Is bodycasting really art?

[JasonGillespie]

Recently, as a result of my graduate studies, I have become interested in what other sculptors think in regard to the technique of bodycasting. My main interest, and the reason I am attending NYAA, is to develop my understanding and ability to render the human form to a high level...with my reference point being reality.....and expressly to do it with my own skills and talent. That puts me at the opposite end of the spectrum from this technique and firmly in the camp of bodycasting not rising to the level of Art. (Well, maybe art with a lowercase "a".)

That being said, I will say that there are some sculptors that use bodycasting as a preliminary to a further process and I wouldn't consider them as true bodycasting sculptors. The best example that comes to mind of this type of sculptor would be Antony Gormley. His work does not bear the image of the person being cast rather it is a rough framework for him to build upon and manipulate. His figures are worked beyond this technique and have meaning in their own right as a result. ( To see what I am refering to go to http://www.antonygormley.com )

Those who follow in the footsteps of the grandfather of bodycasting, George Segal, however, are, in my opinion, creating something, but it isn't Art. Their work is dependent upon the likeness drawn from the bodycast to give their work legitimacy. Herein is the problem I have. The likeness has nothing to do with their ability or skill. How they may compose or patinate the figures is the extent of their artistic effort. This in and of itself, I think, does not rise to the level of sculpture or art. A very good example of this type of sculptor is Marc Quinn with his "sculpture" of Alison Lapper in Trafalgar Square. Not only did he rely upon a bodycast of his subject as the positive for his work, he then had other artisans transfer and carve it in marble. You can go to http://www.marcquinn.com/ to see the above mentioned work.

I am interested in hearing what other sculptors, figurative and non-figurative might think about this and why. By all means try and convince me otherwise if you are in favor of bodycasting. I by no means have a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

A point, my interest is in a dialogue not a brawl. Please keep posts on topic.

[sculptor]

Jason:

is body casting really taxidermy
or
is masturbation really sex?
or
why not just phone it in?

the practice of sculpture has to do with developing the ability to see and the attendant skills in service of an aesthetic

maybe it really boils down to ones goals

'tain't fer me

rod
sculptor (http://home.mindspring.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://home.mindspring.com/~mandali/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lynn.torso.figurative.sculptor.rod.patterson.jpg&target=tlx_new&title=figure%20sculpture%20LYNN%20torso%20in%20the %20clay)

[daaub]

George Segal's work seems more about creating situations with the groupings of figures and environments rather than being about the figure itself. If one is just using the cast figure as a point of departure for a larger idea then the casting is just another means of getting there. One might claim that George Segal is not skilled at sculpting the figure, but is difficult to support the claim that he is not an artist.

I guess a comparison in the world of painting would be the realist painters who project photographs onto the canvas to paint. Many famous and successful artist do this. How about when they use grids or other methods to assist them in drawing? What about when an artist looks at a photo of a figure instead of sculpting or painting from a live model? Is it still art when an artist only makes a small model and has a foundry sculp the larger size ect.. If you take a stance on the use of aids in art, the question is where.

I believe the idea holds importance over the method. This all relates to the thread on tallent vs hard work. Skill vs creativity. ...

[fritchie]

This is a very large topic, and unfortunately it's caught me still in the process of running back and forth some 75 miles between my Katrina - flood battered home in New Orleans and a temporary location further north. I'll have to get back with more cogent thoughts, but here is my first reaction:

Art is an expression of emotion and intellect, abstracted beyond the moment. That is true in sculpture, painting, music, writing - in any art form. Specifically in sculpture, I think bodycasting can be art, depending on its truth to my initial statement.

You've overlooked Duane Hanson, whose works are much closer to "taxidery" than George Segal's. And, yes, I accept Duane Hanson as a substantial artist.

[JasonGillespie]

Daaub,
I realize that this topic seemingly presents a lot of "grey" area and would be willing to make George Segal fall on the other side of the line because of his texturization and excellent use of the figures to create meaningful compositions...and..... mostly because he did it first as a mode of expression that was meant to stand on its own merits. We could give him the pass of "first use", much as Jackson Pollock would have for his spatterings or Marcel Duchamp for his satirical use of found objects. As I said in my first post, I really look to those that follow in Segal's footsteps as the "sculptors" that have much to answer for.

As to the analogy of painting...it doesn't really work. Painters, even those that project and trace from photos (another habit I am not thrilled with) must then use a great amount of skill to make those drawings become paintings. That calls for a great deal of artistic ability(perhaps not draftsmanship).....knowledge of color, how to use the paints in an illusionistic way, etc....it isn't in any way the same as bodycasting. And grids are only a tool for enlargement and don't replace any skill whatsoever. This isn't about using artistic aids...it is about the replacement of skill and ability with a technique that virtually anyone can do and end up with an almost finished piece of "sculpture". Dare I say that bodycasting would be an artistic "crutch"?

