clay sculpture question???
foote
As a clay sculptor do you feel you
have a natural talent for massage...???
I can spend hours sculpting in clay
and clay ...well plasticine...which is very similar to massaging
a human body... in massage you
read and feel with your fingers
i have been told by numerous people
i'm pretty good at massage.. I never had any formal training... I have
read massage books and taken a
one week seminar class
ffffffffff
ffffffff
Gary Waller
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4afjc.47787$um3.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
or plasticine or stucco duro for a while, I look forward to making bread
from scratch. It feels good to the hands, like a good endorphin pounding
workout to the body. Now with all this low carb thing around (bread/pasta =
white death), I don't seem to make/eat bread anymore and I don't get a
chance to model clay as much either. Maybe this is the year I will make the
outdoor pizza/bread oven (with some sculpted ornamentation) - could always
find a market for free homemade pizza. But - as with all my plans - summer
is also the time for high end concrete and architectural restoration - can
make a lot of money, but in the fall I end up staring out the window at a
too cold/damp outdoors - not even inspiring for painting. I guess I gotta be
like the birds and fly south for the winter. Actually the gray whales are a
better role model - spending their summers in Alaska gorging on a bounty of
super rich shrimp and plankton then the winter in Baja Mexico,
lazing/playing around the warm lagoons making babies.
You might also be good at massage if you are an observer and perceptive. I'm
sure strong fingers are simply not enough. To observe and perceive are the
muscles needed to create art.
foote
to know where the tighness is etc..
and sensing feed back from the skin...
all the strokes are teachable ..but not
everyone i feel can be a massuse..
its not necesary to use strength..
swedish massage ... is massaging
the muscles...
unless your doing some of the oriental massages ... where they dig in to
you..and stength can help out here..
Once had a massage by a bread
maker.. felt like i was a loft of
bread getting needed...it was definetly
didn't feel like a massage.
fffffffff
"Gary Waller" <moz...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:d7zjc.11014$X52.667@clgrps12...
Ashley Clarke
With Clay I am making something which wasn`t there to
start with, the Human Body is already there however.
To push down onto Clay is to push down into a dead
mass whereas the Body is alive and very complex.
There is much less of an Aura / Mystical feedback from
Clay as there is with a living Body.
But, practice makes perfect, so the more you use your
Fingers for intelligent prodding I suppose sculptors make
the best massures!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Email: ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4afjc.47787$um3.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
foote
does have form that my touch of
my fingers respond to when
i work in clay...everything is
created by god...
ffff
"Ashley Clarke" <ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c76ndd$qh0$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Ashley Clarke
beginner on the Wheel)!
Bit more seriously though, Clay can be treated like a
living thing; as its consistency changes through adding
or removing water.
From a squidgy mess straight out of the ground,
through the Pug Mill, thrown, and then left to Leather...
...dare I say into the Hell Fire of the Kiln!
Maybe smashed into a thousand peices later and
recycled as Grog?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Email: ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
foote
small terrocotta statues for his
sculputres.. the statues have a
eretahl quality to them...
It looks like...
he didn't copied the clay into stone
instead he used the statue as a refrence
and went from there...
supposably ...david was done from
a statue 12 inches high...
ffffff
"Ashley Clarke" <ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c7ehhn$su3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Clay can have a life of its own (especially if you are a
> beginner on the Wheel)!
> Bit more seriously though, Clay can be treated like a
> living thing; as its consistency changes through adding
> or removing water.
> From a squidgy mess straight out of the ground,
> through the Pug Mill, thrown, and then left to Leather...
> ...dare I say into the Hell Fire of the Kiln!
> Maybe smashed into a thousand peices later and
> recycled as Grog?
Sculptingman
> he didn't copied the clay into stone
> instead he used the statue as a refrence
> and went from there...
>
> supposably ...david was done from
> a statue 12 inches high...
All lifesize and larger sculpture of previous centuries (1900 and
older) is "pointed up" from a maquette, or small study.
Folks properly trained still do it this way today. The reason it is
done this way is that an artist cannot SEE a lifesize sculpture while
he/she works on it- your arms are not long enough. you have to back
away to understand the sculpture as a whole, and when close enough to
touch the sculpture, you can not really gauge what you are doing in
relation to the whole.
So you measure from a smaller model and duplicate it larger, with very
little "artistic" expression involved in the mathematical exercise of
enlargement.
In Michelangelo's day, you worked out a rough composition for your
idea in a very small gestural piece, in clay or wax- based upon this
you made the maquette at a somewhat larger and fully finished form,
maybe 12 tor 24 inches tall, usually in clay, from which you struck a
plaster waste mold and from that a plaster master of the maquette.
Then you measured up from this master to derive the larger sculpture
using standard techniques- most of this work was done by apprentices,
once you made your name in the world.
It has been suggested that many of the numerous UNFINISHED sculptures
Micheangelo abandoned were experiments in which he tried to work out
full sized figures DIRECTLY IN STONE without doing a maquette- and
failed.
For the Statue of Liberty, the sculptor created 3 progressively larger
maquettes, the largest of which was then sawn into sections so that
the FULL size figure could be fabricated as a point up, in plaster
over a lath, in large full size sections that would fit in the studio.
Wood molds were derived from this full size plaster master and sheet
copper hammered into the molds to create the final panels for the
figure.
Proper point up technique is crucial to realizing large figural work
well.
christopher
foote
i've read many many books on M...
and have extensively studied the
photos of his works...
Its been said that he was a very fast
sculptor.... while others were going
chip chip chip... M was like a
buzz saw...
I doubt he used the pointing system
the if it was even invented back then...
he worked from the models ..
check out his models....
and their similarity to the statues..
About 20 have survived from M's
time... Most went to his student
who took them to france.. and
hence disappeared..
he used the models as
a rough guide... then chilesed in
outlinning and crosshatching...
as his paintings are done...
look at his unfinished sketches
and unfinished sculptures....
the pieces he left unfinished...
... the models show what would
have been...
he probably left them
unfininished due to to the tremedous
workload he was under...and said
i'm out of here... this is good
enough... or kidnapped to work
on another project ... and had to
leave the statue as is...
the large models that survived
.. the river gods... i think were made
for other sculptors to work off of...
not for M...
personally i can't stand a mechanical
copying system.. .like squaring or
projection..
although i probably
would use something if i was doing
something super big...like rushmore
or Statue of Liberty..
Its easier for me just to do it free
hand... than using a projector to
make a copy...
Its possible M may have develop
special skills to size up the image...
when sculpting..
for example when i do pastel landscapes i always sit down...
and i never get up and look at
the picture from a distance..
yet when my picture is finished
it looks great from a distance...
i just know somehow how to do
it right...
if you read his letters....you'll
discover that
he really didn't have that many
helpers... he kept firing them..
he had one long time student...
who was pretty bad... look at the
corrections M did to his drawings...
...he virtually redrew them for him...
and the sculpture that student did
was about same quality as his
artwork...
M must have really been bummed..
Having such a mediocre student..
ffffffff
foote
drawing i do stand back to get
it all in...
for example i am
painting a 10 foot dragon on my rv
i'm not using a projector but
but my eye/hand...
when doing
the it i had to stand back a few times
to see the right size...
but the stuff i
did on the door without standing
back ...once i got the head done
everything else was painted in
proportion to the head...on the door..
same way when doing portraits...
get the eye right... than everything
is done in proportion to that...or
same thing when doing a landscape..
draw one rock formation ...and everything is drawn in proprotion to that...
the white
stuff are changes that i made to it
later... this has been a multiyear
project... i recently darken the outlines
as they had faded out...so i can get a airbrush and fininish it...when i
darkened the lines ... i changed
a few things...hence all the white
lines...
i need to get a airbrush to fininish it..
hopefully before the national rainbow
gathering this year...
the dragons breath will be rainbow
colored...
http://www.mydoctor2.com/gallery_pic21.html
http://www.mydoctor2.com/gallery_pic22.html
the dragon is a variation of the
roundtable pizza dragon which i
loosly copied from their placemat...
which i was holding in one hand
the brush inanother...
fffffffffff
Gary Waller
> i don't know about that pointing up...
>
> i've read many many books on M...
> and have extensively studied the
> photos of his works...
>
> Its been said that he was a very fast
> sculptor.... while others were going
> chip chip chip... M was like a
> buzz saw...
>
>
> I doubt he used the pointing system
> the if it was even invented back then...
>
- Peter Rockwell has spent a lifetime studying this question and ones like
it and he agrees with you. Here is his resume and writings
http://www.geoffreyrockwell.com/PRportfolio/CurriculumV.html
Pretty impressive I would say - and he is a great sculptor, and a second
generation art master.
Gary Waller
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > It looks like...
>
> Proper point up technique is crucial to realizing large figural work
> well.
> christopher
I would be interested in your source on this Christopher. This is by now
means the only way things are, or were done. My source, Peter Rockwell, says
that not only was this not done in the past, but that the master masons in
Italy today routinely make monuments, etc, from nothing more than a
photograph. The numerous quotes related to Michelangelo all revel in the
fact that he did much of work by the 'seat of his pants'. It was not until
1972 that Labrooy's book questioned this widely held assumption, and he
extensively studied the maquettes/terracotta models.This is still
contreversial -maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think what
makes Michelangelo the true 'renaissance man' is that his was a
stonecarver/tradesman fist - then a sort of artist (that was not a word of
the times). This gave him the courage and skill to make his own carvings.
This world today is populated with archtects, designers, art directors,
digital artists, etc who ask you to build something when their design
clearly shows they have now concept of the material of production process.
Then they have bird when you bill accordingly for bringing everything back
on track and still take all the credit.
mick
> All lifesize and larger sculpture of previous centuries (1900 and
> older) is "pointed up" from a maquette, or small study.
> Folks properly trained still do it this way today.
That's a pretty sweeping statement, although the utilization of pointing
machines on marble was an antique method even in Michelangelo's day, it's
almost certain he didn't use them to produce any of his known works.
Pointing on marble or any other stone leaves tell-tale drill marks that are
obvious to any discriminating viewer and besides the tedious, repetitive and
down right boring work of pointing a work in stone is more suited to the
manufacture of production-line portrait statuary as seen in the roman
period.
Gary Waller
>
> "Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
> news:59d744d1.04050...@posting.google.com...
> > > It looks like...
> >
back
> on track and still take all the credit.
>
The way this work is scaled up, even today, is to use drawings and then
pounced templates to scale - 'cartoons' - which M was also well skilled in
producing because of fresco. There were no power or air tools - they used a
lot of hand powered drill holes before the chisels. Once the piece was
roughed out there would not be a lot of room to change your mind, although
changes may be forced if a major flaw/colour in the stone was found. This
would be the true 'Agony & Ectasy' can you imagine all the days of work to
bring out all the details which M could clearly forsee in his mind? The old
"Art is 10% inspiration/90% perspiration" rule. You would have to be born
into this scale of patience and perservance - and would likely develop into
a grumpy old bastard just like Sr. M.
Gary Waller
"mick" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:562nc.860$wI4....@wards.force9.net...
realize that my background as a mason is not stone, but plaster and cement.
I only recently started carving because I found a material I could work at
'inspiration' speed.
Here is the latest book on the controversy
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7381.html
Our digitally demanding friends will notice there is a CD-rom with it and a
3d scan - in order to better show the damages and repairs. Interesting
mystery - why did M take a hammer to his own epitaph? $75 to find out.
foote
the use of the drill after the Pieta...
there are places where the robes
are almost transparent....
ffffffffff
foote
>
two reasons i can think of...
--- he found a flaw...
or
--- statue was not up to his usual quality....
elongated arms.. missing right arm...
probably both ....
or it looks like his eye sight was fadding in his old age...
look at the double line he did in his last drawings... i
doubt if thosed double lines were intentional...
say does anyone know where these M's terracota models are???
According to Lebrooy they
are suppose to be in the Canadian Collection in Vancouver Canada...they are
not
in any know mesuem... in Van... so they got to be in a private collection
somewhere
probably in canada... sitting in a vault someplace...
there are refences in Lebrooys
book to 6 of M's models in the Lebrooy Collection... so maybe Lebrooy he got
6 models..
which his heirs sold to someone after his death...
Maybe the tobaco company bought them from the heirs and and they
are sitting in their vault now...
the models also did a tour the US ...courtsey of Pal Mal Tobacco
Co in the early 70's ...probably after Lebrooys book came out...in 1972
these models have got to be someplace...i've been looking for them for
awhile
on the internet.. no ones heard of the Canadian Collection...
i mean we are talking about the master M here... not some 2 bit artist like
myself...these models should be where they can viewed and appreciated..
not stuck in some dark vault...
we as artists owe this to other art lovers here
in America and Canada to find them and bring them to DAY light...
so join in the great M search ... and help me find where these
M's models are hidding at...
fffffffffffff
Gary Waller
> > mystery - why did M take a hammer to > so join in the great M search ...
and help me find where these
> M's models are hidding at...
>
>
> fffffffffffff
Give me a good photo reference and I can knock them off in a day - I'm good
at that sort of thing. Will give you the pleasure of looking at the art but
the nagging aftertaste that they are not the real thing. Even if you got to
see them - they probably would be copies which they swear are the real
thing.
This is so cool saying "M" for one of the great artists of the world! Sort
of irreverent, like "The Artist Formerly Known as God" or this one I saw
recently on a pickup truck "Jesus Loves Me - Everyonelse Thinks I'm an
Asshole".
The tobaccy company is Rothmans.
foote
on a ng who knows who M is...
no harm intended...
fffffffffff
foote
other fat cat buy the models from
the private collector for
some museum... so they can be
displayed for all to see..
fffffffffff
Sculptingman
> machines on marble was an antique method even in Michelangelo's day, it's
> almost certain he didn't use them to produce any of his known works.
Carrera, where he got his stone from and ask them how it was done? The
company that supplied the stone is still in business. How many 18 foot
figures have you tried to carve directly?
There are quite a few surviving maquettes made by Micheangelo's own
hand- the fingerprints match from one to another. This is an absolute
indication that he proceeded in the traditional method. The fact that
we don't have one for EVERY work is not meanigful as it is amazing
that ANY wax or unfired clay maquette survived this long.
As I stated- when carving a sufficiently small figure, like, say, a
gargoyle, one can work directly in the stone. But not when you can not
see the proportion of the figure while cutting.
Oh my- what a strom of controversy i have unleashed. Anyone who
believes that the renaissance artists did not use every tool at their
disposal is forming a religion based upon what they would like to
believe, rather than what the evidence and common sense suggests.
I never said he used any type of "Pointing Machine"- Pointing up
refers to the technique of measuring points and scaling the resulting
measurements, on paper, and then chipping away at the stone until the
surface at that point measures correct, or in the case of stone work-
close to correct, to allow for the detail work to follow.
In Michelangelo's day it was done with nothing more sophisticated than
a plumb bob and a yardstick.
Michelangelo could not have created the sculpture of the David by
direct sculpting. It is not physically possible to create a form that
nuanced when it is that large by direct carving in a block. Try it
sometime. Look at mount rushmore- it did not come out looking that
good by accident, and it did not come out looking that good because
Borglum was directing the drilling from half a mile away. The marvel
of Borglum's work was that he figured out a way to DO pointing on that
scale.
We know- for example- that Michelangelo created exacting models for
EVERY architectural work he ever created-to assume he did not do the
same for figures in marble is simply naive.
In point of fact- the entire renaissance was the process by which
artists discovered and invented TECHNIQUES for reliably and more
accurately representing their subjects. There were step by step
manuals published that expained how to use any of a dozen or more
"devices" that would aid in the creation of better perspective, and
better statuary. And Micheangelo used all of them, as the project
required.
By the reaction here you would think I was suggesting the
Michealangelo had "CHEATED" or not even made the sculptures. The
pointing process has nothing to do with the creativity or talent of
the artist. Michelangelo created the sculptures- they are his designs-
with his early work he did ALL of the roughing of the stone tho he
later most often directed the roughing by apprentices. And he did
nearly all of the detailing of the pointed cut although he certainly
left nearly all of the polishing to his apprentices.
When he says that he is "not using the drill as much" he is speaking
about his studio- it was seldom him turning the crank on the drill,
although he almost certainly marked the spots to be drilled with a
grease pencil. Remember, that his apprentices did what he told them
to do- using the techniques he wanted to be used- and they were using
measuring techniques to ensure that what they were cutting was exactly
what Michelangelo had created in the maquette.
I really don't understand why people today act like the revelation of
techniques used is somehow disparaging to the "talent" of the artist.
That Vermeer used a camera obscura should have no bearing on the human
response to his work.
