Radionica II

II/1
ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA
46
METODE ISTRA@IVANJA
KIPARSKOG DJELA
ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART
METHODS OF EXPLORING
A SCULPTURE
47
obris
outline
os/osi su apstrahirane linije oko koje/kojih se

organiziraju mase/prostori
koliko usmjerenja toliko osi
axis/axes abstracted lines round which
masses and spaces are organized
there are as many axes as there
are directions
ODNOS OBLIKA - POSTAVE - POSTOLJA
elipsasti oblik se prevodi, prizemljuje
the elliptic form

is earthing
[. VULAS:
apstrahirana linija ruba, granica

mase i prostora
SKULPTURA/
SCULPTURE, 1973.,
DRVO/WOOD,
VLASNI[TVO AUTORA/
AUTHOR 'S COLLECTION
line abstracted from the edge,

from the boundary of mass
and space
presjeci
sections
THE RELATIONSHIP OF FORM - SETTING - BASES
napeto
osmerokut = uskrsnu}e
uzdizanje - nebo
tense
octagon = resurrection
accession - heaven
prizemljenje
earthing
nejednaka va`nost
unequal importance
a=b
skokovit obilazak
otvoren, aktivni odnos kip - okoli
circulation in jumps
open, active relationship sculpture - environment
obilazak u osam jednakih sekvenci
klizni obilazak
going around in eight equal sequences
glide around
II/1 ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

48
Prva izvedba radionica: 1992.-93.
First perfomance of workshops: 1992.-93.
Radionice A n a l i z a u m j e t n i ~ k o g d j e l a se tako|er, kao i radionice

P o ~ e l a i n a ~e l a, mogu smatrati uvodnima. Sadràjno se suzuju na upoznavanje triju djela koja
su se ve} pojavila u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a : na jedno ki-parsko ([.Vulas), na jedno
slikarsko (O. Herman) i na jedno graditeljsko djelo (R. Nik{i}) u kojem se odvijaju radionice. Ta su djela
(sva tri u Zagrebu) u àri{tu interesa, me|utim, njihovo se upoznavanje odvija uz veliki broj usporedbi.
Usporedbe sluè tomu da se odabrana djela, u odnosu na kontrastna ili sli~na, upoznaju {to svestranije i
{to dublje.
Naglasak je na misaonom postupku-analizi kao osvje{tavanju na{ega pogleda koji optr~ava i tako
ra{~lanjuje vizualne pojave, ali i na idealnoj rekonstrukciji cjelovitosti djela. Tomu sluè razne
metode: crtanje presjeka, materijalizacija osi, rje{avanje zagonetki, kartanje, nalaènje detalja,
glumljenje uloga itd.
The workshops Analysis of the Work of Art, in the

same way as the first ones, can be considered as
an introduction. Their content is reduced to a presentation of the three art works which have already
appeared in Origins and Principles: a sculpture
(Vulas), a painting (Herman), and a building (Niki)
- the building being where the workshops actually
take place. These works (all three are in Zagreb) are
in the focus of interest but they are presented by a
large number of comparisons. The comparisons
with contrasting or similar artworks are used in
order to experience the chosen ones deeply and
from many sides.
The emphasis is on the mental procedure of the
analysis, the actual awareness of our gaze before
the visual phenomena around which it circulates
and articulates and also on an ideal reconstruction
of the wholeness of the artwork. Several methods
are used for this purpose: drawing sections, solving
puzzles, looking for details, acting, materialising
axes, playing cards etc.
Namjera u p r v o j radionici je uvesti sudionike u razne na~ine istraìvanja kiparskog djela. Osim
promatranja crtaju se obrisi, presjeci, ìcom se modelira kompozicijska os, isku{avaju se postave kipa
na razli~ita postolja.
Ambijent: U sredi{tu prostorije, na stalku, postavljena je Vulasova Skulptura. Stolovi i stolice su u
krugu. Pripremljene su izrezane bakrene ìce, plastelin, milimetarski papiri, metar, fotokopije, paus i
razli~ita postolja.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Radionica zapo~inje kratkim uvodom o istraìvanju kiparskog djela ([. Vulas Skulptura) kojeg su
upoznali u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a, u prvom redu iz o~i{ta odnosa mase i prostora.
2. Obja{njava se pojam os, odnosno osi kompozicije kao apstrahirane linije oko kojih se organiziraju
mase u svojim razli~itim usmjerenjima - koliko usmjerenja toliko osi - i u vezi s time najavljuju se tri
istraìvanja: a) Studenti dijele bakrene ìce jednake duljine i malo plastelina tako da se ìca moè
pri~vrstiti. Jedan student mjeri Vulasovu Skulpturu i obavje{tava o duljini masa okrenutih u
razli~itim smjerovima. Njihov otklon mjeri kutomjerom i o tome tako|er izvje{tava. Ostali se studenti
kre}u me|u sudionicima i pomaù im u formiranju ìce sve dok svi ne dobiju kostur - materijalizirane osi kompozicije. b) Jedan student crta na plo~i koordinatni sustav, a drugi mjeri kip i ~ita
to~ke koje dobiva tim mjerenjem (to~ke su ve} u pripremi zabiljeène na milimetarskom papiru da bi
se rad u radionici lak{e i brè odvijao). Ostali studenti obilaze i upu}uju sudionike u rad. Sudionici su
pozvani da unose to~ke na milimetarski papir. Na taj se na~in dobivaju to~ke za {est vodoravnih
presjeka (obuhva}ena su tri oblika na naj{irim i najuìm dijelovima). Na crteù su 3 x 2 presjeka.
Zadaje se doma}a zada}a da sve presjeke prekopiraju jedan na drugi. c) Sudionici dobivaju fotokopije ~etiriju fotografija Vulasove Skulpture i traì se da preko pausa izvuku obrise.
3. Iznad velikog postolja mijenjaju se mala postolja za Vulasov kip. Izmjenjuju se pravokutni,
kvadrati~ni, kri`ni, osmerokutni i kru`ni oblik. Svi oblici sa sobom nose razli~ite mogu}nosti odnosa
prema obliku kipa, prema okoli{u i prema samom ~inu postave:
a) Pravokutno postolje nastavlja prevo|enje elipsastog oblika (presjeka spljo{tenog
valjka) na osmerokutnom postolju, na ~etverokut, kao neku vrstu prizemljenja, ali sa sobom nosi ve}u
va`nost dviju duljih strana i poziva na obilazak u skokovima zbog nejednakog zna~aja pojedinih o~i{ta.
Ako se kip postavlja uzdu`, postolje je u suglasju sa spljo{tenim oblikom kipa i samo oplo{njava. b)
Kvadrati~an oblik, sli~no pravokutnom, tako|er poziva na prizemljenje. Ako je postava dijagonalna,
aktiviraju se jo{ ~etiri, dakle sveukupno osam jednakovrijednih pogleda, {to uspostavlja napetost u
odnosu prema ve} kipu pripadnom postolju. c) Kri`ni je oblikotvoren i tako koncentriranu masu
izrazito prevodi u prazni okoli{. Ako se kip postavlja na kri`no postolje u smjeru krakova, nagla{ava se
kretanje lijevo-desno, naprijed-nazad ili, ako dijagonalno, tok se zaustavlja (sli~no kao kod
kvadrati~nog oblika) i unato~ otvorenosti oblika okre}e pogled prema samom kipu (tako se osvje{tava
aktivni me|uodnos postava - kip - postolje). d) Osmerokutni oblik postolja (oblik uskrsnu}a) sugerira obilazak u osam jednakih sekvenci skoro doslovno ponavljaju}i ve} postoje}e postolje, iako dvije
postave unose ne{to varijacija. Nedostaje napetosti kvadrati~nog i otvorenosti kri`nog
postolja. e) Kru`no postolje upu}uje na klizni obilazak bez skokova i zastoja, gledanje sa svih strana iz
posve jednako va`nih o~i{ta. Ima karakter uzdizanja (nebo) i u najve}oj mjeri usmjerava pogled na
kip u cjelini. Voditelj, mijenjaju}i postolja i postave, vodi razgovor i sudionicima nastoji osvijestiti te
~inove kao ~inove komponiranja. Pita ih o njihovu mi{ljenju, koja im je postava bolja, zanimljivija,
za{to itd.
Napomena: Ova naporna radionica zavr{ava napomenom da }e se rezultati istraì-vanja koristiti kao
temelj u analizi djela.
The intention in the f i r s t workshop is to introduce the participants to different modes of exploration of a sculptural work of art. Besides observation the participants draw outlines, sections, model
compositional axis out of wire, and investigate the
setting of the sculptures on different bases.
Ambience: Sculpture by . Vulas is placed on a
pedestal in the middle of the room. The tables and
chairs are around the room. There are some cut
copper wire, plasticine, graph paper, a tape measure, photocopies, tracing paper and various bases
prepared.
Structure of the Activity
1. There is a brief introduction concerning the
exploration of a piece of sculptural art work from
the aspect of mass-space relationship
(. Vulas: Sculpture) which has already been presented mainly in the workshop Origins and
Principles.
2. The concept of axis is explained. The axis is an
abstracted line around which masses are organised
in different directions - there are as many axes as
directions- and in relation to these three explorations are presented:
a) the students/instructors distribute pieces of copper wire of the same length and some plasticine for
fixing the wire. A student measures Vulass sculpture and informs the participants about the length of
masses directed differently one by one. The inclination is measured with a protractor and that information is given, too. The other students move among
the participants and help them in forming the wire till
they get the skeleton - the materialised axis/axes
of the composition. b) A student draws the coordinate system on the blackboard, while another student measures the sculpture and reads the points
he/she gets by measuring (the points are already
prepared/written on graph paper for the sake of efficiency). The participants are instructed to put the
points on their graph papers. They obtain the points
for the six horizontal sections (for the three forms in

their widest and narrowest parts). The other students go around and instruct the participants. The
final product is 3 x 2 sections. Homework is given to
copy the sections one on top of the other. c) The
participants get photocopies of four photographs of
Vulass sculpture and they are instructed to draw the
outlines using traceing paper.
3. Above the great pedestal of the sculpture we
change the small pedestals. They are in the form of
a rectangle, a square, a Greek cross, an octagon
and a circle. All these forms implicate the different
possibilities of relation to the form of the sculpture,
to the environment and to the act of setting. a) The
rectangular form of the base continually transposes
the elliptic form (a section of a flattened cylinder)
onto an octagonal base, on to a quadrangle, as a
sort of earthing, pressing to the ground, but implicates the greater importance of the two sides. It
invites the participants to circulate but in jumps,
because the viewpoints are not equally important. If
the sculpture is set alongside the base it is coordinated with the flattened form of the sculpture and
flattens too. b) The square form is similar to a rectangular one in its tendency of earthing. If the setting is diagonal, the further four are activated, altogether eight sights of equal value, which results in a
tense relation with the already existing base. c) The
form of the cross is an open one and so it transposes the concentrated mass into an empty environment. If it is set in the direction of the wings, the
movements left-right, forward-backward are accentuated, and if in a diagonal direction (like in the case
of the square shape) the flow is stopped and in spite
of the open form it turns the sight towards the
sculpture itself and in this way the participants
become aware of an active interaction of the setting
- sculpture - base. d) The octagonal form (the form
of resurrection) suggests a round movement in
eight equal sequences almost literally repeating the
already existing base, but the two possible settings
introduce some variations. However the tenseness
of the square shape and the openness of the
cross-like one are missing. e) The circular form of
the base instructs the participants to glide around it
without jumps or standstills, looking from all sides,
from viewpoints of equal value. It has a character of
accession (heaven) and mostly directs the gaze at
the sculpture itself. The workshop leader changing
the pedestals and settings discussess with the participants to make them aware that these acts are
compostional acts. He asks about their opinions,
which are the better ones, the more interesting ones
and why etc.
49
Po~inje istraìvanje Vulasove Skulpture: voditelj

je postavlja/The exploration of Vulass sculpture
Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections are

drawn: a student-instructor measures the sculpture
begins: the workshop leader sets it.
Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections are

drawn: a student-instructor measures the sculpture
Istraùje se obris/The outline is explored
Student crta presjek na plo~i/A student-instructor
Student pomaè ìcom konstruirati os/
draws the section on the blackboard
A student-instructor helps with a wire to construct

the axis
Istraùje se obris/The outline is explored
Istraìvanje postave na razli~ita postolja/ The

exploration of setting the sculpture on different bases
Note:
This very motivating workshop is finished with
comments that the results will help us in further
analysis.

