Writing Project 3

The year is 1967. NASA's Apollo 1 catches fire on the launch pad killing three astronauts. Martin Luther King Jr. publicly denounces the Vietnam War. Race riots become almost common across the United States. Segregationist Lester Maddox becomes the Governor of Georgia, and a little know sculpture, "SANDY: in Defined Space" is molded and placed in the University of Nebraska's sculpture garden.

1967 was a tumultuous time in our nation's history. Many people were simultaneously trying to carve out their own rights while avidly going against what the government was doing such as the Vietnam War. A man named Robert McDermott Miller created a sculpture that seems to be very characteristic of the time period and can be seen as somewhat of a protest piece if it is taken the way that seems to make the most sense. In the simplest form, SANDY is a woman sitting nude amongst several square geometric shapes, several feet above the ground. Her body is rough and unpolished whereas, in contrast, the shapes surrounding her are highly refined and have a bit of a shine to them.

Beyond the first obvious appearance of the sculpture, there also lies an enormous amount of symbolism and idealism that ties directly in with the theme of being a symbol of the desegregation of gender movement of the 1960s. When you take a look at the sculpture in terms of piecing different parts with a portion of the movement, it is quite obvious what is what. By taking SANDY as a representation of all women and the geometric figures as a form of societal foundation on which gender roles are built or held, it is possible to see that SANDY is less "Defined," but more "confined."

When looking at SANDY, her skin is noticeably rough and unfinished, much like the way that women at that time may have felt. Women had made great progress to get complete fairness and rights, but in the grand scheme, still lacked much of that that men were able to benefit from. Also, the geometric shapes are finished and smooth with sharp edges and defined corners. This is a representation of the framework that has been built, fortified and held over women for centuries. It is what has kept women in an exact role without giving them much of the freedom that men have.

Another clear way to see the distinction of this theme is to break down the sculpture into pieces. Notice there are pairs of nearly everything in this sculpture. The base of the woman’s position is made of two geometric, open squares places symmetrically side by side. Above them are two more shapes placed perpendicularly, but still symmetrical and the same. Yet arguably the most important key piece of the entire sculpture, SANDY, is all by herself leaving the piece somewhat off-balanced and also providing a bit of uniqueness that creates the main meaning behind the artist’s intentions. Should SANDY be missing from this sculpture, the piece would be nothing more than a framework with no over-the-top meaning.

Given of course that SANDY is present, it would be key to analyze, what is missing? The pair to a woman of course would be a man. Taken that the shapes surrounding SANDY represent the framework of a female oppressive society, the absence of a man obviously shows that men don’t abide by the same code and rules that keep women held to a certain set of guidelines.

Another piece of interest is the positioning of objects within the sculpture. SANDY is seen sitting pushed up against every edge of the square. This could be taken as a woman pushing against the confines that hold her. Also notice that her right arm is fallen limply outside the box showing that she may be working toward breaking out of the structure keeping her enclosed. On the other hand, a man may not necessarily be “missing” from the sculpture, but Miller may have just intended the idea of the sculpture to be taken very liberally. Should a man walk up to the edge of the side opposing SANDY and peer inside, he would become part of the piece. As a man, he would not be held to the same confines as SANDY and thus by looking in from the outside proves the point that the same framework that holds women does anything but for men. Taken to even more of an extreme, if a man used the structure to brace himself while looking inside, he also could be taken as aiding the framework to hold the woman and could be seen as anything but empowering.

All this said, it is easy to see that with all these examples and pieces of symbolism, there is no doubt that Miller intended this piece as a criticism of feminist oppression. The 60s was a time for self exploration and a new desire to expand horizons and create new ideas. Sculptures such as “SANDY: in Defined Space” pushed the limits between appreciated and acceptable. Using these less than conservative ideas, we can easily see that Miller intended this piece for much more than a naked woman on a college campus.

Statement of Purpose

"SANDY: in Defined Space" stands as an interesting symbol nestled in the pasture behind Sheldon Art Gallery. Nearly anyone that passes surely notices the strangeness that the sculpture presents, and that in itself is one of the foremost points of this artwork. The audience that has the opportunity to view SANDY varies as greatly as the general population. Fact is, by being witnessed by so many different types of people, the sculpture takes on an equally varied perspective of purpose, theme and inspiration. To completely understand, it make sense to first go into the details that comprise this piece.

