Art Announcement from Switzerland. Published by ArtAndOnly - Platform for Art Collectors on Monday 30 May 2016.

Works by Palo Reinoso image

The lines between sculpture and architecture have always been blurred. We understand both have a critical responsibility to address the physical space and consider tenets of form, scale and material.

Certainly by definition, architecture must also confront some utilitarian duties in addition to pure aesthetics, but new technologies and engineering has arguably freed the discipline from most of these conceptual limitations (at least in the literal facades). There is no doubt that architecture is an art, but are the artistic ideas and influences exchanged between sculpture and architecture an equal, two-way street?
We are pleased to have renowned sculptor and ArtAndOnly artist Pablo Reinoso talk to us about these ideas, his work, and how contemporary sculpture and architecture exist in a similar and unique place among the arts.

What kind of (if any) symbiotic relationship do sculpture and architecture have? Certainly both have been greatly affected by theories and ideas originating in the other’s discipline, but in terms of form and concept, it seems contemporary architecture is much more influenced by sculpture than the other way around. What are your thoughts?
Pablo Reinoso: I am not sure that a symbiotic relation exists between sculpture and architecture even if sometimes architecture and sculpture occupy the same spaces. They remain for me two totally different disciplines. On the other hand, there exists a constant movement between the two particularly when we consider the realm of monumental sculpture. Moreover, the architects were able to push the technical constraints that apply to the construction thanks to the enormous technical progress of recent years. It allowed them to release the forms, to be freer, and sometimes approach the steps of the sculptors. But it’s not always successful, we can break free from the constraints of form only if we meet the specifications and think about the functionality of the building. Sculpture provides greater creative freedom; it is an experimentation ground. This freedom allows the appearance of new shapes and concepts that will eventually influence the architecture. If sculpture may impose its own limits, it remains nevertheless dependent on the constraints attached to the place it invests and the employed material, especially when the sculpture is implemented in the public domain. Most of the works that I realize for public spaces are accessible, the public can interact with my sculptures in total freedom, and this specific condition brings additional constraints.

Daniel Buren has said that the first obstacle any artist working in public spaces is the surrounding architecture and the work becomes either responsive or resistant to that environment. How responsive can/should a sculpture be to its environment? Are the rules the same for architects?
This is quite accurate and the work of Daniel Buren embodies this quote well. If I have to place myself in relation to this idea, I would say that my work proceeds more over the response, or the articulation with an environment. I maintain a special relationship with nature initially because my sculptures are often integrated into it, but mostly because my work is deeply linked to the dialogue that I establish with nature and its forms. I like to create a connection with the environment, the same way I like to work in line with the materials I use. I will never go against the nature of a place or of a material, I try to build bridges, to enter into a discussion. Architecture must maintain a very close relationship with its environment and especially never distance itself from the function for which the building is constructed in order to avoid a misinterpretation. The notion of function is much more important in architecture than in sculpture even if in my work, I decide to incorporate a dimension of functionality by diverting some objects…