Part of the reason that few people today can create work anywhere near
the level of the renaissance masters is entirely due to their lack of
training in HOW to do it.
christopher
foote
and 2 source books (Varasri
wrote when M was still alive)
(i try not 25th source books... art experts...who read art experts...
who read art art experts...going all the way back to M's letters and
Vasari..)
that
i have read say he worked from small
models... stone sculpture
of a female figure holding a small
statue... representing a clay sculpture
on M's tomb...indicating
how M worked...
Most of M's small models have
disapperard... as he gave most of
them to his sole student... the others
M destroyed himself.. along with
drawings etc... about a week before
he died... so no one would learn the
secrets of how he worked...
Varsari even said that M had a interesting way of sculpting.. in that
he would he would take a small model ...immerse the model in water
to the level he was working on... and
then lower the water as the sculpture
progressed...
no pointing here...
just seat of the pants sculpting...
and excellent hand /eye coordination... M was reputed to have a photographic
memory...
IMHO i contend...that
The larger clay statues were made for
other sculptors to work off of..
they being less skilled then M needed
to point and chisel...
the david ..(its been awhile since i read the book)
Varsari 2nd book on M ...said it
was done
from a small clay statue...
ffffffff
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.04050...@posting.google.com...
Gary Waller
> the level of the renaissance masters is entirely due to their lack of
> training in HOW to do it.
>
> christopher
So the source of your information is? You? I know you are wrong on this and
have listed my authoritive source and can list many more.
I also know you are wrong as a witness to the vast changes to the creation
of sculpture over the past twenty years. Many of these "academy' rules,
regulations and mathematical formulas have been debunked and disposed with.
There was a recent book, for example, on the 'classical orders of
architecture' which makes the point that not one of the ancient buildings
follows this order! Even Vasari was relying on third hand gossip and wishful
thinking for much of his work - for example that they used up to seven
layers of plaster for walls is complete bunk, as is much of his writing on
fresco.
So the significant change has been the wide spread use of 'sculpture' or 3d
works not for 'art' but as a facade, a sign, a logo, a few minutes in a
movie or seconds in a commerical. These fabricators typically come from a
building trade rather than fine art background - they are not tied to
academy ways - they simply want the most cost effective method of getting
the job done. The closest thing I've ever seen used close to a pointing
machine is a laser level.
I briefly worked on a movie last year which had 80 professional sculptors
working, so that would be $2,400 plus per hour ticking away - high pressure.
There were at least five highly detailed figures to be made roughly 30 foot
high (a small part of the total work though). They worked from a drawing,
clay maquette, and then templates. The same team worked on all five figures
to ensure consistency. Like all sculptures of this size, things move very
quickly in the roughing out stage and then there is all the devilish
details, which to the bystander and the accountant, seem to take forever. I
anticipate your standard reply 'well - all movie stuff is crap' but they
actually did a very good job - certainly to a 'fine art' technical level. I
see good work in many other recent movies too. I have seen pictures of lots
of recent work in Vegas too, of high technical standards. Yet I don't think
you could even find a single pointing machine in Vegas and on the most part,
these artisans are intelligent, talented, motivated people, using the
techniques which they feel will be the most productive to their needs. Every
job is different - there is no one method which can be used over and over
again.
I don't think your Liberty example is valid either - this is a remarkable
piece of engineering, and sheet metal repousse work - a very unusual one of
a kind item. The frame had to be perfect - and as you know - it was not and
is still being repaired to this day. I think you will find the the French
were also the most 'academy minded' of the Europeans, much to the chagrine
of Rodin and the impressionists.
To me your argument runs something similar to 'there is no good penmanship
today' that young people's handwriting is atrocious - but years of training
on a quill pen would not gaurantee the creation of great novels and poetry.
So in other words - we both might be right! If you require three maquettes
to scale up a piece to 18 feet - go ahead - but the foundry, or stone shop,
or metal fabricator you go to will probably be the most costly. Unless you
mean China? Maybe the 'academy' in China works this way- is does seem the
way a communist 'career' trained sculptor might work? I have worked with
USSR and China trained artists.
Sculptingman
It is known that Michelangelo worked mainly from unfired terra cotta
maquettes- the principal reason most do not survive. He may even have
re-used the same clay from one work to the next. Most guys back then
used wet clay for this because it was fast, accurate and durable
enough for the process of enlargemnt, as well as the fact that how
well the clay supported its own weight gave them a good indication of
whether a stone statue would hold up or fracture from the loads it
carried.
If I take an 12" tall figure in clay, and measure the smallest
possible cubic dimension that will entirely contain that figure, and
multiply those measurements by some factor to determine the minimum
size and dimensions of a stone block that I can cut that figure out
of- then I AM POINTING UP FROM A MAQUETTE. It makes no difference if I
am measuring only 10 points, or a hundred, the purpose of pointing is
to ensure that a large work has the same proportions and spatial
relations as the original design.
The story of the tub of water technique is incorrectly interpreted-
Michelangelo's unfinished works clearly illustrate that he he carved
nearly the entire block at once- not just a little at a time from the
top down. The same way all stone cutters work- roughing an overlarge
figure out of the stone and slowly refining the surface down all over.
The only feasible reason you would immerse a maquette in a tub of
water is simple- the box containing the water acts as a reference
frame from which measurements can be taken. The intersection of the
water level with the surface of the figure gives an absolutely level
plane, which can be marked on the maquette- so that the points you are
measuring at any given section are all at exactly the same height.
This would simplify and make more accurate the process of recording
points. Especially so on small models.
This story of the water method is strong proof that Micheangelo was
pointing up from a model.
Take note that pointing is not mentioned by any artist describing
Micheangelo's technique because pointing would be a GIVEN- large scale
work simply can not be done to this level without it. EVERYONE pointed
large work, thus, pointing in and of itself is unremarkable.
The water tub trick was worth mentioning in that it VARIED from the
more common plumb bob method.
Any sculptor of Vasari's era, reading that description, would
immediately understand why Michelangelo was submerging a maquette in a
water filled frame and revealing it a little at a time- to establish
level and parallel horizontal cross sections for measurement.
Pretty clever, actually.
All stories of the speed with which Micheangelo worked also add weight
to his using a pointing technique- Pointing is the FASTEST way to
make a large figural work that will look terrific.
Beyond all this- consider that carrera marble was and still is one of
the most expensive materials available in which to work. the cost of
the stone goes up exponentially with the size due to problems of
transport.
NO ONE with any training and brains who wanted to make an accurate,
large scale human figure in carrera would lay into a giant block
blindly.
trust me- you have every detail worked out well in advance.
Michelangelo used a grid technique (2D pointing) to enlarge his
drawings for the cistine chapel to full size cartoons- he did not
carve enormous figures freehand anymore than he would draw enormous
figures freehand.
Geez- folks- give the guy a little credit for knowing what every other
monumental sculptor in history knew. Believing otherwise is merely
holding today's artists back from achieving the same kind of
magnificent results.
The idea that great artists of yore did masterpeices without any
"aid", technology or technique is ridiculous. That this belief leads
today's artists to dismiss opportunities to learn the techniques and
methods of the masters is tragic.
christopher
Gary Waller
> "...done from a small clay statue..." means it was pointed.
> "aid", technology or technique is ridiculous. That this belief leads
> today's artists to dismiss opportunities to learn the techniques and
> methods of the masters is tragic.
>
> christopher
I guess if you are going to now put such a broad scope to 'pointing up' I
guess I will have to agree with you - especially if you consider the
transfer of drawings on a "2d" grid and using calipers and plumb bobs as
'pointing'. This is also the way wood carvers work, mural artists, Haida
totem poles, mesoamerica architecture, spanish colonial missions, easter
island heads and kid's coloring books - it's a natural system. If your
drawings are right, on all the cutting planes, then its just making sure the
details line up after the rough cuts - and the artist comes in to make any
final changes which are often needed because the size has changed - this is
the tradition I know - not the laser accurate copy of the maquette. Also,
the tiny clay models are more to solve problems of experiments of gesture -
physical balance and planning of the armature might be a minor
consideration. More important use of a clay model is selling the work - so
they are finished to the degree of sophistication of the target audience
($$$). One of the great joys of hanging around with artists is they can see
where a blob of clay is heading - everyone else is looking at a blob of
color, for example.For a real sculpt everyone has their own preference and
every job is different - but the larger the piece is, the easier it is to do
(ie details are larger) - this is balanced by the handling limitations and
the material used is important too. Modelling in clay gives a totally
different maquette than carving the same piece in stone or wood. Water clay
gives a different maquette than oil clay. How many working artists would
even bother with this pointing anyways! Only those working in stone or
kinetic art I would guess, everyone else would just let the technicians at
the foundry worry about it. In stone - you would first make sure that there
is a stone available in the size you need.
I thought you were referring specifically to the pointing devices attached
to a fifth wheel etc. It was only in the beginning of the 1900's where this
technique was introduced to America (for bronze - there may have been some
around for stone) by Mr. Attl of Sculpture House Casting NY NY. Before this
the maquettes/models were shipped to Europe. This may be where you are
getting this viewpoint from - the models had to be right on because it was
too expensive to ship the sculptor over to the foundry or stoneyard. So 100
years of American art history does not change 5,000 years of world art
history. I think Canada sent its bronzes to the U.K. - that would make
sense. Maybe this is why many of the early American and Canadian sculptures
were stiff, fussy and boring compared to many Europeans of the same era.
I have found that most people who fall back on these 'old master' skills
generally are using it as a crutch to either explain their lack of output,
or as a scheme to get paying students. I know - I have been guilty of both!
When in doubt - obfuscate. The English and the Italians were/are masters at
it. It has taken me years to decode a lot of this stuff as it relates to
stucco duro, sgraffito, buon fresco, water gilding, lacquer work, fine
plaster. You end up full circle - is the world ready for my book 'The
Renaissance Arts for Dummies'. Vasari wrote his book while in the poor
house, as a desperate way to make some cash - he had to spice it up a little
bit and certainly had no success or even real knowledge of the arts or
architecture.
And a important point again about the Carerra stoneyards of today - Peter
Rockwell writes that they do not use pointing machines or insist on detailed
maquettes - they are so skilled that they don't have to - and they are damn
proud of it. THAT, my friend, is the Michelangelo tradition. Sort of like an
artistic/tradesman macho. And, like male machismo, based on image and myth
more than fact or logic.
Gary Waller
>
> Michelangelo used a grid technique (2D pointing) to enlarge his
> drawings for the cistine chapel to full size cartoons- he did not
> carve enormous figures freehand anymore than he would draw enormous
> figures freehand.
>
>
earlier tradition was to use an underpainting or 'sinopia' as an underlying
study and reference for the fresco - but later he went right to cartoon,
eliminating the sinopia. Like I say - every job is different and the
adaptations are where the true skills come to play. He invented a whole new
type of scaffold system to make the ceiling, tearing out the one already
erected. Again that artistic machismo I posted about.
keith
exception. I have never read a book on Michelangelo, and I was not an art
student, but I do have enough knowledge of Michelangelo to agree with
Christopher on this one. I find it hard to believe that someone who created
so much art did it all with only the help of one under qualified apprentice.
I also find it hard to believe that Michelangelo was able to waltz in to a
grand Catholic chapel and plop down a 20 foot sculpture without first going
though a committee decision. In the Catholic church you can't even pray to
God without going though a priest first. I would imagine that a small clay
"prototype" would have saved much frustration and wasted work esp. for large
public art. I don't care how well known and important you are, you still
have to get approval before anything goes in a public area...even back then.
The third item that seems obvious is the fact that Michelangelo was obsessed
with measurements, hence the "human proportions" he spent so much time
perfecting. He was an engineer at heart, and was not a "Pure Artist". David
for example is more an engineering marvel than great work of art. Art is not
a copy, art is more an interpretation of a particular object, or emotion.
You don' t have to interpret anything when you look at David, you just see
an absolutely perfect human form.
As for the pointing up thing, I don't think Christopher ever mentioned a
"machine", he was referring to the mathematical process of scaling up. My
godfather used to hand paint 12' x 40' billboards by using a grid for the
"pointing up", and that's what he called it, pointing up. For years I
thought it was just a term he made up. As for the part about submerging a
model in water.. that sounds like pointing up to me. Water will find it's
own level, so you always have a horizontal line that surrounds the
sculpture, that takes care of 2 dimensions (width & depth), then if you use
a plumb bob that gives your 3rd dimension height. He could have also used
the process of carving the whole front or back by lowering the water level
at small measured intervals. Reminds me of a thread a while back discussing
building a form using sheets of foam laminated to each other. I guess you
could call it the slice method.
This just my opinion not based on any book knowledge
Keith
foote
books in the poor house.... well
he did write a second edition...
no doubt he got some of the info
wrong... but some of it must be
right... plus he did know M...
and besides ...if you weren't a king
or royalty or a priest or a merchant ... you were in the poor house...there
were basically 2 classes
back then the rich and the poor ...and
the poor outnumbered the rich...such
as today... only the poor were really
dirt poort...back then..
plus slavery or near slavery was still legal i believe in
M's time...in Italy...
also the water tub technique...
doesn't necessarily mean he had
to put it standing up in the tub...
and work top to down...
there are other ways of doing this...
believe it or not...use some CREATIVITY here Chris...
more than likely he had the statue
laying down ...not standing up in the water... that way he could see
what was going on...all at once...
also M did fire his small clay statues..
there are scouping out marks... on the
hollow statues... and they are fired...
according to the book...by Lebrooy
they are probably small..so they
can be 1)transported 2)fired 3) come
up with the plan for the sculpture on
a small scale than a large one
4) submit model to custumers for
aproval...5) there is a lot of evidence see that the same small hand or foot
or arm were used in different sculptures or paintings that M did. As most
sculptures looked pieced together... and don't look natural..
conversely.M's work was piecied but looks very natural...
i doubt M resued the clay models
like you suggested... from my knowledge he worked models... and
he reused the same model over and
over... like one statue he used the
same model for the hand twice..
on was in mirror image...
I was told the Movie artists sculpture
foam for the statues... Is this what
they were using Gary???
ok on another note ... i'm getting
closer to finding those model ...thanks gary....
here is the time line i got..........
1938....
33 models sold at christes auction
17 of those models end up in Canada..
somewhere in Vancouver...in a private collection...
In 1972 Debrooy writes his book
other books have been written on the
models before him...
1973 Rothmans Pall Mal Tobacco
company puts the models on a Canadian Display...probably on the
clamor after Debrooy's book was
released...
1978 Cascade Gallery puts the
models up for auction...and sells them
for the heirs of whoever bought them
in 1938...i'm guessing on this...
still trying to get the paperwork on
who owned them in 1972..
the cascade gallery no longer exisits
and the guy that use to own it is
dead...it looks like ...
so it looks like the paper trail dies
in 1978 ... the last time the public
saw them...
there is one broze made of one of the
clay models in the fine art museum in
dallas texas...
ffffffff
"Gary Waller" <moz...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:aFSnc.21136$F04.8567@clgrps13...
Ashley Clarke
I have of course (as many here) studied Books about
them more than the rest of the population.
I have been a Sculpture Conservator for a few years too.
Not much time or money to produce the works I`d like to
have done over the years, but more worked around the
subject through various phases of my life.
Anyway Foote, weren`t you making some connection
between massage and Clay modelling in your original
query?
Art Experts have a living to make too and Michealangelo
would have been no exception!
As for Sculptures carved from solid blocks of Marble isn`t
always the case and many (because White Marble is fairly
consistent) are actually peiced together. Possibly another
reason for him to smash away parts of his own creations
was to make large corrections?
David (the famous Sculpture) is oversize in proportion at
the top to make it more pleasing to the Eye for the public
walking around at Plinth Level; another level of trickery
here, not just pointing!
The Rennaissance had its own style just like any other era
and I wouldn`t want to make any comparrisons in
competitiveness to todays standards of Art. For example
a qualified Surgeon could point out physical defects in
Davids form today which had gone unnoticed back then.
Enough from me today, back to the Grindstone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Email: ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
Ashley Clarke
Fresco was probably confused with Scagliola...
...Fresco (Fresh) meaning to make impressions into a
soft substance...
...Scagliola meaning to build up in layers or patches
(correct my Italian if you like);
A process whereby the Mozaic is depicted by cutting-away
and filling the resulting holes many times with different
shades of filler, which could be many more than just seven.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
Email: ash...@a-clarke.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Waller
> Interesting ... varsari wrote his
> books in the poor house.... well
> he did write a second edition...
>
but he did die in poverty.
> I was told the Movie artists sculpture
> foam for the statues... Is this what
> they were using Gary???
Yup foam of all types - giant chunks of white foam, sprayed chunk of yellow
foam, blue foam, pink foam.
>
> ok on another note ... i'm getting
> closer to finding those model ...thanks gary....
>
I'll have to see what these darn things look like - I was under the
impression they were fairly loose. Do you have a link with some photos, or
should wait to get a hold of the labrooy book. Did you email the Rothman's
people?
