In his work, Robert Gober meticulously copies traditional, everyday items. Sinks, beds, chairs, doors, playpens, urinals—objects with a minimum of artistic content—make up his repertoire. He calls them “domestically, non-descript motifs” that recollect his childhood. They are metaphors for the world in which he grew up.
Besides the fact that his handcrafted objects bear traces of a time gone by, Gober also travels back in time via his art historical references. His use of common objects refers directly to Marcel Duchamp’s readymades (Fountain [1917]), while the simple, reduced, and repeated forms of the sculptures recall such Minimalists as Donald Judd (Galvanized Iron [1973]). In this connection, Gober speaks of “taking the forms of a more minimal vocabulary and infusing them with an emotional, biographical, hallucinatory quality.”
This statement contains the gist of the issue he addresses. While referring to historical models—borrowing their forms, so to speak—Gober invests them with a divergent, unorthodox meaning that is completely at odds with their origins. The stylistic quotations are merely a point of departure to create something totally new. Whereas Duchamp and Judd adopted a detached, conceptual stance, Gober opts for a highly personal approach, radically overturning the intentions of his predecessors. Opposite Judd’s cold, industrially crafted sculptures, Gober poses the warmth of the handcrafted surface. Against the neutral geometry of Judd’s box forms, Gober uses the associative charge that everyday objects can possess. And whereas Duchamp, in his radical provocation to give “ordinary” objects the status of an artwork, increased rather than reduced the distance between art and everyday reality, Gober bridges that gap by evoking a world upon which every person can project their own memories and emotions.
An intriguing aspect of Gober’s work is that he is constantly trying to balance at the fragile intersection of extremes. His objects have a particularly sensitive skin, irresistibly inviting a touch. At the same time. that delicate fragility acts as an ingenious defense mechanism. Attraction and repulsion operate on the same level. Equally contradictory is that the objects are simultaneously anonymous and personal. Although they are derived from industrial mass products, they gain a very human dimension thanks to their traditional handicraft. The quest for simplicity and clarity runs parallel to the search for a personal meaning.
Gober’s works are such close copies that it takes a while for the beholder to realize that something is wrong. The sink made of porous material and without a drain is not a sink; it is totally useless and can only function as a work of art. The work is art and everyday item in one. Gober has so much imagination that even the most traditional objects undergo a complete metamorphosis with relatively few means. With great subtlety, the artist raises seemingly common objects to another level.
Notes
Robert Gober cited in Karel Schampers, Robert Gober (Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, 1990), 33.
In his work, Robert Gober meticulously copies traditional, everyday items. Sinks, beds, chairs, doors, playpens, urinals—objects with a minimum of artistic content—make up his repertoire. He calls them “domestically, non-descript motifs” that recollect his childhood. They are metaphors for the world in which he grew up.
Besides the fact that his handcrafted objects bear traces of a time gone by, Gober also travels back in time via his art historical references. His use of common objects refers directly to Marcel Duchamp’s readymades (Fountain [1917]), while the simple, reduced, and repeated forms of the sculptures recall such Minimalists as Donald Judd (Galvanized Iron [1973]). In this connection, Gober speaks of “taking the forms of a more minimal vocabulary and infusing them with an emotional, biographical, hallucinatory quality.”
This statement contains the gist of the issue he addresses. While referring to historical models—borrowing their forms, so to speak—Gober invests them with a divergent, unorthodox meaning that is completely at odds with their origins. The stylistic quotations are merely a point of departure to create something totally new. Whereas Duchamp and Judd adopted a detached, conceptual stance, Gober opts for a highly personal approach, radically overturning the intentions of his predecessors. Opposite Judd’s cold, industrially crafted sculptures, Gober poses the warmth of the handcrafted surface. Against the neutral geometry of Judd’s box forms, Gober uses the associative charge that everyday objects can possess. And whereas Duchamp, in his radical provocation to give “ordinary” objects the status of an artwork, increased rather than reduced the distance between art and everyday reality, Gober bridges that gap by evoking a world upon which every person can project their own memories and emotions.
An intriguing aspect of Gober’s work is that he is constantly trying to balance at the fragile intersection of extremes. His objects have a particularly sensitive skin, irresistibly inviting a touch. At the same time. that delicate fragility acts as an ingenious defense mechanism. Attraction and repulsion operate on the same level. Equally contradictory is that the objects are simultaneously anonymous and personal. Although they are derived from industrial mass products, they gain a very human dimension thanks to their traditional handicraft. The quest for simplicity and clarity runs parallel to the search for a personal meaning.
Gober’s works are such close copies that it takes a while for the beholder to realize that something is wrong. The sink made of porous material and without a drain is not a sink; it is totally useless and can only function as a work of art. The work is art and everyday item in one. Gober has so much imagination that even the most traditional objects undergo a complete metamorphosis with relatively few means. With great subtlety, the artist raises seemingly common objects to another level.
Notes