50
ANALIZA - KOMPARACIJA
ANALYSIS - COMPARISON

IDEALNA REKONSTRUKCIJA
IDEAL RECONSTRUCTION
MAIN VISUAL-TANGIBLE CONCEPTS
KLJU^NI VIZUALNO-TAKTILNI POJMOVI
[. VULAS,
DRVO/
WOOD
ZBIJENA MASA
V. BAKI],
KAMEN/
STONE
MONOLITHIC MASS
I. ME[TROVI],
BRONCA/
BRONZE
alati
tools
KONKAVNO-KONVEKSNA MASA
CONCAVE-CONVEX MASS
V. BAKI]:
RAZLISTALA FORMA/
A LEAFY FORM,
1958., BRONCA/BRONZE,
80 X 42 X 40 CM, ZAGREB
obris
PLONO ISTANJENA MASA
outline
PLANAR MASS
obris
outline
STATUA
VISOKO PENETRIRANA MASA
STATUE
HIGHLY PENETRATED MASS
A. D. FERNKORN:
SVETI JURAJ UBIJA ZMAJA/

ST. GEORGE AND THE DRAGON,
ZAGREB
A. AUGUSTINÎ]:
STID/SHAME,
1948., BRONCA/
BRONZE, 168 CM,
ZAGREB
APSTRAKTNO = TEMATSKI NEODREENO

ABSTRACT = THEMATICALLY UNDEFINED
FIGURATIVNO = TEMATSKI ODREENO

FIGURATIVE=THEMATICALLY DEFINED
MOBIL - OBJEKT ZA
MANIPULIRANJE
LINIJSKI
ISTANJENA MASA
MOBILE - OBJECT
FOR MANIPULATION
LINEAR MASS
RELJEF
RELIEF
I. ME[TROVI]:
ZDENAC @IVOTA/
THE WELL OF LIFE,
VISINA/HEIGHT: 110 CM,
PROMJER/DIAM: 182 CM,
ZAGREB
I. PICELJ:
ÊTIRI TO^KE NA TELESKOPSKOM

PODNO@JU ZA MANIPULIRANJE/
FOUR POINTS ON A TELESCOPIC
PLATFORM FOR MANIPULATION,
1966., PLASTIKA, METAL/PLASTIC,
89,5 X 89,5 X 40 CM, ZAGREB
I. KO@ARI]:
FIGURA (KUPA^)/
FIGURE (BATHER),
50 CM, ZAGREB
51
II/2
52
Namjera u d r u g o j radionici je misaonim postupcima analize i komparacije sti}i do doìvljaja

slojevitosti umjetni~kog djela i povezanosti s drugim djelima na razli~itim razinama; u usporedbama
koristiti istraìvanja iz prethodne radionice; upoznati kipove u javnim prostorima Zagreba i gledati ih
novim o~ima.
Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani prostorije, projektor je iza le|a. Stolci su
raspore|eni rahlo, tako da je mogu}e pribliìti se svakom sudioniku {to olak{ava razgovor.
Struktura doga|anja
U ovoj su radionici uloge podijeljene tako, da voditelj govori uvijek uz projekciju Vulasova, a studenti
uz projekciju ostalih kipova (naj~e{}e vlastitih snimaka).
1. a) Pokazuje se jedan total Vulasove Skulpture i govori o tome da svako djelo posreduje u otvaranju
shematskog opaàja, figurativno tako, da uvijek podme}e novu varijantu tzv. vizualne realnosti, a
apstraktno tako, da otvoreno realizira - materijalizira doslovni opaàj. b) Pokazuje se kip A.
Augustin~i}a Stid, 1948., bronca, 168 cm, Zagreb. Pitanjima se osvje{tava scensko (to prikazuje
kip? Opi{ite stav prikazanog lika! Koja je razlika u poloàju lijeve i desne noge? Opi{ite poloàj lijeve
ruke! Opi{ite poloàj desne ruke! Gdje je smje{tena glava prikazanog lika?).
2. a) Obilazak Vulasove Skulpture s ~etiri snimka da bi se upozorilo na mnogolikost njene pune plasti~nosti. Ona se ve} doìvjela uìvo, prilikom dodirivanja u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a.
Upozoruje se na njenu statuarnost (doziva se u sje}anje problem postave). b) Pokazuju se dva detalja
Zdenca ìvota I. Me{trovi}a, 1905., bronca, visina: 110 cm, promjer: 182 cm, Zagreb. Pitanjima se
dolazi do pojma reljefnosti, razli~itosti od pune plasti~nosti statue (Pred nama je detalj reljefa - {to
prikazuje? Moète li prikazana ljudska tijela vidjeti sa svih strana? Poku{ajte otkriti stupnjeve
izbo~enja! Koje je izbo~enje najve}e, koje najmanje i koliko jo{ me|ustupnjeva otkrivate? Kako izgleda
pozadina likova, podloga iz koje izlaze, rastu izbo~enja? Za koliko bi se stupnjeva morali okrenuti da
bismo reljef vidjeli sa strane? Moè li se kretanje nastaviti? Na kojim mjestima primje}ujete da je
prikazani lik u svojoj masi slobodan u odnosu na podlogu?). c) Pokazuje se mobil Objekt za manipulaciju I. Picelja 1966., plastika, metal, 89,5 x 89,5 x 40 cm, Zagreb s tri snimka da bi se doìvjela
pokretljivost odnosno promjenljivost uslijed pokretljivosti (Od kojih se dijelova sastoji kip? Koliko zbijenih masa primje}ujete, a
koliko linijskih? U kakvom su me|usobnom odnosu ti elementi s obzirom na ravnoteù? Gdje se kip
nalazi? Gdje su linijske mase u~vr{}ene? Odakle je kip lak{e, a odakle teè gledati? Koja je bitna razlika prema ve} vi|enim kipovima?).
3. a) Pokazuje se detalj Vulasove Skulpture snimljen iz velike blizine. Jasno se vidi drvo. Pokazuje se
snimak/crte` raznih alata kojima se radi u drvu. Intervju sa studentom/studenticom-kiparom/kiparicom o radu u drvu, o pojedinim alatima, ~emu sluè itd.
b) I. Me{trovi} Zdenac ìvota, bronca, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Vidi se sjajna, glatka povr{ina
bronce (U kojem je materijalu ra|en kip ~iji detalj vidite na snimku?
U kojem je materijalu umjetnik prvotno radio, po ~emu to zaklju~ujete? Kakvi su oblici povr{ine?
Jesu li stvoreni linijski ili plohama? Kako se kipar odnosi prema svojstvima materijala? Koja svojstva
koristi? Koje se odredbe ~ine prikladnima - mekano ili tvrdo, otvoreno ili zatvoreno, napeto ili labavo, o{tro ili blago?). c) M. Vuco Tin Ujevi}, bronca, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Vidi se hrapava
povr{ina bron~anog odljeva (Pred nama se nalazi detalj kipa. Od kojeg je materijala napravljen? Koje
su karakteristike bronce? Usporedite s karakteristikama drveta! to mislite, u kojem je materijalu
umjetnik prvotno radio i na koji se to na~in o~ituje na kona~nom, bron~anom odljevu? Gledaju}i
oblike {to moète zaklju~iti o pokretima ruku, tragovima i osobinama alata? U koliko je slojeva prostor detalja razra|en? Koliko je dubok? Opi{ite pona{anje svjetlosti! Gdje se lomi, gdje klizi i gdje se
zaustavlja? Za{to?). d) V. Baki} Goran,1964., kamen, 260 x 230 x 270 cm, Zagreb, detalj, snimak iz
velike blizine. Osvje{tava se ~vrsto}a, hrapavost, lomnost kamena (Od kojeg je materijala napravljen
kip ~iji se detalj pokazuje? Koja su svojstva kamena? Usporedite sa svojstvima drveta i metala! Na
koji na~in dolaze do izraàja svojstva materijala? Koja svojstva kipar koristi, koja zanemaruje?
The intention in the s e c o n d workshop is to

gain some experience of the many layers in art
work through the mental process of analysis and
comparison and also through a connection with
other art works at different levels; to use the explorations of the previous workshops in the comparisons; to get acquainted with some sculptures in
the open-air public places of Zagreb and to see
them in a new way.
Ambience: The chairs are turned around to face
one of the narrower sides of the room; the projector
is behind. The chairs are spread out, so that the
students/instructors may approach every participant
and thus enable communication.
The roles are divided between the workshop leader
and the students so that the workshop leader
always talks about . Vulass Sculpture and the students about the other sculptures (mostly photographed by them).
1. a) The total of Vulass Sculpture is shown and
the talk concerns the role of every work of art in
opening shematic perception, in figurative artworks
by imputing always a new variation of the so called
visual reality and in the abstract by openly realisingmaterialising literal perception. b) We show Shame,
a sculpture by A. Augustini, 1948., bronze, 168
cm, Zagreb. Through discussion we became aware
of the scene (What does the sculpture represent?
Describe the position of the represented figure.
What is the difference in the position of the left leg
and the right one? Describe the position of the arm.
Describe the position of the right arm. Where is the
head of the represented figure placed?).
2. a) With the help of four slides we circulate
around Vulass Sculpture and discuss the manysidedness of the sculpture in the round. The participants experienced this sculpture with their hands
during the workshop Origins and Principles.
Instructions are given about its statuarity (we recall
the problem of the setting).
b) Two close details of I. Metrovis Well of Life,
1905., bronze, height: 110cm, diam:
182 cm, Zagreb are shown. Through questions we
come to the concept of relief, different from the full
plasticity of a statue. (Before us there is a detail of
the relief - what does it represent? Can you see the
represented human bodies from all sides? Try to
find out the grades of convexities. Which one is the
highest; which is the lowest and how many grades
can you perceive? What does the background of
the figures, the ground out of which the convexities
emerge, or grow, look like? How many degrees

