Reconstructing George: scientists to create lifelike statues of Washington
Mike
Jim Rees, executive director of George Washington's Mount Vernon
Estate & Gardens, blames the public's perception of George Washington
as a stiff, elderly leader on the portraits painted back in his day.
at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20041020-102941-6789r.htm
Gary Waller
"Mike" <yared...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cd3bf67d.04102...@posting.google.com...
Interesting link Mike.
Also interesting that in Michelangelo's time, he created highly stylised
likenesses of figures like the Medici family (but realisitic of himself).
When asked about this, he commented that politicians would be forgotten
within a hundred years, but the art must live on. I guess the politicians of
the day were flattered too. Calling on these traditions, someone should try
to float a Bill Clinton as young Adonis?
Lowell McFarland
Thank you Mike!
This is actually a fascinating subject with many facets.
As an aside, sculptors I talk to have long since given up on individual
or non-commissioned work because of the personal costs of bronze
castings.
Figurative work seems to be only about 3-D photographic sculptures
of military, political or sports figures and has bottom-line non-art
commission members deciding every minute item.
In art school, I had a professor who talked about professions (like
blacksmiths and sailboat makers, etc.,) who were apexes of personal
skills, that disappeared under advanced mechanizations and factory
settings, and yet have returned ten-fold with the new luxury classes.
Will sculpture go the same way?
With computerization, will accurate 3-D photographic sculptures of
wealthy or notable people become standard - never having been
touched by a person with an art school education?
With thoughts about Rodin and Vigeland, will artistic sculptures, as
opposed to computer generated "accuracies", be returned to
prominence?
From what I remember about the Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland, he
became Scandinavian's best portrait sculptor (he also did the Nobel Peace
Medal) to the rich so that he could fund his 600 nude figures in 192
sculptures placed in the central park in Oslo, Norway - now named Gustav
Vigeland Park - VIGELAND, Museet og Parken.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/arch/769/Vigeland/
I believe that he made a crucial distinction between his accurate bronze
portraits and his unrestricted nude sculptures.
This may be the essence of a debate about life-duplicates versus artistic
renderings (probably not the best word) of the same person.
Vigeland resisted all efforts to showcase his well-financed portraits in
galleries, but purposely created his 192 nude sculptures to be
unrestrictively
seen by all of Oslo, including families, children, religious, officials,
royalty, etc.
Vigeland's statues, donated to the City of Oslo, spanned the years 1907
until
the day he died in 1943.
Vigeland visited and was influenced by Auguste Rodin who best illustrates,
in his unfathomable genius, the essence of what ART over accuracy means.
I am not making an argument against mechanically accurate individual
sculptures
but only talking about the probable distinction between it and the best of
artistic sculptures.
The best, probably includes the series of Balzac statues by Rodin.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/rodin/balzac_plstr.jpg
"Rodin received a commission for a monument to Balzac in 1891 from the
Société des Gens de Lettres.
After seven years' preparation by reading the author's works, by studying
his biography (attempting to understand the personality and psychology of
this literary genius), and by executing about 50 studies, Rodin exhibited a
model of the work in the Salon of 1898.
Not only did the Société reject the work, but it received extraordinary
controversy in the press. [The Societe then commissioned another sculptor
to do the Balzac statue - nobody has seen this inferior [[?]] work in many
years]
Criticism centered on the fact that Rodin's treatment of a famous person did
not follow the formula for aggrandizing the subject and on the lack of a
finished
surface, so important in academic sculptural style."
"Although Balzac did wear the famous robe while working, the lack of
emphasis
on his body focuses attention on his face and the unruly shock of hair.
Rodin
attempts to convey Balzac's genius by depicting the deep-set visionary eyes.
"
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/rodin/balzac.html
"Rejecting the copy and formula, his efforts achieved much more than the
combining
the expressivity of movement with an emphasis on form and the inherent
qualities of
the medium: through works that have taken on a quasi-mythical dimension, he
initiated a revival of the true meaning of sculpture.
Rodin effected at one and the same time a synthesis of the great epochs of
sculpture
and inaugurated new techniques of composition and expression. Thanks to his
mastery
of modeling, he enabled the body to express the intensity of its passions
through its
own forms. A fragment or a sketch from his hands could hold more meaning,
more
feeling, more art than any of the allegorical groups that were so much in
vogue among
his contemporaries. More than that, Rodin was involved in the unending
process of the
work-in-process, and was thus one of the great precursors of modern
creativity."
Rodin, Jarrase, ISBN 2-87939-084-2
In summary, I believe that the new computer generated sculptures and
artistic
sculptures, even with their apparent nominal subject, are at opposite poles
systemically and functionally.
Just as our greats, Vigeland and Rodin, handled existing pronounced
dualities involving
sculptures and sculptors, today, artistic sculptors have the same problem of
doing significant work.
