An Artist's Dilemma

[Arising_uk]

I like my mates public sculptures

http://www.jennyportgallery.com.au/artists/sperry.html

[chaz wyman]

I like my mates public sculptures

http://www.jennyportgallery.com.au/artists/sperry.html

I like the biomorphs, and the 'public purse' is a hoot.

[chaz wyman]

If anyone is interested I've added my latest caricature sculpture of Nietzsche.



http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

[Arising_uk]

Not bad.

Give us a Wittgenstein, now theres a face any philosopher would want.

[tbieter]

Recently, a group of Minnesota lawyers visited Cuba. Cuban artists certainly have an “artist’s dilemma” regarding their “freedom of artistic creation”.

“The Cuban Constitution, consisting of 137 articles, has several wonderful provisions. A favorite is Article 38 that requires children to respect and help their parents! Many provisions are imbued with equality and fairness that most people would agree with. But then there is the negative that is an anathema to lovers of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment: Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution allows for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, so long as that speech complies with socialist principles. It also provides that all media must be owned by the state. Article 53 states:
Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at the exclusive services of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulates the exercise of those freedoms.

Article 39 (d) regulates freedom of artistic creation in a manner similar to freedom of speech: “There is freedom of artistic creation as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution. There is freedom of artistic expression.” (Emphasis added) http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/01/cubas-legal-composite/

[chaz wyman]

Recently, a group of Minnesota lawyers visited Cuba. Cuban artists certainly have an “artist’s dilemma” regarding their “freedom of artistic creation”.

“The Cuban Constitution, consisting of 137 articles, has several wonderful provisions. A favorite is Article 38 that requires children to respect and help their parents! Many provisions are imbued with equality and fairness that most people would agree with. But then there is the negative that is an anathema to lovers of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment: Article 53 of the Cuban Constitution allows for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, so long as that speech complies with socialist principles. It also provides that all media must be owned by the state. Article 53 states:
Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at the exclusive services of the working people and in the interests of society. The law regulates the exercise of those freedoms.

Article 39 (d) regulates freedom of artistic creation in a manner similar to freedom of speech: “There is freedom of artistic creation as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution. There is freedom of artistic expression.” (Emphasis added) http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/01/cubas-legal-composite/

This is not relevant.

[John]

If anyone is interested I've added my latest caricature sculpture of Nietzsche.



http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

Excellent. I'm very impressed.

[bus2bondi]

thanks tbeiter, that was very interesting.

[chaz wyman]

If anyone is interested I've added my latest caricature sculpture of Nietzsche.



http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

Excellent. I'm very impressed.

Thanks.
Re the thread - I'm not sure if its commercial but I get a lot from experiencing my progress in sculpture which, for me, is a completely new skill to learn, at age 51.

[artisticsolution]

If anyone is interested I've added my latest caricature sculpture of Nietzsche.



http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... 483c624c01

Excellent. I'm very impressed.

Thanks.
Re the thread - I'm not sure if its commercial but I get a lot from experiencing my progress in sculpture which, for me, is a completely new skill to learn, at age 51.

See Arising, proof that anyone can be an artist!

I think your work is great Chaz. You have talent...I especially like the ancient/earthy one. As far as the philosophers go, I do like them now...as caricatures...which could be sell-able for sure. However, I think if you want a more realistic feel, perhaps you could sculpt more factually instead of emotionally. For example, when you go to sculpt a head, look at a real image and draw lines through the image...like a grid. Think like a scientist....the nose comes out so many inches from the face at such and such angle (on the profile)....which corresponds to the mouth and chin how? What are the relative proximity from each plane of the face. I once took a sculpture class that made us 'beat' the formed head into cubed planes before we could begin sculpting. It taught me alot about anatomy and how light hits the face.

Sculpt the large shapes first and the hone in on the detail. If you don't do that first then you will be spinning your wheels wondering why a face looks too flat or too big.

