life-casting vs. sculpting
utrillo
the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while, I'm new
to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared great
artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world. Now
with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
hours with machinery. I would like to begin a discussion on the
role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
mechanical methods. Please reply. Thank you, Sam Heller, Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Dan Spector
As a serious lifecaster, I'm glad to discuss this. I came to working in this
artform by way of photography, although I can sculpt the regular way. I believe
Segal arrived via a completely different route. He wanted these abstracted Golem
figures and lifecasting is a legitimate way to generate them, and quicker than
all that damned chickenwire. Do his pieces move you? Don't fret how they were
made.
I don't think or work like Segal or Hanson did.
I get ideas, sketch them, find models, pose and cast them, cast them again,
repair and refine the better mold, cast it, break the mold away, repair the
casting, refine it, finish it, figure how to mount it, photograph it, post it on
my website, enter shows, all the regular stuff.
Just as photography uses what is real, so does lifecasting. Just as photography
is a mechanical technique which may be employed by artists with vision, so may
lifecasting. I would not let someone say that the worst freehand sculpture is
preferable to the best lifecast -- how bigoted. Still, lifecasters usually get
less acceptance and recognition than regular sculptors. People will pay well for
good sculpted busts whether of children or corporate bigwigs.
With a good lifecasting, you produce a certain pleasant shock --a frisson, I
think the French say-- and I like that.
The business of scanning and reproducing a 360 degree figure as far as I read
about it is tremendously costly and laborious now. My lifecasting technique
comes from the arte povera tradition, there's little cash outlay. Some l'casters
do drop a fortune on quick silicones and bronze foundries.
If you come to believe that a lifecast portrait bust produces what you intended,
then go try it. If you decide that a good sculpted bust brings other qualities
to the work that casting cannot match, which I'd agree with, keep on sculpting.
I'll never cast open eyes, and it's tough removing acne scars and crow's feet.
My process is more about the unvarnished truth.
Please look at my site and follow some links to other lifecaster's sites and
you'll see lots of visions of how lifecasting should be pursued.
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
http://www.archicast.com/lifecast-page1.html
----------
In article <391859fa...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>, utrillo
Mark Parmenter-White River Foundry
like photography in a way. Traditional clay and sweat is more like
painting. When photography started it did not displace painting.
Personally, I think traditional portraits have more "life", if done
correctly. Especially if you work with the final bronze in mind. You can
do more with the reflected light by using textures.
If your client would like a lifecast portrait, which should be cheaper, by
all means offer it. Do both, I do.
See this and the next three for some of my takes on lifecasting. I call
them body ribbons.
http://www.whiteriverfoundry.com/fetching.htm
See this for sweat and clay portraits.
http://www.whiteriverfoundry.com/rachbust.html
As for the new scanners and stereo lithography, well,we'll just wait and
see.
Mark Parmenter
http://www.whiteriverfoundry.com
812-829-6583
Cathy Morgan
viewer. So for representational art, the question isn't how
well the work copies the external appearance of the subject,
but how well it conveys what the artist wants us to perceive
about the subject. It would usually include something of
the subject's character, but it all depends on the artist.
A story? A situation? The subject's attitude toward the
world? So many choices!
So from my approach - you as artist decide what it is you
want to capture and convey about your subject, and then find
the way to do this. Would life casting do it best?
Carving? Modeling?
Obviously your own interests, attractions, and abilities
play are important to these decisions about process, too.
You seem to love using traditional methods. Even if a
thousand people argued that this was pointless nowadays, and
you should stop that and start doing life casting, wouldn't
it take the heart out of the work, for you? So for you,
maybe life casting would never be the best process. For
someone else, perfect.
That's just the way art is now - much freer and wider than
ever before. It leaves more room for doubt and terror than
when "everyone" agreed that artists should do certain things
in certain ways - so there's ample material for one's inner
Doubter, Censor, Critic, whatever you want to call it - to
summon up. We all have to find ways to deal with this.
Good luck!
utrillo wrote in message
<391859fa...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>...
>Pardon me if this is the second post of this item. It looks
like
>the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while,
I'm new
>to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year
and
>everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing
is
>just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared
great
>artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
>accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world.
Now
>with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible
to
>create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple
of
>hours with machinery. I would like to begin a discussion on
the
>role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
>mechanical methods. Please reply. Thank you, Sam Heller,
Chicago
>
>
Andrew Werby
>everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
>just redundant.
[If what you are looking for is an exact replication of the subject's skin
texture, then life casting is going to do a better job than any portraitist.
But this is rarely what is called for in a portrait commission. Lifecasting
isn't good at capturing the fleeting expressions which give a portrait life.
Most lifecast faces have the expression you'd expect from someone getting
their face covered with glop. While lifecasting is a good tool for some
purposes, it's not a substitute for a good sculpted portrait bust, so
relax.]