And the world may be filled with mechanized accurate sculptures at the same
time.
Lowell McFarland low...@optonline.net
Gary Waller
"Lowell McFarland" <low...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v0Zdd.40277$YM4.13...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> This is actually a fascinating subject with many facets.
>who were apexes of personal
> skills, that disappeared under advanced mechanizations and factory
> settings, and yet have returned ten-fold with the new luxury classes.
> Will sculpture go the same way?
You have launched a whole nest of ideas Lowell!
One important emerging trend, that I will be honest that I have toyed with
cashing in on, is the relatively new concept that an individual of modest
wealth and average intelligence - can create anything they damn well put
their mind to - with the right videos, materials package, software,
workshops etc. Specialty finishes on your walls, mission furniture,
blacksmithing, you name it - all have become targets of the 'infotainment'
industry. The digital filter has sheltered what many of the old timers knew,
and many of us working artisans/sculptors know - this is hard, bloody,
dangerous work - mommas, tell your kids not to take up a profession - not a
trade or the arts.
I can quite honestly see much of the arts becoming the way of the old
"Arthur Murray" Dance Schools. A place to socialize, poseurtate, etc. All
run by a few, modestly talented but glib art 'gigolos' such as myself. ha
ha. Care to tango a Rodin? I'll show you how in 12 easy lessons!
Sculptingman
did perspective rendering or the camera obscura damage art or enhance
it? How about lithography? A boon or a bane?
I think the computer certainly "democratized" graphic art. Suddenly, a
whole crop of folks who had no real artistic talent nor training could
manipulate fabulous imagery because of a machine that became
available...
But then, I am sure that in the 1700s there were thousands of hack
artists with a camera obscura and the new ready mixed colors offering
cut rate portraits of dubious resemblance...
Perhaps, largely because of the computer, today there are more people
making their living as "artists" than ever before.
Are they any good? Do they make it harder for us professionals to make
a living?
While I am not a printmaker, nor a layout or typography expert, the
computer allows me to afford to typeset and embellish my very own
publications, something I could never afford to do back in the day...
I can hammer together a fairly decent looking presentation, all by
myself.
Certainly what I thus produce is nowhere near as good as what is done
by those with a real talent in these areas, but they are aesthetic
creations that would simply never have happened without the computer
due to cost and time.
And every time I do one I get a little better... A little more
capable at these specific types of expressions....
But now that nearly everyone has this capability in their homes, what
has happened to the typesetting profession? Is it gone, or has it
changed to the graphic design profession?
I know of companies that have spent embarrassing amounts of money
hiring specialists to design their business cards... even though they
have competent graphic designers in house.
Is it not possible that, now that everyone is making their own art on
their own computer, that they are becoming more acutely aware of art
in general; more acutely aware of design? That their constant
exposure to what they and others can do on their own has brought them
to better appreciate truly fine design, truely fine art?
I hear non artists regularly critique the most subtle nuances of
astonishing computer graphics effects that tax the cutting edge of
what can be done...in just a few short years people have gone from
amazed by a bouncing lamp, to an ability to decry the slightest
variation from what looks natural and believable in the most
sophisticated cinematic art. Computer animations have have resulted in
more people considering the nuances of how people move, of what makes
humans look human.
Generally, I believe what separates humanty from animals is art. Only
human beings make art. And I do not mean just artists... all human
beings decorate, all create in some sense or another- and the computer
has enabled a great many of them new avenues of expression.
It is no surprise to me that they are using it.
Perhaps we should think of the hoi polloi's efforts on their computers
as what it really is,
folk art, of the digital age.
christopher
Andrew Werby
> "Mike" <yared...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cd3bf67d.04102...@posting.google.com...
> > Reconstructing George
> > Jim Rees, executive director of George Washington's Mount Vernon
> > Estate & Gardens, blames the public's perception of George Washington
> > as a stiff, elderly leader on the portraits painted back in his day.
> > at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20041020-102941-6789r.htm
[Come on - he was a stiff elderly leader, get over it!]
>
> Thank you Mike!
> This is actually a fascinating subject with many facets.
>
> As an aside, sculptors I talk to have long since given up on individual
> or non-commissioned work because of the personal costs of bronze
> castings.
[There are other mediums to work in besides bronze. The personal costs of
devoting yourself to sculpture as a profession are another issue...]
> Figurative work seems to be only about 3-D photographic sculptures
> of military, political or sports figures and has bottom-line non-art
> commission members deciding every minute item.
[In spite of the Modern Art movement, most people have very traditional
ideas when it comes to spending real money -even other people's.]
>
> In art school, I had a professor who talked about professions (like
> blacksmiths and sailboat makers, etc.,) who were apexes of personal
> skills, that disappeared under advanced mechanizations and factory
> settings, and yet have returned ten-fold with the new luxury classes.