Yes, this is related to talent and hardwork. In my post in the thread on that subject I opted for talent. The greatest artists used their talents to create what they did. The greatest artists didn't use the camera obscura, they didn't point from a real person. Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael, Rubens, Bernini, Rembrandt....none of them did anything other than rely on the gifts/skills they had. While they may have used limited aids, they did not replace talent/skill with techniques that made those abilities unnecessary. (Despite the wildly erroneous generalizations Hockney might have made..poor deluded man...he never understood some people just have great talents...and hardwork made them even greater:()

Rodin himself was accused of bodycasting when he showed the "Age of Bronze" because there were sculptors back then that would use bodycasting in the creation of their work.....but the difference was at that time it was considered to be a mark of a hack. Someone who couldn't do themselves what was needed to be considered a sculptor. That this accusation was leveled was a mark of Rodin's great ability to render, not the lack thereof which now days is most often the case. I don't agree that your intention or idea is more important than your abiliy to execute that idea in an artistic way. It is a balance of ability and creativity that makes an artist and art. But then I do not consider all expression art. This is a philosophical convention that has occured since the 19th century. "Art" that anyone one can do is not by my definition Art. It has become something else and though it has some elements/characteristics of art, it does not rise to that level.

Fritchie,

No, I have not overlooked our friend Duane. He is an interesting subject no doubt and one that has succeeded on novelty. (Sadly, more have followed in his footsteps) Many consider it sculpture, but I would say no. It lacks those elements that put it in what I would call the tradition of sculpture. His painting and dressing of the forms in a pseudo-lifelike way is akin to dressing a manikin...regardless of the "statement" he might be making. But you see, merely putting three dimensional objects in a space in my mind does not in and of itself constitue sculpture or art. This is a symptom of a much larger degradation and devaluation of what is special about art and those who create it. (I am not espousing elitisim though, just ability.) This is my opinion, however. I realize that most operate under a contemporary view/philosophy as is usual for those that subscribe to whatever the norm is. I prefer a macro view/philosophy that puts our overly self-important artistic period in proper perspective with all the other artistic periods.

Strange is it not that artists have striven to evolve artistically/technically/skillfully since the beginning of recorded history, at least in relation to their society and culture's needs, and we are now the first to devolve artistically/technically/skillfully in the interest of making art something anyone can do? (A case can be made that the middle ages do not fit into the former paradigm, but one only has to look at the evolution of Romanesque and Gothic architecture as well as the redevelopment of sculpture in the process to discount that argument.) Another argument would be that our current enlightened state enable us to see that art isn't just the ability to render or skillfully manipulate a medium...rather it is the expression of heartfelt ideas that transcends ability. Well, I may be simple, but I want my mechanic to be skilled in his profession as do I want the doctor I go to be proficient in his craft....why then do I drop my expectations of learning and ability and.....that rarer gift, talent, when I look to the artist? Perhaps it is egalitarianism run amock...whatever...it has made many who should not be artists....and bodycasting is only one cause.

[oddist]

Jason,

I would love to have the opportunity to study as you are...unfortunately, I have to struggle on my own...but I too like the inturpretation of the "hands on" approach to sculpting.

I wonder though, the "pointingmachine" used long, long ago, and still today, to transfer a model to stone or other medium..isn't this just "connecting the dots?" The model could be a hand built clay or plaster---or a live model, if able to stand still long enough.

Couldn't body casting just be considered a product of technical advancement in materials allowing for rapid reproduction of a subject. Casts of anything can be made and turned into something called "ART." For example, Rachel Whiteread's works.

Just some thoughts...

[JasonGillespie]

Oddist,
Your struggle is no different from my own. I had to work myself up to this point on my own. My undergraduate degree is in commercial art. In the end we are responsible for our education. School just makes certain ideas and concepts readily available that wouldn't be as easy to find. Still, the knowledge they are sharing is not gnostic. It is out there for anyone who would like to find it. The instructors do make a huge difference and I can't deny that, but they can not make me into the sculptor I want to become. That is my job and ultimately rests on me. Don't underestimate your ability to self-teach though.

The pointing machine is ideally for transfering information from an already fully conceived work to another medium or size. It doesn't or shouldn't remove the responsibility from the artist for having to have the skill/talent to create the work in the first place that is to be transfered. Could it be abused and used on people? I suppose it could, I suppose it has, but none of the great sculptors ever did and that is enough for me.

A good historical example is Carpeaux having his Ungolino transfered to marble. His plaster, which was also used for a bronze version, was pointed into a marble version that Italian artisans carved from those specifications...point by point. This scuplture was already fully realized though. The pointing was a means of transfering and nothing more. There is no detraction from Carpeaux's great talent in using it as a means of reproduction. The artisans' could not have carved the work they did without his plaster. The art resides in the original. Does it make the marble less valuable since he did not do it himself...to me, yes, definitely. That is in contrast to Michelangelo who was a stonecarver and had no need to point. Carpeaux,however, was a modeler and wouldn't have had the skill to turn out a marble version. At the academy we have many casts some of Michelangelo's works, most from Greek and Roman sculptures. These are from the originals and full sized. They aren't the actual works, but that fact does not change that they are exact duplicates of a fully realized work. It is the same with Carpeaux's marble Ungolino and the process of pointing....when properly used.

