This extraordinary Prampram pair, consisting of a female figure with a child and a male figure, ranks among the most formally radical examples within the group of Prampram sculptures we have assembled to date. The as yet unidentified carver adopts the established canon of Prampram figures but transforms it into such a consistently abstracted and stylized formal language that the human body is almost reduced to a system of elementary geometric signs. Particularly characteristic is the extreme reduction of the head. Any indication of facial features, hairstyle, or other individualizing characteristics has been omitted. The head appears as an almost perfect sphere set upon a long cylindrical neck. The two forms meet without any anatomically mediated transition. The head is therefore less a portrait than a sculptural sign for the human head. Equally radical is the treatment of the torso. It forms an elongated, approximately rectangular block with slightly rounded edges. Chest, waist, hips, and shoulders are barely differentiated. The body thus acquires an unusual vertical coherence and appears as a supporting axis to which the head and limbs have been attached. This static verticality is countered by the markedly dynamic construction of the arms and legs. The arms are sharply angled and terminate in extremely elongated, needle-like points that serve as hands or forearms. The same principle determines the legs. Thighs and lower legs form angular configurations whose lower ends taper into long points. Sphere, cylinder, block, angle, and point thus constitute the elementary formal vocabulary of this carver. When displayed together, it becomes apparent that the male and female figures function not merely as related individual sculptures but as a pair deliberately conceived in relation to one another. Both figures turn toward each other. Their angled arms open toward the centre, creating a charged void between their bodies. The elongated points confront one another without touching. Proximity and distance, encounter and separation thus become simultaneous themes of the composition. The legs likewise respond to one another in an almost mirrored configuration. The unusual kneeling or crouching posture is scarcely comprehensible in anatomical terms and is precisely for this reason particularly effective as a sculptural sign. The figures appear at once at rest and under tension. The carver releases the human body from naturalistic anatomy and subjects it to an autonomous constructive order. The female figure is distinguished by the child represented against her body. Here, too, the carver remains entirely consistent with his formal system. The child is not a naturalistic miniature but repeats the essential characteristics of the adult figure: a spherical head, elongated body, and sharply angled limbs. It appears as a figure within the figure, making the relationship between mother and child visible solely through position, scale, and formal repetition. The exceptional individuality of this as yet unidentified carver prompted three visual homages to Oskar Schlemmer, Giorgio de Chirico, and René Magritte. Each homage addresses a different aspect of the sculptures. In the homages to Schlemmer and Magritte, the male figure alone takes centre stage, whereas the homage to de Chirico transfers the complete pair – the female figure with child and the male figure facing her – into a new pictorial environment. These homages do not imply any art-historical connection between the African carver and the artists of Western modernism. Rather, they serve as distinct comparative frameworks through which characteristic qualities of the Prampram sculptures become visible. The homage to Oskar Schlemmer focuses on the male figure and emphasizes its extraordinary geometric construction. In Schlemmer’s work, the human figure is frequently conceived through elementary volumes, axes, and geometric relationships. The homage reveals what is already inherent in the Prampram figure itself: the spherical head corresponds to an elementary stereometric form; the elongated torso establishes a pronounced vertical axis; while arms and legs are defined by angles and diagonals. The almost needle-like extremities further intensify this abstraction. The male figure thus appears less as an anatomical representation of a human being than as a precise construction composed of sphere, cylinder, block, angle, and point. The comparison with Schlemmer demonstrates the remarkable consistency with which the unknown Prampram carver subjected the human body to a geometric order. The homage to Giorgio de Chirico operates differently. Here, the complete Prampram pair is deliberately shown: the female figure with the child represented against her body and the male figure opposite her. Transposed into a deserted, metaphysical cityscape of arcades, an isolated tower, a low horizon, and elongated shadows, the two sculptures acquire an unexpected monumentality. Their spherical, featureless heads and columnar bodies enter into a direct dialogue with the austere architecture. It is particularly in this homage that the relationship between the two figures fully unfolds. Their bodies, turned toward one another, form an almost symmetrical constellation. Their angled arms project into the space between them; their elongated points approach one another without touching. The intervening void consequently becomes an essential element of the composition. It signifies proximity and distance, encounter and separation at the same time. The child attached to the female figure introduces a third, smaller presence and simultaneously disrupts the symmetry of the pair. Within de Chirico’s world, the group consequently appears as a silent and enigmatic encounter whose ultimate meaning eludes the viewer. The homage to René Magritte returns to the single male figure. It isolates the sculpture against a background of sky and sea and associates it with the phrase “Ceci n’est pas une prière.” From a Western perspective, the raised and sharply angled arms might spontaneously be interpreted as a gesture of prayer, supplication, or invocation. Yet it is precisely this seemingly obvious interpretation that the phrase calls into question. We see a gesture, but we cannot presume to know its original meaning. The additional sphere on the ground extends this play between form and meaning. Within the sculpture, the same geometric form is naturally perceived as a