AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AC026330063
Submit to AC
Cite this article
4
Download
124
Views
Related Info Links
Google Scholar
More by Authors Links
G.-Fivos Sargentis
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

The poetics of materials: Form, perception, and material identity

Nikolaos Papadodimas1 ,  G.-Fivos Sargentis1*
Show Less
1 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens , Greece
AC, 026330063 https://doi.org/10.36922/AC026330063
Received: 12 August 2026 | Revised: 12 October 2026 | Accepted: 13 October 2026 | Published online: 6 November 2026
© 2026 by the Auhor(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

Material is often understood as the substance through which form is realized, yet it is far more than a passive medium. It contributes to expressive meaning, operating as an active symbolic and poetic agent. The poetics of materials concern the expressive meanings that emerge when matter, artistic intention, architectural expression, technique, and the viewer interact. Qualities such as weight, texture, durability, fragility, temperature, color, patina, and visual appeal act beyond their physical function; they produce meaning and atmosphere. Material also carries a biography, containing traces of formation, extraction, transformation, cultural use, and aging. Artists and architects enter into a dialog with material resistance, whereas the viewer reconstructs material qualities and tactile dimensions through vision and imaginative touch. Changes in material can alter originality, identity, and perception, while material mimicry creates a layered poetic condition; form and visual presence may be preserved, but the expressive qualities of the actual and represented materials interact. Ultimately, the meaning of the form emerges between material reality and material appearance, between what the material is and how it is perceived. Although the main focus of this study is on sculpture, the poetics and meaning of materials can also be extended to architecture, where they shape atmosphere and spatial identity.

Keywords
Poetics of materials
Sculpture
Material perception
Artist-material dialectic
Sculptural identity
Material mimicry
Architectural materiality
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Spivey N. How Art Made the World: A Journey to the Origins of Human Creativity. Basic Books; 2006.
  2. Straffon ML. The descent of art: the evolution of visual art as communication via material culture. IMAGE Zeitschrift für interdisziplinäre Bildwissenschaft. 2011;7(2):59-75. doi:10.25969/mediarep/16575
  3. Yuan B, Sun Y. Exploring materials across disciplines: insights into artistic evolution and innovation potential. Appl Sci. 2025;15(8):4175. doi:10.3390/app15084175.
  4. Rich JC. The Materials and Methods of Sculpture. Courier Corporation; 1988.
  5. Rawson P. Sculpture. University of Pennsylvania Press; 2016. https://www.pennpress.org/9781512805550/sculpture/
  6. Penny N. The Materials of Sculpture. Yale University Press; 1993.
  7. Lehmann AS. How materials make meaning. Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek. 2012;62(1):6-27. doi:10.1163/22145966-06201002
  8. Manav B. Color-emotion associations, designing color schemes for urban environment-architectural settings. Color Res Appl. 2017;42(5):631-640.doi:10.1002/col.22123
  9. Kim S, Jin D, Yun BY, Nam J, Kim S. Assessing thermal comfort in wooden buildings: a visual perceptual analysis through physiological characterization. Energy Build. 2024;324:114918. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114918
  10. Spence C. Senses of place: architectural design for the multisensory mind. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020;5(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00243-4