A technical advancement, in art, is meant to make creating that art easier...not take the place of ability. (I think) When you remove the ability of the artist fom the equation and have a technique that anyone that can read an instructional manual can do it stops being art. Then it becomes...perhaps a craft. I'm not sure. But I don't think of art as being trivial enough to be done by anyone willing to take the time to take a cast from a body. Just as I wouldn't assume to tell someone I am a great singer merely becuase I can force air through my throat and produce sound. There needs to be a line of demarcation so we don't wholly devalue art as an idea as well as a reality.

[oddist]

Jason,

Oh, I don't underestimate the ability to self-teach...I just don't have the time. And that's my problem to deal with.

So, if pointing is an easy way of transferring information from an already conceived work to another medium, does "laser" scanning fall into the same category? I suppose so..

And isn't a living thing an already conceived work? ;)

Maybe the needs of the artist should be taken into consideration. One might not need the satisfaction of direct, hands-on work...The end result maybe of greater creative importance to an individual...

There also may be the need for "immediate" results on the part of some..After all, we do live in an impatient, results oriented, striving for success society..

[JasonGillespie]

Oddist,
Yes, time is a bear. May you find more time to work and learn.

You know the needs of an individual might lead them to sidestep the process of actually sculpting the figure, but in my mind that then removes them from being considered a sculptor.

We don't consider photographers to be painters, but if we use the logic you suggest, the photographer could be a painter that just doesn't want to perform the "hands on" aspect of painting. But in the reality of our world their need for immediate satisfaction removes them from being considered a painter because they do not want to learn the process of painting. Instead of rendering an image themselves, they use a technique, (photography), to create the image for them. This is no different than bodycasting. Bodycasting is a technique which alleviates the "sculptor" from having to do the work themselves. In the past these people would have been considered charlatans and fakes. Today we give them a pass....worse we treat them as if they had actually created something. They may have fabricated something, but that is not the same as the act of creation.

The painting/photography example is an imperfect analogy, but I hope you see my point. If the sculptor wants to create figurative works, but is unwilling to learn or perform the act that ultimately identifies them as a figurative sculptor....creating the form..sculpting...I don't see how they can then be rewarded with the title of sculptor...or their work art. Is it expression? Certainly. Art?...no, not to me anyway.

Also, impatience is no excuse for not doing what is necessary. Would you ever hear this?......"I'm sorry judge, I didn't have time to go to law school, but you don't mind me practicing law do you?" :D
Why this crazy double standard is accepted in the art world but no where else is baffling.

Still, your points were good ones and made me think. Thanks.

[ironman]

Hi, I apologize beforehand for not reading ALL of the above posts.
Whenever I visit NYC, which is at least yearly, I ALWAYS visit the MET and look at Carpaux's "Ugolino". I love that work, and the agony and feeling that it evokes. Who cares who carved it.
How about Duane Hanson, I assume his figures are body casts, but I really don't know.
But, they are definitly art, they shake up your idea of what art is and what reality is and blurr the boundry between the two. If you want to have some fun, take a friend, who isn't really into art to a show of Hanson's work (don't tell them anything beforehand) and watch their reaction. You'll get a laugh out of it.
Segal's work isn't about the figure, but about the situation that they're in and their interraction or lack thereof with their fellow man.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[daaub]

Conceptualism has forever changed the way we experience art. If the object is no longer necessary then neither is skill.

Hard work and exceptional skill definately makes one a great craftsman, but it is imagination that makes them an artist. Then again, without some ability they may never be able to realize the ideas. If you are willing to view the idea as the integral part of the artwork, then skill, hardwork or use of aids are just different means of expressing it. Maybe in the past the greatness of an artwork could be difined by the amount of skill and talent that went into its making, but this is no longer the case.

It all breaks down to ones larger view on what is art.

In art such as Segal's, the ability to recreate the figure by hand is not integral to the greater idea. The figures are just used to get at something much larger, and in my opinion much more interesting. Mimicking reality by hand in a slow tedious and technical process might show off a sculptors skill but it does not show off their creative genious.

I agree that it should be a balance of ability and creativity, but ability can be replaced with use of aids such as 'bodycasting' where as imagination can not.

[griffin]

Jason,
I would have to say that I agree with duab and fritchie on this matter.
Bodycasting can be art.
However I think there is truth in the idea that there is a devolution occurring.

I only ever wanted to render the figure and learn portraiture.
In college instead I made six foot wing nuts out of chicken wire for professors expecting such.