head; removed from the context of the body, it initially appears as nothing more than a sphere. This demonstrates the extent to which meaning depends upon position and context. The homage thereby reveals a central quality of the male figure: its forms are extraordinarily precise and immediately apprehensible, while their meaning remains open. The three homages thus pursue different paths. Schlemmer and Magritte isolate the male figure and examine two distinct qualities of its radical reduction: its geometric construction on the one hand and the openness of its meaning on the other. De Chirico alone brings the complete ensemble together and makes the relationship between the male figure, the female figure, and the child the actual subject of the homage. This juxtaposition makes particularly clear how an extremely restricted repertoire of sphere, cylinder, block, angle, and point can produce not only an unmistakable human form but also a complex relationship between the figures. The particular quality of this carver lies in the extreme degree of reduction achieved without diminishing the human presence. The head is simultaneously sphere and head, the torso both body and abstract block, the limbs at once anatomical elements and geometric angles. Even the child follows the same sculptural grammar. From a very limited repertoire of elementary forms there thus emerges an unmistakable conception of the human figure, occupying a remarkably autonomous position within the known Prampram canon. The three homages may also be considered in the context of the “Iconic Turn” and, more specifically, Horst Bredekamp’s concept of the “Image Act” (Bildakt). Central to this idea is the proposition that an image or a fashioned object is not merely the passive bearer of a meaning attributed to it by the viewer. Rather, through its form, presence, and effect, it possesses an agency of its own: the image does not simply show something; it actively sets in motion a process of perception and cognition. It is precisely this that the homages bring to the fore. The Prampram figure remains materially and formally the same, yet its effect changes fundamentally when it is transferred into different pictorial worlds. In the homage to Schlemmer, the male figure emerges as a geometrically constructed body; in de Chirico, the complete pair becomes an enigmatic, almost monumental encounter in space; and in Magritte, the single male figure becomes the point of departure for a reflection on sign, gesture, and meaning. The homages therefore do not merely illustrate the sculptures; each generates a new image act. They activate qualities already inherent in the sculptural originals but allow them, through altered pictorial contexts, to be perceived anew and with particular intensity. In the sense of the “Iconic Turn,” the question thus shifts from simply asking “What does this figure represent?” to asking “What does this figure do as an image?” In the case of an as yet unidentified carver whose original contexts of meaning remain only partially understood, this perspective appears particularly productive. The extraordinary form itself becomes a source of knowledge. The spherical head, block-like torso, pointed limbs, and tension-filled gestures are not merely features to be described and interpreted iconographically; they actively determine how the figure is seen, experienced, and repeatedly reinterpreted. The three homages consequently become part of this process of cognition. Schlemmer, de Chirico, and Magritte are not invoked in order to legitimize the Prampram sculptures through Western modernism or to derive them art-historically from it. Rather, their pictorial worlds function as three distinct spaces of resonance in which the remarkable agency of the African figures comes to the fore. It is precisely this change of pictorial context that demonstrates how the sculptures not only convey meanings but, through their unusual formal presence, continually generate new possibilities of meaning. The distinctive quality of this carver therefore lies not only in the extreme reduction of the human body but also in the extraordinary visual agency that arises from this reduction. The homages reveal this quality without defining it conclusively. In this sense, they become instruments of seeing: they do not prescribe what the Prampram figures “must mean,” but instead open up different possibilities for what these figures, as images, are capable of doing. We may look forward with great interest to seeing what art-historical significance this extraordinary, as yet unidentified carver will ultimately assume within the history of African art. Selected Literature Bredekamp, Horst: Theorie des Bildakts. Frankfurter Adorno-Vorlesungen 2007, Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2010. Boehm, Gottfried (ed.): Was ist ein Bild?, Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1994. Boehm, Gottfried: “Die Wiederkehr der Bilder,” in Gottfried Boehm (ed.), Was ist ein Bild?, Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1994, pp. 11–38. Mitchell, W. J. T.: “The Pictorial Turn,” Artforum, Vol. 30, No. 7, 1992, pp. 89–94. Mitchell, W. J. T.: Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation, Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Schlemmer, Oskar: “Mensch und Kunstfigur,” in Oskar Schlemmer, László Moholy-Nagy, Farkas Molnár, Die Bühne im Bauhaus, Bauhausbücher 4, Munich: Albert Langen, 1925. Schlemmer, Oskar: Briefe und Tagebücher, ed. Tut Schlemmer, Munich: Albert Langen/Georg Müller, 1958. Schmied, Wieland: Giorgio de Chirico: The Endless Journey, Munich/New York: Prestel, 2002. Soby, James Thrall: Giorgio de Chirico, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1955. Sylvester, David: Magritte, Brussels: Mercatorfonds, 2009. Foucault, Michel: Ceci n’est pas une pipe, Montpellier: Fata Morgana, 1973. LaGamma, Alisa: Heroic Africans: Legendary Leaders, Iconic Sculptures, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011. Vogel, Susan Mullin: African Art, Western Eyes, New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1997. Bassani, Ezio; Fagg, William B.: Africa and the Renaissance: Art in Ivory, New York: Center for African Art, 1988 Some of the information is generated by artificial intelligence and is based on published sources from the fields of ethnography, archaeology, and art history. Invt. No. MAZ22068 Height: 37 cm / 35 cm Weight: 360 g / 290 g (incl. stand)