For instance, the shapes and styles of the different parts of the sculpture are very important. When viewing the sculpture in the picture at left, it is clear to see the distinct difference between the rounded, seemingly organic, shapes of SANDY's body and the flat, clean, rigid framework that surrounds her. This is one point that can be viewed in a few different ways. As this sculpture was designed and constructed in 1967, there is an easy to see connection between SANDY's position in a framework box and the civil rights battle that was raging throughout society at the time. Given SANDY's posture of being pushed against each of the four corners and sides of her square, it can be viewed that she is still being cofined to her sector of society, but that she is starting to reach out and get a feel for what life is like on the outside. Truly, this would be a woman's seen purpose of the piece.

As for a what a man may see, realize how the sculpture is constructed with two squares supporting two squares with pairs of angles everywhere, yet SANDY is alone on her side of the sculpture. With a bit of inferring, the pair to a woman is a man, which seems to be missing. Now again to the civil rights purpose, where a man obviously wouldn't be stuck on the inside of a framework box. Yet, if a man stepped up and looked into the box, the sculpture would be complete with a man looking from the outside in on the woman looking for the inside out.

"SANDY: in Defined Space" is a very deep sculpture, much deeper than a first glance may provide. A woman sitting in a mostly open box is transformed into a inspirational lecture about civil rights and gender theory. Of course Robert Miller had better intentions for his most famous design than for wondering students to look at a naked bronze girl sitting uncomfortably three feet above the ground. Possibly these intentions didn't involve civil rights at all, but had they been? Well he would have hit the nail on the head.

WP3: Prewrite 3

If there is one genuine moral that can be gained from Wayne Coyne's "Zaireeka," it's that there is much more to be gained from a normal occurrence or piece of art than what is commonly noticed. For instance, the entire album is meant to be listened on four separate musical amplifiers playing simultaneously so that each of the four parts jive together into one complete piece. Obviously this isn't how music is normally heard and Coyne had to think well outside the box to even come up with this idea, let alone put it into action.

Likewise, with my upcoming sculpture rhetorical analysis (so no, I will not be partaking in any imitations or sculpture hugging), I will have to think in a different light than I normally would to be able to understand the ideas being brought out by my sculpture and the reasons why my sculpture is significant enough to be deemed worthy of having real estate on the campus of a major university. With that as an idea, I have a few insights.

My main idea is most definitely the sculpture's relationship with the area surrounding it. When viewed from a side taking into account the nature and nearby architecture, "SANDY: in Defined Space" takes on a very strong role as a focus. While I never would have thought that a piece of artwork could really fit into a landscape without being camoflauged or hidden, SANDY gave me a new realization due to its use of perspective and location. Using the picture at right of SANDY in a very non-primary view, it's easy to see how easily the bronze sculpture fits into the surrounding area. The grass is obviously cut around the base, but the tree follows up the right side of the sculpture and the main branch bends leftward as if following the contour of SANDY's shoulder and head. The roof of Westbrook cuts down and to the right as if completeing the top of the box that is not present. Even the sidewalk behind SANDY is drawn near parallel to the level of bronze that the woman is sitting on. Now, while all this may not tell us an exorbanat amount of information about the piece, we can arrive at the conclusion that SANDY was most likely not a random selection nor was the location in which she sits picked on accident.

Of course, by looking at this piece, many questions are drawn out. I myself was left asking, why is the woman sitting there and not on the flat ground? Whay are there only two levels of squares? Why is the woman unclothed in exhibitionist form, yet the name itself says SANDY is in a defined space? Truly there are many things that the sculpture draws us to think, but at the same time, it is just as easy to take what is noticable from it. To take this sculpture apart, item by item is the goal of Zaireeka, yet the case may call for something more along the lines of a general concept such as the one that I have uncovered here.