A quote as best as I remember it.
The tension that exists between abstraction and representation that is where art lies. -Phillip Perkins, photographer

In response to the quote
"We don't consider photographers to be painters, but if we use the logic you suggest, the photographer could be a painter that just doesn't want to perform the "hands on" aspect of painting. But in the reality of our world their need for immediate satisfaction removes them from being considered a painter because they do not want to learn the process of painting. Instead of rendering an image themselves, they use a technique, (photography), to create the image for them. This is no different than bodycasting. Bodycasting is a technique which alleviates the "sculptor" from having to do the work themselves. In the past these people would have been considered charlatans and fakes. Today we give them a pass....worse we treat them as if they had actually created something. They may have fabricated something, but that is not the same as the act of creation"

Some could argue that anything created by man in mimicry of nature is in fact all ways fabrication. I won't argue this but I will take exception to photography as some how being the easy way out. My camera has been sitting on the shelf all day and has not created a single piece of art. It must be defective. True anyone can use a camera and get reasonably good results.However, anyone can also use clay and get reasonably good results.

The body is already a work of art whether you draw it,
paint it, photograph it, sculpt it or just look at it. All of mankinds techniques
are attempts to capture that essence of being. I can't say that Segal hasn't
done that. Certainly Segals work is closer to "real"than say Michelanglo's David. Meaning that in everyday life can one see people in poses represented in Segal's work. I haven't run into many "David's". Except of course the actual statue at the Louvre. Amazing.

I can certainly understand the contention.

Sincerely,
griffin

A challenge for fun. Perhaps several sculptors could create figures from scratch and figures from casts. Then compare for themselves. Excluding me
of course.As a photographer I'll just take a photo.

[ExNihiloStudio]

The craft decisions made to implement an idea for a work of art have substantial impact on the final result. In other words, the decisions of how to make it have a direct and undeniable impact on the look, feel, and sensibility of the finished piece and it is absolutely essential to take account of this. Is body casting good? Maybe, if the decision to use body casting technique is essential to the methods necessary to fully implement and make real the concept of the work and to arrive at an ultimately satisfying solution, i.e., a good work of art. If body casting is chosen because it is the best way to fully realize the intent of the piece, then we might ask if the body casting is well done. If body casting is chosen because the limitations of the artist’s abilities are not up to the intent of the piece and hence is a less than best solution, then we’ll probably be disappointed by the piece and blame the decision to use body casting, but that does not mean body casting per se is not good. I do think the look of body casting is distinctly different from scratch-made modeling and failure to realize this on the part of some artists may lead to the decision to use body casting in situations where it may not be the best solution.

Any series of decisions made to create a piece could be a back and forth do-think-do-think effort to find the best methods to get at the best solution and if something goes wrong somewhere along the decision chain the final piece will probably be less than satisfying. A pointing machine per se is not bad, but if a tabletop original is scaled up to monumental size using such a machine, has the impact of the scale change been properly accounted for? If the artist is thoroughly competent, yes. Would the best method involve working full size to begin with? Maybe, that might be a solution that could avoid surprises when a small model is scaled up with a machine, but it doesn’t mean the machine is bad, it might simply not be the best solution for the intent of the piece.

I can’t accept the idea that the decision to use a particular technique places a piece outside the bounds of what art is because that does not account for the possibility that the decision to use a particular technique may be the best solution to get at what the piece is about and in fact may be essential to making a particular piece good. It’s the misapplication of a technique that creates the problems.

I have seen many, many pieces suspended from above with monofilament wire, you know, fishing wire. This wire is supposed to be invisible, in concept, but every piece I have seen suspended with monofilament has been displayed so the wire is obvious and hence the results disappointing. I completely discounted monofilament as a convincing technique until a few months ago when I encountered a piece in the Fogg Art museum of one object hung over another with monofilament wire, and to my amazement it is displayed in a way in which most views most of the time the wire really is invisible, and the artist’s intent is made visible. Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the artist but it is a contemporary German piece. This is a case that had I made a rule for myself that placed monofilament suspension outside the bounds of art then the possibility of the successful use of monofilament would never been possible in my mind let alone the potential for serious inquiry into the techniques necessary to make it work. It’s only taken me half a lifetime to finally see a successful use of monofilament which says quite a bit about the pervasive misunderstanding of what it takes to make monofilament suspension invisible, not the badness of monofilament wire per se.

[JasonGillespie]

My use of photography was for example only. I do not feel that way about it myself...merely using an extreme to present my point. As to the issue of fabrication...as I use it...it is a descriptive that refers to a mechanical, but unartistic creation.

It seems that the "larger" view of art is the sticking point and bodycasting just brings it to the fore. This is the "enlightened" viewpoint I was refering to in my earlier post. If art is anything that someone does...then sure bodycasting is art. Just as peeing in a jar and dropping a crucifix in it is...or smearing fecal matter on a canvas. We have opened Pandora's box and the way for art to be whatever you want.
Therein is my problem with the so-called "larger view". Is it really better? No. It is intrinsically flawed to accept anything as art...just as it is flawed to accept anything as medical care..or justice...or love. The history of western culture has been one of moving forward and creating specialized fields of understanding....areas with boundaries that contain specific knowledge so we can discern what is and what isn't. We don't create these boundaries to just be arbitrary...they give meaning to those things that reside inside by virtue of what is inside then being distinguishable from the things outside. But, if logic has its way...if the visual arts, among all the other fields of specialized knowledge has no boundary and ideas/intentions trumps ability..then art eventually loses any uniqueness it once had. A reality we can already see in the ever growing disconnect between the average person and the field of visual arts/fine arts.