Gary Waller
"keith" <Scu...@nospamiconway.com> wrote in message
news:BCC58E24.3851%Scu...@nospamiconway.com...
.
> godfather used to hand paint 12' x 40' billboards by using a grid for the
> "pointing up", and that's what he called it, pointing up. For years I
> thought it was just a term he made up.
Must have been neat watching your godfather work. This process of
transferring to a billboard or large mural is most commonly called the
Albrecht Durer method or the 'grid' method like you say. You find lots of
hits if you search the internet using that - 'pointing up billboards' will
draw a blank. There has been a revival of billboard painting on the sides of
heritage buildings replacing or repairing the original signs.
To do a proper job - each size of David would be slightly different. It is
the same with corporate logos - they are proportionally changed to their
intended use.
foote
"Ashley Clarke"wrote
> Anyway Foote, weren`t you making some connection
> between massage and Clay modelling in your original
> query?
most definetly... lots of people work in clay even the great M
dabble in it... see Lebrooy's book
> Possibly another
> reason for him to smash away parts of his own creations
> was to make large corrections?
possibly...he could have been trying to make corrections...
but the sculpute was pretty trashed out by M....like he was
trying to destroy it...his student not him put it backtogether...
I guess i have to read the $75 book by Rockwells son to
find out...
I've destroyed a lot of my own art work... when it doesn't
meet up to my standards... I don't want someone to
see "my first attempt at a seascape" as i saw I think it
was Renoirs ? in "first seascape" in a museum...
i do respect art experts like Rockwell who do make a serious
attempts at what is going on...and how it was done...
and i do read M books by art experts to learn about M...
Hes my favoirte artist ... and i have read alot of books
on the dude...
but i do try to read the original source material...
when i can...
one of my hobbies is reading autobio of famous rock
stars... i tried to read first source bios... heck its been 30 years
who cares what drug you took or who you slept with...
and a lot of these stars knew each other and partied with
each other...and there stories agree...
> a qualified Surgeon could point out physical defects in
> Davids form today which had gone unnoticed back then.
a doctor could also point out that the veins Davids
had are not where they normally would be...
you could do the same comparing your hand to his..
but most people are so blown away by the David.. shifting
into the right side of the brain... and don't even notice
the veins in Davids hand
ffffffff
foote
"keith" wrote in message I usually >
........... I find it hard to believe that someone who created
> so much art did it all with only the help of one under qualified
apprentice.
not the same one all the time..for example .he had several people
helping him do the ceiling...
this has been proven by the people
who cleaned the ceiling
but I guess
most were assigned to do the
decorative work..and to do the pre
work... like laying on the
plaster... and helping transfer the
cartoon drawings to the ceiling...and then M would paint the min figures..
at least that is how i would have done it if i were M...I wouldn't let
anyone touch those figures but myself.. there was a lot of decorative work
to be done plus all those colors had to be grinded up too...lots of work
here..
> I also find it hard to believe that Michelangelo was able to waltz in to
..... though a committee decision.
he didn't... thats why he had the small
clay models...
>>>>
, art is more an interpretation of a particular object, or emotion.
well i would like to tell that to my
clients when i do portraits.." heh..
dont worry.. its my interpetation of you ...it doens't have to look anything
at all like you do..."
>>>>>>>>
As for the pointing up thing, I don't think Christopher ever mentioned a
> "machine", he was referring to the mathematical process of scaling up.
we all do this when we draw or sculpt ..... its called proportion...
when i draw
a landscape i draw in proportion...
i don't draw the acutal mt... on the
picture board... it would go off the
page ...instead... using my art skills
i reduce it in size...
or when i use a small drawing into
a bigger one ... like the dragon on
my rv... i automatically scale it up...
i don't use squaring up...or projectors
i just do it...
besides... the picture of the head of the
dragon was probably less than
a inch yet i blew it up to more than
2 feet.. plus i changed it...cause i
wanted it to fit on my door..
which is flat.. and easy to paint on.. i did this all in my head....first
try... i didn't do a pre-sketch..use projectors ...or use a squre up chart..
i just did it..
the point is i am not the only artist
who has done this ...and are doing it...
although some people are saying
that the masters did all their work
with the camera obsucra... copying
a fuzzy upside down image...onto
their canvas... that would definetly
drive me blind and crazy...
> model in water.. that sounds like pointing up to me.
i think he carved the David with most of the marble when it was lying
down... i recall looking at a picture of the origninal
block... it was badly damaged by
a previous sculptor... initially i
don't think he could have standed it
up if he wanted to...
later when he got it stabilized he
probably would have standed it up..
at least thats what i woul have done...
i think it sat for
30 years before M got to chisel it..
at least they didn't have acid rain
back then...
ffffffffffff
foote
> impression they were fairly loose.
Do you have a link with some photos, or should wait to get a hold of the
labrooy book.
The book should be all over the place...I've seen it listed in several
libraries in the US... ...if
you can't find the book i will post
some pictures...on my website...
but i would definetly hold out for
the book...there is a lot of good
stuff in there...
The scultpures are very detailed..
....then he would do small studies
of say the arm of christ on the Pieta..
The book gives a lot of historical
backgound on the models... and tries
to show where M used them in other
statues and paintings...
But most of the models have disappeared ... mostly likely with
his student...or smashed against the
wall of his studio... one week before
he died.....
Did you email the Rothman's
> people?
Yes i did... but they just sponsored
the traveling exhibit in 1973.. i don't think they know much...
I am trying to buy the catalogs for the Rothman exhibit and the Cascade
Auction... maybe i can find some info there...
Uptill Arpil of 2004 I thought they were
in a Museum in Vancouver, Canada..
in the Candaian Collection according
to Lebrooy...
I'm pretty sure the heirs were selling
off the collection..at the Cascade auction in 1978. To bad Christe
didn't handle the auction ...Again
maybe if they had ...they would have
been put in a museum...where all
M lovers can see them...
Called up cascade... but they are dead
the current gallery gave me the name
of the old Cascade owner...
he looks like he is dead to..
So the trail is getting cold... God
only knows who bought them in 1978... maybe they are in a art news
paper in 1978
.... Ms Ashley Clark..it souds like you
are a art expert....
do you have any ideas where i could
look???????
fffffffffffffff
Fred Mason
You end up full circle - is the world ready for my book 'The
> Renaissance Arts for Dummies'.
Gary, let me know when you publish and to the rest thanks for an interesting
thread!
Fred
Sculptingman
> Rockwell writes that they do not use pointing machines or insist on detailed
> maquettes - they are so skilled that they don't have to - and they are damn
> proud of it. THAT, my friend, is the Michelangelo tradition. Sort of like an
> artistic/tradesman macho. And, like male machismo, based on image and myth
> more than fact or logic.
I pretty much agree with you on this.
Peter is right if you use the term Pointing Machine to refer to a
mechanical device more properly called a Pantograph.
I have been there and watched them use pointing techniques. They
measure from a model in a reference frame- usually with a plumb bob
and "pointer". But today they also take photographs and project them
directly on the stone to derive basic outlines for initial cuts, which
could be labeled a pointing mechine given this application.
people need to get it thru their skulls that this issue has nothing to
do with skill; it has to do with the length of your arm and the
distortion of your field of vision.
Try this mental exercise- suppose something is wrong with the statue
of liberty's instep- it just doesn't look quite right from a boat
offshore- with your hand against the surface of the instep, look
around- How can you possibly correct it given the perspective you
have at arm's length?
You can't.
This is why we draw large things and model large things at small scale
before we build them, from airplanes to architecture to art.
christopher
Robert Houghtaling
Robert
Sculptingman
> > the level of the renaissance masters is entirely due to their lack of
> > training in HOW to do it.
> >
> > christopher
>
> So the source of your information is? You? I know you are wrong on this and
> have listed my authoritive source and can list many more.
My source is the Italian masters under whom I studied- my source is
every first hand account of how artists have worked throughout
history- my source is the gridlines on the unfinished tomb walls of
ancient Egypt, and the pointing marks still visible on the plaster
masters in art museums, gallerias and academias all over Europe. my
source is that fact that proportional calipers from the 1500s still
exist.
Gary- sometimes I just don't understand you. On the one hand you
champion the traditional techniques and bemoan that not enough people
are learning them- then you come out saying I am wrong in saying that
most artists today receive no training in traditional techniques?
I said NOTHING about any kind of "academy" rules. The masters did not
learn their craft at school- they learned it on the job- usually as
apprentices. Some certainly learned the HARD way as well, by trying
everything they could think of until they happened upon the same
techniques that have always worked. And most, in a lifetime of work,
invented a few techniques that they either did or did not pass on to
their own appecntices.
And there were hundreds of book published in the 1500s about art
technique that illustrate how to use the various "devices" and
techniques available in the day. It is idiocy to think the artists of
that era did not read publications in their field.
It is true that most "art schools" today do not teach pointing
technique-
And, I was not suggesting that artists of today need to go to academy
to learn. I was stating that artists who believe the myth of the
sculptor standing in front of a 20 foot tall block of stone with just
a hammer and chisel and his eye are naive and inexperienced. They
read historical accounts and misinterpret the information to suit
their romantic notions.
The statue of liberty is a perfect example of how pointing is used to
enlarge a work of art- not least because the process was thoroughly
photographed. It proves that the artist usually had to produce a small
scale design to "sell" the idea- and that even a 24 inch model is
insufficient to point up to a 100 foot finished figure. Several
intermediate enlarging steps are needed to allow the artist to correct
for the distortions in the scale model that only become evident with
increasing size.
In fact- the first enlargement was used to make the small copy oif the
statue of liberty on the Seine in Paris.
Today- working in plastilene- youcan rough out an armature- based upon
long experience, slap plastilene on it and monkey with it for as long
as you please until it looks okay.
But you can not add back marble. I have not seen any good large scale
marble figure sculpture that was not pointed up from a model.
christopher
Sculptingman
> > Michelangelo used a grid technique (2D pointing) to enlarge his
> > drawings for the cistine chapel to full size cartoons- he did not
> > carve enormous figures freehand anymore than he would draw enormous
> > figures freehand.
> >
> >
> An interesting and relevant point though, yes he used the cartoons, but the
> earlier tradition was to use an underpainting or 'sinopia' as an underlying
> study and reference for the fresco - but later he went right to cartoon,
> eliminating the sinopia. Like I say - every job is different and the
> adaptations are where the true skills come to play. He invented a whole new
> type of scaffold system to make the ceiling, tearing out the one already
> erected. Again that artistic machismo I posted about.
The story of the cistine chapel is a good case in point- so to speak.
He initally tried to draw the figures by hand, but was unsatisfied
with the result, so he chiseled out a couple year's worth of work and
started over using the proper technique for wokring at that scale.
Sculptingman
> transferring to a billboard or large mural is most commonly called the
> Albrecht Durer method or the 'grid' method like you say.
Actually, Gary- only an art historian would refer to this as the
Abrecht Durer method- he did not invent it- the egyptians used it,
too.
everyone who USES this technique, and learned it from a tradesman or
artist who learned it from a tradesman or artist, etc calls it
"pointing"
christopher
Sculptingman
> As for the pointing up thing, I don't think Christopher ever mentioned a
> > "machine", he was referring to the mathematical process of scaling up.
>
>
> we all do this when we draw or sculpt ..... its called proportion...
No- it is called pointing - Proportion is the QUALITY that pointing is
used to preserve.
whenever you measure from a model or small sketch or photograph, and
scale that measurement up proportionally to a larger expression, you
are using pointing technique.
Whether you do it informally, measuring here and there as you please,
or precisely, measuring every few inches on a grid, you are still
pointing- the latter is simply more disciplined than the former.
You measure points. A caliper has "points"
you are pointing, and so did Michelangelo.
christopher
foote
How can you possibly correct it given the perspective you
> have at arm's length?
>
i believe both me and gary would
not object to using sometype of
enlargement system for large
statuses like the lady liberty...
he even acknowledge that in a post..
but for small statues under 30
feet (garys figure from working
on movie sets can even be higher)
you can work off a model ..without
pointing you and just wing it..
As M did... he would get the torso
right... while blocking in the head..
he would outline and crosshatch..
as he did in his drawings
he wasn't too worried about getting
the nose right till the torso was done...
Once the toroso was done he had
something he could carve proportionally too...
Just because you have to use poinitng
system to do a 4 sculpture... the height of the pieta... doesn't mean that
others
can't..
heck i don't play the guitar... but that
doesn't mean it can be done..
recall going to a stone yard to watch
them carve letters on tombstones
well they weren't carving they were
stenciling and blowing off the stone
soon there won't be any letter cravers ...and people will be amazed
that you can do it by hand... it doesn't
take much skill to letter...
recently taught a kid ...how to start
a cut with a hand saw on wood..
you know put the saw blade next to
your thumb...
... he was cluless.. he always used powered
tools ... and this kid had won numberous awards for his wood working...
this is truly Amazing.....
fffffffff
Gary Waller
> Gary- sometimes I just don't understand you. On the one hand you
> champion the traditional techniques and bemoan that not enough people
> are learning them- then you come out saying I am wrong in saying that
> most artists today receive no training in traditional techniques?
In rethinking what I am saying, and knowing that I have tremendous respect
for your knowledge and talents, I think you are falling into a trap of
ethnocentricity. I think that if I was an art historian - which I am not - I
could launch a serious paper on the earlier thread of just how the Italian
immigrants to America were a huge influence in the shaping of views, tastes
and methods of the American art community. From the sending of maquettes
back to the old country for bronze and stone, to the ancestor worship of
long dead Italians, studying the minutia of their remains. Here is a website
which celebrates the contribution of the Italians to the American art scene.
http://www.fga.it/altreitalie/15_saggi1a.htm In the context of this
article - can you see my point about ethnocentricity - what I earlier called
'Academy' thinking?
I have done over twenty frescoes now, and you can see some of my recently
posted but older work over on http://www.truefresco.com . Many there too
hold these views (Ilia - the owner of the site is a classically trained
Russian). - ignoring the fact that the most square feet of masterful true
fresco is now in Mexico, and the mayan frescoes predate the Italians.
Likewise some of the most skillfully executed frescoes are in caves of
India and Sri Lanka. Not a speck of Italian lime putty in any of these.
That's not even getting into the Islamic treasures. But there those who
still insist that lime putty be imported from Germany at $18 a lb, and God
help you if call the painting layer of fresco 'the painting layer' - that is
the 'intonaco', thank you very much.
It would be easy to pick apart your argument in the Jesuit manner - noting
little errors like in fact that marble is often repaired -one of David's
arms is stucco I believe - and you're limiting your pointing example to
figurative art - have you read how a master like Henry Moore used to work?
In fact, I think it is this new trend of abstraction you are railing
against - I too roll my eyes when I read artist statements from abstract and
modern sculptors who 'are letting the stone breathe its spirit in its
creation - they are freeing its hidden soul'. But the big picture is that I
know you love art Christopher, and we are among the luckiest people in the
world that we get to create and make a living at it. In the end, people will
find their own way to make art, and buy the art that pleases them - they
don't care what we think - if they want to know these things, they will have
to ask, and we will answer and instruct. We have no right to insist that
they follow the ways we would do it. Does that make sense?
foote
art ... i always called
this skill proprotion not pointing...
pointing i associate more with sculpture...
I guess i see is a whole image to be
reduce..and my brain automatically
reduces the entire image to the
appropriate size...and tells my hand
to start sketching here and there.
occassionally i may take sighitings
to make sure i'm on track...
i guess you see a point on a larger
image... and try to place that point
on your paper...
if i were using your point system
i'll still be drawing the dragon head
rv door....and i would fail.. cause
i was changing the image from what
i saw to what i wanted to fit on my
door... what i wanted
was not on the paper but in my head...
What i do is to complicated
to be reduced to points... its better
to let my brain do all the computations... automatically...
this is working holistically with
the right side of your head...
pointing is more of a left sided
thing....measure..point...measure
..point...
the is what doing art or scultpure on the fly is....you work with images
not points..you work proportionally...
to what you have already done..
its really a less complicated system
and much easier than pointing...
now someone reporducting a model
may find it easier to work by points...
if he is a non artist.. the points are
a accrate way of enlarging a small
model...many craftspeople do this..
you measue a point here.. mark it..
measure another point.. and now you
can see where everything is at...
by the better artists, sculptors... do it
on the fly...at least on small works
under 30 feet...
ffffffff
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > >>>>>>>>
foote
at ..Is this out of your imagination...???
recall reading a book
on M doing the Sistine chapel..
the guy who wrote the book is
famous for his historical accuracy
in details...have to dig up the author
and title..it came out within the last
10 years...
never heard your story about this
about chisling out a couple years
work... this sounds like complete bs..
do recall M started to the 12 apostles
on the ceiling...then decided he wanted to do a different vision...
amd fired all his help..and chiseled
that out... but were only talking a
few months work here...not years...
