Struck out in the direction of construction and property,was reasonably successful until the economy hit the buffers in 1990,needless to say had to downsize along with a lot of other people!
With time on my hands I helped a good friend Pigsy Wyatt make candlesticks out of old car parts and sold them from a barrow by the Bristol Watershed. Having grasped the rudiments of welding I set about becoming a Sculptor, obvious choice really! With the massive support of my family, especially my wife Clare I haven’t looked back!
Click here to show Critique by Dani House.
Hide Critique by Dani House.
This personal study is an essay on the work of the sculptor Julian.P.Warren. I introduced myself to him and became interested in his work, and since doing my PI on public sculpture in Bristol, thought he was relevant.
I have talked to him on a few occasions to find out about his works, visited many of them and got to know them well to aid in this study. I have drawn, sketched, painted and photographed the works. I have also visited Warren’s workshop and learnt about the process in which he creates his works, and even made the covers for this study using his tools and under his supervision and advice. This knowledge helped my analytical skills as I understood how each piece was formed, and this enabled me to appreciate the works.
I have talked to him on a few occasions to find out about his works, visited many of them and got to know them well to aid in this study. I have drawn, sketched, painted and photographed the works. I have also visited Warren’s workshop and learnt about the process in which he creates his works, and even made the covers for this study using his tools and under his supervision and advice. This knowledge helped my analytical skills as I understood how each piece was formed, and this enabled me to appreciate the works.
Dani House, making her book cover. (left)
Since doing this, I analysed various sculptures of his, and investigated my ideas about them in order to understand them. They all make use of texture as an important method of communication.
I compared Warren to other artists throughout, in particular Robert Clatworthy, to put him in some sort of a historical context, and to investigate his influences. I ended my study with my concluding thoughts on his work, what I’ve learnt and what I think about them.
Julian.P.Warren is a polymath, a self taught sculptor and neighbour of mine. In his garage, with nothing else to do one day, he started playing around with scraps of metal and now, 15 years later he is an accomplished sculptor with commissions all over the UK. I first noticed Warren’s work in the form of ‘The Fence’- many of his sculptures attached to his garden fence. I’ve walked past them for years but never really paid them much attention. Since writing my PI on the subject, ‘Public Sculpture in Bristol’, I have learnt a lot about understanding sculpture, the complex process behind each piece, and the meanings they convey.
When I saw Warren’s work I thought it would be a perfect development of my previous work, to study a Bristol based public sculptor. I am also very happy to continue in this line of work, as I still feel there is lots of room for expansion, especially with this new, defined subject. Warren uses steel to construct his sculptures. He starts with sheets of metal which he bangs, welds and moulds into shape. To achieve the various finishes his pieces have, he uses glazes and varnishes such as copper, bronze, zinc, and stainless steel. During a visit to his workshop I have seen this in process, and have used the tools he uses on the sculptures. The different tools create different effects. Plasma cutter which uses compressed air to cut neat clinical lines, (Warren’s signature on the back of this study), whereas the arc welder involves heating a rod of steel which can be used to melt through the sheet of steel, (such as on the covers for this study), or alternatively can be used to build up lumps of steel onto the surface of the sculpture. The other tool he frequently uses is called a mig welder which uses CO2 and argon gas.
Warren’s work is extremely textural. The subject matter is mainly insects and animals, though his website does say ‘any subject would be considered. He never planned to be a sculptor; in fact previous career choices include studying law, being a taxi driver, studying archaeology, a builder/plasterer/property developer and a house husband. So I would like to know why he chose this career, subject matter and technique. Within this study, I hope to analyse some of Warren’s work in depth in order to gain an understanding of the meaning of them. I will also compare some of his works from different times, an earlier piece with a latter one, to see how he has evolved as an artist through experience and practice, and also compare him to one of his contemporaries, Robert Clatworthy, to help us understand his influences. This will be interesting to see as he has had no artistic training at all so will be able to track his development. I also hope to find out from him what he thinks the future holds for him, his art, and its subject matter and style.
From this study, I aim to deepen my knowledge and understanding of Julian.P.Warren’s work, one unlike an average viewer of it, and hope that I can share this understanding with others, and can convey what I’ve learnt through my writing, images and sketches.
