Szukalski

We need to talk about Szukalski the polish sculptor. I was hesitant to include something here mainly because I didn´t know how to feel as an spectator, after taking a deeper look into his life and work, and also for the bad reputation that he has been getting lately. Maybe I would like to begin with something that is taught in art school: Ideas matter in art.

The first time that I saw his work I thought that it was technically good and it reminded me of the expressionist movement, mostly by Germanic painters, also taking some influences from the russian constructivism from the early 20th century. I was not amazed by his use of external influences such as african and mesoamerican art forms, since these have been rich visual sources for european artists, but it is an interesting adoption. His intellectual curiosity is something to notice though, and his exploration of diverse subjects in his latter sculpture, is a clear evidence of how the mind of a creative artist works.

Taking a look at his entire work, we perceive a conceptual and formal evolution, ranging from simple ideas and blunt forms, to a complex set of concepts and shapes. But at some point there is a disconnect in his sculpture and we can perceive two Szukalskis, two artists, two different minds. Here is where the spectator might find it confusing and untruthful at some point. The first part of his work was dedicated to nationalism and the exaltation of the perfect human being and a second period with concepts of racial diversity and integration, war and human history.

Even when the interest in his work has been rediscovered lately, his art and what it represents has been there since the 1930´s, displaying an entire lifetime of craft and ideas. His most prolific art was destroyed by the bombs of WWII, leaving him with nothing but sketches, photographs and what he could carry to his new home. Decades after that, he tried to reinvent himself by sketching new pieces based on concepts of diversity and his experience during war. Perhaps this was his attempt to correct his legacy to humanity and art history, since at an early age he showed interest in shaping a legacy in art history.

Many portrayed him as a punk or genius, many as egocentric, and he was on his way to be an important artist, but why was he almost forgotten and ignored even when his work shows great technical skills? Perhaps it was his misfortune after the war, perhaps his ideas and association with authoritarian regimes, which is the exact opposite of what art represents: freedom of thought.

So why remember him? To remind us that art is a product of culture and experiences, and even when is fabricated inside the mind of the artist, it will always show the truthful expression of what is around its creator.

An artist must be truthful to his art and his beliefs.