  11. Fechner GT. Vorschule der Aesthetik [Preschool of Aesthetics]. Vols 1-2. Breitkopf & Härtel; 1876. [in German]
  12. Birkhoff GD. Aesthetic Measure. Harvard University Press; 1933.
  13. Berlyne DE. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1971.
  14. Christofides A, Efstratiadis A, Koutsoyiannis D, Sargentis GF, Hadjibiros K. Resolving conflicting objectives in the management of the Plastiras Lake: can we quantify beauty? Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2005;9(5):507-515. doi:10.5194/hess-9-507-2005
  15. Hadjibiros K, Katsiri A, Andreadakis A, et al. Multi-criteria reservoir water management. Glob NEST J. 2005;7(3):386-394. doi: 10.30955/gnj.000394
  16. Datta R, Joshi D, Li J, Wang JZ. Studying aesthetics in photographic images using a computational approach. In: Computer Vision ¨C ECCV 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 3953. Springer; 2006:288-301. doi:10.1007/11744078_23
  17. Murray N, Marchesotti L, Perronnin F. AVA: a large-scale database for aesthetic visual analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE; 2012:2408-2415. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2012.6247954
  18. Talebi H, Milanfar P. NIMA: neural image assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2018;27(8):3998-4011. doi:10.1109/TIP.2018.2831899
  19. Sargentis GF, Dimitriadis P, Iliopoulou T, Ioannidis R, Koutsoyiannis D. Stochastic investigation of the Hurst-Kolmogorov behaviour in arts. Geophys Res Abstr. 2018;20:EGU2018-17740-1. http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..2017740S/abstract
  20. Sargentis GF, Dimitriadis P, Koutsoyiannis D. Aesthetical issues of Leonardo da Vinci’s and Pablo Picasso’s paintings with stochastic evaluation. Heritage. 2020;3(2):283-305. doi:10.3390/heritage3020017
  21. Ioannidis R, Dimitriadis P, Sargentis GF, Frangedaki E, Iliopoulou T, Koutsoyiannis D. Stochastic similarities between natural processes and art: application in the analysis and optimization of landscape aesthetics of renewable energy and civil works. Geophys Res Abstr. 2019;21:EGU2019-11403.
  22. Sargentis GF, Ioannidis R, Meletopoulos IT, Dimitriadis P, Koutsoyiannis D. Aesthetical issues with stochastic evaluation. EGU General Assembly 2020. Abstract EGU2020-19832. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-19832
  23. Sargentis GF, Ioannidis R, Chiotinis M, Dimitriadis P, Koutsoyiannis D. Aesthetical issues with stochastic evaluation. In: Data Analytics for Cultural Heritage. Springer; 2021:173-193. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66777-1_8
  24. Sargentis GF. Issues of Prosperity: Stochastic Evaluation of Data Related to Environment, Infrastructures, Economy and Society. PhD thesis. National Technical University of Athens; 2022.
  25. Sargentis GF, Dimitriadis P, Ioannidis R, Iliopoulou T, Koutsoyiannis D. Stochastic evaluation of landscapes transformed by renewable energy installations and civil works. Energies. 2019;12(14):2817. doi:10.3390/en12142817
  26. Sargentis GF, Iliopoulou T, Sigourou S, Dimitriadis P, Koutsoyiannis D. Evolution of clustering quantified by a stochastic method: case studies on natural and human social structures. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):7972. doi:10.3390/su12197972
  27. Sargentis GF, Ioannidis R, Iliopoulou T, Dimitriadis P, Koutsoyiannis D. Landscape planning of infrastructure through focus points’ clustering analysis: case study of Plastiras Artificial Lake (Greece). Infrastructures. 2021;6(1):12. doi:10.3390/infrastructures6010012
  28. Ioannidis R, Sargentis GF, Koutsoyiannis D. Landscape design in infrastructure projects: is it an extravagance? A cost-benefit investigation of practices in dams. Landsc Res. 2022;47(3):370-387. doi:10.1080/01426397.2022.2039109
  29. Manta E, Ioannidis R, Sargentis GF, Efstratiadis A. Aesthetic evaluation of wind turbines in stochastic setting: case study of Tinos Island, Greece. EGU General Assembly 2020. Abstract EGU2020-5484. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5484
  30. Kopelia S, Tepetidis N, Tzortzi JN, Sargentis GF, Ioannidis R. Integrating participatory perception-mapping data and stochastic image analysis for urban landscape assessment. Published online 2026. doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu26-13270
  31. Levoy M, Pulli K, Curless B, et al. The digital Michelangelo project: 3D scanning of large statues. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2000. ACM; 2000:131-144. doi:10.1145/344779.344849
  32. Bernardini F, Rushmeier H. The 3D model acquisition pipeline. Comput Graph Forum. 2002;21(2):149-172. doi:10.1111/1467-8659.00574
  33. Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1992;14(2):239-256. doi:10.1109/34.121791
  34. Osada R, Funkhouser T, Chazelle B, Dobkin D. Shape distributions. ACM Trans Graph. 2002;21(4):807-832. doi:10.1145/571647.571648
  35. Tangelder JWH, Veltkamp RC. A survey of content-based 3D shape retrieval methods. In: Proceedings of Shape Modeling International 2004. IEEE; 2004:145-156. doi:10.1109/SMI.2004.1314502
  36. Sargentis GF, Frangedaki E, Chiotinis M, et al. 3D scanning/printing: a technological stride in sculpture. Technologies. 2022;10(1):9. doi:10.3390/technologies10010009
  37. Ingold T. The textility of making. Camb J Econ. 2010;34(1):91-102. doi:10.1093/cje/bep042
  38. Farag MM. Materials and Processes of Contemporary Sculpture. Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2020.