When he first started doing the apostels he ran into some problems
I think mold was attacking and destorying what he was doing..
he tried to get out of doing it...
but the pope
would let him off the hook ... and
hired some guy to look into why
M's work was decaying on the ceiling.. I recall he wasn't doing the
plaster thing right...and M got stuck
into 4 more years
....Maybe M was
trying to sabotage the work so he
could get out of it....I don't really think ... he wanted to be painting the
apostels up there....he wanted to be
carving... and if the painting is falling
off... well good excuse to quit...
ffffffff
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> >
foote
like if i'm doing a ocean picture horizon.. i will locate a pt
on the horizon...and locate that point
on my picture where it should be... but i don't play connect the points...
i may say at this point the outer edge
of the rock foramtion starts... and then
place it on the paper..then draw proprtional at that location...
fffffffff
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WDdoc.44597$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
foote
pointing for large paintings and
sculptures... if i were to do a
ceiling like M i would use cartoons too
or if i were to do a statue of liberty...
i'm just saying some artist don't
becuase its too ...cause its easier
for them to draw by proportion or
carve by proportion...
i know if i
had to use the point system it would
drive me crazy... thats why i don't use
it and try to limit the size of my works
to non-monstrous....
M's sculpture teacher can be
traced back to the masters
in Italy...
M's teacher was Bertoldo his teacher
was Donatello...and his teacher was
Ghiberti... who made the bronze doors of the Bapistery Ghilberti
which took him 22 years... it was well recieved and he spent another 23
making another set of bronze doors..
For his first set of doors he got
22,000 florins... at that time
a man could live in style with a
house, horse, servent on 200 forins
a year...he was grossly overpaid here...
and i'm sure M
was taught all the tricks that his
teachers past knew...
which he soon surpassed..
>. I was stating that artists who believe the myth of the
> sculptor standing in front of a 20 foot tall block of stone with just
> a hammer and chisel and his eye are naive and inexperienced.
no he had models to work from..
as the Debrooy's book shows... plus
his experience from the Hercules...at
17, and pieta...and so on..
ok course he roughly and carefuly
decided points at which the head,
chest ..hand and so on starts..
plus i don't think he looked up it
was more like down.. the block
was laying on the ground when
he did most of his work...
all i'm saying is that he didn't point
up and drill from a model...yes he
got some points off his model...
like basic ones.. like head here..
but he din't play carve by point to
point...
knowing M he probably
figured out where the torso would
go and started there... and roughly
blocked out the rest...and finishing
the torso fist... before attacking other
parts ...
>>>>>>>>
>They
> read historical accounts and misinterpret the information to suit
> their romantic notions.
>
M has been my favorite artist...
and i have been studying him for
years to learn his techniques to become a better artist...
I have learned quite a lot from him over the years...
>>>>>
> But you can not add back marble.
Well often does a pianist miss
a key...????The masters like M know what they are doing...
and seldom miss with their chisels...
>>>>>>>>>>
I have not seen any good large scale
marble figure sculpture that was not pointed up from a model.
and you probably won't
those sculptors are
hard to find....there are not very many
of them...they are the masters...
fffffffffff
Sculptingman
even Moore made small models first- though I do not know how he
enlarged them, tho I do remember he used foam a lot.
Gary- I have no problem with modern abstraction- I love it when its
done well and sited appropriately.
I refer to figural sculpture because, for abstract work, while
pointing would be a way to ensure a small model was sized up
correctly- it is very hard to tell from the result if it was pointed
up or not. Most abstract dates from the era when traditional
techniques were on the wane- and a huge proportion is, in fact,
fabricated, obviating the need for pointing.
To pull off large scale figural work is simply more exacting in terms
of precision. Human figure being the extreme as the reality of human
form is all around by which to compare.
I never intended to start such a thread by daring to suggest that
Micheangelo was a competent and well trained artist who used the
proper techniques for his trade.
As to Fresco- if I could draw worth a damn I might try it. It does
seem challenging.
christopher
Sculptingman
christopher
Sculptingman
> don't care what we think - if they want to know these things, they will have
> to ask, and we will answer and instruct. We have no right to insist that
> they follow the ways we would do it. Does that make sense?
You may well be right about no one caring what we think, Gary. Half
the time I don't even are what I think...
And I am not railing against modern art at all- but, if Moore's full
size deviates from the small model in a dozen ways, it simply doesn't
really matter as the nuance of the form is not what the work is about,
just the gestalt of the form.
I guess what I rail about is ignorance.
When I hear someone or read someone state something that perpetuates a
misunderstanding,or a mythologizing, of what human beings do or have
done- it irks me.
I mean- when someone in all seriousness tells me that the only way
people as backwards as the Egyptians could have made pyramids is with
some unearthly " power" it just sets me off. Like any of US could
build a television...
that's on the same level to me as "micheangelo didn't own a ruler..or
if he did, he didn't use it to make art..."
its a losing battle, i know, but i won't go gentle into that good
night....
christopher
foote
> if he did, he didn't use it to make art..."
of course M used a ruller you see
it all over his drawings for sculptures...I want this size ...
for this piece of marble for this
sculpture...i'm looking at his measurements right now....
and i do agree with you
the Ancient Egyptians are a lot smarter than current engineers ...
who still can't figure out how they
built the pyramid...
or even got the oblsiks up
the latest is they used kites ...yah
right.. the ropes and kite were to
heavy to get up into the air..
or how they put the oblisk on the boats to ferry up the river...
ffffff
Keith
I don't know much/anything about masonry or brickwork but what exactly is
pointing, and why do they call it that???
keith
Sculptingman
mortar where it is starting to crack and erode from between the
bricks. Using a steel "point" you chip away the weak mortar from
between the bricks and clean the area of all dust and debris, and then
you lay in a fresh mortar. There are 4 or 5 different "styles" of
pointing, such as tuck pointing, each different term refering to a
different way of finishing the face of the fresh mortar, such as a "v"
shaped groove, and "u" shaped groove, a flat surfaced setback, etc.
christopher
Sculptingman
> had to use the point system it would
> drive me crazy... thats why i don't use
> it and try to limit the size of my works
> to non-monstrous....
Actually- I find pointing to be a little tedious- but very satisfying
in its results.
> ok course he roughly and carefuly
> decided points at which the head,
> chest ..hand and so on starts..
>
> plus i don't think he looked up it
> was more like down.. the block
> was laying on the ground when
> he did most of his work...
if the stone was lying down, he HAD to point it as he would have no
way to visualize it as a whole. Interestingly, Michelangelo was not
happy with the David due to its final siting. He DESIGNED it, as
requested, for the courtyard of the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. This
courtyard is so narrow that the viewer would be unable to see the
whole figure until they were pretty well under it- looking up. based
upon this limited perspective Michelangelo thought he was being clever
by altering the proportions to make the figure appear best from fairly
close up, looking up at it.
This made the head a little big.
But the head honcho was so impressed, and so wanted to impress the
public, that he sited the piece, instead, outside the gate of the
palace, in full view of the Piazza del Signoria- From across the
Piazza, the head is noticably overlarge- and the sculptor was unhappy
about this. You can see this in the copy they had made that is
currently on the original site. A copy they made by pointing.
>
>
> all i'm saying is that he didn't point
> up and drill from a model...yes he
> got some points off his model...
> like basic ones.. like head here..
> but he din't play carve by point to
> point...
You "believe" he did not, but all the evidence available points to the
fact that he did point up the whole thing- probably sampling at least
two hundred points, 50 points on each side of the block. For a figure
this size, that would be the minimal amount needed to capture the
nuance in the maquette. Remember that he was still carving the piece,
and I am sure he made subtle changes from the maquette to the full
size as he went, but he did measure and remeasure the points all over
the figure.
Also, you don't use a drill for roughing a stone sculpture. A drill is
used primarily for cutting fine, deep, GROOVES ( by drilling several
holes in a line and knocking out the stone between the holes), and
doing detailing like the Lace on a pope's cuffs or collar. A close
examination of Michelangelo's work, or even a cursory examination of
Bernini's, will reveal the drill holes used in doing such details as
the hair.
> knowing M he probably
> figured out where the torso would
> go and started there... and roughly
> blocked out the rest...and finishing
> the torso fist... before attacking other
> parts ...
Contrary to what you may fantasize, you do not "know" Michelangelo.
You certainly do not know his techniques if you think he did any of
his larger works without a well measured maquette.
> M has been my favorite artist...
> and i have been studying him for
> years to learn his techniques to become a better artist...
> I have learned quite a lot from him over the years...
While I like Michelangelo for many things- his technical virtuosity is
fantastic, his design sense is wonderful, but most of his women look
pretty bad. Their breasts look like the coconut brassieres from the
play South Pacific.
The most important technique you could learn from his work that would
improve the quality of your work is pointing technique. Like him- work
out your design at a managable size in a malleable material, and then
COPY it into stone thru diciplined measurement.
> >>>>>
> > But you can not add back marble.
>
> Well often does a pianist miss
> a key...????The masters like M know what they are doing...
> and seldom miss with their chisels...
This is nonsense. Piano is performance, sculpture is craft. If you
want to compare a pianist to a sculptor, note that even the best
pianists perform with sheet music in front of them.
If an artist is carving an expensive material then he is CAREFUL. I am
sure Michelangelo hit his thumb with the mallet as often as any other
stone carver.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> I have not seen any good large scale
> marble figure sculpture that was not pointed up from a model.
>
>
> and you probably won't
> those sculptors are
> hard to find....there are not very many
> of them...they are the masters...
Funny- in the 1800s nearly all the working sculptors would qualify as
masters- there was a big business in duplicating famous works and they
did so with amazing fidelity. The renaissence was positively lousey
with "masters".
In fact, the more recent the sculptor that might be considered a
"master", the better the documentation of their techniques, and guess
what? the stone cutting masters for which we have good gdocumentation
ALL used pointing technique on large works.
You are imagining they had some special mojo that folks today do not.
Think about this, they had technique that folks today do not. Read
Gary's post on French's Lincoln for the memorial. I have seen photos
of French's Maquette and the full size captures it close to perfectly,
and all French did was approve the final cut.
Please understand that I am not criticizing Michelangelo's ability
with a chisel- I am sure he could rip out a bust in marble without
referring to anything but the subject- But I promise you that even
the most gifted sculptor, when carving large scale works, measures
from a smaller model.
Try it. I promise you won't be disappointed.
christopher
Gary Waller
deal of what you attribute to pointing, myself, foote, and the rest of the
world would call DRAWING or DRAFTING. You have admitted you are weak in this
area - is it possible that you skipped this process altogether in your own
development? Michelangelo developed his ideas through drawing - sketches
became drawings - hundreds of them. If he reached a puzzling detail, or
needed to present his idea to others, or for other to do the work - he would
then sculpt it out. By the time he, or any other competent sculptor, reached
the actual creation of a 3d object, he knew 95% where he was heading. He
knew, from experience, that there more people you involve in the process the
more compromise and error and stress.
To bring you back to the real world - which is not that much different from
M's time. They call for artist submissions for a work of public art. Artists
submit their drawings, sketches and preliminary budgets. From this a short
list is drawn. Those artists are paid to produce a rough model and detailed
budget. The winner is chosen and then another drawing is prepared - the
first of many to come.The drawings answer the questions like - what size is
this pipe? where does the power come in? will it stand up in the wind? The
drawings are necessary to subcontract and as a point of reference for a wide
variety of non artistic things. The final drawings may have a lot of
differences from the original model - maybe today David would need an
aircraft warning light on top. If it is bronze - the final sculpted model -
one part of many- is delivered to the foundry and they scale/point it up if
necessary, with the artist working the final clay. If you ask them to go
ahead without checking the final - you are asking for trouble - likewise
letting them choose patina. If it is stone - don't forget this is a
subtractive process, not additive like sculpting the bronze - if there is a
'point' on the tip of David's nose, lets say, it is deep within the block,
and there are many days/months just reaching it. In stone, or wood, or
foam - someone has to make a decision to mark the block to make the big
cuts - and drawings are used. Like the bronze - the actual making of it is a
noisy, industrial, dangerous, heavy job. Few artists choose this path - much
easier to hand it over to the stone carver or foundry. In stone these final
details are much more problematic than bronze -it is a natural material -
the grain has to be right, etc. Something the size of lincoln memorial would
require some critical decisions, involving less than 1/4 inch, on things
like the eyes - these are not in the skill of the drawing or in the skills
of the maquette - they are in the skills of the stonecarver. M was a fully
trained stonecarver and sculptor - i don't even think he marked his
stoneblocks with templates - he was so confident as a DRAFTSMAN, stonecarver
and sculptor he would probably mark the roughing out in freehand - this is
what he means by setting the sculpture free which is already in the stone -
he does NOT mean this as a work of free expression, evolving as he goes
along - this is a more modern concept. If you treat the stonecarvers or
foundry as robotic machines, who must duplicated every little nuance of your
clay model - you will be making boring art or tractor parts - you must have
a dialog with these people, be a part of the loop - they are not just
'technicians' and they may very well have suggestions how to improve the
piece in the different scales you require - its all about attitude.
This is the same in architecture - they begin as a sketch on a table napkin,
preliminary rendering, blueprints, etc. If a model is made - it is made from
the drawings - not as part of the architecture creation process. Like the
choice of foundry or stone, the choice of general contractor and skill of
the tradesmen is all important - this is in fact the key to quality work. If
these workers need to know how big is the windowsill on the fourth floor -
they don't go to the model and point/scale it up - they look to the most
recent drawings/blueprints. The architect or designer also has to
continually work with the trades making final changes and critical touches
not in the drawings or model - unless he is making boring art or a warehouse
for shoes.
I think in public art competitions that they look for proof of these
drawing/draftsman skills - this shows you can handle the project.
Now I will admit that in my opinion I have never seen the attraction of M's
David. I have never 'got it'. To me, from photos, it looks like an awkward,
effeminate looking man in his mid twenties. He does look somewhat broody -
maybe over the fact of smallish penis size - but he does look at ease with
his nudity. What does it have to do with the christian myth of a small boy
who defeats a mighty giant with a sling? Where is the sling? Why is he
naked? Where is the confidence and determination that "The Lord" is on his
side? Where is the inspiration to the general public to do better things and
be better people? To me it is an extrordinarly well crafted oddity.
george graham
still trying to digest his words. I have printed them out, to do this a bit
later. However, David's sling is laying across his back, with the horn
handle in his hand. From the the usual photos, they never show this. Only
from the front or side. I'm sure I have one of his back though, showing the
sling.
George
foote
>>>>>>>>>>
> This is nonsense. Piano is performance, sure Michelangelo hit his thumb
with the mallet as often as any other stone carver.
i'm sure he hit his thumb many times...thats not my point ... the point
speaking of pointing...
.is that he was a very
skilled craver who seldom missed
at what he wanted the stone to do....
and in this he made very few mistakes..
like he didn't mess up
the pieta... which a unskilled scuptor
would have screwed up the hem, robes, and free curving fingers on the
hands..which required percison cutting...with chisel and hammmer...
wheras...the sculpture by federick hart on the national catherderal ...looks
like pitchfork fingers...compared to
M's work...
ffffffff
fffffffff
Sculptingman
> deal of what you attribute to pointing, myself, foote, and the rest of the
> world would call DRAWING or DRAFTING. You have admitted you are weak in this
> area - is it possible that you skipped this process altogether in your own
> development?
Yes, Gary, I am stuck on the idea that Michelangelo used the proper
technique for cutting large scale works in stone, And I do defend it
when others suggest he did work on that scale freehand.
Pointing is not drawing or drafting. It is taking a freehand created
MODEL and using scaled measurements from the model to guide the
cutting of a larger version.
It is done to overcome the limitation of distorted perspective the
artist has in trying to lay their hand on the large scale item.
> became drawings - hundreds of them. If he reached a puzzling detail, or
> needed to present his idea to others, or for other to do the work - he would
> then sculpt it out.
In fact, Gary, he often did the opposite. Michelangelo was famous for
working out DRAWINGs by sculpting a small model first. He objected to
being hired to do the cistine chapel because, as he said, he was a
SCULPTOR, not a painter. In the V & A museum in London you can see
many of these small "Sketch" models- most of which are just a few
inches tall.
>By the time he, or any other competent sculptor, reached
> the actual creation of a 3d object, he knew 95% where he was heading. He
> knew, from experience, that there more people you involve in the process the
> more compromise and error and stress.
Really, Gary. He really did make a maquette and work out all the
problems there- Then he really did measure the dang thing and rough
cut the stone to those measurements.
>
> To bring you back to the real world - which is not that much different from
> M's time. They call for artist submissions for a work of public art.....
> I think in public art competitions that they look for proof of these
> drawing/draftsman skills - this shows you can handle the project.