I also aim to learn from Warren, in both a practical, sculptural way, in a practical way which improves my drawing and sketching skills by observing his works, as well as my critical and analytical skills. I have developed a strong view, that there are two factors that make public sculpture, sculpture that is outside, very special and unique. One is the effect a dynamic light source has on the piece. It can change the mood of a work so drastically, with no control, which I find fascinating.
The other is the pieces surroundings and context. Usually a work is commissioned for a specific space, and this is known during the making of it. This knowledge is incorporated into the piece, and is used in the designing of it. Its context is so important that it also can dramatically change the mood of the work. It is important to widen the view of the onlooker, to take in the surroundings. This study will end with a conclusion of my work into Julian.P.Warren, what I’ve learnt and investigated, and what I’ve achieved from my aims. To gain this understanding of Warren’s work, I have analysed some of his sculptures which have been commissioned for various places around Bristol.
A person’s face, each part separate, but in its true place, is the subject matter of the first sculpture, ‘The Face’ 2001. Eyes, forehead, cheeks, nose, mouth and chin are all the components, each uneven, with a variety of spaces in between. Each component then has a metal spike, attaching it to one central pole, which holds the whole composition together. It is placed on the back garden wall of a local pub – ‘The Highbury Vaults’. Commissioned by them as a point of interest, after seeing Warren’s other work, it is a subtle feature of the garden. It is contemporary art, in the way in which it has abstract qualities, such as the face not being a complete true likeness due to the separate parts and, more importantly, the parts missing. Even so, it does have a high degree of realism. It has been made from steel, as all Warren’s work, which has been shaped and moulded by welding and firing the pieces, to an extent that for example on the left eyebrow and forehead there is a hole. It has then had a glaze put over it to achieve its effect.
The sculpture has a great deal of tone to it as it is extremely textural – no surface is even, creating lots of light and dark on ‘flat’ surfaces e.g. the cheeks. Another aspect of this sculpture which creates tone is the fact that the components are not all on the same level. The eyes are set back, casting them in shade creating a moody atmosphere.
The whole piece is composed on diagonal lines – each components ‘spike’. These ‘spikes’ are not hidden from the viewer, but an important feature of the piece, without which would have a very different feel. They add to the solidity of it, giving a central strength. If they were hidden, I think the piece would feel very unsatisfying, almost floating with no sense of purpose. Warren has said to me that to him, the ‘spikes’ are representing a central point of humans, the nerve centre where everything meets and makes people who they are. There are a lot of spaces in the piece, which you almost don’t notice, such as the centre of the forehead and the left of the nose. Your eyes almost fill the in the gaps, they know what should be there, and still see the face as a whole instead of parts.
An artist with similar subject matter to Warren is Robert Clatworthy, an English sculptor since the 1950’s. Clatworthy is a good comparison as both artists enjoy sculpting animals, but Warren diversifies more into insects whereas Clatworthy often sculpts people, whole bodies, sitting or standing. An aspect of their work which shows the difference in the artists is how the two create faces and heads. Warren continues with the same texture, colour and tone he uses in his other works, whereas Clatworthy uses the natural colours of bronze, along with oranges and browns and reds from various glazes lacquer or yacht varnish. A further difference is that Warren only does the face, which he breaks up into parts, without a head or neck. Clatworthy creates the whole thing making a very solid, heavy impression. Although Warren’s is in no way a real image of a head – it’s incomplete, a big difference is that Clatworthy’s face is very abstract. His faces are almost featureless, very undefined and textured but yet still realised faces. Warren’s on the other hand are more obviously faces; more defined, detailed, realistic and valid depictions despite also being abstract.