> Will sculpture go the same way?
[It already has.]
> With computerization, will accurate 3-D photographic sculptures of
> wealthy or notable people become standard - never having been
> touched by a person with an art school education?
[It's possible; just as the invention of photography took over much of the
market for portraiture in the 19th century. As you point out above, there's
not much demand for artistic interpretation in these commissions anyway, so
it's no great loss.]
> With thoughts about Rodin and Vigeland, will artistic sculptures, as
> opposed to computer generated "accuracies", be returned to
> prominence?
[With the urge for portraiture satisfied by mechanical means, those buying
artistic sculpture will do it from other motives than the desire to see a
"perfect likeness". I don't have a problem with that.]
> From what I remember about the Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland, he
> became Scandinavian's best portrait sculptor (he also did the Nobel Peace
> Medal) to the rich so that he could fund his 600 nude figures in 192
> sculptures placed in the central park in Oslo, Norway - now named Gustav
> Vigeland Park - VIGELAND, Museet og Parken.
> http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/arch/769/Vigeland/
[Actually, I think Vigeland's park was mostly financed by the City of Oslo,
who provided him with a studio, a team of workers, a park to decorate, and
monetary support for over 20 years. I haven't seen many commissions like
this handed out lately, though.]
> I believe that he made a crucial distinction between his accurate bronze
> portraits and his unrestricted nude sculptures.
> This may be the essence of a debate about life-duplicates versus artistic
> renderings (probably not the best word) of the same person.
> Vigeland resisted all efforts to showcase his well-financed portraits in
> galleries, but purposely created his 192 nude sculptures to be
> unrestrictively
> seen by all of Oslo, including families, children, religious, officials,
> royalty, etc.
> Vigeland's statues, donated to the City of Oslo, spanned the years 1907
> until
> the day he died in 1943.
> Vigeland visited and was influenced by Auguste Rodin who best illustrates,
> in his unfathomable genius, the essence of what ART over accuracy means.
> I am not making an argument against mechanically accurate individual
> sculptures
> but only talking about the probable distinction between it and the best of
> artistic sculptures.
[These computer-based techniques can be used artistically, just as
photography can be. They are just tools; it's up to the artist to use them
creatively.]
[He'd probably be horrified if he was around to hear that, and see the
"modern creativity" he's being blamed for...]
>
> In summary, I believe that the new computer generated sculptures and
> artistic
> sculptures, even with their apparent nominal subject, are at opposite
poles
> systemically and functionally.
[I would disagree. By putting "new computer generated sculptures" on one
side of your dichotomy, and "artistic sculptures" (of the all-time greats)
at the other, you are setting up and demolishing a straw man. Mechanically
accurate portraits are among the least exciting things that this technology
can accomplish. On the other hand, it opens up vast areas of potential for
artistic expression in ways that have yet to be explored. Just as the
invention of the washing machine freed people from a tedious chore, the
saving of some of the labor involved in making statuary is a good thing, not
a bad one. Every new technology for making things is first used to recreate
things that used to be harder to do, and now can be done easier and cheaper.
Eventually, as the technology matures, people figure out how to use it for
things that never were possible before. That's where artistry comes in. ]
> Just as our greats, Vigeland and Rodin, handled existing pronounced
> dualities involving
> sculptures and sculptors, today, artistic sculptors have the same problem
of
> doing significant work.
> And the world may be filled with mechanized accurate sculptures at the
same
> time.
>
> Lowell McFarland low...@optonline.net
[It's always a problem to do something artistically significant. But I feel
that the most significant work of a given era is done by those who
successfully come to terms with newly-available materials, techniques, and
attitudes, not by those who flee into the past. There's room for everyone,
though - I don't see the world filling up with sculpture any time soon...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
>
>
Lauri Levanto
>In art school, I had a professor who talked about professions (like
>blacksmiths and sailboat makers, etc.,) who were apexes of personal
>skills, that disappeared under advanced mechanizations and factory
>settings, and yet have returned ten-fold with the new luxury classes.
>Will sculpture go the same way?
[It already has.]
In fact the 'new luxury classes' are bigger than ever. There is an
unprecedent
middle class with some loose money. The filthy rich now are at least as
rich as
those before, though the relative value of wealth has decreased by
introduction
of minimum vages. ( A cousin of mine lives in Spain. She once said
that is is so cheap to be rich there, servants cost next to nothing)
It is interesting how many young people see arts and crafts as
an alternative life style. They take a year or two in art school or
carpentry, before they study to be school teachers or nurses.
Hand made objects - art or not - are in.
On the contrary (many) artists still live in the ideology of 60's,
when selling your work was commercialism. One should pursue pure
artistic expression (with or without politically correct undertone).