It is the second law of Thermodynamics which states, "the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value." What this physical law of the universe states is simply that anything over time will revert to chaos, disorder. Our universe is winding down, the garden will become choked with weeds, water and wind will destroy the tallest mountain...over time. Devolution is the natural state of the universe. * Something must enforce order for there to be distinctions. We have to weed and mow the lawn, clean up the house, make sure doctors know what they are supposed to before they operate on us, go to school to learn what we need to know to function in society, on and on it goes an endless list of man ordering his world....because he must. In every other field of endeavor this is the case...but...in art you say we should just shrug our shoulders and say anything is alright as long as it is masked in the guise of a "creative idea"...let chaos and entropy ensue. This "larger view" is demeaning/devaluing art as we speak.

In every example outside of art it is the ability, the capacity of the individual to perform their job/vocation, that determines whether or not they are what they say they are. Even avocations/hobbies use this same barometer as a judge of your level...novice...amateur....master?! But in art we are in possession of a "larger view". The degree to which this view is illogical is hardly measurable. Ony in the field of art can a person be an artist solely because they say they are. There is no need for that ultimate proof that is elsewhere the universal determinant.....ability. It is all good. But, we can feel good about ourselves because of our expansive view of art.

(Forgive me if I am sick of hearing words like conceptualism, progressive, enlightened, forward-looking, etc....as they are applied to art and other things as well. They are amorphous/generalizing/non-specific words that more and more often are used to create a comparison and contrast between what is contemporary and what is past with a derogative being implied to anything that isn't contemporary. Note these words are oftentimes used by demagogues to lull the sheep to sleep.)

The American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition

fine art

Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills, as in He's turned lying into a fine art, or The contractor excels in the fine art of demolition. This term alludes to the fine arts, such as music, painting, and sculpture, which require both skill and talent. It is now often used to describe anything that takes skill to do.

The Merriam-Webster gives this:

art

1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

There seems to be a trend among these descriptions. Skill....ability.....and the act of doing something that requires them. Bodycasting is an act that requires neither skill nor ability.....not above and beyond what any person with mind, eyes, arms, hands, and legs has.

If anyone can do it is it art? How can it be?





*(Please don't point out the evolution of life on earth as an exception. It was a physicist that brought to my attention this very fact as a proof that something must have ordered our existence for this law of the universe to have been thwarted since every where else it is absolutely true.)

[Blake]

In my humble opinion I do not consider body casting as being “really art” or (at the risk of being thrown to the lions), as “fine art, good art or high art”. Logically this would allow it to be “poor art”, “bad art”, or “low art”, as most definitions of art will consent to it as “art”, in that the mould maker admittedly posses skill.
Please, before you jump on the semantics involved in the above allow me to explain.
I find that I sculpt in clay allot of things that are not true to the model. For example I tend to elongate the legs, I like big expressive feet, sometimes the model has some aspects of him or her that I will reduce or eliminate or perhaps exaggerate. I try to make the form rounder than it really is for example.
The point being that a body cast may be distorted by the weight of the plaster and the eyes will definitely have to be reworked unless this is a take off on “Dead Dad”, yet it is given that a mould can usually produce a very close example of a body, but the mould maker usually does not make the aesthetic changes required to define it as fine art, in my opinion, with the possible exceptions as noted before of Duane Hanson and George Segal and for the reasons previously argued in this thread.
I often see hands that are cast, you can usually tell by the wrinkles on the knuckles, which would be impossible to sculpt. I envy these perfect hands but find that my sculpted life-size hands to be more expressive as I can exaggerate the curvature of the bones and the position of the fingers to assist in the expression of the piece, I can also make them just a bit too big in proportion to the actual size of the model again adding expression that the mould maker will miss.
In my case, what makes it “fine, good, high or really” art is what you do to alter the figure from an aesthetic point of view rather than reproducing a copy from reality.
Blake

[oddist]

Maybe we should just consider it "High Craft?" :D

http://www.smooth-on.com/bd-update.htm

[iowasculptor]