>
Gary, I just won the commission for a Veteran's memorial down here- I
know precisely how its done.
I actually did it by SCULPTING a digital model of the figure and
placing it in a digital model of the installation which I rendered in
a digital model of the site. The City was impressed because the
rendering looked as if the finished design were already built-
basically, i showed them a what you see is what you get version.
As changes were asked for I modified the digtial model to suit. Doing
it this way ensured that the design fit the contours of the site, had
the footings and dimesnsions required by code and that I could work
out the design from all angles.
Now, while the City builds the setting to my specifications I am going
to Sculpt the figure in plastilene at 1 third scale and make sure any
and all changes are made to that model to satisfy the city.
Then I will point up that model to ensure that the full sized version
will match the approved maquette in every detail.
I will hand finish the thing.
You go ahead and try to draw an accurate profile of the figure of
david on a wall 18 feet tall "freehand'.
It can't be done.
You will be forced to use pointing technique to get it right. That is,
for a drawing, tracing a grid over a smaller sketch and using the
"points" on the grid to draw the profile in smaller managable squares,
so that the figure lines cross the grid at the approriate points so as
to line up with the other grid squares.
Architects, despite the linear and planar nature of what they create,
still use their drawing to create a 3D model of what the plans will
actually look like, and frequently change it as a result of seeing the
model- Nowadays, with digital modeling tools like formZ, they often
model the thing from the start.
but all that is secondary to the point.The Point is that a dimensioned
drawing, at scale, is the graphic equivalent of pointing. You can
measure the drawing, scale the result and transfer that measure to the
full size product. The architect needn't even be present to ensure
that the building looks like his plans.
As to your opinion of Michelangelo's work- I agree very much. The
Pieta is probably his most masterful work- The David, while impressive
because its anatomy is so nuanced at that size, doesn't really do it
for me. And most of his women are just ucky,
christopher
foote
> many of these small "Sketch" models- most of which are just a few
> inches tall.
so how many of these models did
you see????
... according to my models
book there is only one from the
von Praun collection bought at
the 1938 auction...that is at the
va in england...
other von prauns could have
ended up there... as 17 are in
canada somewhere.. one in texas
and one in england.. 33 models
were shold in chrisites in 1938
11 were lost after ww2
ffffff
Gary Waller
> technique for cutting large scale works in stone, And I do defend it
> when others suggest he did work on that scale freehand.
Who here, or anywhere is suggesting he sculpted freehand/freeform - meaning
the letting the "spirit of the stone" direct his way? This sounds like it
might have been written in some bible school book from the sixties. There
some of M's poems where he claims that God's hand directed his work. I am
suggesting that by the time he started sculpting he knew exactly where he
was heading - by the use of drawings, model sketches and sculptural studies.
In carving - I have worked with those who prepare detailed templates and
measures, and others who are able to make dramatic deep cuts - precisely
correct. I'm somewhere in the middle.
As far as large scale drawing is concerned though, Michelangelo did complete
the fresco lunettes in the Sistine Chapel freehand (without the use of
cartoon or sinopia). If we ignore that fact that he was enormously gifted,
he was able to achieve this because he had already worked it out so many
times in the drawings, model sketches and sculptural studies, and because he
was already well practised doing exactly the same thing, in the same place,
for so many years. For figurative work a 2d representation or relief of a 3d
scene is more difficult than a 3d rep of a 3d scene - if he was going to
"point" from detailed maquettes, wouldn't it have made more sense on his 2d
works and reliefs?
If you really want to carry on this debate you really will have to start
quoting your source of information - you are out of step with the scholars
and art historians on this one - you seem to be the one working freehand
here - with your opinions that is. Anything else is just B.S.
>
> Gary, I just won the commission for a Veteran's memorial down here- I
> know precisely how its done.
Congratulations Chris - this may prove to be a real breakthrough for you.
But then you spoil it by implying that the City chose your piece over the
others because of its superior technical merit. I think you have undersold
yourself. Your proposal would be printed out like the rest of them - when
they got to yours they would think "this guy has gone to a lot of time and
trouble without knowing if he has a shot at this project" - and then it
would be appraised on its artistic merit - at least thats what I would like
to think if I were you. As far as insisting on doing your own pointing up -
haven't you told us in the past that this would be 'printed' in 3d carved
foam and then clay on top? The foundry (I am assuming this is cast metal)
would give the same price whether they do the pointy work (hiring someone
for $14 an hour) or whether you do it there (taking a parking space, spot in
the lunchroom and lots of time showing where everything is) or whether you
deliver a full size, clay coated piece of cyberfoam. Actually they may take
a few hundred off for the last scenario - but they are not going to commit
to anything, especially delivery times, until they actually see the maquette
delivered to their door.
Simon
guilds sculpture department, London. ....... "you got there ..... and i have
no idea how" ... neither did I
;-)
Sculptingman
> quoting your source of information - you are out of step with the scholars
> and art historians on this one - you seem to be the one working freehand
> here - with your opinions that is. Anything else is just B.S.
Gary:
I do not let art historians or art scholars interpret the past for me-
And I certainly don't take their word for how things actually were
made... I prefer to look at the physical evidence- read first hand
accounts or ask folks that actually DO it for a living how things get
done.
I recall several scholars who were shocked to see the brilliance of
the frescoes after they were restored- mainly because they had all
written disertations on how masterfully Michelangelo had "modelled the
forms with dark and subdued hues". These diatribes were written
despite the fact that there were many published prior analyses that
pointed out the thick layers of grime that covered the entire ceiling.
There are scholars still kicking that steadfastly maintain that the
restoration "destroyed" Michelangelo's actual work. Like the folks
who maintain that crop circles are extraterrestrial despite the
pranksters coming forward and demonstrating their technique.
I also remember reading several scholars who bitterly opposed the
revelation that Vermeer had used a camera obscura, again because they
had all published their own theories about how he had worked that did
not mention a camera obscura.
I find that it is often the non-working-artist scholars who are
responsible for the romanticized, inaccurate and patently ridiculous
ideas that get spread about how great work is accomplished. And for
every scholar with any given position, there is a scholar with the
opposite position.
I have read the same accounts as everyone else here, but, perhaps
because I tend to discount romanticed mythologizing, I see all the
references to his actually using technique and tools.
I.E. Someone mentions passage about the tub of water technique and
fails to recognize a measuring system when it is described to them. He
is described as working from a model, yet someone else can't believe
that this involves any systematic method of measurment or math...
Or, on my side,...A guy chimes in to say that his father, who had
worked as a large scale sign maker his whole life used the 2D version
of pointing and always referred to it as pointing and you tell him
that its better known as the Albrecht Durer technique.
Better known to whom?
I did not mean to start a fight with you, Gary, by mentioning that
everyone I have known from the old school, who learned their craft
from prior masters of it, refers to this as pointing, whether 2 or 3D.
In my experience, every traditionally trained artist I have met who
uses this technique calls it pointing.
As to being out of step; I have no fear of being out of step with
error.
But why are YOU debating this issue with me? I always thought you
were more on the side of traditional craft and technique, which is
what pointing is. I am surprised by your position on this cause I
always counted you as a fellow champion of the traditional methods...
>
> Congratulations Chris - this may prove to be a real breakthrough for you.
> But then you spoil it by implying that the City chose your piece over the
> others because of its superior technical merit.
Sorry, Gary. I did not mean to spoil it. Rereading that it has a bad
tone to it and that was not what i was intending to imply. I only
included the description of how I went about it because I had
mentioned, and you had commented on my mentioning, that I don't draw
all that well. (with steady practice I can, but then my sculpting
suffers- its like I can EITHER visuallize flat or 3D, but not switch
easily back and forth) I thought it might be interesting to you that,
since most competitions DO require flat art representations of the
design, as you mentioned, just how I went about producing the required
images, given my less than fine drawing skills.
I do think I had the better design, but, to be fair, not very many
artists competed- only about 13, I think.
However- the fact that my design was created in an actual model of the
site allowed me to better interpret how to create an installation that
fit the site. I can not empahsize too strongly how much more facile
it was to be able to see in real time how manipulations to the model
reacted with the terrain and surroundings and how the evolving work
would appear from various vantages.
I did not intend to suggest that it was the technical part that won
THEM over, I meant to suggest that the tools I was using better
enabled me to CREATE a design that won them over.
I am not sure I am being clear here. I found that doing the entire
design on the computer in 3D was a big help in visualizing the whole
work and how viewers would interact with it. I think I came out with a
better design than I could have done relying solely on flat drawiongs
to work it out.
> As far as insisting on doing your own pointing up -
> haven't you told us in the past that this would be 'printed' in 3d carved
> foam and then clay on top?
Yes- when I say i will point it up, I mean that I will have it scanned
and cut in foam, and then I will apply the final surface of plastilene
and finish the clay myself. While I could do it myself- it is faster,
more accurate and more cost effective(for a work this size) to have it
done digitally. I am also having a small scale version output at the
City's request for them to sell in their gift shop. These days the
only things i point traditionally are things that are at that the
awkward size that is too small for foam cutting, and too large for wax
printing.
>
>The foundry (I am assuming this is cast metal)
> would give the same price whether they do the pointy work (hiring someone
> for $14 an hour) or whether you do it there (taking a parking space, spot in
> the lunchroom and lots of time showing where everything is) or whether you
> deliver a full size, clay coated piece of cyberfoam.
Most of the bids we got for the bronze work would have doubled if the
foundry did the enlargement- And those that were willing to do the
pointing free for the casting work, had casting prices that were way
higher or questionable quality. We settled on a foundry in Colorado,
experienced in large castings. However- I don't want someone else's
hand and eye enlarging it- I want it to accurately be MY hand and eye-
so I will point it up using CyberFX and finish it myself.
Also- call me paranoid, but I still can not bring myself to have a
thrid party make the first mold on a fragile original, nor bring
myself to ship a fragile original across country. I will make the
molde here with an apprentice and feel much better shipping a mold
across country.
> a few hundred off for the last scenario - but they are not going to commit
> to anything, especially delivery times, until they actually see the maquette
> delivered to their door.
For bidding at the foundry I sent them renderings of the digital model
of the figure wth dimensions, from various angles. They are
experienced enough at full size figure to give hard bids based on a
good enough set of photos,
christopher
keith
What are your software pref's for 3d. I use Form€Z and Electric Image from
way back when Form€Z only modeled and EI only rendered and animated. I did
use Ray Dream Studio for a while, It was gruelingly slow but the Ray Tracing
was superb, a lot of real world formulas were easy to apply during
rendering.
I've kinda been out of the loop for a few years and was just curious to see
what others use.
My technique for computer to real life is crude but simple. I set up 4
cameras(N,S,E & W) at the same distance and pointing to a centered hot spot
on the model. Then I render out the 4 views with a flat camera (perspective
turned off). I print these at the actual size of the finished piece. I can
then glue these to a 4 sided block. I can use this for roughing in with a
band saw or a chain saw on larger pieces. After that I pull out the Mallet
and chisels and go to work on the details BTW I work with wood mostly. Kinda
sounds like pointing only I let the computer work out the math for me.
one of my advertising clients is an area economic development group...They
manage about 8 Industrial "parks" and this past year I did a series of 3D
renderings to show new entrances and signage to these Parks. When each one
was "committee approved" I could hand over CAD files to the proper people
i.e. Landscaping, Masons, Sign company, Infrastructure(roads paving &
curbing). It made for a very satisfying job all around. It's not often that
a Creative Director gets to tell the D.O.T. how their road should look. :-)
foote
"Sculptingman"wrote in message > > > There are scholars still kicking that
steadfastly maintain that the
> restoration "destroyed"
well ... i'm not a scholar.. but a artist...
and i have studied M intensely... to bring some of M's skill into my own
artwork...
and i do think they destroyed it...
when they cleaned it...
Some sections
of his work look like they were
done by a cartoonist working for
disnelyand that a painting by M
M liked to do contour outlining... with high color contrast and subtle
blending in his pictures...and those that he he never fininshed.. look
at those pictures...
So when they
cleaned the pictures...they earased
the subtle color changes ... instead
several colors you just get one color tone...in areas...it looks like a
photograph ... or a colored line
drawing...
I still believe M went back and
played with the fresco... although the experts say that he didn't paint on
top of the fresco..
I really don't think the experts can
really tell. They just took off everything that wasn't fresco..
They new the fresco was M.. the
other stuff they really couldn't
be sure of...
And the experts being exposed to billions
of photos ...which altered their
perception of reality...
(when
photos first came out people
complained... the camera distorts
the image..and washes out the image..
but now we are immune
to it.. and most people compare
a painting to a photo... heck one
artist chuck close ...duplicates
photos in his paintings using only the colors the cyan.. camera uses...)...
so the restorters thought
probably though their cleaning looked good.. they like photographs....
The bright colors are right.. M did
that delibertly i believe so the viewers can see the pictures from the
floor...
also to provide the high contrast...which
he used in his paintings...
no i don't believe in crop circles
but it do belive in medicine wheels
and the power of prayer...
...yellowstone is calming down
earthquake activity is really down
now...last quake was a 4.0 last april 7th...
so it looks like the fix is in....
i also agree with M to become a
sculptor you have to become a artist
first well figurative sculptor.
If you have trouble doing both
2-d and 3-d work...then something
is wrong with your art basic skills..
its all art... wether you sculpting
a eagle... or drawing a portrait...
its all the same thing...
sorta
like betty edwards would say...i can read magazines but i can't read novels
then something is wrong with your
basic reading skills...its all the same...
you should be able to do both if
you can read...
fffffff
Robert Houghtaling
digital renderings online?
Robert
Gary Waller
> and cut in foam, and then I will apply the final surface of plastilene
> and finish the clay myself. While I could do it myself- it is faster,
> more accurate and more cost effective(for a work this size) to have it
> done digitally. I am also having a small scale version output at the
> City's request for them to sell in their gift shop. These days the
> only things i point traditionally are things that are at that the
> awkward size that is too small for foam cutting, and too large for wax
> printing.
>
Chris - we indeed are debating - not fighting or arguing.
1) Show me just one of M's models which exactly (meaning within 1/4 inch)
corresponds to points on a full scale sculpture.
2) If you read more deeply about the frescoes - it was the removing of the
patina which is the problem - how many times have you seen the antique
furniture guys moan on about the housewife who removes 200 years of patina
to spruce up a piece. This patina - a 'wearing in' specific to time, place
and circumstance, is one of the things which attracts me to fresco, and fine
wine, and twice read books, and old buildings, and old tunes, and older
women I guess too.
3) In overcoming your drawing handicap, and saving a lot of money just
sending the mold to the foundry, I think this is very innovative. There is
no better alternative to your unique situation. I will curious as to see the
costs of the cyberfoam and digital machining - can you specify 'no hand
carving whatsoever please' - the level of detail will be interesting too.
4) Albrecht Durer grid (461 hits on google) is different than a simple
scaling grid because it takes into account 3d perspective.
Sculptingman
> What are your software pref's for 3d. I use Form?Z and Electric Image from
> way back when Form?Z only modeled and EI only rendered and animated.
I currently use two primary applications. FormZ for anything regular,
like extruded, revolved or swept profiles, and Freeform, from sensable
technologies for anything organic. The freeform system is pretty
expensive- around us$25,000, however, it incorporates the "phantom"
haptic arm, which provides tactile feedback so that you can actually
FEEL the model you are working on. Working on it is essentially
exactly like sculpting in clay, only without the armatures and mess,
plus the ability to emboss the surface with graphic art, to loft and
revolve shapes and do all the other operations standard to a digital
3D environment. The average sculpture I model on it has around 3 to 7
million polygons, which freeform, on a dual xeon IBm with 2 gig of
ram, allows me to manipulate in real time like I am manipulating a
lump of clay in my hand.
I have tried to convince the company that they could sell 100 times as
many of these systems by lowering the price to something within reason
for artists...but we'll see....
For animating I use formZ for simple fly-thrus, but anything needing
animated objects I tend to go to Carrera for. Carrera is a pretty good
rendering and animating program at a reasonable price.
But what I am really thinking hard about getting into is Cinema4d- Its
a pro-level animator, but what I really like about it is their "sketch
and toon" rendering engine- it produces some of the best looking
renderings around in an almost limitless number of variations.
As far as modeling the kind of shapes I am interested in making,
however, formZ is the best modeler I have found. I feel it offers the
most versatile and understandable working environment for those
experienced in 3D fabrication and design. It beats the pants off the
primitive based, vector adjusting methodology used by most animation
packages.
But then, i am not making animated characters and the like- I use 3D
to design products, structures and to pre-visualize sculpture.