George Segal and others have been declared great
>artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
>accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world.
[As someone who uses lifecasting techniques quite a bit himself, I object
to the dichotomy you are setting up between us and "true" sculptors. Calling
yourselves "clay modelers" would be fine, however. It's true that the
scanty amount of media attention devoted to sculpture no longer focuses
exclusively on clay modelers, but that's because many interesting things are
being done with other techniques- not to bring in the sensation-mongers who
purposely target the media with their antics. Some sort of novelty of
approach seems to bring more attention these days than classic techniques
traditionally applied. Does that surprise you? Life-casting, like clay
modeling, is just a technique, and should be chosen if it best fulfils a
particular artistic purpose. ]
Now
>with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
>create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
>hours with machinery. I would like to begin a discussion on the
>role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
>mechanical methods. Please reply. Thank you, Sam Heller, Chicago
[These machines are coming closer to producing 3d portrait likenesses with
the fleeting expressions intact. I got a demonstration recently of a system
(from 3dMetrics) that not only captured an excellent mesh from my face in a
flash (hair is more of a problem) but surfaced it seamlessly with a
photographic "texture". There are 4 and 5-axis milling machines, as well as
additive Rapid Prototyping machines, that can faithfully reproduce this sort
of mesh, although I don't know of any printers that work on 3d surfaces yet,
to apply the photo to the actual object.
As for traditional figurative sculpture, it has been struggling with
obsolescence for at least the last hundred years, and it seems to be doing
fine. It is, after all, how people expect sculpture to look, and fulfilling
people's expectations has always been the key to popular (if not "high-art")
success. If you crave the attention and praise of the art elite, then think
of something new to do with this or any other technique, then sit back and
wait to be "discovered".]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
Kelly Godel
utrillo wrote:
> Pardon me if this is the second post of this item. It looks like
> the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while, I'm new
> to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
> everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
> just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared great
> artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
> accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world. Now
> with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
> create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
> hours with machinery. I would like to begin a discussion on the
> role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
> mechanical methods. Please reply. Thank you, Sam Heller, Chicago
>
> **I have seen some computer scanned portraits of celebrity figure
> dolls--done for an upcoming film. They were supposed to be so lifelike
> even the stars themselves were impressed.
Well I certainly wasnt. They did not look any better than free hand
figure portraits, and I have seen some free hand work that was alot more
lifelike. They might have looked dynamite on the computer screen
though...
I havent done any lifecasting myself--and the only time I have
encountered it was in relation to movie special effects work.
I like freehand sculpture because it affords so much control and
freedom--you can determine what size you want to work in...and the type
of face you want to create.
I do use lifecasts of teeth--but only for reference.
ciao
utrillo
of much art based on life-casting and certainly do not think that
life-casting, well and creatively done, is easy. Perhaps my bias
is towards the "magic" of creating strictly with eye and hand but
I also see a lot of magic in some of Segals work and others.
utrillo
input
utrillo
would be "What is the role of highly developed eye to hand
skills, or more to the point, the ability to imitate reality by
hand, in the creation of art?" I know that this question is as
old as Modern Art, but perhaps will spark more discussion.
Thanks, Sam
Dan Spector
They are so case-sensitive these days!
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
http://www.archicast.com
----------
>
>
>> Pardon me if this is the second post of this item. It looks like
>> the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while, I'm new
>> to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
>> everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
>> just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared great
>> artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
>> accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world. Now
>> with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
>> create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
>> hours with machinery. I would like to begin a discussion on the
>> role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
>> mechanical methods. Please reply. Thank you, Sam Heller, Chicago
>>
>>
Lauri Levanto
some time ago you said you like the
look and feel of skin texture in your life castings.
Aren't you losing that in refining your molds as
you describe below?
- lauri
Cathy Morgan
imitating reality. I think it's about perceiving reality.
utrillo wrote in message
<03b4e25b...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>...
>Thanks to all for your thoughts. Perhaps a follow up
question
>would be "What is the role of highly developed eye to hand
>skills, or more to the point, the ability to imitate
reality by
>hand, in the creation of art?" I know that this question is
as
>old as Modern Art, but perhaps will spark more discussion.
>Thanks, Sam
>
>
Gary Waller
"Cathy Morgan" <cjmo...@hemc.net> wrote in message
news:2JYd5.355799$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
> Here's where we differ. I don't think art is about
> imitating reality. I think it's about perceiving reality.
>
Thank you Cathy - that's exactly what I was thinking!
The arrogance of our age is that we think we can reproduce the beauty of
nature and man, in fact we are as far away as we ever have been. Think about
some of the most beautiful, moving sights in the world - a body of water,
fire or candlelight, summer breeze, a baby's chuckle, a knowing glance, an
ornamental flower, an autumn tree - all of these things and many, many more
cannot be molded, cast, scanned, digitized or copied. Yet these are among
the most common "things" or sensations on this planet! It is up to the
imagination of the artist to capture the look and feel objects, technique
will always play, at best, a supporting role.