Wow,
This is an interesting discussion, being someone who doesn't sculpt the figure, basically because I have no interest in doing it, I am trying to see it from a figurative sculptors point of view. I keep going back to this question, is it process or outcome? If the outcome is what is important then does it matter how you got there or even if you made it. When I fabricate a large sculpture I have help and eventually would like to have a whole factory of workers making my sculptures, taking my sketches maquettes etc and scaling them up and making them in the appropriate material. Is this art? Is dale chihuli and artist? Is albert paley and artist? Is Jeff Koons and artist? Is peter paul Rubins an artist? Well, the art world has spoken on this and delivered a resounding yes. These artists all have (to varying degrees) workers who make their art. For me what it comes down to is the concept, if someone casts a figure and leaves it at that I don't consider it art there is no concept. The same applies to figure sculptinng in any media, if it doesn't have a well thought out concept I tend to say so what? I do this with abstract art too, Art must be well thought out and do something for the viewer. What are the ideas behind the artwork? Why should I care about this work of art? Looking back through time the work that lasts has strong ideas that come through to the viewer and multiple layers of meanings, without that it might be nice to look at but won't be appreciated for all time. I also personally have the opinion that if I need a figure for a sculpture and a cast piece will have the same effect as a carved piece then I am going to pick the cast piece, Why should I spend all of the time and money that it takes to get the same result, I would not peobably ever make a figure and leave it by itself. The other issue that comes to mind is th eidea of multiples, for an installation. There may be a very good reason for casting a specific person and reproducing it many many times.
I know it kind of seems like a slap in the face when the public views a cast in the same light as an original figure sculpture but this is something that you need to be aware of and you can decide to fight it or accept it. It happens in all types of art, the print vs original many people don't know the difference and don't care, that is just the world we live in.
Good luck
Matt

[ironman]

Hi, George Segal's work is not about the figure!
George Segal's work is not about the figure!
George Segal's work is not about the figure!
Henry Moore had italian craftsmen carve his pieces!
Henry Moore had italian craftsmen carve his pieces!
Henry Moore had italian craftsmen carve his pieces!
Duane Hanson's work is not about the figure!
Duane Hanson's work is not about the figure!
Duane Hanson's work is not about the figure!
George, Henry and Duane are all great artists!
What do they have in common?

They force you, the spectator to use your faculties (eyes, brains, heart) to figure out what idea or feeling they're trying to get across, what is there point of view?

Yeah, They should have a good art foundation under them, a thorough grounding in realism, art history, theory, etc.

Some people are a little chagrined that there is a theory afloat that EVERYONE IS CREATIVE!
They want it all to themselves!

Have a nice evening,
Jeff

[JasonGillespie]

If a work is figurative in any way it is obviously to some degree about the figure...if only in the respect that it is a constructed object meant to convey those traits we accept as human. The greater theme of the work may lie somewhere else, but it will, at some level remain a figurative work. That is why Segal, Moore and Hanson are considered figurative artists.


Now I agree that creativity knows no bounds. Many people are creative that never will be considered artists and creativity takes many forms. If you identify yourself as a figurative artist, however, in my opinion then creativity just isn't enough. It helps to actually create the forms you use in your work.

The main point seems to be that some want to create allowances in the art world for work that requires less or no artistic ability.....but is still very creative and therefore somehow becomes just as artistic as work that requires creativity and a great degree of skill. "The idea is the thing" I've heard some people describe this way of thinking about art. Ideas are always going to be the driving force in great art, but they do not, in my mind constitue art by themselves or with talentless fabrications attached to them. Bodycasting is a great example of this type of allowance and enables some who might not otherwise be able to get their idea across due to lack of ability to render the form. It enables them to be figurative artists where, at least from a skill standpoint, they wouldn't otherwise be.

My contention is merely that this is fundamentally wrong in that it decreases the meaningfulness of all art. It has nothing to do with petty, selfish motives. I don't feel chagrined. I just don't want anyone in any field of endeavor that has worked hard to learn a skill have someone else who hasn't taken the time to learn that skill come along and say they are equal in importance. I respect people committing themselves to the hard, but rewarding task of learning and becoming skilled at whatever it is they choose to do...and do not respect those that through short cuts and half measures achieve results that may seem meaningful but lack real integrity. I do not think that the end justifies the means.

[iowasculptor]

Dude you live in the MTV generation, instant gratification, and convenience. This is just an extention of that mentality. The cast figure is the MTV generation, and just like the rest of the world it has become a player in all areas of society. I would just keep doing what you want and believe in, and quit worrying about things you can't change. Making art takes too much energy anyway, you don't have enough time to take the art world on this one, and in the end this discussion isn't about your sculptures since you choose to do it the old fashioned way, its about somebody else, not your problem. So enjoy the process that you like and look at the other within the context of thats a neet process, is there anything there that I can borrow either conceptually, or process wise that will enhance my own work.

[G. Murdoch]

I'm with Jason on this one. I realise that there are canonised artists (Henry Moore) who had craftsmen provide the skilled work neccessary to have thier conceptions (realm of the ideal) manifest in the tangible (realm of the actual). That's fine and lovely. I personally reserve my highest regard for those artists who make thier ideas manifest through thier own labor and skill.

Of course there are exceptions. Certain artworks could not conceivably be produced by a single individual, regardless of skill level (architecture, film, etc). By thier very nature, certain artworks require the contribution of many people with a variety of skills. I understand and respect this truth.