should we turn in order to see the relief from the
side? Can we continue moving around? Where do
you notice that the represented figure is, in mass,
free from the ground?) c) A mobile, the Object for
Mani-pulation by I. Picelj, 1966., plastic/metal, 89,5
x 89,5 x 40 cm, Zagreb is shown with three slides
to get an impression of moveability or changeability. (From what parts is the sculpture composed?
How many monolithic masses can you notice and
how many linear ones? How are they connected
and how are they balan-ced? Where is the sculpture placed? Where are the linear masses fixed?
From where is it easier and from where more difficult to look at? What is the essential difference
between the already seen sculptures and this one?).
3. a) A very close detail of Vulass sculpture is
shown. We can clearly see that it is made of wood.
We show a photo/drawing of the different tools used in woodwork. An interview with a
student/sculptor about working in wood, about the
tools which are used etc. is very useful.
b) I. Metrovi The Well of Life (a close detail) We
can see the shining, smooth surface of the bronze.
(What is the material of the relief whose detail you
see? In what material did the artist primarily work
and how did you come to that conclusion? What do
you see on the surface? Are they created by planes
or lines? How is the sculptor related to the characteristics of the material? What characteristics has
he used? Which definitions are adequate for the
surface - soft or hard, open or closed, tense or flexible, sharp or blunt?)
c) M. Vuco Tin Ujevi, (close detail). We can see
the rough surface of the bronze cast. (Before us is
a detail of the sculpture. What material is it made
of? What are the characteristics of bronze?
Compare them with the characteristics of wood.
What do you think was the primal material in which
the artist worked and how it can be seen on the
final bronze cast? Looking at the forms what can
you conclude about the hand movements, about the
traces and characteristics of the tools? In how
many layers is the space of the detail articulated?
How deep is it? Describe the behavior of light.
Where is it broken, where does it slip and where
does it stop? Why?) d) V. Baki Goran, 1964.,
stone, 260 x 230 x 270 cm, Zagreb, close detail.
The participants become aware of the hardness,
harshness and fragility. (What material is the sculpture, whose detail we see, made of? What are the
characteristics of stone? Compare them with the
characteristics of wood and metal. How are the
characteristics of the material manifested? Which
53
II/2
54
Opi{ite pona{anje svjetlosti! to zaustavlja svjetlost na makro, {to na mikro razini? to lomi? Kakav
je susret mase i prostora?). e) I. Me{trovi} @ena kraj mora, 1926,. mramor kamen, 149 x 116 x 68
cm, Zagreb, detalj, snimak iz velike blizine. Osvje{tavaju se kod Baki}a zanemarena svojstva kamena
- mogu}nost gla~anja, sjaj (Ovo je detalj tako|er kamenog kipa! Koja su svojstva kamena ovdje
kori{tena? Pratite zaobljenja i lomove! Pratite kretanje svjetlosti po povr{ini, od ~ega ovisi?).
4. a) Voditelj pokazuje novi detalj Vulasove Skulpture radi osvje{tavanja uloge boje (boja materijala
poja~ana istobojnim bajcom) i kretanja svijetlosti po glatkim, ali bla-gim namre{kanim povr{inama.
b) Z. Lon~ari} Liza~ maraka, 1975., drvo, visina 45 cm. Osvje{tava se mogu}nost prisutnosti boje
kao dodane na neznatno hrapavu drvenu povr{inu da bi se naglasili pojedini funkcionalni elementi
(Od kojeg je materijala izra|en kip? Kakva je prirodna boja materijala? Kojim je bojama prekrivena?
Na koji su na~in boje nanijete na oplo{je mase i kakve oblike tvore? Koja je njihova uloga?).
5. a) Ponovo se pokazuje cjelina Vulasove Skulpture i pozivaju se sudionici da pogledaju crteè obrisa
koje su priredili. U razgovoru se dolazi do imenovanja svojstava. b) Proji-ciraju se ~etiri snimka
Augustin~i}eva ve} vi|enog kipa i crteì obrisa. Uspore|uju se s obrisima Vulasova kipa (Usporedimo
obrisne linije Vulasova kipa, {to ste vi priredili i obrisne linije Augustin~i}eva! Koje bitne razlike primije}ujete? Pratimo liniju! Kakva je toka, ravnog, zakrivljenog? Kakva karaktera, ~vrsta, labava?
Dijeluje li mirno, nemirno, napeto, opu{teno? Kakav je ritam linije? Koji se oblici, zakrivljenja,
promjene usmjere-nja ponavljaju? îme se izmijenjuju?).
6. a) Ponovo se pokazuje Vulasova Skulptura da bi se upozorilo na klju~ne vizualno-taktilne pojmove
u tom djelu: na konkavno-konveksnu masu, plohu, teksturalnu povr{inu i na latentnu zbijenu masu.
b) Kao kontrast (plo{no istanjena masa) pokazuje se cjelina Razlistale forme V. Baki}a, 1958., bronca,
80 x 42 x 40 cm, Zagreb (Kakav odnos mase i prostora primje}ujete u ovom kipu? Osim plo{no
istanjene mase kakav jo{ odnos otkrivamo? Kakvo je oplo{je plo{no istanjene mase? Kakvog je oblika
prostor kojeg masa aktivira? Koli~inski ~ega ima vi{e - prostora ili mase?). c) Kao drugi kontrast
(linijski istanjena masa) pokazuje se cjelina Kupa~a I. Koàri}a, 1955., bronca, 50 cm, Zagreb, koja je
bitno sazdana od linijski istanjenih masa (Kakve odnose mase i prostora ovdje primje}ujete? Kakvo je
oplo{je linijski istanjene mase? Do koje je mjere prostor odre|en u pojedinim dijelovima kipa? Kakvog
je oblika prostor kojeg masa aktivira?). d) Kao tre}i kontrast (visoko penetrirana masa) pokazuje se
detalj Svetog Jurja A.D. Fernkorna (Kakav odnos mase i prostora dominira u detalju kipa? Osim
pro{upljenja mase kakav jo{ odnos primje}ujete? Kakvo je oplo{je?). e) Kao ~etvrti kontrast (izrazito
zbijena masa) prikazuje se Koàri}eva Kugla, 1971., poliester/bronca, 200 cm, Zagreb - mo`da bijela
varijanta radi u{~uvanog oplo{ja (îme je u potpunosti dan oblik u ovom kipu? Kakvim odnosom
mase i prostora? Kakvog je oblika masa? Kakvog je oblika prostor? Moè li se zamisliti inverzija njihova odnosa? Kakvo je oplo{je? Kako odre|uje susret mase i prostora?).
Napomena: Radionica traje dulje od uobi~ajenog vremena, te je prikladno podijeliti je na dva dijela.
characteristics does the sculptor use which does he

neglect? Describe the behaviour of light. What
stops the light on a macro level and what on a
micro level? What breaks the light? What kind of
encounter of mass and space do you notice?)
) A close detail of I. Metrovis Woman near the
sea, 1926., marble, 149 x 116 x 68 cm, Zagreb.
The neglected characteristics of stone in Bakis
sculpture are manifested here in smoothness, and
shine. This is also a detail of the stone sculpture.
What characteristics of stone are used here? Follow
the roundness and the breaks. Follow the light
movements on the surface; what do they depend
on?).
4. a) The workshop leader shows a new detail of
Vulass Sculpture to make the participants aware
a) of the role of colour (the colour of the material but
intensified); b) of the movement of light on a smooth
but smoothly grained surface. b) Z. Lonari: Stamp
Licker, 1975., wood, height 45 cm. To become
aware of the colour added to a somewhat harsh
wooden surface to emphasise the particular functional elements (What material is the sculpture
made of? What is the natural colour of the material?
Which colour is it covered with? What is the way in
which the paint is added to the surface of the mass
and what forms does it make? What is the role of
colour and what of paint?).
5. a) We show again the total of Vulass Sculpture
and the participants are asked to look at the drawings they have already prepared. There is a discussion about the characteristics. b) Four slides of
Augustinis already seen sculpture are projected
and the drawings of outlines. A comparison is
made with the outlines of Vulass sculpture.
(Compare the outlines of Vulass sculpture that you
have prepared and the outlines of Augustinis.
What essential differences do you notice? Follow
the line. What kind of inflections; straight, curved?
What characteristics, hard, loose? Is it the effect of
calmness or of agitation, of tenseness or of relaxation? What kind of linear rhythm are there? Which
forms, curves, directions, changes repeat themselves? What do they alternate with?).
6. a) Vulass Sculpture is shown again to instruct the
participants about the crucial visual-tangible concepts in this work of art: concerning the concaveconvex mass, plane, textural surface and the latent
monolithic mass. b) As a contrast (planar mass) we
project the total of V. Bakis: Leafy form, 1958,
bronze, 80 x 42 x 40 cm, Zagreb (What kind of
mass-space relationship do you notice in this sculpture? Except for the planar mass, what kind of relationship can we find? What kind of surface does the
planar mass have? What is the shape of the space
activated by the mass? What is more present - the
space or the mass?). c) As another contrast the total
of I. Koaris Bather, 1955, bronze, 50 cm, Zagreb,
made of linear mass is presented (What kind of relation between the mass and the space do you no-tice
here? What kind of surface does the linear mass
have? How much is the space defined in different
parts of the sculpture? What kind of form does the
space activated by the mass have?). d) The third
contrast detail of A. D. Fernkorn: St. George and the
Dragon is shown as an example of a highly penetrated mass.
(In this detail what kind of relationship between the
space and the mass is dominant? Besides a high
penetration what other kind of relationship do you
notice? What kind of surface?).
e) As the fourth contrast (a monolithic mass)
I. Koari: Sphere, 1971., polyester/bronze,
200 cm, Zagreb, is shown (it may be the white variation because of the preserved surface). (By what
means is the form given in this sculpture? What kind
of relationship is there between mass and space?
What form is the mass? What form is the space? Is
the inversion of their relationship imaginable? What
does the surface look like? How does it define the
encounter of mass and space?).
Note: If the workshop lasts too long; it is recommended that it is divided into two parts.
55
II/3
56

ODNOS MEU VIZUALNO-TAKTILNIM POJMOVIMA
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VISUAL-TANGIBLE CONCEPTS

OSOBINE OBLIKA
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FORMS
VALJAK
CYLINDER
konkavno-konveksna masa UKIDA zbijenu
KUGLA
concave-convex mass ABOLISHES the monolithic mass
SPHERE
plono/teksturalno oploje AFIRMIRA

planar/textural surface CONFIRMS
RAZVEDEN NEPRAVILAN (OBLIK PRENESEN U RAVNINU)

CONVOLUTED IRREGULAR (FORM IS TRANSFERRED INTO A PLANE)
ODNOS MEU OBLICIMA (SINTAKTI^KO PRAVILO)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FORMS (SYNTACTIC RULE)
KONTRAST
CONTRAST
STUPNJEVANJE penetracije
DIRECTING SPACE
USMJERAVANJE PROSTORA
GRADUAL TRANSITION of penetration
penetrirane mase i linijski istanjene mase

the penetrated mass and linear mass
SPLJOTEN VALJAK
FLATTENED CYLINDER
I. ME[TROVI]: R. BO[KOVI],
285 X 200 X 220 CM, ZAGREB
linijsko istanjenje
linear mass
TRANSLACIJA S
POMAKOM
TRANSLATION WITH
SHIFT
ROTACIJA
ZRCALJENJE
POVE]ANJE
UMANJENJE
ROTATION
REFLECTION
AUGMENTATION
DIMINUTION
D. D@AMONJA:
SKULPTURA AKZ/
SCULPTURE AKZ,
1987., ZAGREB
57
II/3
58

RATIOS AND PROPORTIONS

GOVERNING TIME
OMJERI I RAZMJERI
UPRAVLJANJE VREMENOM
kutevi pomaka: 15, 10, 9

angles of shift
23 cm
a : b = 0,6...
obujam dolje: 27, 29, 28 cm, gore: 17, 25, 26 cm

circumference down
up
I. ME[TROVI]:
POVIJEST HRVATA/
HISTORIA CROATORUM,
162 CM, ZAGREB
GOLDEN SECTION
ZLATNI REZ
GOLDEN SECTION
ZLATNI REZ
44 cm
a : b = b : (a + b) = 0,618
1/2
100 cm
5,5
6,3
6,5
1/2
3,3
5,5
7,8
6,5
66 cm
106 cm
7,5
7,9
+
6,8
1/2
1/2
3,5
a) 7,5 : 5,5 + 6,5 = 0,6...
7,5
62 cm
b) 6,8 : 3,3 +7,8 = 0,6...
59

60
APPREHENSION
SAGLEDAVANJE

SCULPTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
KIP I OKOLI
1-2 cm
0,5 mm
udaljenosti:
distances:
45
23,5 cm
27
47,0 cm
18
70,5 cm
F. ROSANDI]:
RIBAR/FISHERMAN
udaljenosti:
distances:
45
3m
27
6m
18
9m
I. KO@ARI]: MATO[,
1973., 90 CM, [IRINA
KLUPE/THE WIDTH OF
THE BENCH: 130 CM,
ZAGREB
SIMULACIJA
SIMULATION
V. BAKI]:
IVAN GORAN KOVAÎ],