Another thing I learned to do was to look at a human head from the top of the head looking down. Notice how skinny the face is compared to the back of the head. The nose chin and mouth all come to a point more or less...also...if you look at the head in a profile you will see the back of the skull is higher than the chin...anatomy is important....

Anyway...I think you have the potential to be great IF you use that intelligence plus your instinct and pleasure sculpting brings.

Here is one of my favorite (commercial) artists. I loved his stuff before he became famous...he takes anatomy to the extreme...I like to call it melodramatic anatomy...lol. Simply because he follows the "rules" but emphasizes them to show extremely dramatic cast shadows. Very earthy yet muscularly lean...

[Arising_uk]

See Arising, proof that anyone can be an artist! ...

Where have I ever said not!? I just disagreed with you that everything is art.

[artisticsolution]

See Arising, proof that anyone can be an artist! ...

Where have I ever said not!? I just disagreed with you that everything is art.

My mistake. I thought you also argued that some people could not be artists. I seem to remember a discussion we had about schools teaching math but not thinking art was as important and I said that anyone could be taught to be an artist...and all would have their own unique market if they so desired to sell ...which I thought you disagreed with me that anyone could be an artist.

[chaz wyman]

I think your work is great Chaz. You have talent...I especially like the ancient/earthy one. As far as the philosophers go, I do like them now...as caricatures...which could be sell-able for sure. However, I think if you want a more realistic feel, perhaps you could sculpt more factually instead of emotionally. For example, when you go to sculpt a head, look at a real image and draw lines through the image...like a grid. Think like a scientist....the nose comes out so many inches from the face at such and such angle (on the profile)....which corresponds to the mouth and chin how? What are the relative proximity from each plane of the face. I once took a sculpture class that made us 'beat' the formed head into cubed planes before we could begin sculpting. It taught me alot about anatomy and how light hits the face.

Sculpt the large shapes first and the hone in on the detail. If you don't do that first then you will be spinning your wheels wondering why a face looks too flat or too big.

Another thing I learned to do was to look at a human head from the top of the head looking down. Notice how skinny the face is compared to the back of the head. The nose chin and mouth all come to a point more or less...also...if you look at the head in a profile you will see the back of the skull is higher than the chin...anatomy is important....

Anyway...I think you have the potential to be great IF you use that intelligence plus your instinct and pleasure sculpting brings.

Here is one of my favorite (commercial) artists. I loved his stuff before he became famous...he takes anatomy to the extreme...I like to call it melodramatic anatomy...lol. Simply because he follows the "rules" but emphasizes them to show extremely dramatic cast shadows. Very earthy yet muscularly lean...

Thanks for the comments.
What you are seeing here is a very short evolution of my skill with a range of experiments.
I only started sculpture in September so I think my progress is remarkable.
The 'willandorf venus' was the first and the zizeck was the first attempt at a bust. I was happy with it, but it is now clear how poor it is compared to the rest.
I think the Marx is anatomically accurate, where the Nietzsche is intentionally a caricature. I'd like to be able to say that I am trying for a balance between the anatomical and the spirit of the subject, or the balance between the objective person and the caricature, but the process is more 'organic' for want of a better word, and the face seems to emerge from the clay with me as the agent. Of course I have to think and struggle with the detail such as getting the eyes right, but there is some serendipity to see the face emerge along the way.

I love the sculpture you attached and would love to do that sort of stuff but am currently limited by the medium.
I image that these are bronze casting from lost wax and one-offs.
At the moment I am sculpting in clay, making a mould from latex or silicone and then re casting in plaster and then painting. I have no access to a kiln where I could fire the clay, nor can I afford bronze work.
One day maybe.

