Ailbhe Reilly Tuite

Assignment Submitted to Sarah Kelleher

Art and Utopia – 3rd Year Semester 1

Question 3: By what means and for what purpose does Arte Povera challenge

previous sculptural practice. Root your answer in at least two works of art.

Submitted: 27 October 2022

Final word count: 1972

Essay word count: 1656

1
Arte Povera was a radical art movement which originated in Italy in the late 1960s.

The term Arte Povera (poor art) was coined by Germano Celant in 1967. Using

materials such as steel, soil, stone and wood, the artists of Arte Povera (the

poveristi) challenged the typical sculptural practice of previous artists to create

artworks that were easily accessible by a broad public. They worked to break out of

previous sculpture’s immobile abstractions of form and concept, and into

transformative and ephemeral sculpture. The viewer’s presence and the instability of

life as it grows and moves were important factors in the sculpture of the movement.

Arte Povera brought the viewer’s attention to their immediate surroundings, placing

the everyday object in direct line of vision, and bringing it into a new context.1

This switch away from traditional Fine Art materials to non-privileged or

commonplace materials was part of a larger social movement in Italy at the time,

spurred by the rapid industrialisation of Italy post WW2. Largely thanks to the United

States’ Marshall Plan donation of 1.3million dollars to Italy, Italian economics

boomed through the 1950s and 60s. However, the boom in Italy brought with it many

social issues, including a growing gap between the bourgeoisie and the working

class. Governmental oppression was heavily protested by students and the general

1 (Vergine 1996)

2
public through the fifties and sixties, coinciding with the beginnings of Arte Povera in

1967.2

Within this context, the poveristi protested against the commercialisation of the fine

art world by creating artworks from materials which would have previously been

labelled as worthless. Arte Povera was an anti-capitalist, anti ‘high art’ movement

which worked with materials in an organic way and spoke often about the blend

between artifice and naturalness in an industrial world. It was also the aim of these

artists to reconnect with nature and nature’s four elements – earth, air, fire, water.

Their works pointed out the nature of the materials they were using, and stressed it’s

‘morphology’; the way in which a material’s properties will fluctuate depending on its

environment, or depending at times on that material’s own lifespan.3

At the beginning of the twentieth century, sculptural practice was challenging the

ideological traditions of renaissance and neo-classical sculpture, breaking away from

idealised human figures to explore abstract form and space, as seen below in

Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space4.

2 (Dunnage 2002)

3 (Vergine 1996)

4 (Ritchie 1952)

3
Figure 1 Umberto Boccioni. Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, 1913 (Ritchie 1952)

In my essay I will show how the sculptural works of Arte Povera challenged the

sculptural practice of cubism, futurism and constructivism. Taking abstraction as a

concept already pre-established, Arte Povera moved past an exploration of form and

into an exploration of concept, media and time, embracing ephemerality as a crucial

aspect of their work. These artists respond to their social and economic surroundings

through a broad range of media, and pose a challenge to traditional sculpture in the

way they have been installed and displayed, for they take in to consideration the

viewer’s presence and the passing of time.

4
Three artworks which demonstrate this are Gilberto Zorio’s Rosa-Blu-Rosa (1967),

Marisa Merz’s Living Sculpture (1966), and Giuseppe Penone’s Steel hand and tree

(1968). Respectively, these three sculptural works explore questions surrounding the

viewer’s presence, everyday objects and man versus nature. These works challenge

previous sculptural practice in an effort to present the viewer with something

unexpected, keeping in touch with basic understandings of our existence and a

contemporary understanding of their society. Zorio, Merz and Penone comment on

the effect of industrial production on our world and on our spaces as well as the

effect we as humans have on the industrial world, or any space we occupy.

Figure 2 Gilberto Zorio. Rosa-Blu-Rosa, 1967 (Collection n.d.)