--
Gary Waller Scul...@home.com
Vancouver. B.C.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
My traditional training has left me with an undeniable feeling that
lifecasting is a little like cheating.
This is nothing more than a bias, I realize, a holdover from my
apprenticeship with conservative old geezers.
But this feeling covers more than just pulling molds off of people.
My mentors would have derided me for using any found object in a
modeled work, like, say, using a real stick in a sculpture rather
than sculpting the stick myself.
Their posiiton was that in using objects this way the artist
surrenders absolute control of the work. Like draping a cloth over a
figure and stiffening it with glue, rather than creating a drapery
wherein the sculptor controls the precise movement and
composition.
Their other complaint would be that in taking a life cast you are
copying what is not so good about the figure along with what might
be good about it. Not to mention that the weight of the mold will
deform and distort the figure so that it will not be as accurate as a
skilled sculptor can achieve thru strict modeling.
Of course, they were trying to teach me technique and
composition.
In a more modern sense- I have to say that I have played with
scanning figures and outputting them in foam or wax and that I find
this far more rewarding than lifecasting.
First- there is no distortion of the figure by any mold material- even
clothing and be accurately reproduced. But more important to me
is the SCALING that this process makes possible. I can scan in a
portion of a figure and output it accurately at any size I choose.
I can also modify the scanned model inthe computer in any way I
like and output the result.
This makes the concept of lifecasting far more interesting and
seem far less like "cheating" to me somehow. Perhaps because it
introduces far more control.
The newest generation of haptic devices will make a tremendous
leap forward possible, harnessing traditional modelingskills in the
virtual realm.
Christopher
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amazon0521
news:2JYd5.355799$MB.56...@news6.giganews.com...
> Here's where we differ. I don't think art is about
> imitating reality. I think it's about perceiving reality.
> >>
Thanks from me too, Cathy. I would take this to the next point and add, 'and
then it's about transcribing reality in your own handwriting'.
I look at some of Segal's works and am overall left with the impression that
while I admire the hard work and craftsmanship, I would not want to live with
any of the figures I've seen so far. The emotional resonance they offer is
one-note (to me), and does not work on the deeper levels of interplay that I
want from a piece of art in my home environment. I see his pieces working fine
in a corporate setting, or a public space where the viewer has but seconds or
moments to contemplate, gets the reward offered (of the recognition each
offers) and then moves on. I see his 'art' as more the choice he's made in
what person and pose to work with. After that, it's high craft.
Caris
www.lightcatcher.com
"It's a drum and arms waving.
It's a bonfire at midnight on the top edge of a hill,
this meeting here with you."
Rumi
Dan Spector
"Haptic" devices? Uh-oh.
Lauri-
>"some time ago you said you like the
>look and feel of skin texture in your life castings.
>Aren't you losing that in refining your molds as
>you describe below?"
I don't go for the feel, just the look. To get the feel you need expensive foam
rubbers. The list of steps may have misled you. I don't sand good areas of cast
skin, just repair ruptured areas and airbubbles. These repaired areas lose their
good texture. It is common for special effects people to press a small mold of
skin into new material, but I haven't got there yet. I will shave off zit-hills
and such if I don't like them.
----------
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Christopher--
> "Haptic" devices? Uh-oh.
Haptic devices are any kind of input device that gives you
"feedback" thru the action of the device.
Right now SenseAble technolgies is marketing a multi jointed arm
and software that allow you to move a cursor in a virtual 3D space
in all three dimensions.
The kick is that when your cursor touches the virtual model- the
free action of the arm stops- essentially allowing you to "feel" the
surface of the model thru the tension of the 3D 'mouse' in your
hand- just like you feel the clay thru the stick.
You can then use the cursor to "push" the surface in or "pull" the
surface out.
As this type of interface become more facile, you will be able to
sculpt in virtual space using the same motor skills you have
already developed in sculpting real clay, and you will have a much
more vivid understanding of the virtual space in which you're
working.
A brave new world- I am looking forward to it.
Michael Gainer
your model to take a particular pose and to the extent that you
compose the work by selecting or excluding areas to image.
I'm a tech-geek, and I enjoy learning the technical side of the casting
process, but fully expect that in 10 or so years, I'll be able to buy a
3D copier/scanner/videoconference/fax/printer thing that will make
my technical skills utterly pointless.
I find Dan Spector's stuff to be enormously visually interesting, and
some of my stuff substantially less so, but *something* is still there.
I think that the point we're dancing around is that life imaging offers
extreme precision in duplication, which constrains the degrees of
artistic freedom to the two mentioned above: pose and area. This
bothers me for the same reason that extremely abstract art bothers
me: I can see the techincal merit, but the artistry does not *shine*
through.