1964., KAMEN /STONE,
260 X 230 X 270 CM, ZAGREB
RAVNOTE@A
BALANCE
61
II/3
62
Namjera u t r e } o j radionici je analizom i komparacijom osvijestiti osobine oblika, zakonitosti

veza: simetrije, omjere, razmjere, ritam i, na kraju, i kutove mogu}eg lagodnog promatranja, sagledavanja cjeline i razabiranja dijelova.
Ambijent: Isti je kao i u prethodnoj radionici.
Struktura doga|anja
1. a) Ponovo se kre}e od projekcije Vulasove Skulpture i osvje{tavaju se odnosi koji vladaju me|u pojedinim vizualno-taktilnim pojmovima (zbijene mase se u me|usobnom odnosu ukidaju, u konkavnokonveksnim masama su unutra i nisu, plo{ne i teksturalne povr{ine afirmiraju i zbijenu i konkavnokonveksnu masu). b) Slijedi usporedba s kipom I. Me{trovi}a Ru|er Bo{kovi}, 1937. (1940.?), bronca,
285 x 200 x 220 cm, Zagreb (tri snimka). Na detaljima se uo~avaju stupnjevanje penetracije i kontrast izme|u penetrirane i linijski istanjene mase (Pogledajte detalj! Posebno desnu stranu! Kakve
odnose mase i prostora - vizualno-taktilne pojmove - primje}ujete?) Upozorenje na kuglasti oblik zbijene mase i oblik {to ga sugeriraju linijski istanjene mase! (Kakav je taj drugi oblik? U ~emu je razlika
izme|u ta dva oblika, u ~emu je sli~nost? Sli~nost izme|u dva oblika jo{ vi{e isti~e temeljni odnos
izme|u pojmova mase i prostora koji vlada u ovom detalju! (/kontrast/Koji je taj odnos? Pogledajte
kako se zbijena masa odnosi prema ostalim masama i prostorima kipa! Kako biste opisali taj odnos?
Upozorenje na izvjesnu dvosmislenost u tom odnosu. Primje}ujete li je? Ako da, u ~emu se sastoji?
Moè li se zbijena masa odvojiti od ostalih? Do koje mjere da, do koje mjere ne? to ona predstav-lja
u odnosu na okolna udubljenja? Sada pogledajmo cjelinu! to mislite koji je temeljni odnos mase i
prostora u cijelom kipu /konkavno-konveksna masa/). c) Slijede snimci pet detalja Koàri}eva Mato{a,
1973., bronca, 90 cm, {irina klupe: 130 cm, Zagreb. Vidi se izraziti kontrast izme|u linijskog istanjenja i konkavno-konveksne mase (Pogledajte detalj kipa! Vjerojatno uo~avate da se opet radi o izrazitom kontrastu - imenujte izme|u kojih vizualno-taktilnih pojmova! Evo jo{ jedan detalj! Istanjenje je
ovdje jo{ uo~ljivije, s ~ime je u kontrastu? Sada pogledajte jo{ jedan detalj! Odakle je snimljen? Koji
dio kipa zahva}a? Kakav je tu odnos mase i prostora? Primje}ujete li prijelaz u jedan druga~iji odnos,
koji vi{e nije kontrast? Koji je to odnos i kakav je prijelaz /stup-njevanje/).
2. a) Osvje{tavaju se osobine oblika Vulasove Skulpture (spljo{teni valjak) i zakonitosti veza me|u
oblicima (translacija s pomakom). Koriste se rezultati istraìvanja: materijalizirana kompozicijska linija i presjeci. Slijede usporedbe. b) T. Ostoja Pliva~ice (3 snimka). Uo~avaju se valjkasti, elipsoidni
oblici i odnosi umetanja, zrcaljenja, translacije s pomakom. (Koja geometrijska odnosno stereometrijska tijela prepoznajete u skulpturi? Imenujte i opi{ite preinake u odnosu na pravilnost! Kako se
me|usobno odnose tijela? Pogledajte detalj! Kako se tu odnose /umetanje/? Detalj kipa prikazuje
pliva~icu i to u stavu koji isti~e zrcalnu simetri~nost ljudskog tijela. Ipak, {to remeti to zrcaljenje?
Pogledajte ve}i detalj kompozicijske cjeline! Koliko sada ima likova? U kakvom su me|usobnom
odnosu? U ~emu se sve o~ituje pomak? Pogledajmo sada cjelinu! U ~emu je sada pomak? Postoji li
jo{ neki odnos osim translacije s pomakom ?). c) V. Baki} Razlistala forma (slijed snimaka). Pokazuje
se crte` oblika prevedenog u ravninu. Oblik je razveden, asimetri~an (Oblik je prenesen u ravninu.
Pogledajte i recite kakav je to oblik? Vratimo se snimku i pogledajmo! Na koji na~in kipar koristi to
da radi u prostoru a ne u ravnini? Opi{ite promjene usmjerenja! Koji se dijelovi savijaju i u kojem
smjeru? Kako usmjeravaju prostor? Prepoznajete li neku vama poznatu zakonitost simetrije, bar kao
polazi{te? U ~emu je otklon od simetrije, dapa~e njena negacija?). d) D. Dàmonja Skulptura AKZ,
1987., Zagreb (tri snimka). Uo~ava se oblik spljo{tenog valjka i sintakti~ka pravila rotacije, zrcaljenja, pove}anja, umanjenja (Koje oblike primje}ujete? Izdvojite ih! Koliko ima velikih oblika, koliko
malih? Poku{ajte prona}i oblik koji je porijeklom isti kao i Vulasov oblik /odsje~ak spljo{tenog valjka/!
îme su dani oblici? Kakvim odnosom mase i prostora? U kakvom su me|usobnom odnosu? /rotacija/ Kakav se jo{ odnos primje}uje izme|u manjih i ve}ih oblika? Taj smo odnos ve} susretali u
Ostojinom kipu. Pogledajmo /zaokret za 90/ koje pravilo postaje sada uo~ljivo /zrcaljenje prednje i
stra`nje strane/! îme se kipar suprotstavlja izvjesnoj monotoniji i pretjeranoj preglednosti oblika i
odnosa na makro razini? Kakva je povr{ina? to o njoj moète re}i na temelju ovog snimka? Kakve
oblike primje}ujete na oplo{ju? Kakvog su karaktera?). e) V. Baki} Goran (dva snimka). Vidimo
nepravilni poliedar. Odnos me|u oblicima je prilagodba /close packing/. (Kakvog je oblika kip?
Kakvim je odnosom mase i prostora dan oblik? Na temelju ~ega zaklju~ujete da je nepravilni
poliedar, a ne elipsoid? Pogledajte detalj! Koje geometrijske likove primje}ujete? îme su oblikovani?
to je potrebno da bi ih uo~ili? Kakav je odnos izme|u vizualnog i taktilnog doìvljaja? Kakvu nam
senzaciju daje opip, a kakvu pogled? Evo sistematizacije geometrijskih likova koji se pojavljuju u tom
kipu! Trokuta ima tridesetak, kao i ~etvorokuta, dok je mnogokuta {est. U kakvom su odnosu ti oblici? Kako bi mogli nazvati taj odnos?). f) Slijede snimci Povijesti Hrvata I. Me{trovi}a, 1932., bronca,
162 cm, Zagreb. Pokazuju se materijalizirane osi i presjeci (Materijalizirali smo osi kipa. Koliko ih
ima? Usporedimo s Vulasovim kipom, odnosno s va{im istraìvanjem od prepro{log puta! Koja je
bitna razlika izme|u osi jednog i drugog kipa? Kakve su veze me|u osima? Postoje li va`nije i manje
va`ne, ako da, po ~emu to zaklju~ujete? Kakav je odnos izme|u glavnog i ostalih usmjerenja? Na
koju simetriju nailazimo u me|usobnom odnosu usmjerenih masa? Ponovo obi|imo kip! Poku{ajte
na}i mjesta na kojima smo presjekli kip! Gdje je napravljen prvi, najve}i presjek? Gdje drugi? Gdje
tre}i? Kakvi su se oblici dobili presjecanjem Vulasova kipa, koja je razlika? Po ~emu je odnos izme|u
oblika druga~iji od onog u Vulasovom kipu /hijerarhijski odnos/? Usporedimo rast, uzdizanje
Vulasova i Me{trovi}eva kipa! Kakav je rast kod Me{trovi}a? U ~emu je razlika ? /promjena oblika,
promjena veli~ine/ Na koje geometrij-sko tijelo upu}uje Me{trovi}eva skulptura ? /piramidalni oblik/)
The intention in the t h i r d workshop is to gain

an awareness through analysis and comparison of
the characteristics of forms, the laws of their relations: symmetries, ratios, proportions, rhythm and
eventually of the angles of easy apprehension of the
wholeness and the discrimination of the parts.
Ambience: The same as in the former workshop.
1. a) We again begin with Vulass Sculpture trying
to gain an awareness of the relations which dominate in the visual-tangible concepts (the monolithic
masses are in interaction and abolish each other,
they are and are not in the concave-convex masses; the planar and textural surfaces confirm the
monolithic masses and the concave-convex ones,
too) b) I. Metrovi: Ru|er Bokovi, 1937.
(1940.?), bronze, 285 x 200 x 220 cm (three
slides) is next. Using the details the gradual penetration and the contrast between the penetrated and
linear masses are perceived. (Look at the detail.
Especially on the right side. What kind of relation
between mass and space is there - what kind of
visual-tangible concepts do you notice?)
Instructions are given about the spheric form of the
monolithic mass and about the form suggested by
the linear masses. (What kind of form is it? What is
the difference between these two forms, and what
is similar? The similarity between the two forms
emphasises the basic relationship between the concepts of mass and space which dominates in this
detail (contrast)) (What kind of relationship is it?
Look how the monolithic mass relates to the environment. How would you describe that relation?)
An instruction is given about a certain ambiguity in
the relation of the monolithic mass and the environment. Do you notice it? If so, what is it like? Is it
possible to separate the monolithic mass from the
environment? How much so, how much not? What
does it represent concerning the environmental concavities? Cast a glance over the wholeness. What is
the basic relation between mass and space in the
whole sculpture? (the concave-convex mass)).
c) Five details of I. Koaris Mato, 1973., bronze,
90 cm, the width of the bench: 130 cm, Zagreb, are
presented. We can see a very evident contrast
between the linear mass and the concave-convex
one. (Look at the detail of the sculpture. You probably notice that there we find again a very evident
contrast - name between which visual-tangible concepts. Here is yet another detail. The thin mass here
is even more present, what is it contrasted with?
Now look at the detail again. What angle is the photograph taken from? What part of the sculpture is
captured? What kind of relation between space and
mass can you recognise here? Can you notice a
transition to another relationship, not a contrast
anymore? What kind of relation is it and what does
the transition/gradation look like?)
2. a) Awareness is gained about the characteristics
of forms (flattened cylinder) and about the laws of
the relation between the forms (translation with
shift) Vulas's sculpture. We use the results of the
previous explorations, the materialisation of compositional line and the prepared sections.
Comparisons follows.
b) T. Ostojas Bathers is presented with three
slides. We notice the cylindrical, ellipsoid forms and
the insertions, reflections and translations with shift.
(What geometric or stereometric solids do we
recognise in the sculpture? Try to name and
describe the modifications concerning regularity.
How do the bodies interact? Look at the detail. How