> My technique for computer to real life is crude but simple. I set up 4
> cameras(N,S,E & W) at the same distance and pointing to a centered hot spot
> on the model. Then I render out the 4 views with a flat camera (perspective
> turned off). I print these at the actual size of the finished piece. I can
> then glue these to a 4 sided block. I can use this for roughing in with a
> band saw or a chain saw on larger pieces. After that I pull out the Mallet
> and chisels and go to work on the details BTW I work with wood mostly. Kinda
> sounds like pointing only I let the computer work out the math for me.
>
> one of my advertising clients is an area economic development group...They
> manage about 8 Industrial "parks" and this past year I did a series of 3D
> renderings to show new entrances and signage to these Parks. When each one
> was "committee approved" I could hand over CAD files to the proper people
> i.e. Landscaping, Masons, Sign company, Infrastructure(roads paving &
> curbing). It made for a very satisfying job all around. It's not often that
> a Creative Director gets to tell the D.O.T. how their road should look. :-)
Sounds similar to what I do, only I usually work in plastilene, so I
model at full size in the machine, then, to make the actual maquette I
do a plot print of the computer model at whatever scale factor I am
using, say, one third. I line up the axonometric camera with the plane
of the major limbs so that I can use the plot prints to bend the
armature to shape very precisely. I usually print these in wireframe-
I find this actually helps me- for example, a view of the model from
the top in wireframe will allow me to see all the way thru to where
the feet touch the base, for accurately locating the armature for the
legs...
With the freeform system I can also actually go direct from a digital
model to the full size by having the file output to a foam cutter- I
do this more often with commercial work than with fine art
commissions, as I still prefer the nuance I can achieve in the real
clay.
With this current project, I designed the whole installation, from
curbing to lighting, walkways to plantings, and I did it all in the
computer. When the city selected an engineering firm to produce the
engineered plans, I just sent over to them the digital model, from
which they could derive all their plan and elevation layouts.
You can also try this... Create a box around your model of a known
dimension that you can duplicate in the real world with a system of
surface gauges- then, using orthoganal snaps to ensure straight line
measurement, measure from the surface of the box to the surface of the
sculpture at critical points.
This will give you the DEPTH information to complement the Profile
information you are already utilizing. This is not really needed for
smaller work, as your eye will be good enough, but really comes in
handy when doing stuff on a large scale.
OR-
First- boolean out two long, thin parallel cylinders from your solid
model- like pipes or rods running thru it.
Then, use the "slicing" feature in form Z to generate Cross Sections
at specific intervals thru the length or height of the piece.
Print these cross sections out (use a plotter at Kinkos for big stuff)
at the scale of the final work and use them to cut out your wood into
roughly accurate cross sectional slabs and laminate them together
using the dowels thu the parallel holes to align them. Cut them a
trifle OUTSIDE the line to give yourself a little room to move.
Now you can finish cut to make the surface nice-
Its a little butcher-block like in terms of the wood, But I see a lot
of woodcarvers laminating wood to combat warping and checking
anyway...
You can just as easily use this technique to cut Foam slabs and
assemble them for overlaying with plastilene or wax, or any other
material you can easily work in your shop. It is a low cost
alternative to sending the file to a CNC foam cutter.
Happy modeling
christopher
Sculptingman
you say you "believe" a lot.
That, to me, is a problem.
You believe they destroyed it- but that is because you bought into a
line of "belief" that the the art was done in a certain fashion that
was based upon observations of others, who were looking at something
grimed over with age.
Or you saw it yourself and decided that the thing you loved about it
was something that turned out to be the effect of dirt.
Either way- all the EVIDENCE suggests that the work, post cleaning, is
closer to what Micheangelo was intending to create.
Commentary conteporary to the finishing of the work supports this as
it frequently mentions the BOLD use of color, rather than any subtle
dark hues.
Only after a hundred years or so do you see comments on the dark
shading in the work. A hundred years of tallow candles will smudge any
ceiling up.
As to my basic art skills- I have them.
I can do technical drawing all day, and I CAN draw freehand, with a
week's practice I am actually passably good at it, albeit not nearly
as good as I am at sculpting. I do illustrations when required- and I
can say that the program Painter has helped alot as it allows me to
re-acclimate to the 2D world without having to go thru a fortune of
messed up rag paper and pastels.
But I seldom have need of drawing.
Spending all my time sculpting, I have developed the habit of
visualizing 3 dimensionally. My biggest problem in going to the pencil
is I keep breaking the point off the thing as I unconsciously try to
move the pencil INTO the paper to draw a receding line. Or lose the
line as I unconsiously lift the pencil slightly when drawing a line
that is advancing. I don't look at a 3D object and interpret it as a
flat projection, rather I see it as a solid.
This really helps me to be a better sculptor.
I am not really alone in this- sculptors who work out their designs
entirely on paper tend to visualize flat, and this limits their
ability to understand a sculpture as a 3 dimensional object.
I would have to say that, based upon my experience of other artists,
great painters are seldom great sculptors, although they may be okay-
and vice versa.
I think most folks will find that, based upon how they visualize the
world around them, they can always be better at one than the other.
Keep in mind that some folks think I draw fine, but that I am
comparing what i can draw to what I can sculpt.
I 'm just trying to be honest about it.
christopher
Sculptingman
> digital renderings online?
> Robert
Thanks, Robert. Its a pretty big deal for me as it will get me out of
the debt incurred in a decade of knowing lawyers too well.
I don't have my own website and have no clue how to post a picture on
the group, which I understand is frowned upon, so, I don't know how I
could get a picture to you...
i suppose I could e-mail one to you if you really want...
christopher
foote
if you want some help
setting up a website and posting
some of you sculptures... i can
help you with that......its a pretty
simple thing to do...
ffffff
Gary Waller
>> Keep in mind that some folks think I draw fine, but that I am
> comparing what i can draw to what I can sculpt.
>
> I 'm just trying to be honest about it.
>
> christopher
Chris - here is an excellent link on drawing
http://www.ndoylefineart.com/mechanics4.html
If you read it carefully, you will get a little sense of the history behind
all this debate - that you have been trained to draw in the 'old school' way
is apparent - this way is not working for you. A 3d representation of a
fairly natural scene, common in the renaissance (even if it is an imagined
natural scene) is much easier than a 2d representation, or 3d representation
of lets say - what the ground smells like after the summer rain. Try the
techniques of gesture drawing to loosen up your brain from the old 'draw
what you see' ways.
As far as technique. I got one of those large size graphic tablets from
Aiptek for one third of the price as the waco. Do a pencil sketch and then
scan it, bring it into Painter8, or photoshop as a layer. Then masking tape
the drawing to the tablet. You can then add colors, fine lines, letters etc
with the stylus. The stylus can be infinitely adjusted. Also real helpful is
lcd monitor for the main screen and a second crt monitor to hold your tools
and pallettes. Don't think for a minute that I haven't tried 3d programs - I
have tried every major one - and they all have steep learning curves and
non-intuitive interfaces - they cannot seem to handle 'gesture' drawings for
example - they force you to put round pegs in round holes - again, the old
school or 'academy' way.
Its funny how we can live in parallel but separate experiences - my
experience is that most artists began in drawing - this is the core skill
taught at nearly every art school - whether 'old school' or flavour of the
month - whether preschool or post graduate. I would say that I got into
computer graphics in the 1980's because I am lazy - I thought it would make
drawing easy - it does not. I got in to sculpture in 1990 because I was
lazy - I thought it was easier than trying to learn 2d perspective drawing -
it is not - its more like the old 'rubics' cube - you change one thing,
everything else changes. I started to draw more, then I began to look more
towards painting than sculpting because it is easier to make a living as a
painter businessman than a sculpting businessman. I am now interested in a
hybrid style combining stucco relief and fresco.
Jon Cattan
"Sculptingman" wrote in message
> I don't have my own website and have no clue how to post a picture on
> the group, which I understand is frowned upon, so, I don't >know how
Icould get a picture to you...
> i suppose I could e-mail one to you if you really want...
"foote" wrote in message
Is it frowned on in the group, not to know how to post a picture?
I, too, am computer illiterate when it comes to web stuff although I am not
too bad at Photoshop, and I am developing
some drawing skills.
''Sculptingman'' seems to know his stuff about 3D Computer
design applications,CAD etc. Which is looks far more complicated than web
stuff.
I have tried web page making, read a book, done a small online course but it
all turns to shit. I can't even log in successfully to the free web page
wizard offered by my I.S.P.
Pathetic! Huh?
When I first subscribed to this newsgroup, I posted a message mentioning one
of my sculptures. Someone, I forget who, now, suggested I should show a
picture by 'throwing up an url'. I know what they meant now, but at the time
it sounded disgusting.
The good news is that my daughter is now building up my website. So, sooner
or later, you will be invited to view some of my stuff.
''Sculptingman'' should take up ffffff's kind offer. We all need the help we
can get.
Jon Cattan
foote
i could put up a web page... and
everyone could have their own
page in it....to display what ever
they wanted... call it the alt.scuplpt
.gallery??? any suggestions here
fffffffffff
foote
caked over with grime...
see "Conversion of St. Paul"
"Cruxificition of St. Peter" both are
in the Pauline Chapel in Vatican.
These show he did not work for
disneyland cartoon studios..
He also did paitings and drawings
that show how he worked.
>>>>>
done in a certain fashion that
> was based upon observations of others, who were looking at something
grimed over with age.
#######
no it was based on my own observations by looking at the
before and after photos of the
sistine chapel... and my knowledge
of M...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> it frequently mentions the BOLD use of color, rather than any subtle
> dark hues.
#######
the subtle color changes are in the
LIGHT colors not the darks.. M made
most of the color changes in the lights
in the darks we basically one tone..
with another dark color .. if he wanted
to empahzise something real dark
like a shadow...
>>>>>>>>>>>
> Only after a hundred years or so do you see comments on the dark
> shading in the work.
##########
yes.. and thats why i like reading
first hand sources... you skip the
re-quoting of other "experts"
>>>>>>>>>>>
> I would have to say that, based upon my experience of other artists,
> great painters are seldom great sculptors, although they may be okay-
> and vice versa.
well i have met many big $ sculptors
who can't draw at all...i recall meeting
one dude ..while painting a landscape
whose portraits looked
really bad...i mean this dude could not
draw at all...yet was very successful
at his bronze statues...
broze 10 foot
eagles looked great....but he wasn't cutting into stone here... just adding
or taking away with clay...which requires less skills than carving stone.
M believed artist was a preresquite
for becomming a sculptor... and was
always encouraging his students
to learn how to draw first...
a lot of artists just don't take the next
step and are happy to just do drawing..
and not go on to sculpting....and by
sculpting M meant stone ... not wood
carving or clay modeling... which he
put down...
Personally... i don't care what medium
anyone works in...its all sculpture...
M used to get on Leonardo's case
all the time...but in end he changed
his mind and said it was all the same...
ffffff
foote
"Sculptingman wrote
> haptic arm, which provides tactile feedback so that you can actually
> FEEL the model you are working on.
cyber clay ...oh no...........
i like the feel of clay it also is the
basis of my massage skills..
this reminds me of a artist who told me how she couldn't work that day
becasue the electric power was out...and she used a electric projector to
projector her works....and then
copied from her photos..
M would be turning over in his grave
You do need electricity to draw..
Pretty soon if you don't have a computer you can do any art at all....
It will be all cut and paste...
fffffff
Sculptingman
At least, that is what my mother tells me, I simply do not rememebr a
time when I didn't sculpt every day.
I never really drew or took art classes until high school- so I had a
nine or ten year period of solely 3D visualization, during years that
my brain was organizing.
It is not that I don't have a sense for 2D design, or that my
technique is hidebound, so much as the initial freehand drawing of an
object that I mentally "see" from all sides.
Sometimes my quick sketches look more like "wireframe" models, as I
tend to draw the lines on the far side as well as the near.
With the wacom tablet I am able to undo the lines that I tend to make
that are not correct, without smudging the paper- so that is a big
help.
In High school and college I took art classes that focused on drawing.
I found that after applying myself to it for a week or two solid, I
would suddenly "flip" to a 2D visualiztion in my mind and thereafter I
could draw pretty well. Got As. But then I would have a little
difficulty doing sculpting to my satisfaction.
I tend to stick with sculpting. Most of the drawing I do is technical
iilustrations of products I design, tho when I have to draw a figure,
I sometimes resort to what Michelangleo sometimes did- I make a quick
model in clay, just a few inches tall, and pick a side to draw it
from.
christopher
Andrew Werby
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3Sprc.40062$hH.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
one, making sure spam and virii are excluded. Being able to see pictures of
people's work would be great.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Sculptingman
> "Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
> news:59d744d1.04051...@posting.google.com...
> >> Yes- when I say i will point it up, I mean that I will have it scanned
> > and cut in foam, and then I will apply the final surface of plastilene
> > and finish the clay myself. While I could do it myself- it is faster,
> > more accurate and more cost effective(for a work this size) to have it
> > done digitally. I am also having a small scale version output at the
> > City's request for them to sell in their gift shop. These days the
> > only things i point traditionally are things that are at that the
> > awkward size that is too small for foam cutting, and too large for wax
> > printing.
> >
>
> Chris - we indeed are debating - not fighting or arguing.
>
> 1) Show me just one of M's models which exactly (meaning within 1/4 inch)
> corresponds to points on a full scale sculpture.
1/4 inch? Most pointing at the scale of David- for stone work, is
about 1 inch shy of the measured point- that is the rough cut- then
the sculptor comes in to do the finish cut. Sometimes the sculptor
will make the finish cut to measure, but sometimes he will vary it a
little. The smaller the maquette, generally, the wider the variance
between the maquette and the full size as the maquette has, both,
flaws not visible until enlarged, and the problem of the size tip of
the measuing tool versus the scaled up area it covers.
Also- it is not possible to measure very well to "hidden" points, that
is, areas that can not be measured with a straight pointing tool from
one of the four sides of the maquette.
As to accuracy- look at any of his maquttes in the V&A in London and
compare them to the full size (when there is one) They are dead
accurate, in terms of their proportions and their balance, although
the maquettes have a very subtle energy to them that is lacking in the
stone.
You are misunderstanding the purpose of traditional pointing as used
by the sculptor- it is not to make the final surface match the
maquette like a profiler matches a moulding-( although with digital
pointing this can be achieved) it is to get the proportions and
positions of the masses of the figure correct in space.
Drawing a profile on two sides of the block of where an upraised arm
is will not work, since, once you start carving, you have lost your
profile and can not draw it again accurately on the undulating and
ever changing carved surface. With a large scale work, it is
impossible to see the relation of a raised forearm to the overall
balance of the figure as you cut- so you must measure.
The average traditional pointing scheme translates to points about 4
to 10 inches apart on the full size model- this is hardly 1/4 inch
accuracy, Gary. Its not about making the undulations of the six pack
abdominal muscles match the maquette perfectly, it is about making
sure the swell of the abdomen is where it belongs in relation to the
position of the feet, arms head etc..
Today, stone cutters all over the world send maquettes to carrera,
where they do the pointed rough cut and ship them the much lighter
result for finish cutting. Cutting directly into carrera marble with
no model to measure from, at greater than life size, results in bad
proportion and expensive mistakes.
>
> 2) If you read more deeply about the frescoes - it was the removing of the
> patina which is the problem - how many times have you seen the antique
> furniture guys moan on about the housewife who removes 200 years of patina
> to spruce up a piece. This patina - a 'wearing in' specific to time, place
> and circumstance, is one of the things which attracts me to fresco, and fine
> wine, and twice read books, and old buildings, and old tunes, and older
> women I guess too.
Patina is a misleading word, Gary, because in modern parlance it often
means a surface treatment that is purposely applied.
The restorers spent years just assessing what was dirt and what was
there on purpose. there was a layer of varnish, but it was shown that
it was applied over about 200 years worth of candle soot, so it wasn't
applied by michelangelo.
The vatican very stringently went over all the restorer's reports and
tests and it was the Vatican that decided what would stay and what
would be removed. They ulitmately decided that anything not done by
the hand of micheangelo would be removed- They could tell what was
contemporary to Michelangelo by the amount and kind of dirt between
any two layers in question.
Antique furniture is not the same as fine art- You think its okay for
the Artist's vision to be altered by years of weathering, abuse, and
modification? Patina, as you describe it is just that- hell, a grape
juice stain on your carpet is as much a "patina" as the soot on the
ceiling. While the furniture mavens of the roadshow might bemoan the
refinishing of wood- the appraisers of paintings nearly always
recommend restoration. Its a different standard.
Now, you may like the look of aged and dirtied fresoes-and the tumbled
and exploded state of the parthenon, just as most people love the
beautifully dilapidated look of the tuscan country houses- but the
person who built that 400 year old house did not leave it looking that
way when he put down his hammer and paintbrush.
What would Michelangelo say if he saw it all dirty and monkeyed with?
Don't you think he wanted his vision to be what people see and not
just what was left by time and grime?