  39. Sargentis GF, Papadodimas N. Questioning canvas capital: risks and resilience in art markets. Cult Arts Res Dev. 2025;5(2):167-184. doi:10.55121/card.v5i2.720
  40. Sargentis GF, Dimitriadis P, Iliopoulou T, Koutsoyiannis D. A stochastic view of varying styles in art paintings. Heritage. 2021;4(1):333-348. doi:10.3390/heritage4010021
  41. Sargentis GF. ¦§ ¦¶¦Ñή¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦²¦Ô¦Ì¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñά ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦´¦Ë¦É¦Êώ¦Í ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç ¦£¦Ë¦Ô¦Ð¦Ó¦É¦Êή [Use and Technical Aspects of Materials in Sculpture]. PhD thesis. National Technical University of Athens; 2006. [In Greek] doi:10.5281/zenodo.3770829
  42. Focillon H. The Life of Forms in Art. Wittenborn, Schultz; 1948.
  43. Read H. The Art of Sculpture. Princeton University Press; 2023.
  44. Arnheim R. From function to expression. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 1964;23(1):29-41. doi:10.2307/428136
  45. Getsy D. Tactility or opticality, Henry Moore or David Smith: Herbert Read and Clement Greenberg on The Art of Sculpture, 1956. Sculpt J. 2008;17(2):75-88. doi: 10.3828/sj.17.2.7
  46. Potts A. Tactility: the interrogation of medium in art of the 1960s. Art Hist. 2004;27(2):282-304. doi:10.1111/j.0141-6790.2004.02702004.x
  47. Skelly J. Skin Crafts: Affect, Violence and Materiality in Global Contemporary Art. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2022. doi:10.5040/9781350123007
  48. Wunsch O. A Delicate Matter: Art, Fragility, and Consumption in Eighteenth-Century France. Penn State University Press; 2024.
  49. Rauh A. Patina. International lexicon of aesthetics. Published online 2022:1. doi:10.7413/18258630123
  50. Holtorf C. Perceiving the past: from age value to pastness. Int J Cult Prop. 2017;24(4):497-515. doi:10.1017/S0940739117000236
  51. Riegl A. The modern cult of monuments: its character and its origin. Oppositions. 1982;25:20-51.
  52. Er S. Marmara marble: geological, cultural, and technical perspectives on a global heritage stone. Geoheritage. 2026;18(2):77. doi:10.1007/s12371-026-01310-w
  53. Frank D, Fang K, Fonti P. Dendrochronology: fundamentals and innovations. In: Stable Isotopes in Tree Rings: Inferring Physiological, Climatic and Environmental Responses. Springer; 2022:21-59. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-92698-4_2
  54. Domínguez-Delmás M, Daly A, Haneca K. From forests to heritage: unravelling the journey of historical timbers and wooden cultural heritage. Int J Wood Cult. 2023;3(1-3):1-7. doi:10.1163/27723194-bja10024