Gilberto Zorio’s Rosa-Blu-Rosa (Pink-Blue-Pink) was completed in 1967. It is made

of half a concrete cylinder filled with plaster and cobalt chloride. Depending on the

humidity level of its environment, the cobalt chloride mixture changes from pink to

blue. Hence the sculpture is in a constant state of transformation; despite the solidity

of its physical form it is a work grounded in instability. Zorio’s use of concrete and

5
commercial chemicals leave an unavoidable connection with the industrial world,

reminding us of the economic and social instability spurred by capitalism.

Concurrently we can see in this work a statement made against the sculpture

practices of Constructivism. While Constructivism had its similarities to Arte Povera

in its use of industrial materials, it was a movement very much based around

geometrical specificity, and constantly pushed to leave behind any trace of organic

life or human intervention. Richard Lippold’s sculpture Reunion (1951) shows an

example of the aesthetics of constructivism.5

5 (Ritchie 1952)

6
Figure 3 Richard Lippold. Reunion, 1951 (Ritchie 1952)

Rosa-Blu-Rosa is also using industrial materials, but it involves action, demands a

viewer’s presence, and simulates life. Zorio reconnects with a basic understanding of

our existence – that our presence alters our environment, our breath alters the

atmosphere. The work is never-changing yet ephemeral, quite unlike the rigid

structures of constructivism, placed on plinths or permanently installed in public

spaces. Zorio’s sculpture has been installed on the floor, at the viewer’s feet, in such

a way as it can be taken away any time. Even still, during its time in the gallery,

Rosa-Blu-Rosa commands the viewers’ attention and exists symbiotically with its

audience.

Looking at Marisa Merz’s Living Sculpture from 1966, we see another sculptural

work challenging the norms of previous sculptural practice. This piece was made of

hollow twisted tubes of aluminium suspended from the ceiling, and was first installed

in Merz’s kitchen before being publicly displayed in Turin in 1967. If we look at the

free-form sculptures of cubism and futurism, we can see similarities with Merz’

sculpture. Both styles employed a use of a vast amount of surfaces and shapes

within a form and suggested a warping of time and space. Merz’s sculpture,

however, is further from a composition of shapes and closer to a collection of

spaces.

The tubular forms which hang remind the viewer of industrial air vents, while also

having associations by the method of installation to snakes or vines, living above our

heads in the trees.

7
Figure 4 Marisa Merz. Untitled(Living Sculpture), 1966 (Roberts 2016)

Boccioni’s Unique forms of continuity in space paved the way for abstracted

sculpture. Merz’s work steps further by suggesting the sculpture is alive, by allowing

8
the work to engulf the space where it is installed. This sculpture hangs from the

ceiling, challenging previous sculptural works which would typically have been

displayed on plinths in galleries. Here, the viewer must look up to see the work,

placing them inside the space created. Living Sculpture is reconfigured for each new

space in which it is exhibited, being adapted as a site specific installation, to suit

each room where it lives temporarily. This is one aspect that sets it far apart from the

sculptures of cubism and futurism earlier in the century. The plasticity of Merz’

sculpture is something never seen in the bronze casts, even while they alluded to

freedom of form in space. Merz challenges those practices by creating a sculpture

which is genuinely free in form, and does not simply suggest a movement in space,

but actually moves.6

While looking at Merz’ Living Sculpture, the viewer is no longer a passive onlooker,

but a part of the dialogue; they can step in and out of the space, coexisting with the

work.

Lastly, I will look at Giuseppe Penone’s Steel Hand and Tree 1968, for its

conversation with time, and it’s commentary on the relationship between human and

nature. This piece consists of a hand cast in steel and inserted into the trunk of a

tree. In Penone’s words, “It will continue to grow except at that point”7. I would like to

compare this work to the ready-mades of Dadaism, which in their own right had a

6 (Roberts 2016)

7 (Penone 2022)

9
certain amount of influence on Arte Povera as a movement.8 Duchamp’s Fountain,

for example, predates the Arte Povera movement by 50 years, yet holds a similar

base concept: that the capitalisation of the art world is something to be protested

against, and that everyday materials can add a deeper layer of communication to a

sculpture.

