Through 1965

Editor: Here we have Phillip King's "Through" from 1965, a mixed-media sculpture. It strikes me as an odd pyramid, interrupted, or revealed, by slices of bright red. What’s your take on it? Curator: Well, looking at this piece through the lens of the '60s, it screams a rebellion against traditional sculptural norms. Post-war, artists questioned everything. Editor: In what ways? Curator: Think about the materials. King uses materials that aren’t high bronze or marble, undermining the art establishment’s preference. And what about the very idea of geometric form? It rejects naturalism in favor of abstraction, very on trend at the time, questioning the traditional role of sculpture to represent an idea of something, such as the human form, in favour of representing itself. Editor: It’s almost aggressively non-representational, isn't it? The colours too feel quite bold. Curator: Exactly. It’s hard to ignore that the piece seems to revel in challenging the established cultural order. The geometry might recall architectural modernism, but destabilized and made playful. It’s almost a critique of utopian visions. The way the geometric lines interrupt a perfect pyramidal form destabilises these traditional geometric lines. Does that interruption mean anything? What could that signal? Editor: Perhaps a break in our understanding, as we move through time. I suppose art isn't made in a vacuum. Curator: Precisely. Context is crucial. This isn't just form and colour, it's a statement against, or at least an alternative to, the social and political climate. Editor: I see it now; it’s not just *what* it is, but *why* and *when* it is. Thank you. Curator: It goes both ways. We interpret the context of time based on our own readings of these forms. I found this conversation helpful to look at a specific era through these objects, thank you for your considerations too.