What I love about sculpture that’s outside is the fact that there is no overall lighting of it. The sun is its source of light and is constantly changing. Not only in direction and from which side the piece is lit, but in the tone of the light, which has a dramatic effect on the sculpture. It could have soft orangey tones, or harsh dark grey ones, which completely changes how you interpret the mood of the face. Examples of artists who have experimented with this concept are Anthony Gormley with his ‘Angel of the North’ 1995. When lit by a soft light on the front of it, it is a peaceful, still, awe inspiring piece, but when lit from behind, and the front is cast into shadow, it has a terrifying, daunting type of awe inspiring feel to it which is also due to the sheer size of it. Another example is Barbara Hepworth, and her garden, which I visited summer 2003. Each piece in it is dynamic due to it being situated outside and she uses this as a tool to enhance her work. The piece gives me a feeling of calmness. I think this is accentuated by its surroundings in this photo. I think with all sculpture you don’t just take in the piece, but its context has a huge influence. Various sculptures around Bristol, as I found in my PI, are good examples of this e.g. the ‘Bristol airport sculpture’. Its flat, open surroundings, build up the swirling feeling of flight which the piece holds and try’s to portray. As this face is surrounded by greenery, which becomes part of it, it has a feeling of nature and harmony. I also think this comes across by the loss of the top of the head, and the fact it is just the basic essentials to the structure of the face, not a head, but just a face.
But contradicting that, the texture of the skin, the eyebrows and especially the eyes can all look very angry, bitter and twisted. The eyes look quite cynical and devilish! I also imagine I would have a very different view of this sculpture on a grey winter day, when all the ivy is dead and all there is is a stone wall behind it. Saying that though, overall I have the impression this sculpture was meant, not as an angry piece, but as a harmonious one. I feel the light that was captured in this photo, darkening the eyes, is the only reason I had conflicting views of it. But I don’t think this point should be dismissed as a mistake. I think that is the beauty of sculptures, the fact that one can have so many moods due to light, which I feel is only due to the fact the subject matter is a face, a feature that humans can read a lot of emotion from. The second sculpture I investigated is ‘Viper Fish’ 2002, which is almost a fantasy in its exaggerated forms and twisted body. It is unclear if this is a real, lifelike being or a figment of Warren’s imagination.
It also is situated in the garden of the pub – ‘The Highbury Vaults’, but is in a flowerbed on the left hand side, as opposed to the back wall. It again, was commissioned by them, to bring interest and life to their garden, and so the public can interact with the art – not just a picture on the wall. This also helps to draw people out into the garden, to use the space as a further room instead of an overfill yard. Again, as with all Warren’s work, he has mixed contemporary with traditional art. It is quite a realistic depiction of the sea creature, at least, its not abstract, but the roughness, almost junk like feel to the piece, as if the components of it were reclaimed from other metal machines of some sort, gives it that modern edge.
An artist with similar subject matter to Warren is Robert Clatworthy, an English sculptor since the 1950’s. Clatworthy is a good comparison as both artists enjoy sculpting animals, but Warren diversifies more into insects whereas Clatworthy often sculpts people, whole bodies, sitting or standing. An aspect of their work which shows the difference in the artists is how the two create faces and heads. Warren continues with the same texture, colour and tone he uses in his other works, whereas Clatworthy uses the natural colours of bronze, along with oranges and browns and reds from various glazes lacquer or yacht varnish. A further difference is that Warren only does the face, which he breaks up into parts, without a head or neck. Clatworthy creates the whole thing making a very solid, heavy impression. Although Warren’s is in no way a real image of a head – it’s incomplete, a big difference is that Clatworthy’s face is very abstract. His faces are almost featureless, very undefined and textured but yet still realised faces. Warren’s on the other hand are more obviously faces; more defined, detailed, realistic and valid depictions despite also being abstract.
What I love about sculpture that’s outside is the fact that there is no overall lighting of it. The sun is its source of light and is constantly changing. Not only in direction and from which side the piece is lit, but in the tone of the light, which has a dramatic effect on the sculpture. It could have soft orangey tones, or harsh dark grey ones, which completely changes how you interpret the mood of the face. Examples of artists who have experimented with this concept are Anthony Gormley with his ‘Angel of the North’ 1995. When lit by a soft light on the front of it, it is a peaceful, still, awe inspiring piece, but when lit from behind, and the front is cast into shadow, it has a terrifying, daunting type of awe inspiring feel to it which is also due to the sheer size of it. Another example is Barbara Hepworth, and her garden, which I visited summer 2003. Each piece in it is dynamic due to it being situated outside and she uses this as a tool to enhance her work. The piece gives me a feeling of calmness. I think this is accentuated by its surroundings in this photo. I think with all sculpture you don’t just take in the piece, but its context has a huge influence. Various sculptures around Bristol, as I found in my PI, are good examples of this e.g. the ‘Bristol airport sculpture’. Its flat, open surroundings, build up the swirling feeling of flight which the piece holds and try’s to portray. As this face is surrounded by greenery, which becomes part of it, it has a feeling of nature and harmony. I also think this comes across by the loss of the top of the head, and the fact it is just the basic essentials to the structure of the face, not a head, but just a face.
But contradicting that, the texture of the skin, the eyebrows and especially the eyes can all look very angry, bitter and twisted. The eyes look quite cynical and devilish! I also imagine I would have a very different view of this sculpture on a grey winter day, when all the ivy is dead and all there is is a stone wall behind it. Saying that though, overall I have the impression this sculpture was meant, not as an angry piece, but as a harmonious one. I feel the light that was captured in this photo, darkening the eyes, is the only reason I had conflicting views of it. But I don’t think this point should be dismissed as a mistake. I think that is the beauty of sculptures, the fact that one can have so many moods due to light, which I feel is only due to the fact the subject matter is a face, a feature that humans can read a lot of emotion from. The second sculpture I investigated is ‘Viper Fish’ 2002, which is almost a fantasy in its exaggerated forms and twisted body. It is unclear if this is a real, lifelike being or a figment of Warren’s imagination.
It also is situated in the garden of the pub – ‘The Highbury Vaults’, but is in a flowerbed on the left hand side, as opposed to the back wall. It again, was commissioned by them, to bring interest and life to their garden, and so the public can interact with the art – not just a picture on the wall. This also helps to draw people out into the garden, to use the space as a further room instead of an overfill yard. Again, as with all Warren’s work, he has mixed contemporary with traditional art. It is quite a realistic depiction of the sea creature, at least, its not abstract, but the roughness, almost junk like feel to the piece, as if the components of it were reclaimed from other metal machines of some sort, gives it that modern edge.
The composition of the piece is on a diagonal. Your eyes start at one end, and work their way to the other, and then back again. The head of the serpent is forward, pushing out, attacking, while the tail is flicking back. As I’ve said before, the reason I love outdoor sculpture is because it has a dynamic light source. The sun constantly changes direction and tone, which in turn constantly gives the sculpture different moods e.g. serenity, dramaticism, anger and thoughtfulness. The space used, although in reality is quite shallow, gives the impression of real depth. As if the creature has just appeared from deep, murky waters to our sights. This piece has a real feel of movement with it. The viewer feels as if they are just catching a glimpse of it, and the animal will continue swimming by when they turn their heads, almost as if the flowerbed could be a large fish tank and the soil and plants the seabed instead. The piece has a stormy mood to it, emphasised by the mouth and shocking row of teeth. Although the body has a calm, serene feel to it in its slow, gently curving shape, the creature seems angry, hunting or startled which overrides the calmness and gives the feeling of dynamism.
For a third, smaller analysis, I moved away from the place of the previous two, and looked at a work which is a good comparison to the others. This piece is one of the more recent of Warren’s work to be put out on display. ‘Woodpecker’ 2003, is perched on a spray of ivy, facing in towards the ‘tree’ it would be clinging to. In fact I actually viewed this piece in Warren’s workshop, finished, but before it had been taken to its commissioner.
Yet again, it is a steel piece. Each piece of ivy and layer of feathers are from a flat sheet of steel, and the head of the bird and shoulders have been scratched and carved into. In all of Warren’s work he uses texture and this is another point where Warren and Clatworthy can be compared. There are very few smooth surfaces, on Clatworthy’s in particular, and instead are deep grooves and bumps. But the effect the different types of textures have is that Warren’s sculptures are much clearer, the texture has boundaries where a different one is used, and they are realistic. Clatworthy’s on the other hand, though it is obvious what the subject matters are, take on an abstract quality which Warren’s don’t. They aren’t so defined and, whereas Warren’s seem to have different elements to each sculpture, which come together to make it whole, Clatworthy’s have a feel of one solid piece, and a feeling of strength and weight as opposed to delicacy. This sculpture therefore, like all the others, is very textural. It has the little lumps and bumps covering the ‘flat’ surfaces of which metal is the only medium to achieve this in. The metallic colours and strong tones really stand out on this piece, for example in the deep grooves of small feathers on its head and where the tail feathers overlap. But these colours are used for a practical reason, along with many of his other sculptures, as they have an oil type glaze on them to prevent rusting which creates the darker, brownish colours.
For a third, smaller analysis, I moved away from the place of the previous two, and looked at a work which is a good comparison to the others. This piece is one of the more recent of Warren’s work to be put out on display. ‘Woodpecker’ 2003, is perched on a spray of ivy, facing in towards the ‘tree’ it would be clinging to. In fact I actually viewed this piece in Warren’s workshop, finished, but before it had been taken to its commissioner.
Yet again, it is a steel piece. Each piece of ivy and layer of feathers are from a flat sheet of steel, and the head of the bird and shoulders have been scratched and carved into. In all of Warren’s work he uses texture and this is another point where Warren and Clatworthy can be compared. There are very few smooth surfaces, on Clatworthy’s in particular, and instead are deep grooves and bumps. But the effect the different types of textures have is that Warren’s sculptures are much clearer, the texture has boundaries where a different one is used, and they are realistic. Clatworthy’s on the other hand, though it is obvious what the subject matters are, take on an abstract quality which Warren’s don’t. They aren’t so defined and, whereas Warren’s seem to have different elements to each sculpture, which come together to make it whole, Clatworthy’s have a feel of one solid piece, and a feeling of strength and weight as opposed to delicacy. This sculpture therefore, like all the others, is very textural. It has the little lumps and bumps covering the ‘flat’ surfaces of which metal is the only medium to achieve this in. The metallic colours and strong tones really stand out on this piece, for example in the deep grooves of small feathers on its head and where the tail feathers overlap. But these colours are used for a practical reason, along with many of his other sculptures, as they have an oil type glaze on them to prevent rusting which creates the darker, brownish colours.
Its composition is based on a long rectangular shape, starting from the head, flowing down through the tail and down the ivy. In this picture it is lit from behind but the light will move around the bird as the day changes and progresses.It is quite a small piece, only about two feet in full in length. There are no drastic gaps or spaces in the piece either. Only small ones in amongst the woodpecker’s feet and a larger gap between the tail and ivy, and the pole it is attached to. It is quite a solid piece. It doesn’t, though looking realistic, have a feeling of movement. It feels as though it is a snapshot of the woodpecker, almost as if it were stuffed and placed in a position but obviously wasn’t going anywhere. This piece gives you a very ‘back to nature’ feel. Although it looks stiff, this doesn’t take from it the feeling of privacy. Meaning it seems as if we are spying on the bird, and that we could startle it at any minute and that it is engaged in some private moment of nest building or feeding.
Julian’s work has taught me about the specialist skill that is sculpting and welding steel. Through visiting his workshop, seeing how the pieces are created and constructed and how the commissioning process takes place, with Warren interpreting his client’s ideas, and through trying the craft myself, I have increased my knowledge of the business side of being an artist. But more importantly, I have developed a deep understanding of sculpture through analysing Warren’s works. As you look at the pieces, and as you discuss the obvious physical features of them, ideas form in your head about it. About the atmosphere it creates, about the how the context it’s in affects it, and about what the artist themselves were trying to get across and portray within the work.
Also, as mentioned in the introduction, I have made two conclusions about public/outdoor sculpture. That the effect a dynamic light source has on the piece, and its context and surroundings, are what make public sculpture so interesting and unique. To me, these two factors make each piece so individual and diverse.
More specifically, what I have learnt about Warren’s works is that they are very textural, very natural and generally have a feeling of movement and realism.
He enjoys sculpting the subject matter of animals but seems very open to suggestions and commissions of all sorts. I think he chooses to place his sculptures outside due to these factors. Where else would be more appropriate for a naturalistic sculpture to be if not in a natural setting. Because of this these sculptures feel almost like features, as opposed to sculptures. They are meant to be there, part of the surroundings, and are subtle things you chance upon and notice instead of them being blindingly obvious. I think this is what Warren intended to capture, and I think he has done it well.