8 (Aloi 2020)

10
Figure 5 Duchamp Fountain, 1917 (Curator: Hopps and Camfield 1988)

Nevertheless Arte Povera still poses a challenge to these works. In comparing

Penone’s Steel Hand and Tree with Duchamp’s Fountain, the similarities are that

both artists have used objects we see every day. Penone’s tree is however made

accessible to a larger audience, given that urinals are generally specific to the male

experience. One difference is clear: that Penone’s work is alive, and will continue to

change and evolve over the years as the tree grows.

Figure 6 Giuseppe Penone. It will continue to grow except at that point, 1968-2003 (Penone 2022)

Penone’s sculptural practice challenges those of Duchamp and other Dadaists;

while Dadaism focused on satire, abstraction of thought and non-sensical portrayal

of ideas, Penone through Arte Povera worked towards clarity, unifying art and nature

in organic ways. He connects with the viewer intrinsically, by stepping back to watch

his work grow alongside the viewer. Here the artist is a very active participant of the
11
process; it is planned and it is unplannable. Steel hand and tree shows us our

nature, in a modest and simple way – reinforcing the belief of Arte Povera that art is

for everyone, not just a privileged few.9

To summarise, Arte Povera was an anti-capitalist, anti-commercialism art movement

which aimed to reconnect with intrinsic values of nature through everyday objects

and events. The artists of this movement challenged previous sculptural practice

through their use of commonplace and industrial materials, and commented on the

relationship between naturalness – the organic growth and unpredictability of a

constantly transforming natural world – and artifice – the artificial input of humans

which provokes changes, both intentional and not. Sculptors of this movement often

included the viewers’ presence as a crucial element to the completion of their works,

meaning the viewer can be a part of the artistic process. Arte Povera challenges

previous sculpture by saying that art and nature are symbiotic, that the viewer is a

part of the dialogue, and that every aspect of art is for everyone to experience,

collectively.

9 (Vergine 1996)

12
Table of Figures:

Figure 1 Umberto Boccioni. Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, 1913 (Ritchie 1952)

.................................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2 Gilberto Zorio. Rosa-Blu-Rosa, 1967 (Collection n.d.)........................................ 5

Figure 3 Richard Lippold. Reunion, 1951 (Ritchie 1952) ................................................... 7

Figure 4 Marisa Merz. Untitled(Living Sculpture), 1966 (Roberts 2016).......................... 8

Figure 5 Duchamp Fountain, 1917 (Curator: Hopps and Camfield 1988) .................... 11

Figure 6 Giuseppe Penone. It will continue to grow except at that point, 1968-2003

(Penone 2022) ....................................................................................................................... 11

Bibliography

Collection, Pinault. n.d. Rosa-Blu-Rosa, 1967, Gilberto Zorio. Accessed 10 2022.

https://lesoeuvres.pinaultcollection.com/en/artwork/rosa-blu-rosa.

Curator: Hopps, Walter, and Bill Camfield. 1988. "Duchamp/Fountain." Artstor.org. The

Menil Collection Houston. 02 8. Accessed 10 2022.

https://library.artstor.org/public/21075661.

Dunnage, Jonathan. 2002. "Twentieth Century Itlay: A Social History." In Social, Cultural and

economic transformation in post-war Italy (1950-80), by Jonathan Dunnage. Oxon &

New York: Taylor and Francis Group.

13
Penone, Giuseppe. 2022. "It Will Continue to Grow Except at That Point."

GiuseppePenone.com. Archivio Penone. 01 01. Accessed 10 26, 2022.

https://giuseppepenone.com/en/works/1250-continuera-a-crescere-tranne-che-in-

quel-punto.

Ritchie, Andrew Carnduff. 1952. "Sculpture of the Twentieth Century: Catalogue of the

Exhibition: Introduction." MOMA.org. Museum of Modern Art. 04 29. Accessed 10

2022. https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_2822_300190224.pdf.

Roberts, Phoebe. 2016. Marisa Merz, Untitled (Living Sculpture). 06. Accessed 10 20, 2022.

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/merz-untitled-living-sculpture-t12950.

14