In the cathedral of Sienna is a room the priests used mostly for the
storage, not reading, of books. As a result, they were seldom in there
for long and there was very little pollution from people and their
doings. In this room are what is widely considered the very best
preserved frescoes from the renaissence period. They have no
significant soot or dirt on them and they are breathtakingly colorful.
Raphael was an appentice he he worked on these with his master.
I tend to opt for the very reason that artists used fresco at all- the
colors were lightfast, unlike paintings, they remained vibrant and
rich for centuries.
That is why the restoration of the cistine was the right thing to do.
>
> 3) In overcoming your drawing handicap, and saving a lot of money just
> sending the mold to the foundry, I think this is very innovative. There is
> no better alternative to your unique situation. I will curious as to see the
> costs of the cyberfoam and digital machining - can you specify 'no hand
> carving whatsoever please' - the level of detail will be interesting too.
The level of detail is limited by three things- 1. the "mesh" ,that
is, how many points are sampled to represent a curve, for this piece
probably 1/8" between points. 2. the cutting head- the cutting head
can not reproduce detail smaller than the diameter of the point of the
tool. 3. the foam cell. the foam has a cellular size which makes the
surface like a fine sponge, so, even if you improved on the first two,
you can not overcome the limitation of the size of the bubble holes in
the foam.
The cost will be around $13,000- this includes scanning the maquette,
cleaning the data, and outputting two versions, a lifesize version in
foam, and an 9 inch tall version in resin. They will be outputting
both a full size figure, in several sections, but also an entire 6
foot section of the wall he is sitting on- it will be sculpted to look
like sandbags, and I will provide this foam model to the concrete
contractor to make forms for casting this section of the wall in
concrete to match the sculpture.
So- The figure will be bronze, but the section of the sculptural
portion of the wall he is sitting on will be colored and textured
concrete.
CyberFX will not alter the output themselves. They actually recommend
outputing to full surface, and adding plastilene over that so that the
final work is slightly "bloated" they say that in their experience
this compensates just about perfectlyh for the attenuation of the
figure due to the shrinkage of wax and bronze.
>
> 4) Albrecht Durer grid (461 hits on google) is different than a simple
> scaling grid because it takes into account 3d perspective.
The question is, Gary, what did Albrecht call this? I would bet he
called it something like " a revolutionary and improved method of
pointing!"
James Burke- who did the wonderful "connections" series also did a
series, way back, called "the Day The Universe Changed", one episode
of which dealt with how the development of perspective rendering
revolutionized how human beings saw the world and their relation to
it. It is really well done and follows the development of all these
techniques and how they came about and how they resulted in changing
our entire world view.
very interesting viewing if you can find it.
christopher
Sculptingman
bunch from many other famous masters- But I do not know for sure if
this was a visiting exhibition or on loan or what...
They had a fantastic collection of marble, but also one of the most
comprehensive "design" collections I have ever seen.
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<Advqc.1789$fF3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Sculptingman
> you see????
>
I should add that I have seen photos of several others, here and
there, but these were the only ones I could get up close and see from
all sides.
They are more expressive and nuanced than the large versions- I think
because they are gestural, quickly done, and rendered with the
artist's fingers rather than a steel chisel.
christopher
Sculptingman
> "Sculptingman wrote
>
> > haptic arm, which provides tactile feedback so that you can actually
>
> Pretty soon if you don't have a computer you can do any art at all....
> It will be all cut and paste...
I prefer the feel of real clay as well- but when I need to get a
repeating gothic ornament wrapped around a vase, the machine saves me
weeks of tedious labor., And, with freefrom, it is still my hand doing
the work.
It is actually no faster in doing figure work, and a trifle less
facile, so I stick with clay.
Its real huge impact will be in how i just described it, as a design
and previsualization tool, for the purposes of Selling a concept. The
real creative work will still be done largely by hand.
Myself- I use all the tools available- and I take pains to teach the
anyone who wants to know the traditional techniques.
In fact- knowing the traditional methods actually makes using the new
technology easier and your results much more refined.
christopher
Sculptingman
off because i want it to be just so.
One trouble is that I am not interested in just a "vanity" site- it
would have to function at least as an online resume, and, at present,
I could not handle more work than is currently cming in, so, don't
really need it.
Another is that other folks own what would be my domain name- so it
would be hard for people to even find it doing a standard search.
Hopefully, one I am out of debt, i will have the spare time to devote
to this.
christopher
PS- to the other respondant- not knowing how is not frowned on, its
the actual posting of pictures On the group that is frowned on- LINKS
to an image site are the prefered method- but I don't have one.
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<y48rc.34543$hH.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Sculptingman
So- you remember how the guy assaulted the Pieta with a hammer 25
years ago? When they grabbed him and asked him why, why, why would
you strike at the Pieta like that?! he replied... "PEITA! I thought
you said PINATA!"
christopher
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3ljqc.80241$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> > This is nonsense. Piano is performance, sure Michelangelo hit his thumb
> with the mallet as often as any other stone carver.
>
> i'm sure he hit his thumb many times...thats not my point ... the point
> speaking of pointing...
>
> .is that he was a very
> skilled craver who seldom missed
> at what he wanted the stone to do....
> and in this he made very few mistakes..
>
> like he didn't mess up
> the pieta... which a unskilled scuptor
> would have screwed up the hem, robes, and free curving fingers on the
> hands..which required percison cutting...with chisel and hammmer...
>
> wheras...the sculpture by federick hart on the national catherderal ...looks
> like pitchfork fingers...compared to
> M's work...
>
> ffffffff
>
> fffffffff
foote
but that hand he smashed up was
my favorite part of the whole
sculpture.....individual fingers
curving inward...wow.....
dam ... he could of
hammered something else...
but fortunately the vatican had
just made a mold of that hand so
they were ablt to put it back
together...
fffffffff
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.04052...@posting.google.com...
foote
no problem..
i will make it so you can upload
images in jpg...which won't allow
viruses...
and be automatic after that...
thumbs will be generated from the
pic if they are under 100k and and
be automatically posted to your page..
click on the thumb and the big
pictures will pop up...
i won't do any editing it will be
a automatic system....
with password protection...
so only you can update your page...
so give me 2 weeks or so to get
this together...
but first .......
i need to know how many
people would be interested in this...
i don't want to do this for one
person...
so we need a website name
any suggestions out there????
check your name submission
with www.networksolutions.com
before emailing it here...
ffffffff
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:5Mtrc.92009$iF6.8013727@attbi_s02...
foote
alt.sculpture group...
if you got
perl 5.+ and mysql 3.23+ I could
put it up on your site....and it could
live there....on your website...
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:5Mtrc.92009$iF6.8013727@attbi_s02...
>
Billy Hiebert
And thank you Foote.
--
Billy Hiebert
HIEBERT SCULPTURE WORKS
Small Part Injection Molding
http://www.hieberts.com
Sculptingman
> i need to know how many
> people would be interested in this...
I'd be interested, if only to allow visual feedback back and forth to
the folks on this site.
as to names how about
?
christopher
Sculptingman
> art ... i always called
> this skill proprotion not pointing...
> pointing i associate more with sculpture...
It is called pointing because of its origins in drawing- like in
geometry when you plot "points" on a grid-
>
> I guess i see is a whole image to be
> reduce..and my brain automatically
> reduces the entire image to the
> appropriate size...and tells my hand
> to start sketching here and there.
> occassionally i may take sighitings
> to make sure i'm on track...
>
> i guess you see a point on a larger
> image... and try to place that point
> on your paper...
You are thinking of this backward- you do not generally point from a
large image to a smaller one- Drawing tablet size paper is of a size
that you can visually "get" the entire image.
It has nothing to do with how facile your brain is at visualizing
proportion, it has to do with the fact that when M was carving the
left hand on the full size piece, he could not SEE the right, or it
was at such a distance and he was looking at it at such an angle that
he could not accurately tell if this hand matched that in size, or if
it was posed correctly in relation to the figure.
To do that you need calipers.
Well, to get the arm with the hand on it in the right position
relative to the clay original, you need to point.
The pointing is not drawing on paper, it goes like this- If I am
measuring at every two inches across a figure 24 inches tall and 24
inches wide i will draw a grid on paper that creates cells in a 12 x
12 array.
Then I will set a surface gauge and measure the first point from the
surface gauge to the surface, lets say, 4 inches.- if I am pointing to
a 4x enlargement, then I will write '16"' in the cell representing
that point. I will do the same for every other point- factoring up the
measurement by 4. I end up with a table of measures.
Once I have all the points from the model, I can cut the stone,
stopping to measure now and again until each point is cut to one inch
shy of the factored measure- i.e. for the first point I can keep
chiselling the stone until it measures 16" from the reference plane.
Once that is done I can stand back and the stone is perfectly roughed
to the exact same pose and proportions of the model- now that I know
that everything is in its place, i can go in and do the fine cut by
eye, relying on the measurements only as a guide.
it is at this point where I mnay decide to cut the forearm a little
more massively, or alter the initial design in any number of subtle
ways.
>
> What i do is to complicated
> to be reduced to points... its better
> to let my brain do all the computations... automatically...
> this is working holistically with
> the right side of your head...
>
> pointing is more of a left sided
> thing....measure..point...measure
> ..point...
Well, you work the way that suits you and that's fine- some folks go
at it unsure what the end result will be, enjoying the process of
making design decisions as the work progresses. That's fine and I
understand that. I do much the same.
The only difference is that when I am wanting to make a piece at large
scale, I can not afford to make a mistake, or I do not have the time
to try it several ways, or the materials are too expensive for me to
mess around with, and there is almost always a deadline.
So I go ahead and work freehand and design on the fly... I just do it
at a managable scale, in a forgiving medium.
Once I have worked out all the design issues, in a maquette, I use
pointing to ensure that the final piece matches it.
So that is the principle difference between your approach and mine-
You design as you go in the stone- I design in clay before I order the
stone.
I can tell you that, especially when there is a client who needs to
approve the design, to start with a smaller model and use proper
technique to point up to monumental will always result in a better
work.
christopher
Gary Waller
> approve the design, to start with a smaller model and use proper
> technique to point up to monumental will always result in a better
> work.
>
> christopher
Well Chris - as far as google is concerned - pointing or pointing up is
nearly always associated with a pointing machine or pantograph. If you want
to recreate this word for your own use - huzzahloozki to you - just don't
insist that everybody else do the same.
This latest part of your thread has convinced me that you have never carved
anything, in any material, over ten foot high. Where did you carve this
stone? What type of stone was it? Do you mean carving foam or wood? Is foote
saying he would tackle a major stone carving without a detailed drawing,
sketches (clay and pencil), templates(cartoons), plumb bobs and calipers - I
don't think so. Where are you picking up this notion?
There are lots of famous artists who don't know how to draw - David Hockney
is one - but it is quite another thing to write a book, as he did, claiming
that no one can draw realistic scenes without using a camera obscura or
lucida, including the old masters. This is sort of what your stand is - that
M' must have pointed off a highly detailed model because there is no way he,
or anybody, can do it another way. The facts have proven David Hockney wrong
and the facts have proven you wrong. I quoted my source (Peter Rockwell) -
your source is 'your gut feeling' because 'I've been sculpting since four
years old' - well I'm sorry thats just B.S. then. Your further defence of
this stance 'that I don't trust no dang book learnin' is laughable.
Sculptingman
You keep trying to suggest that I am wrong about this, but then
qualify your statements suggesting that "of course" everyone uses
plumb bobs and calipers and scale drawings.
So you are saying this is not qualifying as pointing technique? is it
the WORD you object to?
Okay, let's avoid the word for a minute.
It seems to me that what I am suggesting is that to realize a large
scale work, experienced, trained and competent artists in the past and
the experienced, trained and competent artists of today work out their
designs at a small scale and then ensure that the big version matches
the composition, balance and nuance of the scale design thru factored
measurements.
And that they do this because of a problem in perception, i.e.
standing at the foot of a skycsraper, or even on the 40th floor, you
have no way to tell how what you do will look from a mile away in
relation to the buildings around it. So you place girders according to
a plan, not your eye.
I have further suggested that, because a sculpture is not a drawing,
that better results and better measurements will be had by working
from a scale sculpture, rather than a scale drawing of a sculpture.
This is common sense and I have supported it thru plenty of examples-
Others have chimed in with quotes and passages that, I have had to
point out, keep referring to scale models and measuring techniques.
YOU have not come up with ANY evidence that large scale work was NOT
measured from a model.
In fact- you posted a poof of my argument in regards to the Lincoln
memorial by French.
In the past this process was referred to, by artists, as pointing ( in
english)- try looking up art books written in the 1800s and see.
(Lantieri is still in print- read what he says about pointing and why
it must be used)
As regards your google search, you have missed the fact that it
entirely supports MY position.
You found references to "pointing MACHINES"- and why are they
called pointing machines? Because they are a machine that you use to
do "pointing".
Now I can go down the street and rent a "trenching machine"- but if I
can't afford it, and opt to break out my shovel and dig, I am still
"TRENCHING" aren't I?
So- anytime you find some technology called an "insert-term-here
MACHINE" you have found something that used to be done without a
machine that was just called "insert-term-here".
Knitting machine.
Washing machine.
Sewing machine.
All hand techniques that the word machine was appended to AFTER they
came up with a labor saving device applicable to an existing
technique.
No one ever came up with an "Albrecht Drurer Technique machine" or a
"proportion machine" because this is not what folks in the trade
called what they did.
Further;
Any term describing a technique of hand work is desciptive of the
ACTIVITY involved and should, therefore, be a verb.
Sewing is a verb.
Knitting is a verb.
Washing, trenching, sculpting, painting, framing, etc.
Pointing is a verb.
Proportion is not.
Ergo- the historically accepted and proper term for this process is
"pointing", whether done by machine or hand.
And;
your google search did not find many references to pointing as a hand
technique- which supports my contention that artists of today are not
being trained in pointing. Google searches do not return the sum of
human knowledge, just the most popular knowledge of today.
Artists come across the machines created to speed the process and fail
to realize that there was a process that preceded the machine.
Postulate;
All really large work is done by measurements from a model. (be it a
graphic model, virtual model or a physical model)
Postulate;
In art, the process of accurately factoring up and transferring
measurements from a scale model to a larger or smaller size is
historically referred to as pointing.
I stand by these statements and have demonstrated that the evidence
supports it.
Heck, YOU have demonstrated that the evidence supports it.
So - YOU prove to me that you can get just as good a result flying by
the seat of your pants...
OR- you provide proof that there is some other term for the technique
I am describing that shows widespread historical usage. Or- you
provide proof that, although there WAS a measuring and scaling
technique called "whatever", that hosts of artist's have used
throughout human history, nevertheless, certain really big artists did
not use it.. Or- YOU resolve the constant mention of 'working models"
in the literature by demonstrating a method of realizing large work
accurately that, starting with a model, does not involve taking
measurements from that model...
But whichever way, please be clear about what you are arguing, because
I can't really tell where you stand at all.
christopher
Sculptingman
> stopping to measure now and again until each point is cut to one inch
> shy of the factored measure- i.e. for the first point I can keep
> chiselling the stone until it measures 16" from the reference plane.
oops!- stupid typo- this last was meant to say that the factored
measure would be 16" but that you would cut it till it showed 15"-
one inch SHY of the measured point- this wouldfgive you the rough cut-
proportionally correct- then you could "ease" it down to what you want
on the clocal scale.
christopher
Gary Waller
>
> the seat of your pants...
>
I'm growing weary of this Chris - Peter Rockwell has spent a lifetime
studying these types of questions - you obviously can't be bothered to check
out one of his many books.
This is how another master stonecarver works,
http://www.stonecarver.com/carvtool.html
and he is our age, is classically trained, is from Chicago, he quite
rightly refers to pointing as using a device to copy from a detailed model.
This is one tool of many he utilises -but he uses it only on one small part
of one job as far as I can see - and he has a broad span of work.
He shows his famous architectural gargoyles where he did create a model -
probably for committee approval - then he plonks it on top of the block and
starts carving. Then he also shows 3d computer modelling too - this is the
example where he used a pointing machine on a complicated capital.
This is close to how I am learning carving too - drawings and cartoons -
pointing machines if necessary - cad/cam if necessary - BY SIGHT AND FEEL A
LOT OF THE TIME. This is the right and natural way - and it is also the way
of the masters - I checked. If you want to learn about stonecarving - read
this site well.
Good luck.
Sculptingman
irrascible as I.
> and he is our age, is classically trained, is from Chicago, he quite
> rightly refers to pointing as using a device to copy from a detailed model.
Maybe he considers a plumb bob and a yardstick a "device".
Gary- he says you use pointing to get it right when its big. Working
in Cad Cam is the ultimate extreme form of pointing where millions of
points on a virtual maquette are calculated by computer.
How is this an argument?