[tbieter]

I think your work is great Chaz. You have talent...I especially like the ancient/earthy one. As far as the philosophers go, I do like them now...as caricatures...which could be sell-able for sure. However, I think if you want a more realistic feel, perhaps you could sculpt more factually instead of emotionally. For example, when you go to sculpt a head, look at a real image and draw lines through the image...like a grid. Think like a scientist....the nose comes out so many inches from the face at such and such angle (on the profile)....which corresponds to the mouth and chin how? What are the relative proximity from each plane of the face. I once took a sculpture class that made us 'beat' the formed head into cubed planes before we could begin sculpting. It taught me alot about anatomy and how light hits the face.

Sculpt the large shapes first and the hone in on the detail. If you don't do that first then you will be spinning your wheels wondering why a face looks too flat or too big.

Another thing I learned to do was to look at a human head from the top of the head looking down. Notice how skinny the face is compared to the back of the head. The nose chin and mouth all come to a point more or less...also...if you look at the head in a profile you will see the back of the skull is higher than the chin...anatomy is important....

Anyway...I think you have the potential to be great IF you use that intelligence plus your instinct and pleasure sculpting brings.

Here is one of my favorite (commercial) artists. I loved his stuff before he became famous...he takes anatomy to the extreme...I like to call it melodramatic anatomy...lol. Simply because he follows the "rules" but emphasizes them to show extremely dramatic cast shadows. Very earthy yet muscularly lean...

Thanks for the comments.
What you are seeing here is a very short evolution of my skill with a range of experiments.
I only started sculpture in September so I think my progress is remarkable.
The 'willandorf venus' was the first and the zizeck was the first attempt at a bust. I was happy with it, but it is now clear how poor it is compared to the rest.
I think the Marx is anatomically accurate, where the Nietzsche is intentionally a caricature. I'd like to be able to say that I am trying for a balance between the anatomical and the spirit of the subject, or the balance between the objective person and the caricature, but the process is more 'organic' for want of a better word, and the face seems to emerge from the clay with me as the agent. Of course I have to think and struggle with the detail such as getting the eyes right, but there is some serendipity to see the face emerge along the way.

I love the sculpture you attached and would love to do that sort of stuff but am currently limited by the medium.
I image that these are bronze casting from lost wax and one-offs.
At the moment I am sculpting in clay, making a mould from latex or silicone and then re casting in plaster and then painting. I have no access to a kiln where I could fire the clay, nor can I afford bronze work.
One day maybe.

Hi Chaz and ArtisticSolution:

As sculptors, I would like to know your thinking about some texts that I find fascinating.

The texts are in Chapter Three, entitled 'Statuary', in Etienne Gilson's book, Forms and Substances in the Arts. http://www.amazon.com/Forms-Substances- ... 787&sr=1-1

First, some context: Gilson distinguishes 'statuary' ("..the art of making statues, whatever the process,") from 'sculpture proper' ("...the art of making statues by working directly on a block of wood, stone or marble, using a hammer and chisel, so that ultimately only the form of the statue subsists.") Gilson continues:"This process, called direct carving, is distinguished from the statuary obtained through modelling. Sculpture works directly on hard material, whereas modelling is practiced on a substance that is soft and suitable to being moulded by the hands with the help, if necessary, of knives, chisels, or other similar tools. Like sculpture, modelling produces statues, but it is a statuary of a different kind." p. 78

Now, the texts:

"Sometimes the artist finds the form in the structure of the wood. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but no less surely, stone and marble speak to the sculptor who is about to subject them to his artistry. The anecdote about Michelangelo's repeated visits to a block of marble, as though to consult with it from time to time on what it itself desired to become, symbolizes a profound truth. Matter aspires to the form potential in it. The more form dominates, the less it need fear a dialogue with matter, and, at times, to heed it. Hence, there can be an intelligible relation between material form and artistic form; the form that art imparts to matter does not come to it exclusively from without." p. 79 (underlining by me)

"Finally, the very malleability of clay and wax, or of modelling paste, excludes the collaboration of the material in the birth of all form which characterizes sculpture, imparting its proper perfection and approximating its works to those of nature. A plastic material which is wholly amorphous and strictly homogeneous has nothing to say to an artist who examines it; in the finished work we will never feel that substantial unity of matter and form which is proclaimed in those works whose very form owes its precise configuration to its matter." p. 83 (underlining by me)

May I say that you artists as sculptors certainly experience reality far differently than I, an arts ignorant lawyer, do, so these texts really fascinate me.