  55. Forty A. Concrete and Culture: A Material History. Reaktion Books; 2013.
  56. Schneider B. Materiality of time: polar ice as a medium for ecological art for the tempered zones. In: Communicating Ice Through Popular Art and Aesthetics. Springer; 2024:105-122. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39787-5_6
  57. Karana E, Hekkert P, Kandachar P. Meanings of materials through sensorial properties and manufacturing processes. Mater Des. 2009;30(7):2778-2784. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.09.028
  58. George H. The Elements of Sculpture: A Viewer¡¯s Guide. Phaidon Press; 2014.
  59. Syson L, Wagstaff S, Bowyer E, Kumar B. Like Life: Sculpture, Color, and the Body. Metropolitan Museum of Art; 2018.
  60. Bourgarit D, Bassett J, Bewer FG, Heginbotham A, Lacey A, Motture P, eds. Guidelines for the Technical Examination of Bronze Sculpture. Getty Publications; 2025.
  61. Li KSS. Emphasis on visual and tactile experiences: mechanical treatments of bronzes and jades in ancient China. Early China. 2023;46:35-77. doi:10.1017/eac.2023.6
  62. Barrett E. Makers’ voices: four themes for material literacy in contemporary sculpture. J Vis Art Pract. 2020;19(4):351-372. doi:10.1080/14702029.2020.1844945
  63. Malafouris L. At the potter’s wheel: an argument for material agency. In: Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach. Springer; 2008:19-36. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2
  64. Dent P, ed. Sculpture and Touch. Routledge; 2017.
  65. Candlin F. The dubious inheritance of touch: art history and museum access. J Vis Cult. 2006;5(2):137-154. doi:10.1177/1470412906066906
  66. Christidou D, Pierroux P. Art, touch and meaning making: an analysis of multisensory interpretation in the museum. Mus Manag Curatorship. 2019;34(1):96-115. doi:10.1080/09647775.2018.1516561
  67. Lacey S, Sathian K. Visuo-haptic multisensory object recognition, categorization, and representation. Front Psychol. 2014;5:730. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00730
  68. Paterson M. The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Routledge; 2020. doi:10.4324/9781003087168
  69. Lauwrens J. Seeing touch and touching sight: a reflection on the tactility of vision. Senses Soc. 2019;14(3):297-312. doi:10.1080/17458927.2019.1663660
  70. Brett D. (Re)Modelling Form: Sculpture in Flux. PhD thesis. Royal College of Art; 2024.
  71. Pallasmaa J. The Thinking Hand: Existential and Embodied Wisdom in Architecture. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
  72. Sharan L, Rosenholtz R, Adelson EH. Accuracy and speed of material categorization in real-world images. J Vis. 2014;14(9):12. doi:10.1167/14.9.12
  73. Fleming RW. Material perception. Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2017;3(1):365-388. doi:10.1146/annurev-vision-102016-061429
  74. Kosec T, Bajt Leban M, Ropret P, Finšgar M. The impact of urban rain on the changes of bare and artificially patinated bronze during 9-year exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024;31(22):31925-31941. doi:10.1007/s11356-024-33369-9
  75. Silva C, Vélez G, Colorado HA. Patina in the construction of the poetic bronze image: science of materials, art and philosophy. Herit Sci. 2017;5(1):36. doi:10.1186/s40494-017-0149-y
  76. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Veiled Woman (Rafaello Monti, 1854). Accessed July 20, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/186838
  77. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ugolino and His Sons (Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux, 1865-1867). Accessed July 20, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/204812
  78. Barassi S, Copper J. Henry Moore and stone: methods and materials. In: Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity. Tate; 2015.
  79. Coleman RL. Sculpture: A Basic Handbook for Students. 2nd ed. W. C. Brown Co; 1990.
  80. Pye D. The Nature and Art of Workmanship. Cambridge University Press; 1968.
  81. Lapatin K. The materials and techniques of Greek and Roman art. In: Marconi C, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. Oxford University Press; 2014:203-240. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199783304.013.009
  82. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Hand of God (Auguste Rodin; carved ca. 1907; marble; accession no. 08.210). Accessed July 10, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/191046
  83. Sargentis GF, Papadodimas N. Cultural cells: a circular economy-driven blueprint for creative tourism and regional revitalization in Greece. Adv Environ Eng Res. 2025;6(4):1-17. doi:10.21926/aeer.2504032
  84. Falin P. Relating to Clay: Tuning in to the Workings of the Aesthetic Dimension in Ceramic Practice. Doctoral thesis. Aalto University; 2022.