"Gary Waller"
>One important emerging trend, that I will be honest that I have toyed
with
>cashing in on, is the relatively new concept that an individual of modest
>wealth and average intelligence - can create anything they damn well put
>their mind to - with the right videos, materials package, software,
>workshops etc. Specialty finishes on your walls, mission furniture,
>blacksmithing, you name it - all have become targets of the
'infotainment'
>industry.
"Sculptingman"
>Is it not possible that, now that everyone is making their own art on
>their own computer, that they are becoming more acutely aware of art
>in general; more acutely aware of design? That their constant
>exposure to what they and others can do on their own has brought them
>to better appreciate truly fine design, truely fine art?
This is best seen in the Tiffany boom. It is a double bladed sword.
Some people say " I can do that" (with a proper kit) and other
learn the appreciation of quality. The net effect is, however, that
the world id flooded by new garage sale art.
"Sculptingman"
>Perhaps we should think of the hoi polloi's efforts on their computers
>as what it really is,
>
>folk art, of the digital age.
thanks for the inspiring insights
-lauri
Gary Waller
"dirdim" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
news:SNWdnS5P7a0...@comcast.com...
> Probably a repeat for the regulars; attached are a sample of two of our
> graphical case studies for projects that are directly related to this
> thread. We provide 3D digital imaging photography services and products.
> We have many more on our NEW website at www.directdimensions.com. If
> anyone
> wants more information about the technical capabilities, pricing, and
> potential applications - feel free to contact me directly.
>
> Michael Raphael
> Direct Dimensions, Inc.
> www.directdimensions.com
>
Michael - your new website looks great and I do follow this technology. I
think the problem I have is that with all the software and hardware you have
available - why can't you produce a scan or photorealistic image which at
least looks like the original? Even with the higher sized photos you sent
in - I can clearly spot the originals from the digital scans.
Wouldn't/shouldn't it be possible to present a scan as a side by side
comparison of (1) a professional photograph of the original - and (2) a 3d
scan (skinned and light sourced) of the same angle/lighting? I shouldn't be
able to tell the difference - especially at internet resolution quality,
especially if you are at the leading edge of this technology.
Most of the scans I see look like the result of poor quality mold making
(ie - way too much mold release, not pressurized/vacuumed silicone, etc) -
the details and sharpness seem muddy - and apparently, and obviously, have
be picked out by the hand of a professional artist after the output.
Likewise - I can't see how the scan can pick up the nuances
(deformities/blisters etc) of fired ceramic or the tool scratches of the
marble, limestone or marble, or the grain of broken stone like granite. As I
see it now, the scans are a useful, but expensive, tool to archive valuable
and fragile classics, but it would still take a lot of work by a
professional artist to make to anything close to a convincing replica - and
a series of good photographs and on-site observation would better serve an
artist. Today's digital scan will not be enough to reproduce the original,
if, for example, the original should happen to vaporise overnight.
If this level of output IS possible - you should put it on your website - a
seamless panorama of photos of an original (with software like realviz)
beside a photorealistic, digital artist modified, 3d scan. If the files are
so large they have to go on DVD - I would be willing to pay shipping/burn
costs. Right now I am interested both unconvinced and sceptical.
Sculptingman
> Most of the scans I see look like the result of poor quality mold making
> (ie - way too much mold release, not pressurized/vacuumed silicone, etc) -
Most scanning is done at a resolution that will "alias" small details-
essentialy, the entire surface must be represented by flat polygons-
either triangles or sqaures- so on the fine scale smooth curves become
faceted like diamonds. The way to get a better scan is to make those
polygons very small- ideally, smaller than the crytal matrix of the
stone itself- but then the amount of data you are manipulating
approaches infinity.
Another source of scan error is the laser light itself can be
scattered by the transluscent matrix of the marble itself, resulting
in "noise" in the surface.
>As I
> see it now, the scans are a useful, but expensive, tool to archive valuable
> and fragile classics, but it would still take a lot of work by a
> professional artist to make to anything close to a convincing replica - and
> a series of good photographs and on-site observation would better serve an
> artist. Today's digital scan will not be enough to reproduce the original,
> if, for example, the original should happen to vaporise overnight.
This is untrue, Gary. A high resolution scan would be the only way to
accurately reproduce the piece should the original vanish ( with no
physical mold left behind )
The expense of scanning is actually comparable to the cost of rubber
molding- think of what you would charge to make a rubber mold on an 18
foot tall classic-
( think of the insurance policy you would need ) I know I charge
around $7,000 for a mold on a lifesize figure...
The artist does not need to refer to the scan data as he would to
photographs- the scan data itself can be used to produce a master that
is 97% perfect. The artist seeking to reproduce it would merely have
to sharpen those details that got softened in the scanning and output
process.
