Guess what it is. Two pieces, over six feet (two meters) long. The name, for me, is even better than the sculpture.
I really wasn't planning to take pictures last Sunday at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, but this one was irresistible.
I'm in awe of the person who thought up this idea and executed it. I googled to see if this was, perhaps, an old Japanese idea, but nothing is listed, except this piece. I thank the artist for expanding my imagination. Here's what it says about him on the Museum's website (where you can find the cool name of this piece and the whole description.)
[UPDATE 4pm Alaska time: This post got cluttered with updates as I got reports that the links stopped working. They did. But then they started working again. So I'm consolidating most updates here. But just in case, I've added a screenshot* of the linked page at the bottom.]
"Okura Jiro (b. 1942), who lives south of KyotoGo to the link to find out what it is.
in the town of Uji, is an artist who has worked
independently, outside the established exhibition
system in Japan. He began as a self-taught
sculptor working with the wood of enormous
native trees.
Okura emphasized allowing the natural
features of the wood to dictate the final forms.
His early works— such as _______________
shown here— were large, undulating sculptures
of various shapes and with beautifully smooth,
polished surfaces."
I think what I'm doing here, making you go to the link to find the answer, drove my kids nuts when they were growing up. But their ability today to figure things out on their own is the long term reward. So, indulge me. Give the museum a quick look and find out the very cool name of this piece. (I'm making it easy by giving you lots of links to the answer.)
[UPDATE October 15, 2013: The links are again not working, but the name is available already on this page. If you put your cursor over the photo, the file name will be visible - on my browser in the lower left - and it has the name. Also the screenshot below has the name. Just click to enlarge and make it clearer.]
[UPDATE noon: Using sitementer I can see that of the people coming here from another site that links to this post, less than half are clicking on the museum link to find out the name of the piece. Given that you came here to see the post, I can't understand not taking the extra tiny step to find out the name. Too much work? Not enough curiosity? It isn't interesting? Or did you find the other way to get the name without going to the link? I'm curious. If the comment system is too difficult, email me.]
*Here's the screenshot with the name of the piece:
 |
| Click to enlarge and focus |
Since you challenged us in so many ways, I tried the links. And every one of them didn't work. Couldn't open them. Tried again later and they still didn't open.
ReplyDeleteI guess I should remind myself, too, that not all is what we think it to be at times. This reader did poke around and wasn't given the chance to look. And yes, there are times the security is so damn difficult to decipher I have to simply fail to get another go at it. That's a bit of a barrier to responses as well.
Guess I'm asking to give your readers a bit of break. Thanks!
And now the link worked. Got it.
ReplyDeleteJacob, really, the links did work when I posted this, this morning. The bad link wasn't part of my challenge to my readers. I got an email from two readers pointing out the problem and thus the updates on the post. (Judy, the two attempts to reply to your email were undeliverable, sorry.)
ReplyDeleteThe name of the piece is "Chair for the Breeze." Googling it now, I still get the same link I got this morning, but now it doesn't work. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be a public page, and when they found out people got to it through google they closed it. Who knows?
I didn't mean to make it THAT hard. Thanks for the readers who have notified me. Including the person who works about three blocks from the museum.
Oh Jacob - your second email came as I was responding to the first and putting up the page. So, it was just a glitch on their part. I thought it was pretty fast to fix the security hole like that.
ReplyDelete