  85. Miller A. Stone and Marble Carving: A Manual for the Student Sculptor. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1948. Reprinted 2022.
  86. Thompson DV. The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1936. (Reprinted by Courier Corporation, 1956.)
  87. Sargentis GF, Kougia M, Lagaros ND. Bridging traditional sculpture methods with 3D scanning/printing. In: Proceedings of the International Conferences on Digital Technology Driven Engineering 2024. Springer Nature; 2025:225-236. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92029-5_21
  88. Mäkikoskela R. From Far to Close (and Back) Material Resistance and Changing Perspectives in Visual Art Practice. RAE. 2018;2018(3):349-378. doi:10.54916/rae.118874
  89. Geist S. Brancusi: A Study of the Sculpture. Grossman Publishers; 1968.
  90. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bird in Space (Constantin Brancusi). Accessed July 10, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/486757
  91. Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. Bird in Space (Constantin Brancusi). Accessed July 10, 2026. https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/669
  92. Velescu CR. Brâncuşi and the significance of matter. Plur Mag. 2001;11.
  93. National Gallery of Art. Bird in Space. Accessed July 11, 2026. https://www.nga.gov/artworks/71073-bird-space
  94. Colbert EA. Umberto Boccioni’s Unique Forms of Continuity in Space: How Materiality Obfuscates Originality, Intent, and Ethics. Thesis. University of California; 2018. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7rm4878b
  95. Ohara M, Kim J, Koida K. The effect of material properties on the perceived shape of three-dimensional objects. i-Perception. 2020;11(6). doi:10.1177/2041669520982317
  96. Bertheaux C, Zimmermann E, Gazel M, Delanoy J, Raimbaud P, Lavoué G. Effect of material properties on emotion: a virtual reality study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024;17:1301891. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1301891
  97. Umberto Boccioni. Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (original plaster, 1913). Wikimedia Commons. Accessed July 11, 2026. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unique_Forms_of_Continuity_in_Space,_original_plaster.jpg
  98. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Unique Forms of Continuity in Space (Umberto Boccioni; modeled 1913, cast 1949; bronze; accession no. 1990.38.3). Accessed July 11, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/it/art/collection/search/485540
  99. Van Riel R. Two originals, one artwork: on the ontology of originals and improvisations. Estetika. 2022;59(2):119-134. doi:10.33134/eeja.298
  100. Irvin S. What are artworks made of? In: Immaterial: Rules in Contemporary Art. Oxford University Press; 2022:105-126. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199688210.003.0006
  101. Crowther P. Creativity and originality in art. Br J Aesthet. 1991;31(4):301-309. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/31.4.301
  102. Singh AC. Belt v Lawes and the meaning of authorship. Law Cult Humanit. 2024;20(1):66-93. doi:10.1177/17438721211026880
  103. Krauss R. The originality of the avant-garde: a postmodernist repetition. October. 1981;18:47-66. doi:10.2307/778410
  104. Menger PM. Profiles of the unfinished: Rodin’s work and the varieties of incompleteness. In: Becker HS, Faulkner RR, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett B, eds. Art From Start to Finish: Jazz, Painting, Writing, and Other Improvisations. University of Chicago Press; 2006:31-68.
  105. Butler R. Rodin: The Shape of Genius. Yale University Press; 1993.
  106. Elsen AE, Jamison RF. Rodin’s Art: The Rodin Collection of Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center of Visual Arts at Stanford University. Oxford University Press; 2003.