If an artwork, say a figurative sculpture in stone, could be carved by an individual artist, and that artist choses to have others do the actual work, well for me I balk at granting that artist much respect. The "artworld" can gush praise all day long. As a stonecarver, I respect the ones who apply hammer to chisel to rock with courage, vision and skill.

Graham

[JasonGillespie]

Iowasculptor,
If you believe insomething strongly enough...the devaluing of art as a bad thing for artists and the culture you live in....then to do nothing is to quietly condone that action. To believe you can't change things is to give up your freedom to disagree, to revolt.

Yes, it is a disposable age where impulse usually outweighs thought. But would our country ever have been formed if the early Americans just said, "well, that's just the way it is and we should probably enjoy the life we have"? No, some things are worth fighting for. Courbet, Manet, the Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, Cubists, Surrealists....all of these groups would never been if they had followed advice like yours. You wouldn't be able to create the art you do if they hadn't first revolted against the monolithic art philosophy of their time. So forgive me If I do not take your advice.

Art is, I think, worth fighting for. Respect for art and artists is worth fighting for. But that is not everyone's opinion and I know and accept that....that that can't change.... I refuse to accept however. :)

[ironman]

Hey Jason, I think we would agree that Segal's work is NOT about the figure and I think that if he, let's say, skillfully carved them out of marble, that might take away from what he's trying to say.
Now, I know, that you might bring up the "Burgher's", but although beautifully done doesn't interract with each other on the level of Segal's work. I AM NO SAYING THAT SEGAL'S WORK IS BETTER. It's the detatchment from each other, while sharing the same space and breathing the same air, so to speak, that gives Segal's work it's power. He a "CITY" sculptor and that loneliness or anonimity that one experiences in a big city is what he's after. The fact that they're mostly painted white just adds to that. That they're not "specific" also adds to that feeling.
That loneliness and anonimity is not present in the "Burgher's".
I know you're not chagrined, I apologize for that.
Iowasculptor is right on with his words of wisdom.
Have a great day,
Jeff

[grommet]

Well, I believe that everyone needs Art. And just as everyone has different taste buds, they also have different art needs. Different things that relate to their personal experience. It isn't wrong, it's just that broccoli is for other people.

[JasonGillespie]

Ironman,

I actually like Segal's work. His pieces about societal alienation are very well done. That is why I originally said he would get a pass for using the technique first. (See my second post) I completely get his work. It does resonate with me. As a result Segal's work has never been an issue with me.

Hanson is another matter, but the issue for me there isn't what he is trying to do but how he is going about it. As I said before, in my book the end doesn't justify the means. For me he is doing little more than really technically astute window dressing. His "message" means little to me since I don't see his process as terribly artistic. (Not to mention that in my opinion his "message" is overwhelmed by the gimmicky quality his pieces exude.) But as I said, some feel differently about this and we all are entitled to our view points, micro and macro.

As for Henry Moore and Jean Baptiste Carpeaux, though they had others create versions of their work in mediums they weren't used to, they obviously created works in mediums that they were familiar with themselves. These works show their genius and I have no problem with the other work they farmed out as a result. They had skill, they had ideas, they were both complete packages.


Something you see a lot of here in New York.....there is more than a little "idea" driven art. It is mostly pretentious even if it is technically well done....so skill by itself is no answer to the problem to creating good art. (It is a very real danger here at the academy where the emphasis is on technical proficiency.) It is ...I think I've played this record before...a balance. So don't think I'm just about skill and ability. Good ideas must be a part of the formula and I think that is crucial. I'll be the first to admit that.


My feelings about most modern/post-modern/contemporary non-objective/objective sculpture is that if it is good in terms of idea and execution, then that is what matters. (Excepting that art which takes no true skill to create...art that anyone can do...I must draw the line here.) I don't divide things into new or old. And I don't just prefer art that, as Iowasculptor so quaintly put it, is "old fashioned". To me those are inaccurate ways of looking at things since everything is influenced by what came before and therefore creates an unbroken line of continuity in terms of artistic evolution.

We aren't as far apart as you think. :D

[iowasculptor]

Its not that I don't think you should fight for what you believe its just you nned to know what you are fighting for. Should people who make cast be banned from every art establisment? What is your desired outcome of this discussion? I respect the craft of creating art, but I also realize that the boundaries of art extend infinately in all directions. If I make a statement about something as "not art" then I limit the field of possibilities. In the post-post modern art world we live in, setting boundaries causes many problems. There are many opinions about what art is, this is good, what other area of influence can you have the diversity that exists in art? Again I ask what is your intent in defining casting vs carving or craft? I don't evaluate a work of art based solely on technical merit, while I may say, wow that is really skillfully done, I do not necessarily consider it a good piece of art without a well composed and thought out concept that expands my understanding of the world. Skill is important but not all, if that was the case then we wouldn't learn the visual language that conveys meanings in art. "Semiotics" Anyway I try to focus my energies on things that I can control, and frannkly you can only control what you do, not what other do. You probably can't change thier opinions either, and personally I wouldn't want to on this one. There are far more serious concerns pressing the art culture of this country than how something is made.
Matt

[JasonGillespie]

Iowasculptor,
I stated at the outset of the thread my intention behind initially asking this question. I have one view point regarding body casting...which was negative... and was wanting to hear a plausible affirmative case for it. Most of what has gone on in between has been that discussion. Until now most of what I have heard is a defense based not on the validity of the technique...excepting a few good points...the majority have taken the form of an indirect defense which has consisted of bringing up the fact that we should have a "broader view" of art. Your comments fit into this same group and that's ok. As you say, we are in the "MTV" generation.

