Models of Things: Chris Burden

I chose to read an article titled “Models of Things: A Conversation with Chris Burden,” by Collette Chattopadhyay, which is featured in the March 2009 issue of Sculpture magazine. Chris Burden makes pieces of art that I consider to be sculpture from “component parts that either are or look like parts found in toy building kits” (Collette Chattopadhyay, “Models of Things: A Conversation with Chris Burden,” 55). Burden focuses on recreating bridges and skyscrapers out of Erector and Meccano parts that I once also used as a child. When Burden first became interested in this style of work, he tried to obtain authentic, antique parts from building kits sold a long time ago. As he produced more works with these authentic parts over a number of years, he realized that there weren’t enough pieces left in the world to keep up with the scale at which he was producing, necessitating the use of new materials. By scale, I mean that even though Burden constructs miniatures of his source structures, the size of his recreations is still something to marvel at. While his very first ‘warm-up’ creation was only about 1 x 3 x .5 ft in size, his grandest production stands in front of Rockefeller Center at a towering 65 feet tall. (Chattopadhyay, 55-59).

The author of the article presents Burden as an artist in an emerging field that incorporates architecture and the illusion of reality, which seeks to craftily challenge the boundary between reality and representation. As an example, Burden’s first bridge piece weighs five pounds, but can support 500 pounds of weight, roughly keeping with the essence of a bridge’s functionality (Chattopadhyay, 56). It is this “pure and clear” definition of a bridge’s function that Burden claims is a particular appeal to producing bridge models (Chattopadhyay, 59). Keeping this in mind, Burden’s work is presented as meticulous and methodical. Because he uses small Erector and Meccano pieces in many of his works, Burden’s creations can have tens of thousands of components, including one with a million parts.

Several things about Burden’s work generate considerable interest in his productions. First, the grandness and intricate nature of his works indicate an immense level of planning, and concentrated execution by a team of assistants. Secondly, Burden’s works meet with their source structures in both appearance and functionality. Most known for his bridges, Burden’s pieces look remarkably similar to the original man-made structures from which they’re modeled, which can be found in various parts of the world. Several of his works, including the skyscraper What My Dad Gave Me, 2002, and the bridge Tyne Bridge, 2002, are actually displayed in locations from where a view of the original structure is available.

The factor which adds such realism to Burden’s works is the small size parts he builds with. The small parts which come together to form large complete structures allow Burden to incorporate a very profound level of detail into his works. This brings us to the third, and most important, appeal of Burden’s creations: his ability to challenge the constraints of the materials he uses. Many of the bridges that he has modeled contain curves in their design. Erector and Meccano set pieces are rectangular and generally resist designers’ wishes to make them more curvilinear. Burden says the trick is that “there’s a little bit of slope at the end of each form, so each one is slightly aligned to build the curve” (Chattopadhyay, 59). Taking on the challenge of creating curves out of very rigid materials adds an extra layer of dimension to Burden’s works, and one that I find most appealing.

Burden claims in the interview that the idea of maintaining function when building bridges—to support weight—always appealed to him. What I find so inspiring about Burden’s work, it follows, is the fact that despite the scale of his bridges being far reduced from their original sizes, function and form can still be maintained in the final products. His bridges look like the originals and support weight on similar ratios as the originals, but are incredibly small compared to the real-life bridges which they mimic. Overcoming the limitations of his materials, the fact that function and form can be maintained in the face of severely diminished scale changes my understanding of what is possible in sculpture. An amateur in the field of sculpture, I always assumed that with decreased scale, some other facet of an object’s design would ultimately suffer during a model reproduction. Burden’s sculptures have trumped my assumption, and altered my expectations for my own performance in the future.

Works Cited

Chattopadhyay, Collette. "Models of Things: A Conversation with Chris Burden." Sculpture Mar. 2009: 54-59. Print.