  107. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Thinker (Le Penseur) (Auguste Rodin; plaster, 1904; accession no. 04.36). Accessed July 12, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/209021
  108. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Thinker (Auguste Rodin; modeled ca. 1880, cast ca. 1910; bronze; accession no. 11.173.9). Accessed July 12, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/191811
  109. The Museum of Modern Art. Bird in Space (Constantin Brancusi, ca. 1941). Accessed July 13, 2026. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/81503
  110. Castriota B. The enfolding object of conservation: artwork identity, authenticity, and documentation. In: Conservation of Contemporary Art: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Springer; 2023:59-86. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42357-4_4
  111. Llamas-Pacheco R. Theoretical issues in the conservation of contemporary art: on paradigms, ontological and constitutive elements in some practical cases. Arte Individuo Soc. 2023;Avance en línea:1-20. doi:10.5209/aris.81021
  112. Department of Greek and Roman Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Roman copies of Greek statues. Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. Published 2002. Accessed July 20, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/essays/roman-copies-of-greek-statues
  113. Sengoku-Haga K, Buseki S, Lu M, et al. Polykleitos and his followers at work: how the Doryphoros was used. In: Artistry in Bronze: The Greeks and Their Legacy. Getty Publications; 2017:87-93. doi:10.2307/jj.6142256.16
  114. Richter GMA. A statue of the Diadoumenos. Bull Metrop Mus Art. 1933;28(12):214-216. doi:10.2307/3255121
  115. Museum of Classical Archaeology, University of Cambridge. Berlin Amazon. https://museum.classics.cam.ac.uk/collections/casts/berlin-amazon. Accessed July 20, 2026.
  116. Cornell University Library. Amazon of Sciarra, Lansdowne, and Berlin type. Cornell Cast Collection. Accessed July 20, 2026. https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:946109
  117. Minneapolis Institute of Art. The Doryphoros (copy of work attributed to Polykleitos; accession no. 86.6). Accessed July 21, 2026. https://collections.artsmia.org/art/3520/the-doryphoros-copy-of-work-attributed-to-polykleitos
  118. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fragments of a marble statue of Diadoumenos (youth tying a fillet around his head; accession no. 25.78.56). Accessed July 21, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/251838
  119. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Marble statue of a wounded Amazon (accession no. 32.11.4). Accessed July 21, 2026. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/253373
  120. Pallasmaa J. Matter, hapticity and time: material imagination and the voice of matter. Build Mat. 2016;20:171-189.
  121. Van de Vall R, Hölling H, Scholte T, Stigter S. Reflections on a biographical approach to contemporary art conservation. In: Bridgland J, ed. ICOM-CC 16th Triennial Conference Lisbon 2011: Preprints. Lisbon: ICOM-CC; 2011.
  122. Laurenson P. Authenticity, change and loss in the conservation of time-based media installations. Tate Pap. 2006;(6).
  123. Bol M, Spary EC, eds. The Matter of Mimesis: Studies of Mimesis and Materials in Nature, Art, and Science. Vol 7. Brill; 2023. doi:10.1163/9789004515413
  124. Sole A, Gigilashvili D, Midtfjord H, et al. On the acquisition and reproduction of material appearance. In: Computational Color Imaging. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer; 2019:26-38. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-13940-7_3
  125. Ashby MF, Johnson K. Materials and Design: The Art and Science of Material Selection in Product Design. 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2013.
  126. Sotheby’s Institute of Art. Jeff Koons Balloon Dog: an icon of contemporary art. Published May 30, 2024. Accessed July 21, 2026. https://sothebysinstitute.com/articles/how-to-series-balloon-dog/
  127. Broida ER, Elderfield J. Against the Grain: Contemporary Art From the Edward R. Broida Collection. Museum of Modern Art; 2006.
  128. The Museum of Modern Art. Vija Celmins: To Fix the Image in Memory 1977–1982. The Museum of Modern Art collection. Accessed July 21, 2026. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/100210
  129. Museo Horne. Jacopo Sansovino (?): Knight Stepping on the Conquered 1506-1510. Accessed July 21, 2026. https://www.museohorne.it/en/opera/16-jacopo-sansovino-knight-stepping-on-the-conqueredc-1506-1510-terracotta-with-traces-of-gilding/
  130. Art Institute of Chicago. Young Roman (Camille Claudel, 1882-1887; plaster with polychrome patina; accession no. 2022.1438. Accessed July 21, 2026. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/265059/young-roman
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept