check out M's wax model on Florintine Pieta
foote
foote
rockwell book??????
fffffff
Gary Waller
"foote" <tjf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HoWvc.30843$_k3.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> gary was this picture in the
> rockwell book??????
>
> fffffff
>
it was carved, right down to which chisel he used when and where - and why
this was very innovative and distinctive. Here is the full quote on models:
" Finally, there is the question of whether Michelangelo used a model when
carving the statue (note - the Florence Pieta). We might assume that, had he
done so, he would have used an enlarging system of some kind to transfer the
dimensions and details from the model to the marble. Yet although the Pieta
is UNFINISHED (emphasis my own), there are no signs anywhere of measuring
lines (incised or marked with charcoal or some other medium), points, or
holes that would result from this procedure. (Certainly he did not use a
pointing system, such as a pointing machine, which invariably leaves marks
on unfinished carvings.) Nevertheless, we cannot state unequivocally that
Michelangelo did not use a model in the preparation of the statue or
speculate what size it might have been. But even if he did, he would not
have had any means of transferring its exact measurements to the marble,
therefore, a model would not have been much more helpful to him than a
series of preparatory drawings." (Michelangelo's Florence Pieta, Jack
Wasserman 2003)
This statement is footnoted with (1) a detailed explanation of the use of
pointing machines and their limited use (for marble carving, anyways) in
Italy until the late 1700's and (2) that the 'transfer methods discussed by
Leon Battista Alberti, Vasari, and Cellini all rely on approximate
measurements and seem awkward and impractical for transferring compositions
from a model to a marble block.
In a section by Wasserman, quoting from Vasari "francesco had asked
Michelangelo to allow the young sculptor Tiberio Calcagni to finish the
Pieta (which implies also its restoration) and to help Calcagni in its
completion by supplying him with models. Michelangelo agreed, and according
to Vasari, they carried the Pieta away immediately. The models have not
survived, nor do we know whether Michelangelo made them for his own use in
carving the Pieta, or specially for Calcagni to aid him in restoring and
completing the statue."
Later on I'll post what Rockwell thinks of the Florence Pieta as a
sculpture - and why he thinks he abandoned it. This is the best part of the
book - and will make you a fan of Rockwell too.
foote
M clay model in the Rockwell book??? Goldstein thinks it was
the first sketch model...
with the heads all the same level...
what i read is that
sculptor Tiberio Calcagni
recarved the head...
fffffff
Gary Waller
> but did you seen the above
> M clay model in the Rockwell book??? Goldstein thinks it was
> the first sketch model...
> with the heads all the same level...
From what I am reading by Wasserman - the original intention was a four
figure piece - wouldn't M' be sketching that? Also - where is that left
leg - thats gotta be the most valuable object in history - OK - one of them.
foote
the photo... is what the statue
was to be... i find it interesting cause
it shows why the arm was so
big.... on the statue..
after M smashed it
the girls head
was recarved to be smaller..
i guess the arm would have been
made smaller too... but he died
before he could finish it...
the question is ...is there a photo
of this model in the book your
reading... i'm just curious if
rockwell mentions it...or if rockwell
had even seen this model...
M wanted the statue on his tomb..
Vasari... tried to get his wish...
instead it ended up sitting in some
fat cats garden ...outside for over
a hundred years ...before it was
moved inside...the leg probably
disappeared during this period..
or M could have destroyed it
when he smashed it up...
his hammer smashing
marks are near the missing leg
once good swing could have
smashed it...
anyword from the museum people....
ffffffff
foote
does jack wasserman have a email
address?????
can't find it on the net
ffffffff
Gary Waller
> http://michelangelomodels.com/m-models/gigli-gallery/gigi_gallery.html
>
>
Peter Rockwell on carving techniques used on the Pieta, from Jack Wasserman,
Michelangelo's Florence Pieta, 2003:
"The Pieta is the product of Michelangelo and others: restorers and, perhaps
assistants, the latter confining their work to roughing out the block of
stone in preparation for the detailed work to be carried out by the master.
We can be certain of Michelangelo's contribution, however, in the overall
composition and in the exceptional handling of the sculptor's tools in
carving the heads of Christ, the bearded figure, and the Virgin. His manner
of composing by discovering the forms of the heads and the sureness with
which he carved the details show him to have had amazingly versatile control
over his tools. Studying the statue is like witnessing a great master in the
midst of the creative act.
But Michelangelo considered the Pieta a failure. He mutilated it, and
then abandoned it entirely. We may wonder about what would have prompted him
to take such actions after such an investment in marble and labor, white
statuary marble being, after all, quite expensive, and carving it being a
considerable investment of time.
What was it about the statue that made Michelangelo decide to break it
up? He may have complained about defects in the marble, as Vasari claims,
but it is obvious from the more finished parts that the marble is of high
quality. Perhaps it was posing such difficult compositional problems that he
could see no way to carve his way out of them. For example, it seems that he
could not give proper size to the Virgin's face, which he recarved using a
free technique, initially with a tooth chisel. Therefore the outline of the
face was set back and the face made too small to be anatomically convincing
(plates 47 and 107). Still more troubling are the ill-proportioned Magdelene
and the awkward imbalance of proportion between her and the other three
figures. As Wasserman points out in Chapter 4, these dimensions can be
attributed to Michelangelo himself. Presumably, it was an unhappy result of
his roughing out the statue. The evidence of Michelangelo's carving seems to
be in conflict wit his well-known assertion that there is only one form
waiting to be discovered in a marble block. Here we see him trying
something, then changing his mind - as in the carving of the Virgin's head,
or most radically in the recarving of the arm of the Rondanini Pieta (plate
8) - or else he carefully leaves enough stone to allow for a change of mind,
as in the Christ child's left hand in the Pitti Tondo. Michelangelo worked
on the Florence Pieta not as a carver who saw the form within the stone, but
rather as an artist looking for the form as he moved into it. Indeed, much
of the pleasure in looking at the Pieta lies in the unexpectedness of what
we see. It does not follow the ordered pattern that is traditional for
marble carving, rather it allows us to follow the sculptor's thinking.