WP3: Prewrite 2

The "quality" of art is a matter of judgment and there is no obvious set way for anyone to create a pre-determined scale in which to grade pieces of artwork. That said, there is also no real clear guideline between what is art and what is not, simply a distinction between types such as sculpture or painting, etc. For instance, a piece of artwork inside of an art museum can be just as spectacular as one outside, or even the building itself which can be construed as art. Likewise when taking a piece such as the one at left of "SANDY: In Defined Space," it's difficult to determine where the art stops and where it begins, but only where the sculpture begins and ends.

A piece of artwork in an outdoor setting somehow gives us a different outlook on how we should view the art. Wheras it sounds "sophisticated" to take a stroll through an art gallery, taking a peaceful walk through a sculpture garden doesn't sound quite as elegant. But why? The art outdoors is often times just as magnificent as that of its indoor counterpart, yet it lacks the same respect. Possibly we just have an altered idea of what really constitutes art as a whole and don't realize that nearly everything is artful.

Taking a look back at the picture, we can obviously see the main, general sculpture in the middle of the scene. The stacked boxes with the nude grl inside cast in bronze on a concrete base would generally be constituted as art. Now thinking further, what helps this sculpture stick out even more than the lighting and landscape surrounding "SANDY?" Should that not also be considered as art? In all actuality, the landscapers may have taken just as much initial effort and insight to create the surrounding feaux-nature, but do not gather near the credibility. Just the same, "SANDY" was set in 1962 and has hardly been upkept by more than a cleaning ever since. On the other hand, the landscaping has to be upkept nearly every day and has lasted since the early 1900s when this section of the campus was first developed. If anything, the landscape should be considered possibly more artsy than the sculpture.

Now relating this to John Cage's 4'33", and Friday's class meeting, we can see that our observance of what is a class and what isn't a class is altered by a predetermined jugement of what a class has ever been since we began schooling nearly a decade and a half ago. Similarly, we also seem to think that the level of how much we learn during a givin class period is determined by how much the instructor lectures, how many notes we take and how much time we will have to put aside for studying between now and next week's test. Maybe if humans were able to grasp the larger picture and not go simply on developed instinct, we would be better apt to learning and generally more open minded. By creating an environment lacking a traditional instructor, such as that on Friday, we decided to wonder and basically waste our time instead of taking advantage of the situation to discuss something useful and understand better what was happening.

WP3: Prewrite

Truthfully, I was dismayed at first to be stuck with Richard Miller's "SANDY: in Defined Space," but after staring at it for the better part of an hour and a half, most anyone can develop some interest in a piece. In short, the sculpture is of a, most likely, younger twenties woman sitting naked inside one of several square shapes balancing on each other so that they in turn form a square shape when viewed from above. Though the bronze sculpture is not entirely intricate, nor does it seem to have been very difficult to construct for a skilled caster, but it does seem to have somewhat deeper meaning than simply an unclothed woman sitting in a box.

One thing that quickly jumped out to me is the emotion displayed by this sculpture. As we can presume, Sandy is sitting in a crunched up, seemingly uncomfortable position with her head bent over. While the vector of attention from her eyes doesn't lead to anything significant, it does set the mood of the piece. I became sorry for Sandy and even thought the piece would be more aptly named "SANDY: in Confined Space."

There are also a few points that make this piece very difficult to grasp completely. For one, whether Sandy is confined or defined, either of which only make sense to an extent. She does seem well within the boundaries of the box, but notice the one hand that is let loose. Again, from the side, her body sticks out well to each side giving her a certain bit of freedom. Beyond her physical location, but speaking of freedom, she is nude on top of it all. Nakedness is one of the most classic forms of freedom and self exploration possible, yet Sandy is still in a "defined" space. Lastly, through a little bit of research, I found that five castings of this sculpture were made in the 1960s. The two most notable are on the UNL campus and the other resides at the University of Houston. Now if Sandy is confined to only one place, how did she get halfway across the country?

Sandy is an interesting piece, but hardly seems representational of her namesake. through vectors of attention, symbolism and the simple name analysis, we can find that Sandy's being is a bit off. Possibly Robbert Miller had a very narrow mindset for how the sculpture was to be perceived and didn't think of all the ways that it would not make sense, or maybe that's half the reason for the name is to make people wonder why it would take on a name that is so unfitting. Certainly, there is more to be figured out as I delve deeper into the ideas and purpose of "SANDY: in Defined Space."