do they interact here? (Insertion).) The detail of the
sculpture represents a bather in a position which
emphasizes the reflex symmetry of the human
body. But something disturbs that reflex symmetry.
(What is it? Look at a larger detail of the composition. How many figures can you see now? In what
kind of relation are they? What is the shift manifested in? Look at the whole composition now. Where
can we recognise the shift now? Is there some
other relationship except the translation with shift?)
c) V. Baki: The Leafy form (a sequence of slides).
A drawing of the form transposed into the plane is
projected. (The form is convoluted and asymmetric.
The form is transferred to the plane. Look at it and
say what kind of form it is. Return to the sculpture
and look at it. How does the sculptor use the fact
that he is working in space and not in two dimensions? Describe the changes of directions. Which
parts and in what direction do they turn? How do
they direct the space? Can you recognize some of
the laws of symmetry known to you here, even as a
starting point? Where can you notice a deviation
from symmetry or even a negation of it?) d) Three
slides of D. Damonjas sculpture AKZ, 1987,
Zagreb. We recognise the form of a flattened cylinder and the syntactic rule of rotation, reflection,
augmentation and diminution. (What forms do you
notice? Isolate them. How many large forms and
how many small ones can you find? Try to find a
form which is, by its origin like Vulass (the segment of flattened cylinder). What makes the forms?
What kind of space-mass relationship is there? In
what kind of relation is there? (rotation) What kind
of relation do you notice between the larger forms
and the smaller ones? We have already met this
relation in Ostojas sculpture. Look (turn 90), what
kind of rule is now noticeable? (the reflexion of the
front and back sides). What is the sculptor opposed
to with this sort of monotony and exaggerated
lucidity of the relations on the macro level? What
kind of surface can you see in this slide? What
kinds of forms do you perceive on the surface?
What are their characteristics?) e) V. Baki: Goran
presented by two slides. We see an irregular polyeder. The relation between the forms is close packing. (What is the form of the sculpture? With what
kind of space-mass relationship is the form given?
On what basis can you conclude that it is an irregular polyeder and not an ellypsoid one? Look at the
detail. What geometric shapes do you notice? How
are they formed? What is worth noticing? What is
the relation between the visual and tangible experience? What kind of sensation do we get by touch
and what kind by sight? Here is a systematisation
of the geometric shapes which we find on the surface of that sculpture. We get about thirty triangles,
about as many quadrangles and six polygons. What
is the relation between these shapes? What should
we name this relation?)
f) Using slides we circulate around the Historia
Croatorum by I. Metrovi, 1932., bronze,
162 cm, Zagreb. We show the materialised axes
and the sections (it is a pyramidal form in a hierarchical relation). (We have materialised the compositional axes of the statue. How many such axes
exist? Compare it with Vulas Sculpture, or better
still with your former explorations. What is the
essential difference between the axes of sculpture?
What are the relations between the axes? Do they
all have the same value? If not, how do you arrive
at this conclusion? What relation exists between the
main direction and the other ones? What kind of
63
II/3
64
3. a) Ponovo Vulasova Skulptura snimljena s razli~itih strana. Daju se mjere (u cm) za ~etiri pozicije.
b) Pokazuje se Me{trovi}: Povijest Hrvata i daju se veli~ine (u cm),.
Visina kipa s postoljem: 162; visina do sredine plo~e: 62; visina od sredine plo~e do vrha: 100; {irina
marame: 44; {irina ramena: 66; {irina plo~e: 106
(Usporedimo {irinu marame, {irinu ramena i {irinu plo~e! Usporedimo visinu do sredine plo~e i od
sredine plo~e do vrha! Usporedimo {irinu plo~e i visinu cijelog kipa! Prisjetimo se {to je omjer a {to
razmjer! Tragamo za zakonitostima koje povezuju u cjelinu pojedine mase u kipu i njihova usmjerenja.
Postoji li odnos me|u omjerima i, ako da, kakav je taj odnos? Usporedimo s Vulasovom Skulpturom!
Postoji li mo`da neka sli~nost u zakonitosti ucjelovljavanja, unato~ svih razlika koje smo do sada
uo~ili?)
4. a) Ukazuje se na varijacije u postavi Vulasove Skulpture. Daju se podaci: udaljenost: 70,5 cm,
kut: 18; udaljenost: 47 cm, kut: 27; udaljenost: 23,5 cm, kut: 45. Rubovi su veli~ine 1-2 cm, {to
odgovara manje-vi{e FS (0,5; 0,8; 1,2). Lagodno se razabire 0,5 mm, {to pak odgovara sitnoj
Pozicije
Postolje
Prvi oblik
Drugi oblik
Tre}i oblik
Position
Base
First form
Second form
Third form
3,5
7,5
6,5
5,5
II
3,5
7,9
5,0
6,3
III
3,5
6,8
7,8
3,3
IV
3,5
7,5
6,5
5,5
namre{kanosti na oplo{ju. b) Problem sagledavanja se upoznaje jo{ na primjeru T. Rosandi}eva

Ribara. Pokazuje se tlocrt Jezuitskog trga u Zagrebu i istraùju se mjesta odakle se kip najbolje sagledava i razabiru pojedinosti (Istraùjemo odnos izme|u kipa i okoli{a sa stajali{ta mogu}nosti sagledavanja! Evo podataka, a vi }ete sami isku{ati. Kada se kre}ete oko kipa na udaljenosti od oko 9 m,
vidite ga pod vrlo lagodnim okomitim kutem od 18 stupnjeva. Istraùjte dalje!).
5. Radionica zavr{ava primjerima koji pokazuju razli~iti me|uodnos kipa i okoli{a:
a) A. Mato{ I. Koàri}a simulira ambijent; b) Me{trovi}eva @ena ispred Privredne banke je u kontrastu
s okoli{em; c) Baki}ev Goran uspostavlja ravnoteù. (Pitanja vezana uz Koàri}eva Mato{a: to snimak
pokazuje? to se sve nalazi na {etali{tu? Koji kip? êga sve ima u okoli{u? Kako se kip odnosi prema
svim tim elementima /klupe, stabla, ku}e, ograda, mogu}nost vidika/? to kip simulira? to je na ovom
snimku element okoli{a i {to taj element imitira /~ovjek na klupi - prikaz Mato{a na klupi/? Kako je
djevojka shvatila interakciju kipa i okoli{a /na snimku: djevojka sjedi u kipu/? Pitanja vezana uz
Me{trovi}evu @enu: Gdje se nalazi kip? Kakav je okoli{ u kojem se kip nalazi? Opi{ite ga! Koji su elementi okoli{a, kakva su karaktera, ~emu sluè, kako funkcioniraju? Kako doìvljavate taj kip u odnosu
na okoli{? Za{to je tu postavljen? Koja je njegova uloga? Uklapa li se ili je u kontrastu? îme? Moète li
zamisliti bitno druga~iji okoli{ za isti kip? Ako da, kakav i za{to? Moète li zamisliti okoli{ bez tog kipa?
Kakav je? Kakav je bio prije postavljanja, kakav bi bio poslije uklanjanja - da li isti? Ako da, za{to da,
ako ne, za{to ne? Pitanja vezana uz Baki}eva Gorana: to snimak pokazuje? Jeste li uo~ili skulpturu?
Koji je to kip? Kako se doimlje iz te udaljenosti? Koje su bitne osobine parka, raslinja, puteljaka? Kako
se me|usobno odnose organski okoli{ i geometrijska ljudska tvorevina? îme se kip prilago|ava okoli{u,
~ime mu kontrastira? Odakle sada gledamo, kako vas se odavde doimlje?)
Napomena: Ova je radionica, poput prethodne, preduga, preporu~a se podjela.
symmetry do we find between the masses? We

observe again all around. Try to find the places
where we have made the sections. Where have we
made the largest section? And the second one?
And the third one? What kinds of forms have we
obtained by cutting Vulass sculpture? What is the
difference? What relation exists between these
forms? What makes the difference? Compare the
growth the ascension of Vulass and
Metrovis sculptures. What are the differences?
(change of form, change of dimensions).
3. a) We show again Vulass work with a number of
slides photographed from all angles all around. We
give the measurements (in cms) in four positions.
(See the figure in Croatian text). b) The slides about
Metrovi's Historia Croatorum are shown and the
dimensions (in cm) are given. The height of the
sculpture with base: 162; the height to the middle of
the slab: 62; the height from the middle of the slab
to the top: 100; the width of the scarf: 44 cm; the
width of the shoulders: 66 cms; the width of the
slab: 106 cms. (Compare the width of the scarf, the
shoulders and the width of the slab. Compare the
width of the slab and the height of the sculpture.
Remind yourself what the ratio is and what the proportion is. We search for the rules which unite all the
masses and their directions into a whole. Have you
found a relation between the ratios and if so what
kind is this relation? Compare it with Vulass sculpture. Can you possibly find any similarities in spite
of the differences we have already discovered, in the
rules of making a whole?)
4. a) Instructions are given about the variations in
the setting of Vulass sculpture. The measurements
are given in distance: 70.5 cm angle: 18; in distance: 47 cm, angle 27; in distance 23.5 cm,
angle: 45. The edges are 1-2 cms and correspond
more or less to FI (0.5; 0.8; 1.2 cm). We can easily
distinguish 0.5 mm which corresponds to a slight
harshness of the wooden surface. b) We experience
the problems of apprehension using the example of
T. Rosandis Fisherman too. A plan of a public
square is shown (the Jesuit Square in Zagreb)
where the sculpture is set and we explore the
places from where we can best apprehend and distinguish the details at the same time. We explore
the relation to the environment. (We explore the
relation between the sculpture and the environment
from the view-point of the possibility of apprehension. We give this information: Here are the data
and you try it by yourself. When you go round the
sculpture about 9 m from it you can see it under a
very easy vertical angle of 18. Explore further)
5.) We finish the workshop with examples showing
interactions between the sculptures and their environments: a) I. Koaris Mato simulates the environment, b) Metrovis Woman in front of the
Trade Bank in Zagreb, 1929., bronze, 250 cm,
Zagreb, is in contrast to it, c) V. Baki: Goran establishes a balance [(Questions about Koari's
Mato: What can you see in the slide? What you
can see on the promenade? What sculpture? What
can you all see in the environment? What is the
relation of the sculpture to all these elements
(benches, trees, houses, fences, possibility of the

view)? What does the sculpture simulate? What
element of the environment you can see in this
slide and what does this element imitate (a man
sitting on the bench - the representation of Mato
on the bench?) How has the girl grasped the interaction between the sculpture and the environment?
(in the slide: a girl is sitting in the sculpture);
Questions about Metrovi's Woman: Where is the
sculpture? What kind of environment is it?
Describe it. Which are the elements of the environment, what are their characteristics, their use, how
do they function? How do you experience this
sculpture concerning the environment? Why is it
placed here? What is the function? Is it included or
is it in contrast with the environment? By what?
Can you imagine an entirely different environment
for this work? If so, what sort and why? Can you
imagine this environment without the sculpture?
What would it look like? What did it look like before
the setting of the sculpture, what would it look like
after the deplacement - the same? If so, why, or,
why not?; Questions about Baki's Goran: What is
represented in the slide? Do you notice the sculpture? Which sculpture? What does it look like from
this distance? What are the essential characteristics of the park, of the vegetation, of the roads?
How do the organic environment and the geometrical human art work relate to each other ? How is
the sculpture adjusted to the environment and does
it contrast with it? What is your impression from
where we are looking at it now?)]
Note: If this worshop becomes too long it should be
divided into two sessions.
65

66
METODE ISTRA@IVANJA
SLIKARSKOG DJELA
A PAINTING
67
COLOUR SYNTAX
SINTAKSA BOJA
CRVENA traì ZELENU

PSEUDOSINTAGMA
RED searches for GREEN
PSEUDO-SYNTAGM
PLAVA traì NARANÂSTU

BLUE searches for ORANGE
SINTAGMA (PRIRODNI KOMPLEMENTARNI PAR)

SYNTAGM (NATURAL
COMPLEMENTARY PAIR)
CRVENA - ZELENA
RED - GREEN
MODULACIJA ZELENO
KONTRAST
MODULATION GREEN
CONTRAST
@UTO
YELLOW
NARANÂSTA (C + @) ILI ZELENA (P + @)

PREOSTAJE KOJA LATENTNO DJELUJE
O. HERMAN:
SUZANA I STARCI/
SUZANNAH AND
THE ELDERS, 1969.,
ULJE/OIL, 81 X 103 CM,
GSU, ZAGREB
DVOSMISLENA SINTAGMA
AMBIGUOUS SYNTAGM
ORANGE (R + Y) OR GREEN (B + Y)
THE REST IS WHICH ACTS LATENTLY
OKO PROIZVODI PRIRODNI/KOMPLEMENTARNI PAR
THE EYE PRODUCES A NATURAL COMPLEMENTARY PAIR
KONTRAST
CONTRAST
MODELACIJA PROMJENA TONA/VALERA

MODELATION A CHANGE OF VALUE/CHROMA
Nakon gledanja u CRVENU mrlju neko vrijeme ako pogledamo na neutralno bijelo desno, pojavit }e se pa-slika u ZELENOM
After looking at a RED spot for sometime and then at a neutral white to the right, we see the afterimage in GREEN
II/4
68
U ~ e t v r t o j radionici namjera je uvje`bati snalaènje s trima dimenzijama boja; vje`bati identifikacije boja na reprodukciji O. Hermanove slike Suzana i starci; traènjem detalja (rje{avanjem
zagonetki) intenzivirati gledanje i upoznati glavne aspekte sintakse u djelu.
Ambijent: Na po~etku radionice u sredini prostorije je stol, a oko njega stolice. U drugom dijelu
sudionici sjede uz male stolove s jedne i druge dulje strane prostorije. Projektor je na uobi~ajenom
mjestu. Pripremljene su karte boja dobivene na temelju istraìvanja s DIN 6164 sustavom u
radionici P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a. Pripremljen je i shematski crte` Hermanove slike.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Sudionici su okupljeni oko stola, dok studenti stoje iza njih. Najavljuje se igra
kartanja ~ija se pravila tuma~e. Karte se kupe na temelju najve}eg kontrasta ili najve}e sli~nosti u
sve tri dimenzije boja - kromatske kvalitete, jarkosti (intenziteta), svjetline (tona). Kada su sudionici
pokupili dosta veliki broj karata, svaki bar 2-3 (sve, naravno, ovisi o broju, spretnosti i brzini
sudionika), mijenja se raspored u prostoriji.
2. a) Sudionici sjedaju do bo~no postavljenih stolova i dobivaju shematski crte` Hermanove slike.
Voditelj projicira total slike, a sudionici, uz pomo} studenata-instruktora, ozna~avaju u shematskom
crteù mjesto boja koje opaàju (u 3 D). b) Sudionike se poziva da na projiciranoj reprodukciji prona|u
boje koje imaju u svojim kartama i da upi{u njihove {ifre u shematski crte`. Pomaù studenti.
3. Projicira se oko 4 do 5 detalja Hermanove slike i to po~ev od lak{ih prema teìma. Prvo se od
sudionika traì da na|u detalj na slici, a nakon toga tuma~i se sintakti~ko pravilo koje se jasno moè
uo~iti na detalju (modeliranje, moduliranje, kontrast: sintagme, dvosmislene sintagme, pseudosintagme).
4. Radionica zavr{ava odgonetavanjem izbora boja i odnosa (postupka). Sve se vi{e ulazi u interpretaciju doga|anja slike kao ~arolije boja, njihova slobodnog toka ili prigu{ivanja, osloba|anja
latentnih ili uravnteàvanja suprotnih.
5. Sudionici zadràvaju shematski crte` i, eventualno, karte.
In the f o u r t h workshop the intention is to practice orientation in the three dimensions of colours; to
train colour identification using the reproduction of O.
Hermans painting Suzannah and the Elders; to
search for details (solve puzzles) to intensify observation and to learn the main aspects of colour syntax
in a work of art.
Ambience: At the beginning a table is in the middle
of the room and the chairs are all around it. Later,
in the second part of the workshop the participants
sit at small tables along the longer sides of the
room. The projector is in its usual place. Cards
are prepared on the basis of the exploration with
DIN 6164 chips in the workshop Origin and
Principles. A shematic diagram of Hermans painting is prepared too.
1. The participants are gathered and the studentsinstructors are behind them. The game is introduced and the rules are explained. The cards are
sorted according to the greatest contrast or greatest similarity in all the three dimensions of colours
- hue, chroma, value. When the participants have
sorted a large number of cards each participant two or three (naturally it depends on the
number of participants and how clever and quick
they are), then the organisation of the room
changes.
2. a) The participants sit at small tables and they

receive a diagram of Hermans painting. The workshop leader projects the painting and the participants helped by the students make a note of the
places of colours which they have perceived in 3D
onto the diagram. b) the participants are invited to
find the colours which they have on their cards
on the projected reproduction and to write the
numbers on the diagram. The students assist with
any problem.
3. Four or five details of Hermans painting are projected, beginning with the easier, leading towards
the more difficult ones. First the participants are
invited to find the detail in the painting, and afterwards the syntactic rule is explained which is perceiveable in the detail (modelation, modulation,
contrast: syntagmas, pseudo-syntagmas, ambigual
syntagmas.
4. We finish the workshop by deciphering the
artists choice of colours and their relationship (procedure). We enter more and more into the happening of the painting as a magic of colours, a free
flow of colours or their subdueness, a liberation of
latent colours or a ba-lancing of the opposite ones.
5. The participants keep the diagram and the
cards if they so desire.
69
Igra kartama (karte su uzorci boja koje su

sudionici priredili istraùju}i Hermanovu sliku/
Igra kartama/A card game
A card game (the cards were made by the participants exploring Hermans painting)
Studentica tuma~i dimenzije boja/A student-
Studentica tuma~i igru/A student-instructor
instructor explains colour dimensions
explains the game
Studentica tuma~i dimenzije boja/A studentinstructor explains colour dimensions
Identifikacija boja uz pomo} karata na

Hermanovoj slici/Colour identification on Hermans
painting with cards

70
A PAINTING
METODE ISTRA@IVANJA
SLIKARSKOG DJELA
STRUCTURAL POSSIBILITIES OF THE CHOSEN FRAME (ARMATURE)
STRUKTURALNE MOGU]NOSTI ODABRANOG KADRA (ARMATURA)
71
FOCUSES OF THE PICTURE

THE PICTURE IS A STRUCTURE OF PLACES
@ARI[TA SLIKE
SLIKA JE SKLOP MJESTA
81 cm
103,6 cm
ZLATNI REZ
GOLDEN SECTION
a1
1/2
b
a : b = b : (a + b)
zeleni pojas
b1
1/4
1/3
a
b
the green zone
a
b
II/5
72
Namjera u p e t o j radionici je ste}i iskustvo o slici kao kadru, istraìti strukturalne mogu}nosti formata kojeg je O. Herman odabrao za svoju sliku i osvijestiti na koji su se na~in te mogu}nosti realizirale
u kompoziciji slike.
Ambijent: Sjedi se kraj malih stolova s po jednim studentom-instruktorom uz svaki stol. Potrebni
su milimetarski papir i ravnalo.
Struktura doga|anja:
1. Najavljuje se rad. Podsje}a se na istraìvanje u devetoj radionici P o ~ e l a i
n a ~ e l a.
2. Uz pomo} instruktora sudionici crtaju pravokutnik 8 x 10 cm na milimetarskom papiru, dijele ga
po uputama na polovicu lijevo-desno, gore-dolje, zatim ponovo na polovicu i onda po zlatnom rezu.
Kutovi se povezuju s po deset to~aka na nasuprotnim stranicama i nastaje gusta mreà.
3. a) Projicira se cjelina Hermanove slike i voditelj interpretira sliku kao doga|anje boje u odre|enim
omjerima na odre|enim mjestima odabranog kadra (to nosi pojedinu liniju, na koji se na~in strukturalna linija pretvara u kompozicijsku, ~ime se vodi promatra~ev pogled, ~ime se zaustavlja?). Traì se od
sudionika da po osje}aju odrede glavne podjele i glavna àri{ta slike. b) Studenti metrom provjeravaju
strukturalne linije na projekciji slike, podjele po polovici, ~etvrtini, lijevo-desno, gore-dolje i ustanovljuju
da {iroki pojas zelenog poja~an crvenim potezom dvosmisleno nosi podjelu gore-dolje, lijevo i, inercijom
pogleda, produùje se i prema desno; da su ~etvrtinske podjele u horizontali gore no{ene prikazom brijegova, dolje, ne{to slabije, doljnjim rubom stabla i desnom rukom; da je okomita podjela djelomi~no
no{ena razmje{tajem likova prete`no desno a krajolika lijevo, zatim okom starca i jednim velikim
tematski neodre|enim oblikom - sklopom sfernih oblika; da su, iako u stanovitom pomaku, ipak uo~ljive
~etvrtinske okomite podjele (dolina - lijevo, naran~asti nos - desno). c) Prelazi se na zlatnoreznu podjelu
lijevo-desno, desna linija zlatnog reza (dodir glava, Suzanino oko) je izrazitija od lijeve, ali zajedno isti~u
sredi{nji okomiti pojas koji je najzgusnutiji. d) Sudionike se pita u kojoj mjeri to osje}aju i govori se o
va`nosti intuitivnog zahva}anja cjeline svih odnosa. Naime, cjelina se analiti~ki ne moè zahvatiti, ali se
analiti~kim usmjeravanjem pa`nje intuicija odgaja upravo za zahva}anje cjeline svih odnosa. e) Slijedi
provjera dijagonalnih podjela i sve se vi{e, u pogledu promatra~a, uspostavljaju mjesta/àri{ta slike koja
su prire|ena za uravnoteàvanje kretanja i mirovanja pogleda (snaga kretanja prema sredi{tu, snaga
prema stranama i prema uglovima). Stoga se slika moè shvatiti kao sklop tako prire|enih mjesta
(mjesto je ravnoteà suprotnih snaga kretanja).
The intention in the f i f t h workshop is to gain

experience about a painting as a frame and to
explore the structural possibilities of the frame O.
Herman had chosen for his painting and to become
aware of the possibilities which were realised in the
final composition.
Ambience: The participants sit at small tables with
one student-instructor beside every table. Graph
paper and rulers are available.
1. We begin by reminding the participants of the
explorations in the Origins and Principles.
2. Helped by the students-instructors the participants draw a rectangle of 8 x 10 cm, on the graph
paper according to the instructions. They divide it in
half left to right and top to bottom, afterwards in
half again and then according to the Golden
Section. The angles are connected with ten points
on the opposite sides and a dense network
appears.
3. a) The whole of Hermans painting is projected
and the workshop leader interprets the painting as a
colour happening in definite ratios, in definite places
in a chosen format. (What carries a particular line,
how a structural line transforms into a compositional one, by what is the observers glance carried, by
what is it halted?) The participants are invited to
divide the painting mainly according to their feelings
and place the most important focuses; b) the students check the structural lines on the projected
painting with rulers, the division in half, in quarters,
left to right, top to bottom and find out that the
broad green belt which is strengthened with a red
stroke ambigually divides the format from top to
bottom and left and only by the inertia of the glance

it continues towards the right side; that the
quarters in the horizontals are carried upwards by
represented hills and downwards, somewhat weaker by the lower edge of the tree and the right hand;
the vertical division is partly carried by the placement of the figures mainly to the right and the landscape to the left, further by the old mans eye and
by a great abstract form - a structure of spheric
forms; in a certain shift, but still, we can notice the
vertical quarter divisions (the valley left, the orange
mass right); c) we go to the Golden Section dividing left-right, the right line of the Golden Section
(the touch of the heads, Susannahs eyes) while the
left one is less noticable but together they emphasise the central vertical belt which is the densest
one; d) we ask the participants how much they feel
it and we speak about the importance of intuition of
the wholeness of all the relations which could not
be caught analytically but with analytical direction of
their attention, the intuition is educated for such a
grasp of all the relations; e) further we check the
diagonal divisions and in the glances of the participants more and more the places/focuses are established, which are prepared for balancing the movements and standstills of the glance (the power of
the movements towards the centre, the power
towards the sides and angles); the painting can be
considered as a structure of the prepared places
(place is a balance of the opposite powers of
movements).
73
composition of Hermans painting is explored
Studentica mjeri Hermanovu sliku/A studentinstructor is measuring Herman's painting
Crta se armatura Hermanove slike/
Studenti tuma~e u malim grupama/
The armature of Herman's painting is drawn
The students-instructors explain in small groups
Istraùju se kompozicija Hermanove slike/ The
Diskusija u malim grupama/Discussions in small
Diskusija u malim grupama/Discussions in small
groups
groups

