life casting vs. traditional sculpture
utrillo
the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while, I'm new
to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared great
artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world. Now
with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
hours with machinery. Also, though much traditional portrait
sculpture could be considered by some to be a little less then
art, I think it certainly depends on the scultptor and many
realistic portrait sculptures have been done with a sensitivity
and ability to communicate that I believe places them on a high
artistic level. I would like to begin a discussion on the
role of tradional figurative sculpture given these other
mechanical methods and evolution in art in general. Please reply.
Thank you, Sam Heller, Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Jaxart
utrillo...@bigplanet.com.invalid says...
>I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
>everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
>just redundant.
There's sculpture and there's sculpture, just as
there are variants in most of the visual art field.
A good portrait sculptor can catch a likeness in
one sitting using clay on an armature. I know of
sculptors in clay who were 'quick sketch' artists that
way, actually completing a likeness in under an
hour then having the bust cast in bronze. I don't
know how common they are in this day and age though.
Many of the 19th and early 20th century sculptors
had this ability and used it when doing small commissions.
And yes, they would have a model pose for them while
they modeled in clay for a full figure as well.
I know of sculptors who would buy a fine horse in order
to have a model for a life-size equestrian bronze!
I would compare 'life casting' vs other sculpture
methods to photography vs other portrait art methods.
In all cases the end product depends on the artist's
presentation of the subject for uniqueness/interest/etc.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Marilyn
Marilyn
utrillo wrote:
> Pardon me if this is the second post of this item. It looks like
> the first time didn't get posted(maybe it takes a while, I'm new
> to this). I've been a portrait sculptor for about a year and
> everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
Ryno
> everytime I see a good life cast I wonder if what I'm doing is
> just redundant. George Segal and others have been declared great
> artists doing life casts while most true sculptors aren't
> accorded a great deal of respect in the "high" art world. Now
> with 3-d scanners and prototyping machines it is possible to
> create a portrait bust or full figure sculpture in a couple of
> hours with machinery. Also, though much traditional portrait
> sculpture could be considered by some to be a little less then
> art, I think it certainly depends on the scultptor and many
> realistic portrait sculptures have been done with a sensitivity
> and ability to communicate that I believe places them on a high
> artistic level.
Hi Sam,
Do not let yourself be confused by the difference between art and
"Modernism".
High art is firmly under the control of the modernists, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with issues of artistic merit.
Body casts are crap.
They have been done for centuries but then they were referred to as
"deathmasks", and that is what they look like.
This does not mean that the work of people like Segal are unimportant. A
large part of the concern of Modernism has been with the "aesthetic of the
ugly", and quite simply the more repulsive the work is, the more merit it
has in their estimation. It is not necessary to point out the numerous
examples of "high art" done in blood, excrement, and body parts, both animal
and human. This aesthetic of the ugly has been at the heart not only of the
visual arts, but also of poetry, architecture, music, dance, etc.
The justication might be that if the public likes something, it must be bad,
and there is some truth in that. However, to think that if the public
dislikes something, it must be good, is just silly.
So the answers seems to me to be: leave the modernists to their illusions,
and get on with that in art which is not tied to some fashion.
As far as portrait sculpture is concerned, it most certainly can be art,
when practised by a master as in Michelangelo's Medici sculptures and
Rodin's fired clay sculpture of Rose as a young girl.
Unfortunately, in portrait sculpture it is not only the artistic merit of
the work that determines its "worth", but also the identity of the subject.
Sculptures of Mussolini, Lenin, and Mao shall probably never be rated as
works of art, but a portrait of your child, or of your lover, might.
Ryno.
Simon's Town
http://users.iafrica.com/s/sw/swartart/LoveOfArt.html
leslie ahern
want to do. If you are inclined to work from perception...do it! If you
want to make life-casts or use 3-d scanners...do it!
I think the most important thing here is that your process is TRUE. You
should not be creating to receive "critical acclaim". Don't buckle under
the pressure of sculptor's processes before you... just because they were
successful. Listen to your heart.
Leslie
utrillo
learned from all your thoughts.