Viewing page 7 of 7

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

feels a reference to landscape, not a visual reference exactly, but a reference to the experience of landscape. (One of the risks run by someone writing about art is that in trying to make a case for or against an artist's work, he will appeal to what he thinks will have been the reader's experience, and the reader will have had no such experience. I think that risk is about to be heightened here.)

Paintings and photographs have taught us an attitude toward landscape in which we are able to frame a landscape with our eyes, or to regard the limits of our vision as a sort of frame. There is no doubt but what our experience of pictures shapes our preference for one kind of landscape over another; I'm talking about natural landscapes, not urban landscape as it is called. The particular way of experiencing landscape in which we regard it as if it were a picture is a way of minimizing the fact of our presence in the landscape; in this attitude we become, so to speak, present to the landscape rather than present in it, standing as it were behind our own eyes, looking out. What one feels

in moving around Mrs. Pepper's largest sculptures ( and this is especially true of the piece being installed in the Government Center site) is the difference between the two ways of seeing and that difference as a fact.

Walking around the large outdoor piece at the gallery, one that gets several views in which it appears that the whole sculpture is comprised of steel sheets tipped toward or away from one, that there is no volume to it. Other views however completely contradict this impression, and one sees the work as a clutch of massive volumes. The extraordinary thing about these sculptures is the utter convincingness with which one view of them replaces another, so that one finds it almost impossible to remember the hidden sides from wherever one is looking at the moment. I think the the peculiar power of certain perspectives on the work to erase the others derives mainly from the duality of surface and volume that the work itself enforces. My feeling is also that what I have described as the two attitudes toward landscape is invoked by that duality as well. The difference between seeing a sculpture as all surface and seeing it as composed of volumes is not just a matter of formal contrast; it is as if one is faced with is different kind of entity in either case. And that difference invokes different experiences of one's own presence to the work, or rather different senses of what counts in each case as one's presence to the work. It is like the difference between looking into space and looking from within it; that option I think expresses something of our situation in regard to landscape. We no longer simply know our place in it.

It is not so easy to be sure of the models which make up the other half of Mrs. Pepper's show; what they confirm is the importance of scale to her work and the importance of scale to her work and the risk involved in translating from model to full - sized piece. The show continues through December 11.