Other than a mold, which would produce a somewhat distorted casting (
no mold makes a perfect replica ) which might be used to take a
plaster casting that a pantagraph could be used on to direct the
cutting of a new figure in stone- no other process than scanning can
even approach the accuracy of the original.
Yes- some fine details would be softened and lost, but these could put
in by hand and still result in a much more accurate reproduction than
one pantagraphed from a casting.
If the aim is to preserve for posterity the actual form created by the
hand of Michelangelo- scanning at the highest possible resolution will
do it better than any other method yet devised.
Anything else would be some other guy's best attempt.
>
> If this level of output IS possible - you should put it on your website - a
> seamless panorama of photos of an original (with software like realviz)
> beside a photorealistic, digital artist modified, 3d scan. If the files are
> so large they have to go on DVD - I would be willing to pay shipping/burn
> costs. Right now I am interested both unconvinced and sceptical.
Mold technology has reached its zenith, Gary- it can't really get any
better than it is today.
Scanning technology is in its infancy and it is already close to
competitive with molding in terms of cost and quality. Its only going
to get better.
Once again- its not a replacement for older technology- its an adjunct
to them. It is a tool that can do some things that no other technology
can.
For example- the data cold be used to produce smaller, study versions
of David that are absolutely accurate reductions of Michelangelo's
technique. You would only have to pay to print out the smaller version
once, as a master, after that you use a mold to mass produce the
replicas.
No hand pointed method can even approach this level of accuracy.
I have done it both ways, Gary, and I can tell you that using digital
scanning and output for larger figures ( from fully detailed maquettes
) is WAY more cost effective than doing them myself by hand, and WAY
more satisfying in the quality of the result. ( One mediocre
apprentice can make a mess of a point up )
The foam cutting I get is wonderful stuff to work in- very fast and
very gestural- and I can control the level of qualilty I want in the
final surface.
Projects that used to take me two months now can be done in 3 weeks,
and to a higher level, to boot.
Given that a professional's time is equivalent to cash, I have saved
far more than the cost of scanning.
At least, that is my experience.
christopher
Gary Waller
"Sculptingman" <scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:59d744d1.04102...@posting.google.com...
> I have done it both ways, Gary, and I can tell you that using digital
> scanning and output for larger figures ( from fully detailed maquettes
> ) is WAY more cost effective than doing them myself by hand, and WAY
> more satisfying in the quality of the result. ( One mediocre
> apprentice can make a mess of a point up )
> The foam cutting I get is wonderful stuff to work in- very fast and
> very gestural- and I can control the level of qualilty I want in the
> final surface.
> Projects that used to take me two months now can be done in 3 weeks,
> and to a higher level, to boot.
> Given that a professional's time is equivalent to cash, I have saved
> far more than the cost of scanning.
>
> At least, that is my experience.
>
> christopher
I think we have had these debates before. You have an unusual way of
working - building a highly detailed maquette which is then scaled up by
'technicians'. It is unusual historically, and it is unusual in the making
of busts - the topic of the original poster. Do not interpret this as saying
it is wrong - or wasteful - it is just unusual.
Lets look at Dr. Lanzalotti's website.
http://www.williamsburgsculpture.com/index.htm
He was the one who resculpted that dirdim digital output into marble, and a
vastly superior piece of art. Notice how he works. Notice he does not even
acknowledge the use of digital scanning, the digital bust does not even
appear in his works - which are many and very high quality. He has seen
digital, used it - but not interested.
Lets look at Eugene Daub's work, a sculptor I greatly admire. He did a major
piece with digital output (keyser or something like that?). Never used it
again - not interested, or even worth mentioning in his upcoming master
seminar, or anywhere in his prolific output.
http://www.scottsdaleartschool.org/instructors/daub/index04_2.html
I am seriously thinking of attending Daub's seminar by the way. I'll ask him
this question.
Dan S
such comments from contemporaries. They all say nobody ever looked
better on horseback. I think this business of examining 1000 tools etc
is dumb. The clothes will tell how big he was, then find an active male
model of similar size and proportion. His exact image tells us nothing
about his leadership or courage.
Still, the temptation to model Alfred E. Neuman based on W is very
great.
Dan
----------
In article <cd3bf67d.04102...@posting.google.com>,
Sculptingman
> I think we have had these debates before. You have an unusual way of
> working - building a highly detailed maquette which is then scaled up by
> 'technicians'. It is unusual historically, and it is unusual in the making
> of busts - the topic of the original poster. Do not interpret this as saying
> it is wrong - or wasteful - it is just unusual.
>
Actually Gary- the method I use, pointing up from a maquette, is the
technique used by Daniel Chester French, by Rodin, by Picasso, Moore,
Michelangelo, and every sculptor of historical note for the accuracy
and fidelity of their large figurative works. I am including in this
the Statue of liberty and the giant Horse done as an homage to
Leonardo, the Vietnam Nurses memorial and the giant arms holding
sabres in downtown Bagdad.
