Symbolism In Mount Ventoux, By Peter Buggenhout

Emerging as one of the most influential sculptors of his generation, Peter Buggenhout creates works of art that touch upon the paradoxes of meaning. As on par with the ideas of Constructivism in the 1910s, Buggenhout’s sculptures are seemingly devoid of any symbolism. Yet, his sculptures stand alone, carrying meaning in its own entity, rather than its amalgamation of materials. Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing its body, Buggenhout perpetually shapes the identity of these monumental structures.

In his work series titled ‘Mount Ventoux,’ Buggenhout visually creates an ideology best illustrated in the writings by Petrarch: “Petrarch thought he could survey and master the world from Mount Ventoux. That mastery is a lie, because

Created with horse hair drenched with blood, these sculptures reference Medusa in Greek mythology. Not only is there a slightly horrifying quality in viewing these works, but also an almost paralyzing experience. “These sculptures, doomed to decay and decompose, reveal themselves to the curious eye as an enticing inducement to pass through the forbidden, the ominous, that leads our petulant psyche into temptation.” The abject brings out a type of intensified emotion, in which the viewers are exposed to a horror that is guided with protection. It is why we watch horror movies and visit haunted houses. There is a kind of pleasure in (fear) in (safety). Unable to look away, Buggenhout has demonstrated the correlation between man and his obsession with horror.

Buggenhout’s most recent work series, ‘On Hold’ are colorful collections of life. Engineered with pieces of plastic, scraps of wood, and remains of objects, Buggenhout carefully creates constructed scenes of chaos. He balances these materials against one another to reveal naked structures in a state of flux. These sculptures exist in an unrelenting state of limbo, never granted a moment of fluidity, afraid to collapse, always holding its breath. “Their form is defined by the limits of their surroundings and structure and form are thus mutually dependent upon one another.” (analysis of quote and closing

He has created a new language, * for these bodies of work. His work series do not represent things, but rather present ideologies. Yet, the irony in its existence is in the inevitability of its interpretation. Although the bodies of work themselves resemble nothing, through his work series, they begin to represent those that have come before. In this way, their identities are indefinitely interchangeable with one another. No work can be easily distinguished, for it is difficult to recall the exact form and structure of each sculpture. Rather, they are remembered as a sequence of analogs. Consequentially, its paradox lies within its ability to be solely its own entity, yet also becoming a part of a collective. Buggenhout’s works exist without being instructed, for his works are something remembered, but