Anish Kapoor

http://www.anishkapoor.com/

I love his work. I like how the sulptors thats he makes are uselly of softer, corvashos shapes . Almost feminin. He has also used mirioed surfaces in a cupple of peices of his work. I like this as it inisholy grabs the attention of the viewer. As well as that i think it also makes it look bigger than it all ready is, however it sort of blends into its sorundings as it reflects its soundings, which I can amagin would only compalment them as it gives the veiwer a differnt veiw on its srowndings.

From the Garden:

Kapoor stands alone in the British art world: he is a touch younger than the so-called New British Sculptors such as Richard Deacon and Richard Wentworth, though he has often been spoken of in the same breath since he is represented by the Lisson, the gallery indelibly associated with that group of artists. And, when he won the Turner prize in 1991, aged 37, he was the senior artist on the shortlist, a decade or so older than the other contenders, who included Rachel Whiteread - this was a new generation of Young British Artists snapping at his heels. But he also stands apart because his work is entirely sui generis: strongly voiced, unmistakably his.

Kapoor is very interested in negative space, in spaces filled with a nothingness that is, paradoxically, deeply present. He recalls: "I made a work at Documenta [the five-yearly sculpture exhibition at Kassel, Germany] many years ago. You walked inside a building like a bunker, and inside there was a hole in the ground. It was completely dark - so dark that the hole resembled a carpet on the ground. One person was let in at a time. And there was a man who waited for 45 minutes, and when he went in he was absolutely furious. 'I've done many things in the cause of contemporary art,' he said, 'but I have never stood in line for all that time to look at a piece of carpet.' And he took his glasses off and flung them on to the carpet - and, of course, they disappeared down the hole. And then he was truly terrified. That's what I am interested in: the void, the moment when it isn't a hole, it is a space full of what isn't there."

Figures such as Damien Hirst represent one branch of post-Duchampian art; Kapoor, however, takes on that history in a rather different way. "If Duchamp declared that all the objects in the world are art," he says, "then I am interested in the next stage of that argument, which may have been prompted by Beuys in some way - that all the objects in the world are symbolic. Now Duchamp, to be fair, was very careful about what was the found object; the found object was always deeply symbolic. So the arguments in fact come together and they don't get confused by the idea that you can put anything in a glass case and it's art. It isn't. It is the artist's duty to find poetic meaning in things." More baldly, he declares of the Hirsts on sale recently at Sotheby's: "It's just stuff , you know. It's not an artistic challenge. it's just stuff ... It's completely irrelevant." Later he adds: "It's almost not art. I'm going to go as far as to say it's not art."