In fact, virtually all large commissioned works of a figural nature
are fully or nearly fully finished in a maquette first, so that the
client can approve the design before full scale work is begun.
Most of these maquettes are then used to strike a bronze edition of
the maquette that can be bought from the artist.
So, the term 'unusual' might apply if, by that, you mean there are
vastly more amateurs than professionals making large sculptures.
That I nowadays use an even more accurate method than surface gauges
and rulers (as I was trained) is incidental. Scanning is undoubtedly
superior to the hand method, not only because it allows me to to
measure and scale thousand of points rather than just a hundred or so,
but also superior in that I can more facilely work on the
enlargement, in foam, than I could in the old method.
I think you imagine that I hand over the maquette to "technicians" and
that's the end of it...
Nothing of the sort. When I get the foam back I then very carefully
rework the entire surface- just as if I was doing it the old fashioned
way. I might make changes or adjustments to the figure, the drapery,
or the detailing. The urethane foam is a delight to work in. And THEN
I cover the whole thing in plastilene and finish the work by hand,
just as if it were small.
The result is, in every sense, the work of my hand.
What the scanning does is eliminate the tedious measuring and
fabrication of a full size armature- the painstaking back and forthing
to get the large figure to capture the same nuance as the maquette...
Also- I do not do busts in maquette, tho I might rough out a small
compositional sketch to help work out how I will approach one...
Generally, for any figure ( as opposed to a simple bust)- even a very
small figure, I will start by working out the composition in a
gestural clay sketch. I do this so that I can make an armature for the
full sized version that will be entirely interior. ( I try to avoid
that "pipe up the side and into the back" that many artists use. )
I usually do not create a fully detailed maquette unless I am making
something very large, by commission, or unless I know I will be
scanning it-
because the scan will accurately capture and scale a wealth of detail,
it saves me a lot of time to work out the details small and rely on
the scan to give me at least an idea of where they go in the final
hand finishing.
As I said before- its an infant technology that is already saving me
more money than it costs- I use it as a one tool in my toolbox, and
apply it where it will work to my and the art's advantage.
As the artists you cite who don't like it...The fact that some
oldsters resist the new fangled is not a surprise. The plaster casters
who trained me never did warm to forton MG and polyresin.
For me- being a professional means staying current with the emerging
tools of your trade.
christopher
Gary Waller
>>
> Actually Gary- the method I use, pointing up from a maquette, is the
> technique used by Daniel Chester French, by Rodin, by Picasso, Moore,
> Michelangelo, and every sculptor of historical note for the accuracy
> and fidelity of their large figurative works. I am including in this
> the Statue of liberty and the giant Horse done as an homage to
> Leonardo, the Vietnam Nurses memorial and the giant arms holding
> sabres in downtown Bagdad.
You are totally wrong on Michelangelo and Rodin. I have quoted previously
from Jack Wasserman's and Peter Rockwell's authoritive works. Here is a
quote from a Rodin website, which sums up what I am saying:
" Nonetheless, unlike the traditional approach which implied that a marble
version would be a faithful copy of a perfectly finished model, Rodin worked
with great freedom, moving directly from small plasters to the final marble
works. The maquettes are therefore simple indications, serving as a
guideline for the pointers and practiciens whose work was closely supervised
by the artist.
http://www.musee-rodin.fr/meudo-e.htm for more details.
This 'traditional' approach alluded to was the academy approach only used
for less than 100 years before Rodin and still only ran across today with
old books by lanteri and the like. I don't have time to search out Picasso
and French. Didn't Moore use full size maquettes carved in eps foam?
. The urethane foam is a delight to work in. And THEN
> I cover the whole thing in plastilene and finish the work by hand,
> just as if it were small.
> The result is, in every sense, the work of my hand.
>
> What the scanning does is eliminate the tedious measuring and
> fabrication of a full size armature- the painstaking back and forthing
> to get the large figure to capture the same nuance as the maquette...
I guess this is the point where we also get stuck. Of course I have carved
urethane foams of all densities, eps foam (beads and extruded), syntactic
foams, and my new cement foam. I don't get why anyone would pay $5,000 ($
from the keysler site) to pay for a lifesize, 4 lb density foam carving, to
only 95% finished, with 1.5 % margin of error, when it could easily be
poured onto a decent armature and then roughed out and detailed with carving
tools, in less than two days. Unless you are implying that your time is now
worth over $2,500 a day - I don't see the savings. Although this process is
rather more industrial than 'artistic' - I just don't see the attraction. I
could send you resumes of at least 25 local men and women, and even kids,
who could accomplish this amazing feat, all willing to work for $30 an hour
cdn.
