Despite my previous comments regarding the failure of the free-standing sculptural pieces, the piece (left) by Glenys Barton has inspired me to re-examine this:
Each of my boxes (image, centre) is constructed from six variations of one position within the image, and the multiple configurations possible imply each installation of the piece can vary. The basic flatness of the image surface contrasts with the repositionability of the cubes, locating the results somewhere between image and sculpture with the potential to intrude into the spectator’s space.
I like the contingency of the simple paper construction. Although precise, it has a home-made, informal, somewhat temporary quality – over-stress the materials and they will quickly lose integrity. Construction methods other than paper are possible – wood-mounted images, or fabric stretched over a metal frame – but I fear they’d lose something. Although this version consists of solid-sided cubes, open sides are another possibility which opens up possibilities for what is inside – something or nothing?
Plan image positioning – should each cube repeat one position of the image (so the reverse reads nonsensically – not necessarily a bad thing), or also contain the inverse image position? Scale – feels like it should be big – human height or above. Perhaps exploit Barton’s approach to position in an L or U configuration.
I find the paper box template (image, right) uncut and unfolded fascinating – a plan for making a portrait, unrealised but poised on the brink of potential? Instructions – a guide to creating the perfect female image?