74
TEMA - SCENA
SUBJECT - SCENE
srednji plan
SOURCE: THE OLD TESTAMENT
IZVOR: STARI ZAVJET
medium shot
vrt
garden
starac
starac
old man
old man
grad
town
pribliàvaju se
skrivaju se
hiding
approaching
ruì~njak
rose-garden
starac
Suzana
Suzannah
starac
old man
HERMAN
J. TINTORETTO:
old man
REMBRANDT VAN RIJN:
SUZANA I STARCI/
SUZANNAH AND
THE ELDERS,
filmsko pribliàvanje, stijenjenost,

redukcija tematskih elemenata
SUZANA I STARCI/
SUZANNAH AND
THE ELDERS,
1557., ULJE/OIL,
146,6 X 193,6 CM,
BE^/VIENNA
film-like approach, straightening,

reduction of the elements of the scenery
1647., ULJE/OIL,
76,5 X 92,8 CM, BERLIN
potreptine
accessories
kontrast
contrast
modeliranje
modelling
crvena
crveno-naran~asto
red
red-orange
modeliranje
modelation
lazurni namaz
thin layers of glazes
ARMATURE
mrlje
impasto namaz
moduliranje
dots
impasto
modulation
ARMATURES
a
a
1/2
SAGLEDAVANJE
APPREHENSION
1/2
b
1/2
1/2
b
a
J. TINTORETTO
REMBRANDT
HERMAN
1/2
1/2
1/4
1/3
75
II/6
76
Namjera u { e s t o j radionici je da se komparativnom analizom, putem uo~avanja razlika i

sli~nosti s drugim slikarskim djelima iste teme bolje upoznaju razni aspekti Hermanove slike Suzana i
starci.
Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj, uòj strani prostorije. Projektor je iza le|a sudionika.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Analiziraju se scene u trima slikama s istom temom Suzana i starci: a) J. Tintoretto (vrt, Suzanin
poloàj, potreb{tine i njihov razmje{taj, mjesto staraca u ruì~njaku);
b) Rembrandt van Rijn (polumra~ni, pomalo neodre|eni ambijent, grad u pozadini u polusvjetlu,
Suzanin stav, me|uodnos likova, geste staraca); c) O. Herman (filmsko pribliàvanje likovima,
velika me|usobna blizina - stje{njenost, redukcija tematskih elemenata).
2. Analiziraju se izbor boja i sintaksa kod triju slika. Na detaljima se vidi: a) lazurni namaz i modeliranje crveno-naran~astom bojom (Tintoretto) ; b) veliki broj tonova iste, crvene boje - modeliranje,
namaz u vidljivim velikim mrljama i potezima (Rembrandt); c) veliki broj boja u grubim impasto
namazima, kontrast i moduliranje (Herman).
3. Uspore|uju se tri formata, tri armature: a) Tintoretto 146,6 x 193,6 cm; b) Rembrandt 76,5 x 92,8
cm; c) Herman 81 x 103,5 cm. U trima kompozicijama realiziraju se razli~ite mogu}nosti pravokutnika, iako se u svim primjerima radi o polovi~noj podjeli i o zlatnom rezu. U Tintorettovoj i
Rembrandtovoj slici u mreù su ugra|ene i kose projekcije i vi{e o~i{ta i time je svaki put postignut svojevrsni pomak u kontinuitetu prostora.
4. Voditelj interpretira uo~ene sli~nosti i razlike triju slika i u odnosu na mogu}nost sagledavanja cjeline i
razabiranja detalja. Sve se tri slike sagledavaju iz lagodnog okomitog kuta od 27 a da je pritom i
vodoravni lagodan (36; 33; 41), iz udaljenosti 3, 1,5, 1,6 m. FS se poklapa s razradom krajolika,
potrep{tina, haljina u obje slike, a u slu~aju Hermanove slike s razradom lica, npr. Suzanino oko.
U slu~aju Tintorettove slike o~i lagodno razabiru poteze u prikazivanju krajolika i staraca, ali ne i
Suzanina tijela {to pove}ava dojam plo{nosti, tijela i unato~ nagosti, daje dojam apstraktnosti, neosjetilnosti. Na Rembrandtovoj slici potezi se lagodno razabiru, a na Hermanovoj, zbog veli~ine, proizvode
dojam agresivnosti te navode na odmak.
The intention in the s i x t h workshop is to learn

Hermans painting better by noticing the differences
and similarities through a comparative analysis
between the painting and some others of the same
subject.
Ambience: The chairs are turned towards the wall
where the projection will be. The projector is to the
rear of the participants.
1. The students analyse the scenes represented in
the three paintings with the same subject: Suzannah
and the Elders: a) J. Tintoretto (Garden, Suzannahs
position, her accessories and their placement, the
Elders positions in the rose-garden), b) Rembrandt
van Rijn (halfdark, gloomy, a rather indefinite environment, a town in the background lighted slightly,
Suzannahs position, the interaction of the figu-res,
the Elders gestures), c) O. Herman (filmlike
approach to the figures, medium shot - straightening, the reduction of the elements of the scenery).
2. We analyse the colour choice and the syntax in the
three paintings. In the details we can see: a) a thin
layer and modelling with red-orange colour
(Tintoretto); b) a great deal of the value of the same
red colour - modelling, in large noticable dots and
strokes (Rembrandt); c) a great deal of colour hue in
the rough impasto layers, contrast and modulation
(Herman).
3. The three formats are compared and so are the
three armature: a) Tintoretto: 146.6 x 193.6 cm; b)
Rembrandt: 76.5 x 92.8 cm; c) Herman: 81 x 103.5
cm In the three compositions the different possibili-
ties of the rectangle are realised although we always

find divisions in half and divisions according to the
Golden Section. In Tintorettos and Rembrandts
paintings several viewpoints and slant projections
are inserted into the network and in this way in the
space continuum a sort of shift is attained in both
cases.
4. The workshop leader interprets the noted similiarities and differences in all the three paintings
concerning the possibilities of apprehending the
whole and distinguishing the details. All three paintings can be apprehended from the easy vertical
angle of 27 and at the same time the horizontal
angles are also easy (36; 33; 41) from the distance of 3.0 1.5 1.6 metres. The FI (foveal image)
is congruent with the articulation of the landscape,
accessories and the robes in two of the paintings
and in Hermans painting with the articulation of the
face, for instance Suzannahs eye. In Tintorettos
painting our eyes very easily distinguish the brush
strokes in the representation of the landscape and
the Elders but not in the case of Suzannahs body,
which increases the impression of flatness and
gives the body, in spite of its nudity, an impression
of abstraction, nonsensuality. In Rembrandts painting we can easily distinguish the brush strokes and
in Hermans painting they are very large and make
an impression of aggressiveness and demand a
greater distance.
77

78
METODE ISTRA@IVANJA
GRADITELJSKOG DJELA
AN ARCHITECTURAL WORK OF ART
79
COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES IN THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
KOMUNIKACIJSKE STRUKTURE U POVIJESTI GRADITELJSTVA
R. NIKI]: RADNI^KO SVEUÎLITE, ZAGREB (mjesto odvijanja radionica), 1960.

THE WORKERS' UNIVERSITY, ZAGREB (where the workshops took place), 1960.
kineska ku}a
jednocentri~na struktura
Chinese house
monocentric structure
muslimanska ku}a
hijerarhijska struktura
Islamic house
hierarchical structure
rimska vila
dvocentri~na struktura
Roman villa,
bicentric structure
indijska kraljevska pala~a

interakcijska struktura
Indian Rajas palace
interactive structure
srednjovjekovna venecijanska ku}a

Medieval Venetian house
firentinska renesansna pala~a

Florentine Renaissance palace
St stubi{te/steps
U ulaz/entrance
Dv dvori{te/courtyard
Zh zahod/toilet
Kh kuhinja/kitchen
Sp spavanje/bedroom
H hodnik/corridor
P predvorje/entrance hall
D dvorana/hall
Bl blagovanje/dining-area
Bo boravak/living-area
Vr vrt/garden
Kp kupanje/bathroom
Sr spremi{te/storehouse
G garderoba/cloakroom
V veranda
O oltar/altar
Knj knji`nica/library
Tr trgovina/shop
T terasa/terrace
II/7
80
U s e d m o j radionici namjera je osvijestiti sli~nosti i razlike u usmjeravanju samo jednog osjetila

slikom i usmjeravanja svih osjetila arhitektonskim djelom; primijeniti znanje o komunikacijskim strukturama i o crtanju grafova ste~eno u petoj radionici
P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a na R. Nik{i}evo Radni~ko sveu~ili{te (prostore u kojima se odvijaju radionice) i
na primjere tipi~nih komunikacijskih situacija u arhitektonskim ostvarenjima raznih razdoblja i kultura.
Ambijent: Stolovi i stolice razmje{teni po cijeloj prostoriji. Uz svaki je stol jedan instruktor-student.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Pokazuje se: a) Tintorettova slika Suzana i starci vi|ena u prethodnoj radionici da bi se sudionici
prisjetili na koji na~in usmjerava pogled i na koji ga na~in artikulira;
b) plutej iz Koljana vi|en u radionicama P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a. Obnavlja se iskustvo o usmjeravanju
pa`nje koja ne samo artikulira nego i disciplinira pogled. U interpretaciji se ukazuje na sli~nosti i razlike s arhitekturom. Arhitekturu ne gledamo samo, ili ne slu{amo samo, nego u njoj ìvimo svim na{im
osjetilima i u daleko smo ve}oj mjeri njome ograni~eni ili njome oslobo|eni nego npr. slikom ili
glazbom.
2. Sudionici, uz pomo} instruktora i na temelju tlocrta, crtaju grafove: a) tradicionalne kineske ku}e;
b) anti~ke rimske; c) indijske; d) muslimanske; e) srednjovjekovne venecijanske; f) renesansne
firentinske i, na koncu, g) prizemlja Nik{i}eva Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta. Prisje}aju se baroknog dvorca u
Fertdu i Ville Savoy iz radionica
P o ~ e l a i n a ~ e l a.
3. Projiciraju se tlocrti i grafovi svih primjera. a) Sudionici provjeravaju i ispravljaju svoje crteè.
b) Primjeri se zajedni~ki ~itaju i interpretiraju.
In the s e v e n t h workshop the intention is to

make the participants aware of the similarities and
differences in directing only one sense using a
painting or directing all the senses using an architectural work of art; to use the knowledge about
the communication structures and about drawing
graphs gained in the workshop Origins and
Principles concerning R. Nikis Workers
University (where the workshops took place) and
concerning the examples of typical communication
structures in the architecture of different times and
cultures.
Ambience: Tables and chairs are placed scattered
all over the room. Beside each table there is a student-instructor.
Structure of the activity
1. We show: a) Tintorettos painting Suzannah and
the Elders already seen in the former workshop, to
remind the participants how it directs and how it
articulates our gaze; b) the pluteus from Koljani
also already seen, in the series of workshops
Origins and Principles. We revive the experience of
directing attention which is not only articulation but

a discipline of gaze. We interpret the similarities
and differences in relation to architecture. We do
not only observe the architecture and not only hear
it but we live in it with all our senses and we are
much more limited by it or liberated by it than by a
painting or a piece of music.
2. The participants on the basis of the plans draw
graphs helped by the students-instructors of
a) a traditional Chinese house, b) a Roman house;
c) an Indian palace; d) a Moslem house;
e) a medieval Venetian house; f) a Florentine
Renaissance palace and finally g) of the first level
of Nikis Workers University. They are reminded
of the Baroque castle in Fertd and Villa Savoy
shown in the series of workshops Origins and
Principles.
3. All the planes and graphs are projected.
a) The participants check and correct their drawings.
b) All the examples are read and interpreted collectively.
81
U~i se kako crtati grafove/The participants are
Prou~avaju se tlocrti/The plans are studied
taught how to draw graphs
Voditelj tuma~i/The workshop leader explains
Studenti rade u manjim grupama/The studentsinstructors work in small groups
U~i se kako crtati grafove/The participants are

taught how to draw graphs
Crtaju se grafovi/The graphs are drawn
II/8
82
Namjera u o s m o j radionici je, uìvljavanjem u pojedine funkcije i glume}i njihove razli~ite