If, however, we view life-imaging as a means to an end, it gets better.
It just _happens_ to be technically difficult to fiddle with scale,
proportion, copying, twisting, etc. in plaster, silicone, and alginate.
As soon as it's cheap to acquire and manipulate sculpture-as-data
and produce reasonably durable 3D "print"-outs, I imagine the
distinction between life-casting and other sculpting will vanish.
On the other other hand, in that future time, I'd still be willing to
pay more for a hand-crafted start-to-finish piece, but maybe that's
just 'cos I've been there.
--
Mike "one sentence paragraph" Gainer
http://www.bnglifecasting.com
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have done both lifecasting and the usual plain figure modeling.
> My traditional training has left me with an undeniable feeling that
> lifecasting is a little like cheating.
[...]
Michael Gainer
> Sam-
> [...]
> I'll never cast open eyes, and it's tough removing acne scars and crow's feet.
> My process is more about the unvarnished truth.
> Please look at my site and follow some links to other lifecaster's sites and
> you'll see lots of visions of how lifecasting should be pursued.
> --
> Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
> http://www.archicast.com/lifecast-page1.html
I found out the lucky way that it is possible, though not necessarily advisable
to do open eyes in alginate. One of my volunteer models somehow lost track
of what he was doing, and opened his eyes after I'd gooped him up.
When the mask came off, he did complain that his eyes were tearing a lot,
but they weren't red, and he swore up and down that he hadn't opened
them (until he saw the cast). They opened rather unevenly, and the effect
is spooky.
A used book (pub date ~1954) going into enormous detail on medical
casting talks about how to do open eyes as well. The best technology he
had was agar moulage, but alginate was on the technological horizon.
Apparently, if you're good enough, and the goop is thick enough, you can
either:
- work right up to the edge of the eyelid, but not drop crud *in* the eye.
- get a friendly doctor (remember, he's doing medical imaging) to put
appropriate numbing-wetting-whatever soloution in for you. He also
has a comment that _implies_ he eventually did the numbing thing
himself, but only when he wanted to get an image of some defect on
the surface of the eye.
I did a bit of looking into what's in those isotonic emergency eyewash
solutions with an eye (pun intended) to mixing an appropriately salty
water with the alginate, but have not really wanted to do enough
research to convince myself that I'd not damage myself.
References, pics, on request.
--
Mike "blink" Gainer
http://www.bnglifecasting.com
Battersby
> I found out the lucky way that it is possible, though not necessarily
advisable
> to do open eyes in alginate. One of my volunteer models somehow lost
track
> of what he was doing, and opened his eyes after I'd gooped him up.
> When the mask came off, he did complain that his eyes were tearing a lot,
> but they weren't red, and he swore up and down that he hadn't opened
> them (until he saw the cast). They opened rather unevenly, and the effect
> is spooky.
Requesting pix.
Thanks,
Battersby.
--
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
sculpt...@my-deja.com
and method.
This is mostly why I find it less satisfying than the total control and
freedom afforded by modeling.
I mean- I did it, it was fun, but it couldn't hold my interest- I wanted
the breasts unflattened by the alginate or plaster, I wanted the
eyes open and expresive, I wanted poses that the moldel could not
hold- I wanted the surface without the tiny little lines and cracks
that are invisible in transluscent flesh but glaringly visible in
plaster, bronze or resin.
This may explain why the scanning and data manipulation is more
rewarding for me- it gives me all that control that pure lifecasting
denies me. It lets me have whatever I want- or at least whatever I
am clever enough to figure out how to get the system to do.
Amazon0521
that are invisible in transluscent flesh but glaringly visible in
plaster, bronze or resin. >>
There is a local artist who has done a bunch of pieces that surface now and
then in art shows here. They are mostly torso and head pieces, which he paints
"realistically". They are the creepiest thing you ever saw. Like Christopher
says, all the tiniest lines in the skin are there, making the youngest person
look like they have a strange fragile reptile skin disease. Ick! And the
poses are less than interesting. And then, when I move past being creeped out,
all I find myself doing is evaluating the body type, rather than enjoying the
form. So if you do this type of work, pay attention to the details, large and
small.
Dan Spector
'regular' way, usually in clay, some in wood. Casting the eyeball has no
interest for me because you'd get Lil Orpan Annie eyes. Drill little cones for
realistic expression and you've shattered the --what would you call it? The
reality of the lifecasting.
Skin, even of lovely women, is indeed craggy. But that's not how we see it. So
I'll often have the model use makeup, then I'll be casting her made-up texture.
This isn't court evidence, this is art making and if I feel like sanding a cheek
or rubbing a thin wash into cast skin, I will.
----------
In article <20000802185744...@ng-md1.aol.com>,