But why does soft sculpture remain all-persuasive in the transitional world of art? It began as a reaction, perhaps: against reason, against the hard geometric forms of Modernism, against a perceived lack of raw emotion in sculpture. Later, a plethora of new synthetic materials and industrial techniques encouraged artists to experiment further. Could it be, nowadays, that one of the reasons we find soft sculpture so compelling is because of its actual substance? Is the reality of touch and texture a counterpoint to the virtual, bodiless world of video images and endless digital files?
I found this statement in an essay on soft sculpture a few months ago and it really resonated with me. I silly didn’t take note of the author or the title but I thought I would post it any way.