Lauri Levanto
Gary Waller wrote:
The maquettes are therefore simple indications, serving as a
> guideline for the pointers and practiciens whose work was closely supervised
> by the artist.
>
> http://www.musee-rodin.fr/meudo-e.htm for more details.
>
For some reason the URL did not open for me, so I could not read details.
As an impartial bystander, I can't avoid the impression
that you are defending mainly the same thing.
I read Christpher that he uses the term pointing in a widde sense,
and Gary limits it to some particular cases.
But like Gary confesses above, Rodin used pointer, ( people who did
the pointing for him) Rodin'd method was very much hands on
sculpting, so in his marbles the general shape was roughed
out by pointing, and the master himself worked
one part at time within the roughed piece
and was free to improvise withou consideration of the general
rhytm.
-lauri
Sculptingman
I don't want to fight about this, but I have to note that your own
quotes argue against you.
to wit:
> " Nonetheless, unlike the traditional approach which implied that a marble
> version would be a faithful copy of a perfectly finished model, Rodin worked
> with great freedom, moving directly from small plasters to the final marble
> works. The maquettes are therefore simple indications, serving as a
> guideline for the pointers and practiciens whose work was closely supervised
> by the artist.
This makes quite clear that Rodin started with a maquette, and that he
had assistants "point" it up to the full size.
It also makes it clear that making a finished model for pointing was,
( and still is ) the "traditional" method.
Now, you are basically stating that for me to make a fully detailed
maquette prior to scanning is unusual- wheras your own source says
that it was the common technique.
The only issue left is how "finished" his maquette was prior to
pointing up, and how much finishing he did in full scale.
Well, I have seen his maquettes, and, especially with his later works,
the full size looks exactly as rough and gestural as the maquette.
So I could argue that his maquettes were fully finished, at least to
the same raw level he intended to use in the full size piece.
--but i won't even make that claim.
Instead, i will point out to you what I said in my last post, and have
stated often before, I do not always take a maquette to full finished
detail myself- no artist does.
Actually, I only do so when I need to have the maquette approved by a
client or committee, OR when I know in advance that I will be scanning
the maquette for enlargement, because the scan will capture at least
the ghost of fine detail, speeding the finishing phase. ( I do not
always scan for enlargement- in fact, I do so very seldom- however I
do prefer the quality of results I get. Having "practicens" work on an
enlargement allows someone else's hand on the work- the scanning
process eliminates this 'interpretation" of my intent and provides a
true copy )
I have stated often before that the principal purpose of the maquette
is to rough out composition and gross anatomy and the rough fall of
drapery- This is to act as an aid in doing a larger scale work where
you can not appreciate the gestalt of a sculpture's pose while you are
close enough to alter it.
While an artist in the olden days would generally make a fully
finished maquette for going to marble, this was because he was going
to rely on assistants and "practicens" to do the principal cutting of
the stone, and therefore, the more detail, the better their work.
However- if the artist himself intends to do the work on the full
size, and especially the pointing work, he can leave the maquette
fairly rough, as long as the gross anatomy and the pose are well
fleshed out.
In particular, I will point out that Rodin was usually going to
bronze- in which the full size was made of clay- not stone- which also
better allows for you to correct the full scale than does working in
stone, so a more finely finished maquette is less crucial. The "great
freedom" your author states was wholly the result of working entirely
in clay, as opposed to the more painstaking approach needed to work in
stone.
Then there is the famous story of Rodin's "Balzac", of which, when the
committee saw the piece they were shocked by the grossly "inhuman"
form. Rodin's response was to take up a mallet and strike the maquette
soundly, shattering the dried clay of the drapery, which he had added
after working out the figure's pose in the nude.
The committee was astonished to see that, there, under that roughly
draped form, was an invariably accurate model of a corpulent Balzac.
A model that Rodin made in maquette so that his drapery would contain
a true form- even though it would not be visible.
Finally- I really don't give hoot what "art historians" or
"authorities" think and say about how artists worked. I know how they
worked because I do the same type of work, and was trained by guys
from the same tradition. Those commenting after the fact without
first hand experience with traditional training and practice often
romanticize the process and try to make out some 'mysterious' quality
that their favorite artist possessed that set them apart...
The truth is that great artists have a great eye, yes, but they also
had, and have, great technique and the best tools available for their
time.
Scanning is a great tool- if you can afford it.
christopher
Lady Chatterly
>
>"Mike" <yared...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:cd3bf67d.04102...@posting.google.com...
>> Reconstructing George
>> Jim Rees, executive director of George Washington's Mount Vernon
>> Estate & Gardens, blames the public's perception of George Washington
>> as a stiff, elderly leader on the portraits painted back in his day.
>> at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20041020-102941-6789r.htm
>
>Thank you Mike!