Michelangelo demonstrated a flexibility and freedom as a carver that no
sculptor has ever shown, this led him down different pathways on the same
piece of stone. It is probably Michelangelo's very genius as a sculptor,
allowing him to work with a flexibility unknown to others, that made
finishing the Pieta verge on the impossible."
foote
so it looks like wasserman never
saw the clay model for the
florentine pieta...it doesn't sound like
there is a picture of it in the book...
fffffffffffff
"Gary Waller" <moz...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gJMwc.26202$jl6.2388@edtnps89...
foote
the wasserman book???
this is about the 3rd request...for this
info..
if its not in the book.... its a good
argument for that the
models should be
in the public view and not locked
away in a saftey deposit box somewhere....
heck this guy wrote a whole book
and didn't even know this model
existed...
if M or someone recarved the face
it was pretty roughed in there...
looks like the usual M T-method
for doing a face...block out the nose
and forehead ... then carving the rest
out later...
ffffffffff
Gary Waller
> soo... is this clay model picture in
> the wasserman book???
This is a wax model, and it is in the book, attributed to anonymous 18th
century. It says it's provenance is from Florence, and is based on the brief
two year period when it might have been seen in Florence in the late 1700's.
It is more interesting because of Count Gigli, fighting in mid 1800's that
it is from the hand of M - but the backing opinions were based on the model
looking better than the reconstructed Pieta (in that period's idea of
proportion, etc.) so therefore M must have made them.
Brunshieder (sp), writing in the early 1960's, is the only modern scholar
who believes this model is from the hand of M.
foote
that wasserman had seen it...
who knows maybe there is a model
in a saftey deposit box somewhere
showing the new design...
after M hacked off the arms and legs
the wax model should look better
it shows what the statue looked like
before somone recarved the young girls face... and M hacked off a few
limbs...
well thats the probelm with all the
models by the experts in the last 100
years...
they don't believe the models
are for real...they think they were
done hundreds of years later or done
by students... and not by M
like Gold.....says that only 6 of the
17 models in the Vancouver collection are by M which is rediculous... since
the paper trail
goes way back to about just when
M died..
.Usually the main gripe by the experts doubt
a model is by M cause its too
looks too "fininished"
but from the wax model you can
see why the arm on the little girl
was so large... and now there are
big holes around her smaller head...
and her arm looks to large ...but
in the model it looks just right...
also ... learned today that M hired
a sculptor to help him fininish the
medici statues...
so the large models
that Cellini saw ... may have been
made for the worker to work off of...
and M still could have done the work
off a small wax model made off
the terrracotta. models...
and those wax models ...were sometimes given
away by M ...after he turned them
into bronze... he needed the wax
to immerse in the water... terracota
doesn't take to water too well...
plus the new wax model he can
can put into hot water and change...
any luck on contacting the Van museum???
fffffffff
foote
another thing is its in the hands of
a Italian florentine Count...
now if it were in the hands of a forentine barber ... i would have my
doubts as to its authenticity...
Uusally the
rich usually ends up with the spoils....
there was no trickle down theory in
15th century Florence... Just the ultra
rich and poor no middle class. The rich take from the poor ...thats how
they become rich...
fffff
"Gary Waller" <moz...@telus.net> wrote >
foote
of the statue...
i found a sketch done in 1580 of the
2nd model....
http://michelangelomodels.com/m-models/gigli-gallery/gigi_gallery.html
ffffffff
Gary Waller
Thats why these things get so complicated.
Alberti's preparatory sketches for the engraving shows the left leg as
missing - demonstrating the improbability of Hartt's premise that Alberti
had made the print before Michelangelo mutilated the statue. Also the most
common engraving is highly stylised, the figures are reverse from what you
show, and there is a whole background scene.
It took fifteen years for Gigli to convince the City of Florence to buy the
statuette from him. Once they did - of course they unanimously agreed that
it was original - again, based on that they liked the composition. Again, no
modern scholar except Goldsheider 1962 attributes this wax model to
Michelangelo.
foote
well i still believe the model is
a original by M one of the first sketchs for the pieta.. It does match up
roughly and explains why the
statue now has a large arm ....
interesting the etching prep sketch ...shows
it missing a leg...So it looks like
the prep was drawn from the
statue and not the model...
where is this prep sketch that you
saw...?????? in the wasserman
book?
so where did you get this info from
about gigli ....the wasserman book???
and how is the museum contact
going???
well i still have a very low respect
for the Michelanglo experts since
1803... as to what is and is not M's
work...
other art experts have been wrong many times ...as to what was
done by whom... heck the experts
didn't even believe the Vermer was forged during ww2.. till they were
shown otherwise...
well supposebly the engraving was
made in 1580 long after everyone
was dead..and M gave up on the statue
in 1556...
fffffff
Gary Waller
> where is this prep sketch that you
> saw...?????? in the wasserman
> book?
>
> so where did you get this info from
> about gigli ....the wasserman book???
Yes - I notice this wax figure is not mentioned in the LeBrooy book?
>
> and how is the museum contact
> going???
One email, three phone messages, over one week - all unreturned. Got a
person today - their 'customer relations' officer - she said she had never
heard of the models, she had been there six years, that they only have
'community based' objects (I know this is not true though - they have an
egyptian mummy for example). She said I should call the Vancouver Art
Gallery - talked to a young curator there - she had never heard of the
models either. Frustrating - now that time is tight.