But, again, what is your point? You speak of a guy nowadays who admits
to sometimes pointing. Is this refuting my statement that most
artists today do not receive training in pointing?, Or is this
refuting that pointing is necessary?
I know how to point. I am sure lots of others do, too- but most
artists don't- as can be seen in this thread.
You simply are not being clear about what you are saying I am wrong
about.
To be clear, I never said it was necessary. I even stated that most
artists today- not knowing how to point, or not believing it is
necessary, don't point to make larger works. I simply stated that in
the past, when the tradition of artists training under other
professionally trained artists was still widespread, NO ONE so trained
would consider making pieces larger than a life size figure without
using a pointing technique.
That any artist writing today or practicing today would suggest that
pointing is not needed or recommended is plainly in support of my
contention that artists today are largely ignorant of the working
methods of the past and the problems those methods were developed to
solve.
That today's artists, in regards to traditional craft, often don't
know what they are talking about is my premise- you can not refute my
point by quoting the artists of today who refute the use of pointing.
If you want to refute me effectively, Gary, try finding ANY pre-1900s
book on studio techniques that covers large scale work and DOES NOT
recommend pointing. ( and doesn't call it pointing) Go back as far as
you like- every one I have consulted insists on it.
> He shows his famous architectural gargoyles where he did create a model -
> probably for committee approval - then he plonks it on top of the block and
> starts carving. Then he also shows 3d computer modelling too - this is the
> example where he used a pointing machine on a complicated capital.
>
A quick review of my posts on this reveals that I have stated,
repeatedly, that SMALL work does not require pointing- I specifically
mention that things GARGOYLE size are small enough to carve directly.
I, for example, have carved things like capitals (mostly in plaster,
for molding) with no pointing whatsoever- just geometry to divie up
the column head into regular repeating units. ( actually, we generally
carved just 1 quarter of the capital- then would take four molds off
the same master and assemble them into a full capital mold)
You keep reacting as if I am somehow taking the art out of sculpting
large things. that is not so- pointing is a technique for preserving
the art in the work, and not getting something wrong, especially when
getting it wrong can not readily be fixed.
> This is close to how I am learning carving too - drawings and cartoons -
> pointing machines if necessary - cad/cam if necessary - BY SIGHT AND FEEL A
> LOT OF THE TIME. This is the right and natural way -
I have never stated that carvers do not rely on sight and feel- I have
stated that at large scale sight and feel are inadequte to make
modifications to gross proportion, pose and balance because AS YOU
CARVE, you can not adequately SEE and FEEL the result. You can try,
by backing away, determining where you need to adjust, and then
keeping your eye on that spot as you come up to the work and chipping
just a bit, then backing away to ensure you are not over doing it, and
repeating this a thousand times...
however, this is tedious, time wasting, error prone, and becomes
increasingly unworkable as the size of the work increases.
Or, of course, you can stick to carving subjects where such nuances as
are seen in classical figure work are not an issue.
When pointing results in a one inch over rough cut (or more)- there is
still an awful lot of Look and Feel in refining that surface down to
the shape that your talent tells you is best.
In any event- if you work out your design ahead of time, on paper or
in clay, and take measures from it- then you, too, are pointing
regardless of what you choose to call it.
For cutting relief work in stone- pointing up from a drawing is more
than adequate. Sculptural design maquettes are really most useful for
full dimensional designs.
Perhaps you think that if one only measures to salients- like the
elbow, knee, etc, or if one measures, but not from a reference frame,
that one is not pointing-
This is not true- that is simply pointing inaccurately or haphazardly,
which is fine if that is working for you.
To address your impuning of my experience with large work... (
impuning another's qualification to comment is a frequent substitute
for any valid evidence in refutation)
The largest work I have been involved with (as one of a crew) is a 38
foot long, 11 foot tall lifesize sculpture of a dinosaur for a company
in Chicago that did custom items for museum displays. Mid-stride on
one leg.
They designed the piece in a 3 foot long maquette.
Then did a reference frame pointing of both sides at one inch
intervals.
The points that followed the center of mass of the figure were then
plotted on paper to determine the centerline, and this plot used to
measure, determine angles, cut and weld an entirely interior steel
armature. ( no exterior post or supports- the armature would later be
used to hang the fiberglass casting on so that no external supports
would be required- just the four square foot steel plate the right
foot was welded to) The Maquette and been done similarly- the artist
cleverly used the balance of the one point armature to ensure that the
Dinosaur's anatomy would be properly balanced.
Once the armature was up- we added foam to the armature and cut the
foam to the factored point measures, plus one half inch- so the foam
would be a half inch SMALLER than the finished surface all over.
Going from 36 inches to 38 feet, the resulting points were all about
11 inches apart- this left plenty of room for Look and Feel in
interpreting the surface. The pointing was just to make sure the shape
was basically correct and balanced like the maquette.
Then we applied wax and plastilene to the entire surface- this time
shaping to the pointed dimensions.
Once that was done, the original sculptor of the maquette came in and
made adjustments to the form- he changed a few things from the master,
but it was about 80% good after the pointing.
Then we all started to do the surfacing- a complex and variable scale
texture covering the entire piece. Each of us had about 8 square feet
of surface to do, with the artist frequently making corrections. The
artist himself focused his time on the head and the feet. Wrinkles,
folds and fine details of musculature were all done by look and feel.
As to stone specifically...
Well, I confess I have not cut in stone since my days as an
apprentice- Mostly because it is nearly impossible to make a living
wage cutting stone. Nearly all the work I need to CARVE is carved in
plaster- the largest being the sand casting pattern for a replica
antique ship's propellor-about 12 feet in diameter. But I can carve,
quite well.
For most really large work, I work as in the above dinosaur example,
because that is the way to make money at it, and I have always
supported myself working strictly as a sculptor and designer.
Although I do not generally carve in stone, Gary, I was trained in
how to do so by an Italian guy who spent his youth apprenticing in
Paris, was captured by the Nazis, and spent most of world war two as a
prisoner in Berlin, cutting elaborate figurative headstones out of
granite for german war heroes. (before he escaped Berlin by hand
drawing a valid passport and travel papers)
He taught me a lot, from the big picture to the small ( "Ay! Testa
dura!, keepa you t'umb onna di OUTSIDE of da cheesil, you canno basha
your t'umb lika dees!")
But he did not teach me everything he knew by a long shot, I only had
a few years with him.
He is the one who taught me carve everything from stone to plaster,
and how and when and why to point.
He came from a village where statuary craft and sculpture were the
predominant industries for the last few hundred years.
His name was Gino Boni, and he lived to be 92.
When visiting other sculptor's studios, or college classrooms, I often
find a plaster anatomy study that used to be sold all over the western
world at plaster shops and sculpture suppliers- I always smile
because this was a piece done in 1952 by Gino.
That's where my opinion comes from. I have read many books over the
past 25 years, written from the 1500s to today, covering studio
practice and describing the methods of the masters. I have never seen
credible reference from before the 1900s that does not support this
opinion.
I have seen many folks, as here, quote chapetr and verse of something
they imagine says otherwise- but to one who knows the techniques and
has used them- the quoted texts nearly always describe models and
measuring, or they are thrid hand accounts from sources who never
worked as artists.
christopher
Sculptingman
> feet (garys figure from working
> on movie sets can even be higher)
> you can work off a model ..without
> pointing you and just wing it..
And the results you get will kinda suck- compared to what you would
get if you pointed properly.
Again- I never said you COULDN"T do it by the seat of your pants- I
just said you get much better results doing it thru pointing from a
good model.
And i said that really great artists want the best results and so use
the best technique to get those results.
I have seen the kind of work done for movies these days- and most of
it really stinks. Egyptian stuff that doesn't look egyptian, figures
with bad proportion and clumsy gestures...
How good does it have to be when its on screen for 4 seconds?
Movie studios usually are more concerned that something be done fast
that right- particularly with physical models- they are more exacting
with things like glass matte paintings, because the lighting has to be
just so to get the fake image to meld believable with the live action
shot, But with physical models the work is often pretty rough.
The best lifesize figure work I have seen lately in a movie turned out
to be all foam cuts scanned from live models.
You want an education in technique? Research the movie set work done
by the italian immigrants for D.W. Griffith and Cecil B. DeMille, back
in the day.
They pointed from models.
Watch the making of "Cleopatra" to see how they did the huge sphinx
throne (in Italy)
They pointed.
There are plenty of large works done without the use of pointing- but
not any great works.
>
> Just because you have to use poinitng
> system to do a 4 sculpture... the height of the pieta... doesn't mean that
> others
> can't..
I could carve the entire head of the david at full size without
pointing- once more, you are failing to comprehend the purpose-
pointing does not do the sculpture for you- it helps to get the
enlarged shapes correct.
While I could cut a giant head like david's freehand- and could garner
a close approximation of the figure freehand, even at that size- If I
wanted the figure to really be like the original, even
indistiguishable from the original- or the maquette of the original, I
would have to point it. And so would you.
> recall going to a stone yard to watch
> them carve letters on tombstones
> well they weren't carving they were
> stenciling and blowing off the stone
> recently taught a kid ...how to start
> a cut with a hand saw on wood..
> you know put the saw blade next to
> your thumb...
>
> ... he was cluless.. he always used powered
> tools ... and this kid had won numberous awards for his wood working...
>
> this is truly Amazing.....
Why amazing?- I am having the same problem you did with the
woodworking kid, only I am trying to describe to you how some really
great work got done in the past- before power hammers and projectors.
You are right- skills are being lost- every day.
If you have never tried pointing from a model- then you have no real
conception of just how important it is to realizing your vision in
large scales.
Please, just once- try pointing from a 20 inch model, to a 10 foot
figure. Once you have done it- you will understand why everyone with
any ability did so throughout history.
christopher
Sculptingman
over the past 30 years on these things.. so i can't quote you chapter
and verse- and if you want to disregard or discount my recollection,
that's your prerogative.
Generally- you will find that I do not dredge up stories of
Micheangelo's technique- i usually am just commenting on stories
others have dredged up, when those stories are ones I also recall.
Here I was expanding on the story cited by Gary regarding this event,
as I recall reading similar accounts.
However.
I don't really recall exactly how long he worked before changing
direction- I remember the story being that it was nearly two years
into the work- not months- the first year was probably spent just
doing sketches and playing with ideas and practicing his fresco
technique-
While I have a very good memory- it is not perfect...
So you may be right- it may only have been a few months worth of
actual ceiling work that he chiseled out... I will concede to your
recollection since you seem to be far more into the literature than I.
The interpretation I usually see of this event is like yours, that he
chiselled out a lot of work because he changed the entire direction of
what he was planning- however- I recall the same stories that Gary
apparently does of his changing from freehand drawing to using large
cartoons, as was done by other famous fresco artists of his day.
This complete change in technique at the moment he decided to start
over implies that his disatisfaction with the initial work was at
least partly based in the results he got from the technique he was
using.
Now- i don't recall any Micheangelo worshippers or denigrators ever
suggesting this- this is just my experienced and common sense
interpretation of events as they were reported.
As I said before- i do not let others, particularly non-artists,
interpret artistic methods for me- I base my interpretations on the
reportage of events, weighted by my working experience and judgement
of the competence and reliability of the reporter.
Whenever an artist tears down months of work, changes technique, and
starts over from scratch with a new technique (the facts) it indicates
that the prior technique was faulty or inadequate.
He probably changed the design after gaining experience thru his first
attempt at what kind of images would read well on a vaulted ceiling.
In trying to work out a perspective framework for a last supper he may
have realized, the hard way, that it would not be possible to maintain
perspective across so wide an image on such a curve. So he broke the
ceiling down into smaller, distinct and cozy images that would solve
the problems of perspective on a vault.
These are precisely the kind of decisions you would expect of an
artist that, by his own admission, was "not a painter", and so
learning as he went.
christopher
Gary Waller
Poor Chris - why is it the faster you backpedal, the faster you write!
The Lanteri 'school' of pointing up detailed models, the academy method of
France and Italy, is at best a 80 -140 year section of art history. It kills
good art. It killed the development of American sculpture in the 1800's and
early 1900's because everything had to be sent to the 'old country'.
Exceptions, like the Lincoln Memorial are outstanding because of the details
of the hands and eyes - and due, according to Vincent Polumbo, to the skill
of the Picirrili stonecarvers. The reason we start to see some significant
American sculptures, such as Fredericht Hart, emerge in the mid 20th century
is a reliance on sight and feel - like a bird leaving the nest. Even in
France - Rodin was able to break away from the academy, and is considered a
modern master compared to his 'academic' brethern - here look at this on
the Rodin museum website:
http://www.musee-rodin.fr/smarb-e.htm
Which also includes this gem - which is not considered at all controversial
today:
" Everyone knows", wrote Gustave Coquiot, "that with only a very sketchy
model, one tackles the lifesize marble with a greater sense of freshness and
energy. This is how the great Renaissance sculptors always worked, and in
this way, one does not wear out too much energy on a model which will be
copied with little enthusiasm" (Le vrai Rodin, 1913) "
I am not making any of this up Christopher - you are.
Learn to loosen up - see the piece develop in light of where it is going to
be located and be seen - and do it for yourself, what you feel, not the
critic or 'customer' or the consumer. It is not the 'tedium' you suggest to
step back and look how it is coming along - it is a great pleasure and the
only proper way - and the natural way. If you sculpt with ' a rod up your
ass' your art will look like it has 'a rod up its ass'.
Gary Waller
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
HUH! I think you losing it now!
The frescos were started traditionally with sinopia, plaster, cartoon and
underpainting. There was a mechanical problem for a short time with his
plaster mix, which he overcame. Then as he worked, he gradually dropped the
sinopia, and finally in the lunettes (the easiest section to paint
physically) painted them freehand within three days. So M' got looser, and
looser as he painted the chapel. He had worked out all his persepective and
foreshortening in drawings because he was unable to see the work from the
floor - the scaffold was in the way. I imagine the lunettes he could see
from acroos the room at least.
keith
You both seem to be arguing the same "point"
Gary, as far as I can see, you are trying to say that a true artist will
study a block of stone, and then start chipping, drilling, etc. until he
"frees the object within". Maybe so..but you have to admit that for an
accurate representation of say the human body there are a few things you
need to be concerned with. the first thing is obvious...the human body has
proportions that you must adhere to, the average male is 7 heads tall, or
the distance from the head to the navel is 3 heads, etc. these are very
general measurements, but they are in fact measurements. The second thing is
gesture, it is much easier to work out a gesture when you can push, pull and
bend your work, this is where the rough clay model comes in. Here again
there are some measurements needed...angle of the shoulders and head, hip
rotation, position of feet, etc..all of these and more are crucial to the
final piece regardless of final detail. Both of these techniques can be done
in you head while you work, although personally I would never trust that,
especially after I had committee approval on my submitted model. Your last
post sums up the pointing process perfectly.
You Wrote(qouted)
> " Everyone knows", wrote Gustave Coquiot, "that with only a very sketchy
> model, one tackles the lifesize marble with a greater sense of freshness and
> energy. This is how the great Renaissance sculptors always worked, and in
> this way, one does not wear out too much energy on a model which will be
> copied with little enthusiasm" (Le vrai Rodin, 1913) "
what Gustave is saying is, if you have a good model(rough or detailed) you
have the confidence to comfortably tackle a large piece of stone because you
know at what "point" everything will be...elbow goes here, shoulder goes
here, etc..You can do that by constantly comparing the large piece to the
small piece a gazillion times or you could take a few measurements before
you start whacking away at that 6 ton chunk-o-rock. I'll do the
measurements. I think what you are picturing is a process where you grid the
whole piece off and start plotting millions of detailed points, as done in
3D digitizing, this is not the case at all. Pointing can be done with only a
few crucial measurements...Just look at a women's clothing catalog on the
page where they show you how to take body measurements for clothing sizes.
If you have those measurements, plus a few more(for gesture) you can then
pull the steel rod out you ass and start sculpting. If I were trying to
duplicate an approved design I would most definitely take many, many more
measurements.
Now as for you Christopher, a little less caffeine may help :-0
I think it is hard to describe something that comes so naturally to someone.
For example I(barely) remember a writing exercise I had to do in school,
where you are supposed to write detailed instructions for making a PB&J
sandwich. Sounds easy, until you think of what we consider "givens". Example
first put some jelly on one piece of bread...WRONG. First you must pick up a
loaf of bread with one hand, place your other hand on the twisted
clasp(twist-Tie), apply pressure with you thumb and forefinger rotate clasp
in opposite direction of twist....you get the idea. I think it took me
around twenty pages with diagrams to completely describe the process of
making a peanut butter & jelly sandwich.
I think you both agree on this topic only one of you is calling it "Dusty
Rose" and the other "Salmon".
Personally I don't care how "M" did it. But I think we can agree that he
probably did enjoy a rod up his ass from time to time.
Keith