I will digress from my specific considerations about The Sydney School of Sculpture briefly,
to consider the nature and layout of the blog which favours the present most recent posts as the most pressing posts to read.
Such a layout presupposes that the new will provide the most illuminating insights. It as if the light of day will be accompanied by a new insight.
History and the most recent history, which has been so preoccupied by the new, has clearly shown this notion is false.
Even given that my current insight about the nature of blogs has some merit, a serious reader will find an ultimately more sustaining depth below this surface. This post is floating on a depth of posts that stack up into the past.
Scrolling so far would appear, by the architecture of the blog, too fraught. The past is the enemy to which we have turned our back, apparently. It is somehow dark and grimy.
Given this nature, I would invite my readers to subvert that inclination.
Similarly, new sculpture's closest companions are the sculptures that preceded them.
We would be foolhardy, given the tradition of sculpture that Sydney has hosted for fifty years, not to browse on it, to savour it. In doing so we will be enriched and not so perched on the precipice of an unreliable present.
We should do this even in the recognition of a certain inbuilt repulsion to the favoured material of the movement (steel).
After all, that is only the tip of the iceberg.
There is no place for the blog in the steady, even progress of The Sydney School of Sculpture. It does provide a platform however for these considerations and for its failings, I am grateful.I mention this, having noticed that the most recent posts attract the most readers.
With time the skin wrinkles. Truth however becomes more taut.