Page 294 - The Legacy of Abraham Rothstein - text
P. 294

Introduction to the sculpture

        not illustrated. Described as made of wood and fourteen inches high,
        it cannot readily be identified with any of the works catalogued here.
        The 1961 exhibition, however, included no. 24, “Co-existence or No-
        existence”,  and  the  brochure  does  provide  a  photograph
        (unfortunately,  the  curators  scrambled  the  work’s  title—see  the
        catalogue entry below).
           The catalogue raisonné following this introduction describes the
        unique  features  (when  evident)  of  individual  pieces.  The  present
        overview of the entire opus provides more general statements about
        AR  and  his  carvings.  The  categories  into  which  the  catalogue  is
        organized  (based on an analysis of similarities and differences) and
        the frequency with which the works occur in them, is as follows:

                        Category                             Number of pieces

              Studies: human                       33
              Studies: animal                                   21
              Genre: shtetl                          18
              Genre: modern                        29
              Genre: other                    7
              Portraits: biblical                  11
              Portraits: literary                  5
              Portraits: historical                9
              Portraits: familial                   4
              Fantastic and allegorical figures           9
              Utilitarian objects                      22

           The  value,  good  or  bad,  of  these  categories  resides  partially  in
        their attempt to resolve the ambiguity of identification inherent in a
        body of work with minimal labeling and no living informant able to
        give  the  missing  definitions.  David  Rothstein’s  theory  that  AR
        himself was loath to name his sculptures for emotional reasons may
        be  reinforced  with  two  other  possibilities:  the  sculptor  may  have
        retained  the  traces  of  folk-religious  superstition  about  human
        representation, or have felt presenting a work as a portrait of anyone
        known would invite criticism of his ability to create an exact likeness.
        Yet the suspicion remains that many of the pieces here called “study”


                                       290
   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299