Can an inanimate object (matter) communicate in any mode to an animate object (the artist)?

Has the matter that you were going use for a sculpture proper ever communicated with you?

I look forward to your comments at your convenience.

Tom

[chaz wyman]

I think your work is great Chaz. You have talent...I especially like the ancient/earthy one. As far as the philosophers go, I do like them now...as caricatures...which could be sell-able for sure. However, I think if you want a more realistic feel, perhaps you could sculpt more factually instead of emotionally. For example, when you go to sculpt a head, look at a real image and draw lines through the image...like a grid. Think like a scientist....the nose comes out so many inches from the face at such and such angle (on the profile)....which corresponds to the mouth and chin how? What are the relative proximity from each plane of the face. I once took a sculpture class that made us 'beat' the formed head into cubed planes before we could begin sculpting. It taught me alot about anatomy and how light hits the face.

Sculpt the large shapes first and the hone in on the detail. If you don't do that first then you will be spinning your wheels wondering why a face looks too flat or too big.

Another thing I learned to do was to look at a human head from the top of the head looking down. Notice how skinny the face is compared to the back of the head. The nose chin and mouth all come to a point more or less...also...if you look at the head in a profile you will see the back of the skull is higher than the chin...anatomy is important....

Anyway...I think you have the potential to be great IF you use that intelligence plus your instinct and pleasure sculpting brings.

Here is one of my favorite (commercial) artists. I loved his stuff before he became famous...he takes anatomy to the extreme...I like to call it melodramatic anatomy...lol. Simply because he follows the "rules" but emphasizes them to show extremely dramatic cast shadows. Very earthy yet muscularly lean...

Thanks for the comments.
What you are seeing here is a very short evolution of my skill with a range of experiments.
I only started sculpture in September so I think my progress is remarkable.
The 'willandorf venus' was the first and the zizeck was the first attempt at a bust. I was happy with it, but it is now clear how poor it is compared to the rest.
I think the Marx is anatomically accurate, where the Nietzsche is intentionally a caricature. I'd like to be able to say that I am trying for a balance between the anatomical and the spirit of the subject, or the balance between the objective person and the caricature, but the process is more 'organic' for want of a better word, and the face seems to emerge from the clay with me as the agent. Of course I have to think and struggle with the detail such as getting the eyes right, but there is some serendipity to see the face emerge along the way.

I love the sculpture you attached and would love to do that sort of stuff but am currently limited by the medium.
I image that these are bronze casting from lost wax and one-offs.
At the moment I am sculpting in clay, making a mould from latex or silicone and then re casting in plaster and then painting. I have no access to a kiln where I could fire the clay, nor can I afford bronze work.
One day maybe.

Hi Chaz and ArtisticSolution:

As sculptors, I would like to know your thinking about some texts that I find fascinating.

The texts are in Chapter Three, entitled 'Statuary', in Etienne Gilson's book, Forms and Substances in the Arts. http://www.amazon.com/Forms-Substances- ... 787&sr=1-1

First, some context: Gilson distinguishes 'statuary' ("..the art of making statues, whatever the process,") from 'sculpture proper' ("...the art of making statues by working directly on a block of wood, stone or marble, using a hammer and chisel, so that ultimately only the form of the statue subsists.") Gilson continues:"This process, called direct carving, is distinguished from the statuary obtained through modelling. Sculpture works directly on hard material, whereas modelling is practiced on a substance that is soft and suitable to being moulded by the hands with the help, if necessary, of knives, chisels, or other similar tools. Like sculpture, modelling produces statues, but it is a statuary of a different kind." p. 78