>This is actually a fascinating subject with many facets.
Any time. Mike.
>As an aside, sculptors I talk to have long since given up on individual
>or non-commissioned work because of the personal costs of bronze
>castings.
>Figurative work seems to be only about 3-D photographic sculptures
>of military, political or sports figures and has bottom-line non-art
>commission members deciding every minute item.
Why do you think so?
To have remained decent fellows, that is what you would like to send a
private email to me, please take out the trash, so to speak.
>Lowell McFarland low...@optonline.net
On the internet, you can be whomever you want. I'm a bot. What are
you?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Dave Rice could be also Lady Chatterly. Is trolling all he ever
does?" -- StilllovingCharlesManson
Lady Chatterly
>
>>
>> I think we have had these debates before. You have an unusual way of
>> working - building a highly detailed maquette which is then scaled up by
>> 'technicians'. It is unusual historically, and it is unusual in the making
>> of busts - the topic of the original poster. Do not interpret this as saying
>> it is wrong - or wasteful - it is just unusual.
>>
>
>Actually Gary- the method I use, pointing up from a maquette, is the
>technique used by Daniel Chester French, by Rodin, by Picasso, Moore,
>Michelangelo, and every sculptor of historical note for the accuracy
>and fidelity of their large figurative works. I am including in this
>the Statue of liberty and the giant Horse done as an homage to
>Leonardo, the Vietnam Nurses memorial and the giant arms holding
>sabres in downtown Bagdad.
Why are you asking if you are including in this the statue of liberty
and the giant horse done as an homage to leonardo?
>In fact, virtually all large commissioned works of a figural nature
>are fully or nearly fully finished in a maquette first, so that the
>client can approve the design before full scale work is begun.
>Most of these maquettes are then used to strike a bronze edition of
>the maquette that can be bought from the artist.
Do not speak of secrets in a field that is full of little hills.
>So, the term 'unusual' might apply if, by that, you mean there are
>vastly more amateurs than professionals making large sculptures.
Why is friendship important to you?
>That I nowadays use an even more accurate method than surface gauges
>and rulers (as I was trained) is incidental. Scanning is undoubtedly
>superior to the hand method, not only because it allows me to to
>measure and scale thousand of points rather than just a hundred or so,
>but also superior in that I can more facilely work on the
>enlargement, in foam, than I could in the old method.
Are you certain about that?
>I think you imagine that I hand over the maquette to "technicians" and
>that's the end of it...
>Nothing of the sort. When I get the foam back I then very carefully
>rework the entire surface- just as if I was doing it the old fashioned
>way. I might make changes or adjustments to the figure, the drapery,
>or the detailing. The urethane foam is a delight to work in. And THEN
>I cover the whole thing in plastilene and finish the work by hand,
>just as if it were small.
>The result is, in every sense, the work of my hand.
There is far less medical treatment now, even though it's more
advanced. People die when they know it's time to die. No lasers.
Genetic medicine and cloning organs are the obvious new techs.
>What the scanning does is eliminate the tedious measuring and
>fabrication of a full size armature- the painstaking back and forthing
>to get the large figure to capture the same nuance as the maquette...
If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee.
That will do them in.
>Also- I do not do busts in maquette, tho I might rough out a small
>compositional sketch to help work out how I will approach one...
>Generally, for any figure ( as opposed to a simple bust)- even a very
>small figure, I will start by working out the composition in a
>gestural clay sketch. I do this so that I can make an armature for the
>full sized version that will be entirely interior. ( I try to avoid
>that "pipe up the side and into the back" that many artists use. )
Why are you thinking that you do not do busts in maquette?
>I usually do not create a fully detailed maquette unless I am making
>something very large, by commission, or unless I know I will be
>scanning it-
>because the scan will accurately capture and scale a wealth of detail,
>it saves me a lot of time to work out the details small and rely on
>the scan to give me at least an idea of where they go in the final
>hand finishing.
Do you often wonder if it makes you anxious to be making something
Very large? Do you think that you know you Will be scanning it
because the scan Will accurately capture and scale a wealth of
detail?
>As I said before- its an infant technology that is already saving me
>more money than it costs- I use it as a one tool in my toolbox, and
>apply it where it will work to my and the art's advantage.
Epigrams succeed where epics fail.
>As the artists you cite who don't like it...The fact that some
>oldsters resist the new fangled is not a surprise. The plaster casters
>who trained me never did warm to forton MG and polyresin.
Do not talk Arabic in the house of a Moor.
>For me- being a professional means staying current with the emerging
>tools of your trade.
What makes you so certain about that?
>christopher
A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Congrats Lady Chatterly! That soc.moron swallowed so hard your hook
is dangling from his asshole. It must be flattering to have someone
talking about RL threats with you." -- Daedalus