Alexander Polzin - Documents
Home
Series
Paintings
Sculptures
Stagedesign
Illustrations
Documents
Contact
Press

Hans Belting
"Das Paar" ("The Couple") In the Paris Opera.
A piece by Alexander Polzin

It was Alexander Polzin who first suggested that I see a sculpture within a tree. Usually I look at treetops, ignoring the trunks. Maybe that was why I was surprised when the artist spoke of his intent to create a sculpture out of a tree trunk. This was on a sunny day in front of the New National Gallery in Berlin, where famous sculptures surrounded us on the terrace. My scepticism increased as he added that he wanted to create a human couple from the tree trunk. How, out of a tree trunk – the embodiment of a single being – could you possibly wish to make a double being? I spontaneously advised the artist to abandon this idea. Polzin understood my reservations but wasn't deterred from pursuing his project.

There was no way I could have known that one day I'd be standing in the Paris Opera in front of a piece of art whose sense I had then questioned. Polzin had retrieved from the wood of a tree trunk the form of a double figure. This unusual idea made me reconsider the nature of sculpture. It is concealed in the handling of the material and in the method of work. This is why, before I come to the subject matter, I would like to talk first of this, although some of you might be more interested in questions of subject matter rather than questions of form. The process began in the forests on Mecklenburg, where Polzin looked for an oak tree whose hard wood would offer any sculptor the greatest resistance. After finding a suitable four-meter-high and one-meter-thick tree trunk he still had to persuade a forester to permit cutting the tree down. In his studio in Pankow, a district of Berlin where he spent his youth in the GDR, Polzin sat for many weeks in front of this tree trunk, which had grown for one hundred years, before he set off to wrench an artistic shape out of this natural form.

Each strike with which he manipulated the substance of the tree was non repeatable and non correctable. The tree trunk exceeded the artist's height and thus demanded an experiencing of one's own body in the rhythm of the work. Physical energy was transmitted into mental concentration and vice versa. Researching the wood produced many surprises, and each unexpected knot forced Polzin into changes of plan and adapting the idea to the unwieldy material. Here again a battle for form and with matter took place, which in this digital age has grown foreign to us.

The result however isn't a wooden sculpture at all, but rather the reproduction of one. As a bronze cast, the wooden figure is a paradoxical finding. Its purpose is to fixate in the metal cast a form that won't last in the wood. Fresh wood, in which water is deposited, constitutes a living organism resembling an onion, whose layers burst open when cracks and fissures occur in the wood. Only in the form of a cast can the state of being be preserved, which in the wood would even by then already have been lost. Thus the working process led to a race with time, to create a constant form out of the living material. The wooden sculpture is for all intents and purposes the original, the bronze cast – its copy. The idea of the piece could only survive in the copy, while in the original it already dissipates. In the conflict between the process of life and the process of art, Polzin wrested out of the natural form in the wood an art form in metal, in which the idea of his art remains visible.

We are familiar with modern sculptures where the mould is created from bark. But Polzin formed from the tree trunk's substance a human couple, whose bodies survive only in the bronze cast. However, the translation of wood to bronze posed new problems to the artist. Because of its size he had to saw the wooden model apart into three before casting. He had to flesh out the grain in a relief-like fashion for the casting to preserve the character of the wood. The patina, which was applied with acids and bases as a colourful holder, was the last act of transmitting the lost wooden model into the bronze cast by depicting the medium wood in the medium bronze. We see human bodies, which we can only see in the wood: the cracks on the figures' heads came into being in the wood, before the art piece. But even the wood itself we see only in the bronze. The piece, in front of which we stand, carries a double image within itself, the image of two human figures and the image of wooden nature in the bronze of the art piece. Polzin has worked here with a living substance. The life of the couple has found a metaphor in the surface of the wood.

All considerations of the couple must begin with the tree trunk. It already constitutes an impossible balancing feat that the figures must remain in the hollow form of what used to be the block of wood, whose outline is still implied in the base. The couple is embedded in the invisible borders of the former tree trunk, which marks its inner space. Here the interval between the two bodies shrinks, who mutually attract each other and yet nowhere touch each other. I am most impressed by the heads, which, with empty eye sockets seem like skull-face hybrids. Our skulls are in essence more sculpturesque than our faces, since bones have a different form from that of the flesh they wear. The skull-faces look ageless and seem to be listening to each other or trying to find a rhythm for their dance. The intimacy is greater than if it were directly observable.

Dance supplies the keyword for understanding the couple balancing on the tips of their toes. The dancers seem to be suspended in a slow motion dance with each other, whose movements are utopian and seem artificial. Since Polzin commands an understanding of concert dance, the motive has its meaning. We see a couple performing together an imaginary dance. Thus we arrive at last at the sculpture's subject matter. With this lovers' pair a panorama of interpretational possibilities opens, in which literates and psychoanalysts skirmished. Without the lovers' joy and failure there would be no opera. Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, Ariadne on Naxos, Orpheus and Eurydice, Dido and Æneas or Peleas and Melisande belong to the solid repertoire of the opera. If one would endow this couple with masks and clothes it would fit several operas in which the couple plays the main role. Also the couple's posture contributes to this, since the couple's excluding the world around it in order to be alone also belongs to this theme.

In the history of sculpture, however, the couple is a rare subject matter, the reason of which being that in the history of art two figures were considered to constitute a bad or impossible sculpture. There exist famous exceptions, of which two should be mentioned. Lorenzo Bernini's marble sculpture of Apollo and Daphne, which is displayed in the Galleria Borghese in Rome, captures the instant in which Daphne, escaping Apollo, transforms into a tree, whose branches are already growing out of her body as it itself grows rigid. And there is Auguste Rodin's Kiss, in which the two lovers melt into a single figure, in which the sculptor attempted to solve the theme of "doubleness".

But Polzin's work raises another question: the question of the fate of the sculpture in public space. Its history of serving as monuments in the civil era compromised it so much in the modern age, that it, as in Henry Moore's work, wiped away all subjects and withdrew discretely into a timeless form. Stephan Balkenhol produced a new critical type of wooden figures, which he takes into the exhibition room to thwart the commonplace sculpture. He was convinced that "the tradition of the figurative sculpture in the modern age has been demolished". Alexander Polzin, on the other hand, took the risk of once again offering subjects through the figurative sculpture and with it to occupy public space. The Giordano Bruno in Berlin or the Paul Celan Project for Paris prove how important this form of art remains to him also in today's media-society. "The Couple", which has been installed at the Paris Opera, offers an occasion to once again conduct the discussion about art's lingering task in public space.