Now, the texts:

"Sometimes the artist finds the form in the structure of the wood. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but no less surely, stone and marble speak to the sculptor who is about to subject them to his artistry. The anecdote about Michelangelo's repeated visits to a block of marble, as though to consult with it from time to time on what it itself desired to become, symbolizes a profound truth. Matter aspires to the form potential in it. The more form dominates, the less it need fear a dialogue with matter, and, at times, to heed it. Hence, there can be an intelligible relation between material form and artistic form; the form that art imparts to matter does not come to it exclusively from without." p. 79 (underlining by me)

"Finally, the very malleability of clay and wax, or of modelling paste, excludes the collaboration of the material in the birth of all form which characterizes sculpture, imparting its proper perfection and approximating its works to those of nature. A plastic material which is wholly amorphous and strictly homogeneous has nothing to say to an artist who examines it; in the finished work we will never feel that substantial unity of matter and form which is proclaimed in those works whose very form owes its precise configuration to its matter." p. 83 (underlining by me)

May I say that you artists as sculptors certainly experience reality far differently than I, an arts ignorant lawyer, do, so these texts really fascinate me.

Can an inanimate object (matter) communicate in any mode to an animate object (the artist)?

Has the matter that you were going use for a sculpture proper ever communicated with you?

I look forward to your comments at your convenience.

Tom

Tom, there is nothing about the fact of me doing sculpture that entails or necessitates me 'experiencing reality' ANY differently than any one else. You get that from simply being a different person.
Before I was a sculptor - or more accurately I should say before I started doing sculpture my take on reality was not magically transformed by adopting this practice. Further - if I were you I would not place yourself outside of this practice.
Go out and get yourself a lump of clay and a few scrapers and try to model something; get your hands dirty - Hey Presto - you are now a sculptor. This qualifies you more than Etienne Gilson, to talk about the experience, as I understand he was not an artistic but an art historian and critic. His being a Thomist also tends to put him in a very eccentric position far removed from the dirt-under-the nails engagement with the material reality of existence. Did he ever do any art?
His remarks about clay are banal in the extreme- clay 'says' no more or less than any other medium. Sculpture is about putting the words into the medium, whilst the medium seemingly having the object buried inside of it.
The 'magic' of sculpture - be that subtractive (carving), or additive and subtractive (clay modeling), both require though and engagement of the artist. It is that which embues the final product with its qualities. The proof of this is in the fact that people can seldom tell the difference in the final product. And most times the most beautiful of sculptures in Bronze are never the original as they are produced from molds cast from the original or by the process of lost wax for example - in which the distinction between the hard stuff and the amorphous stuff is utterly irrelevant.

Art is best enjoyed by looking and touching and feeling (internally). When you spill ink and talk and talk about it you impose an intellectual interpretation upon it, smothering the art with words.
Take Homi Bhabha's remarks about Anish Kapoor his friend's work:
"The True Sign of Emptiness
It may be the most valuable insight into Anish Kapoor’s work to suggest that the presence of an object can render a space more empty than mere vacancy could ever envisage. This quality of an excessive, engendering emptiness is everywhere visible in his work. It is a process that he associates with the contrary, yet correlated, forces of withdrawal and disclosure, ‘drawing in towards a depth that marks and makes a new surface, that keeps open the whole issue of the surface, the surface tension...
If you think that you have seen ‘emptiness’ as that hole at the heart of the material’s mass, surrounded by a planished facade, then think again. To see the void as a contained negative space indented in the material is only to apprehend its physicality. To figure the depth of the void as providing a perspectival absence within the frame or the genre is to linger too long with the pedagogy of manufacture or the technology of taste. "

He is crafting his own art in words. This has nothing to do with the art which has to be a personal experience and can only be diminished by Bhabha's showing off.

I understand that Bhabha is not an artist either.