog samostana u Le Thoronetu.Studenti-instruktori djelomi~no vode razgovor sa sudionicima a djelomi~no im individualno pomaùu rje{avanju zadataka.2. Jedan student postavlja zadatak: potrebno je u tlocrt Le Thoroneta upisati broj snimka koji seprojicira i to na mjesto odakle je snimak napravljen. Studenti vode razgovor. Snimcima se (oko 20)obilazi samostan i izvana i iznutra. Nakon svakog snimka pita se odakle je snimljen i daju se upo-zorenja i upute kako se sna}i u prostoru.3. Isti se postupak primjenjuje i u vezi snimaka Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta. Obilazak izvana i iznutra opets oko 20 snimaka. Sudionici su pozvani da na tlocrtu ozna~e mjesto odakle je napravljen pojedinisnimak.4. Projicira se po jedan snimak cjeline: a) LeThoroneta i b) Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta i uspore|uje sekomunikacija u njima; c) pokazuju se snimci i tlocrt medrese u Po~itelju, u~ili{tu koje pripada drugojkulturi i ukazuje na sli~nosti i razlike.

In the n i n t h workshop the intention is to makethe participants aware of the different communica-tion structures by comparing three public objects ofsimilar functions which belong to different culturesand different periods; to train the orientation inspace through slides, plans and graphs.

Ambience: The chairs are turned towards one ofthe narrow sides of the room and the projector isbehind.

Structure of the activity1. The plans of the Cistercian Abbey in Le Thoronet,12th Century., and the Workers’ University inZagreb, 1960, are distributed. Instructions about thework are given and the first slide of the abbey isprojected. The students talk to all participants andhelp them individually as well.2. A student sets the task: the participants have towrite the numbers of the projected slides in theplace on the plan from which they were taken. The students discuss. With about twenty slides the

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTIIII//99

89

AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTT


modul

zlatni rez (Fibonaccijev niz 5,8,13) Golden Section (Fibonacci series 5,8,13)

5

8

8+2

+1

13

modularni sustavmodular system

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

88

AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTII/10

AA NN AA LL II ZZ AA -- KK OO MM PP AA RR AA CC II JJ AAMJERE

AA NN AA LL YY SS II SS -- CC OO MM PP AA RR II SS OO NNMEASURES


travejbay

u~ionicaclassroom

u~ionicaclassroom

sveti tekstHoly text

I H S O U S 10 + 8 + 200 + 70 + 400 + 200 = 888 (po starom ra~unanju)(according to old computing)

1 stopa = 0,304 m1 feet


11'1"

33'3"

88'8"

133'

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

MMEEDDRREESSAA//MMAADDRRAASSAAHHPPOO^̂IITTEELLJJ

RRAADDNNII^̂KKOO SSVVEEUU^̂IILLII[[TTEE// TTHHEE WWOORRKKEERRSS'' UUNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY,, ZZAAGGRREEBB

CCIISSTTEERRCCIITTSSKKAA OOPPAATTIIJJAA//CCIISSTTEERRCCIIAANN AABBBBEEYY,, LLEE TTHHOORROONNEETT

((LLEEDDIITT))

the Holy Text in Le Thoronet (IESOUS = 88”8’).(Details about this mode of proportioning can beseen in the workshop City and Architecture.)2. An attempt is made to interpret the “mostuntouchable” aspect of the architecture, of everypiece of art work, that which “invisibly” makes thewholeness.3. The workshop leader invites all the participantsand students to a final discussion with refresh-ments and asks them to fill in the questionnaireanonimously to see what they had expected of theworkshops and what they had obtained and whatthey are aware that they have learned during theworkshops.

9190 Namjera u d e s e t o j radionici je osvijestiti omjere i razmjere komparacijom triju javnih objekatasli~ne namjene koji pripadaju razli~itim kulturama i razli~itom vremenu.

Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani. Projektor je iza le|a.

Struktura doga|anja1. Projiciraju se crta~ki pripremljene analize tlocrta s obzirom na omjere i razmjere crkve cistercitskogsamostana u Le Thoronetu, medrese u Po~itelju i Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta u Zagrebu. Pokazuje se mo-dularni sustav u sva tri primjera (travej, u~ionica, u~ionica), razmjeri po zlatnom rezu u Le Thoronetui Radni~kom sveu~ili{tu i mjere po svetom tekstu u Le Thoronetu (IESOUS = 88’ 8’’). (O tom na~inuproporcioniranja op{irnije u radionici G r a d i G r a d i t e lj s t v o)2. Poku{ava se interpretirati “najneuhvatljiviji” aspekt arhitekture/svakog umjetni~kog djela, to, {to“nevidljivo” ucjelovljuje.3. Voditelj poziva sve sudionike na zavr{ni razgovor uz kola~ i ~aj te moli da se anonimno ispuneupitnici iz kojih }e se mo}i vidjeti {to su o~ekivali, {to su dobili, {to su nau~ili.

The intention in the t e n t h workshop is tobecome aware of the ratios and proportions ofthree public objects similar in function but belong-ing to different cultures and periods.

Ambience: The same as in the former workshop

Structure of the activity1. Prepared drawings-analyses of plans concerningthe ratios and proportions are projected. a) of the church in the Cistercian Abbey of LeThoronet; b) of the madrasah in Poèitelj and of c)the Workers’ University in Zagreb. The modular sys-tem is shown in all three examples (bay, classroom,classroom), the Golden Section (proportions in theWorkers’ University) and measurement according to

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF TTHHEE WWOORRKK OOFF AARRTTIIII//1100

Documents

Radionica II