veze, doìvjeti razli~ite komunikacijske mogu}nosti koje se uobli~uju u arhitektonskim ostvarenjima;
osvijestiti da boravak i kretanje u arhitektonskim prostorima predstavlja temeljni odgoj svakoga
~ovjeka.
Ambijent: Sjedi se na stolicama raspore|enim u krug oko praznog sredi{ta.
Struktura doga|anja
1. a) Najprije se poku{ava ra{~laniti pojedine funkcije jednog predmeta - od ~ega se sastoji npr.
funkcija `lice (sadràvanje, grabljenje, lijevanje, drànje, spremanje, itd.). b) Nakon toga se pita {to
je funkcija dvori{ta. Pozivaju se sudionici na glumu. Poziva se jedan sudionik da se uìvi u ulogu
dvori{ta, da se s njime poistovjeti i da kaè {to je i {to se u njemu zbiva.
2. Slijedi uìvljavanje odnosno glumljenje razli~itih temeljnih funkcija arhitekture i njihovih tipi~nih
veza (izvode studenti i sudionici). Po jedan student zapo~inje glumu za svaki od povijesnih tipova
poistovje}uju}i se s jednom funkcijom i vodi dalje predstavu da bi se dobila tipi~na situacija. Jedan
student glumi dvori{te tradicionalne kineske ku}e i traì sudionike da mu se pridruè kao druge
odre|ene funkcije i tako zajedno glume, izvode glavne odnose u ku}i (npr. glavna uloga dvori{ta je
povezati sve prostorije koje su me|usobno odijeljene). Gluma rimske ku}e po~inje s tablinumom koji
se nalazi izme|u dva sredi{ta, dva dvori{ta. Islamska je ku}a tako|er vi{ecentri~na, ali centri nisu
me|usobno u ravnopravnom odnosu (u ènsko se dvori{te ulazi preko mu{kog). U srednjovjekovnoj
venecijanskoj ku}i glumi se prolaznost (dva ulaza, morski i kopneni). Prolaznost se glumi i u renesansnoj firentinskoj pala~i smje{tenoj izme|u trga i ulice, s osim toga glumi se i kruènje izme|u
pojedinih prostorija. U baroknom dvorcu pomo}nik vodi sudionike iz gostinjske sobe preko svih
zapreka do kneginjina apartmana, {to u izvedbi izgleda kao duga~ak lanac i na taj na~in hijerarhija postaje o~ita. Igra se zavr{ava glumom veza u Le Corbusierovoj Villi Savoy koju organizira
voditelj kao veliko kolo (interakcija), ~ime se zavr{ava radionica.
The intention in the e i g h t h workshop is to

share the feeling of particular functions and, acting
out their different relations, to gain experience of
different communication possibilities which have
taken shape in architecture; to become aware of the
basic education of every man which takes place
when staying and moving in architectural spaces.
Ambience: The chairs are placed in a circle around
an empty centre.
1. a) First we try to divide the functions of a particular object (What are the functions of a spoon for
instance (containing, grasping, pouring, holding,
storing), b) later we put a question about the function of a courtyard. The participants are invited to
act. A participant is invited to enter into the spirit of
a courtyard, to identify him/herself with it and to
describe what happens inside him/her.
2. Afterwards the feeling or acting of different
basic functions of architecture and their connections follow (the students and the parti-cipants
perform). For each of the historical types one student begins with acting, identifying him/herself
with one function and guides the performance
further to obtain/create a typical situation. A student acts the courtyard of a traditional Chinese
house and invites the participants to join in the
acting of other functions and to act, perform, the

main relations in the house (for example the main
function of the courtyard is linking all the rooms
which are separated from each other). Acting
the Roman house begins with a tablinum placed
between two centres, two courtyards. The Moslem
house is also policentric but the centres do not
have equal rights (the entrance to the womens
courtyard is through the mens one). In the
Medieval Venetian house the transitoriness is
acted (two entrances: one from the sea and the
other from the dry land). The transitoriness is
acted also in the Florentine Renaissance palace
placed between a square and a street and also
going round the rooms is also acted. In the
Baroque castle a student guides the participants
from a guestroom through all the obstacles to
the princesss apartment, which in the performance looks like a long chain and the hierarchy
becomes evident. The game ends with acting
the connection in Villa Savoy by Le Corbusier. The
workshop leader guides it as a great roundabout
(interaction). With that the workshop ends.
83
Glume se komunikacijske strukture arhitekture

(centristi~ke, hijerarhijske,
interakcijske)/Communication structures in architecture are acted (centristic, hierarchical, interactive)
Voditelj - sudionici - studenti/The workshop

leader - participants - students

84
CISTERCITSKA OPATIJA, LE THORONET, 12. ST.
CISTERCIAN ABBEY, LE THORONET, 12TH C.

RADNI^KO SVEUÎLITE U ZAGREBU, 1960.
THE WORKERS' UNIVERISTY IN ZAGREB, 1960.
85
II/9
86
Namjera u d e v e t o j radionici je osvijestiti razli~ite komunikacijske strukture komparacijom

triju javnih objekata sli~ne namjene koji pripadaju razli~itim kulturama i razli~itom vremenu;
vje`bati snalaènje u prostoru uz pomo} snimaka, tlocrta i grafova.
Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani i projektor je iza le|a.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Dijele se tlocrti cistercitskog samostana u Le Thoronetu, 12. st. i Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta u Zagrebu,
1960. Najavljuje se na~in rada i projicira se prvi snimak cistercitskog samostana u Le Thoronetu.
Studenti-instruktori djelomi~no vode razgovor sa sudionicima a djelomi~no im individualno pomaù
u rje{avanju zadataka.
2. Jedan student postavlja zadatak: potrebno je u tlocrt Le Thoroneta upisati broj snimka koji se
projicira i to na mjesto odakle je snimak napravljen. Studenti vode razgovor. Snimcima se (oko 20)
obilazi samostan i izvana i iznutra. Nakon svakog snimka pita se odakle je snimljen i daju se upozorenja i upute kako se sna}i u prostoru.
3. Isti se postupak primjenjuje i u vezi snimaka Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta. Obilazak izvana i iznutra opet
s oko 20 snimaka. Sudionici su pozvani da na tlocrtu ozna~e mjesto odakle je napravljen pojedini
snimak.
4. Projicira se po jedan snimak cjeline: a) LeThoroneta i b) Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta i uspore|uje se
komunikacija u njima; c) pokazuju se snimci i tlocrt medrese u Po~itelju, u~ili{tu koje pripada drugoj
kulturi i ukazuje na sli~nosti i razlike.
In the n i n t h workshop the intention is to make

the participants aware of the different communication structures by comparing three public objects of
similar functions which belong to different cultures
and different periods; to train the orientation in
space through slides, plans and graphs.
Ambience: The chairs are turned towards one of
the narrow sides of the room and the projector is
behind.
1. The plans of the Cistercian Abbey in Le Thoronet,
12th Century., and the Workers University in
Zagreb, 1960, are distributed. Instructions about the
work are given and the first slide of the abbey is
projected. The students talk to all participants and
help them individually as well.
2. A student sets the task: the participants have to
write the numbers of the projected slides in the
place on the plan from which they were taken.
The students discuss. With about twenty slides the
abbey is circumambulated from the outside and

from the inside. After each slide the participants are
asked where it was taken from and instructions are
given about how to orient in the space.
3. The same procedure is used concerning the
Workers University. Circumambulating from the outside and from the inside using about twenty slides.
The participants are instructed to mark on the plan
the place where each slide was photographed.
4. The wholes are projected of: a) Le Thoronet and
of b) the Workers University and a comparison is
made about the communication in them c) the slides
and the plan of the madrasah (Moslem religious
school) in Poitelj are projected, (a school from
another culture). Instructions are given concerning
the similarities and and differences.
87

88
MEASURES
MJERE
modularni sustav
Golden Section (Fibonacci series 5,8,13)
zlatni rez (Fibonaccijev niz 5,8,13)
modular system
modul
+2
CISTERCITSKA OPATIJA/
CISTERCIAN ABBEY, LE THORONET
travej
bay
u~ionica
u~ionica
classroom
classroom
11'1"
33'3"
sveti tekst
133'
Holy text
88'8"
I
H
S
O
U
S
10 + 8 + 200 + 70 + 400 + 200 = 888
(po starom ra~unanju)
modularni sustav
modular system
modularni sustav
modular system
(according to old computing)
1 stopa = 0,304 m
1 feet
(LEDIT)
13
+1
MEDRESA/MADRASAH
POÎTELJ
RADNI^KO SVEUÎLI[TE/
THE WORKERS' UNIVERSITY, ZAGREB
89

90
Namjera u d e s e t o j radionici je osvijestiti omjere i razmjere komparacijom triju javnih objekata

sli~ne namjene koji pripadaju razli~itim kulturama i razli~itom vremenu.
Ambijent: Stolice su okrenute prema jednoj uòj strani. Projektor je iza le|a.
Struktura doga|anja
1. Projiciraju se crta~ki pripremljene analize tlocrta s obzirom na omjere i razmjere crkve cistercitskog
samostana u Le Thoronetu, medrese u Po~itelju i Radni~kog sveu~ili{ta u Zagrebu. Pokazuje se modularni sustav u sva tri primjera (travej, u~ionica, u~ionica), razmjeri po zlatnom rezu u Le Thoronetu
i Radni~kom sveu~ili{tu i mjere po svetom tekstu u Le Thoronetu (IESOUS = 88 8). (O tom na~inu
proporcioniranja op{irnije u radionici G r a d i G r a d i t e lj s t v o)
2. Poku{ava se interpretirati najneuhvatljiviji aspekt arhitekture/svakog umjetni~kog djela, to, {to
nevidljivo ucjelovljuje.
3. Voditelj poziva sve sudionike na zavr{ni razgovor uz kola~ i ~aj te moli da se anonimno ispune
upitnici iz kojih }e se mo}i vidjeti {to su o~ekivali, {to su dobili, {to su nau~ili.
The intention in the t e n t h workshop is to

become aware of the ratios and proportions of
three public objects similar in function but belonging to different cultures and periods.
Ambience: The same as in the former workshop
1. Prepared drawings-analyses of plans concerning
the ratios and proportions are projected.
a) of the church in the Cistercian Abbey of Le
Thoronet; b) of the madrasah in Poitelj and of c)
the Workers University in Zagreb. The modular system is shown in all three examples (bay, classroom,
classroom), the Golden Section (proportions in the
Workers University) and measurement according to
the Holy Text in Le Thoronet (IESOUS = 888).

(Details about this mode of proportioning can be
seen in the workshop City and Architecture.)
2. An attempt is made to interpret the most
untouchable aspect of the architecture, of every
piece of art work, that which invisibly makes the
wholeness.
3. The workshop leader invites all the participants
and students to a final discussion with refreshments and asks them to fill in the questionnaire
anonimously to see what they had expected of the
workshops and what they had obtained and what
they are aware that they have learned during the
workshops.
91

Radionica II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radionica II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

II/1

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

os/osi su apstrahirane linije oko koje/kojih se

ODNOS OBLIKA - POSTAVE - POSTOLJA

elipsasti oblik se prevodi, prizemljuje

the elliptic form

apstrahirana linija ruba, granica

line abstracted from the edge,

THE RELATIONSHIP OF FORM - SETTING - BASES

otvoren, aktivni odnos kip - okoli

open, active relationship sculpture - environment

obilazak u osam jednakih sekvenci

going around in eight equal sequences

II/1 ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

Prva izvedba radionica: 1992.-93.

First perfomance of workshops: 1992.-93.

Radionice A n a l i z a u m j e t n i ~ k o g d j e l a se tako|er, kao i radionice

The workshops Analysis of the Work of Art, in the

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

for the six horizontal sections (for the three forms in

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

Po~inje istra`ivanje Vulasove Skulpture: voditelj

Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections are

begins: the workshop leader sets it.

Crtaju se presjeci: student mjeri kip/ Sections are

Istra`uje se obris/The outline is explored

Student crta presjek na plo~i/A student-instructor

Student poma`e `icom konstruirati os/

draws the section on the blackboard

A student-instructor helps with a wire to construct

Istra`uje se obris/The outline is explored

Istra`ivanje postave na razli~ita postolja/ The

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

II/2 ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

KLJU^NI VIZUALNO-TAKTILNI POJMOVI

PLONO ISTANJENA MASA

VISOKO PENETRIRANA MASA

HIGHLY PENETRATED MASS

SVETI JURAJ UBIJA ZMAJA/

APSTRAKTNO = TEMATSKI NEODREENO

FIGURATIVNO = TEMATSKI ODREENO

^ETIRI TO^KE NA TELESKOPSKOM

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

Namjera u d r u g o j radionici je misaonim postupcima analize i komparacije sti}i do do`ivljaja

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

The intention in the s e c o n d workshop is to

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

emerge, or grow, look like? How many degrees

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

characteristics does the sculptor use which does he

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK OF ART

ANALIZA UMJETNI^KOG DJELA

ODNOS MEU VIZUALNO-TAKTILNIM POJMOVIMA

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE VISUAL-TANGIBLE CONCEPTS