It is a forgone conclusion that many people are heavily invested in supporting as open and politically correct a view of art as possible. It fits into the prevailing modernist/post-modernist ideology about art....namely that our acceptance of anything as art must be good because the opposite, making judgements about what is good and what isn't, is bad. I cheerfully and logically disagree, but I seldom follow the well trodden path. I find it is much more fun to make your own.

As for your comments about not changing things...well....nevermind.


Grommet,
You are most certainly right about people having different artistic needs. That is the wonderful thing about art. People are free to pursue their own personal visions and that makes for a richer tapestry.
Whether or not something is wrong is in the eye of the beholder, that has always been the case. It is the tug of war between ideas that keeps art vibrant. Without dissent there is no friction...nothing to react to. Without opposing ideas we would live in the artistic equivalent of ancient Egypt....an art that remains unchanged for thousands of years.

[Merlion]

Bodycasting is of course a technique used in creating art. It is by itself not art.

But as bodycasting can produce visually stunning results, a good artist can make use of it to produce visually beautiful, and sometimes powerful works of art that people enjoy viewing.

On the other hand, another artist can make use of it and produce a bad work of art that people dislike viewing.

And some artist may be tempted to do bodycasting and pass the result off as hand sculpting work.

[iowasculptor]

Jason,
I agree with you that hand sculpted works lend themselves to more expression and interpretation than cast pieces, I see casting as just another media to make sculpture, like cardboard, hair, etc. I haven't used this method personally mostly because my work is not about the sculptured figure, a planar version works just fine for my purposes. Take a look at Tom Friedman, construction paper splat, not that that is casting but it does show the wide range of media used to convey thoughts. His piece is a life size portrait of himself hitting the ground after a very high fall. This piece is very powerful and I contend that it is made in the best media possible. I think that I said that casting in itself is not art, but neither is nocking off some stone or slapping some clay together, so as a criteria to define art I don't think it works. There are always exceptions once you make parameters. Look at the artists who we now revere, Duchamp for example had the "not art" label put on his work but now we look at his contribution to the art world and it is unbelievable. He didn't even cast his work he just found it and placed it. Whether you like him or not is irrelivant in the scope of his importance to the world of art. I would challenge you that if you feel so strongly about this issue that you incorporate it into your work. This push and pull could make some interesting pieces and may lead to a pretty nice Thesis. This is the type of advice I give my students, if they are passionate about something then they should explore the opposite so that they can become authorities on the subject. I can see some really nice figures coming out part cast and part carved/sculpted. This might be a nice way for you to work this out and impact the art world. In this way people from various points of view will be allowed access into your world.
Good luck
matt

[JasonGillespie]

Iowasculptor,

Duchamp's use of preexisting objects as art, as well as subsequent sculptors use of such materials, however, hinges upon an entirely different premise than bodycasting. There is a problem when this distinction isn't made clear.

Found objects and their use is a statement about the artistic value of everyday items. It ingeniously draws its strength from the idea that the design value any of these objects might have on their own and makes them somehow worthy to be considered as objects of art when used in certain contexts. Now whether or not you buy into that idea remains to be seen, but it is not an idea that supports bodycasting and placing the two in the same category is a mistake.


Merlion,

Your initial statement rings true. Simply put, bodycasting is a technique. Then you add the important, "It is by itself not art." That is the kernel of why I then disagree with your next statement that, " a good artist can make use of it to produce visually beautiful, and sometimes powerful works of art." It is the essence of what figurative sculpture is that precludes bodycasting from being a component in making art.


Figurative sculpture, regardless of its message, on a fundamental level is about a created illusion. Period. It is an illusionistic construct that resides in realtime, three-dimensional space and is based around a sculptural idea. (This is where people get into trouble thinking sculpture is just objects or material put together in an interesting fashion...as if it is that simple) Figurative sculpture doesn't have to be realistically modeled, it can be a highly subjective, personal interpretation made in any number of media and processes. But all of these interpretations will be built on the common premise of an artistic illusion that becomes a sculptural idea by virtue of the artist skillfully manipulating his/her chosen medium.

Not so bodycasting. It is in no way an artistic element. By its very nature it can't be. It has no intrinsic artistic merit as an object.....as we have prescribed to preexisting found objects or objects skillfully rendered. (I keep beating this drum but it is due to the importance of the idea) Bodycasting is a short cut taken to escape the task of creating an artful object oneself. Including it with other sculptural elements will not give it value, rather it will negate the value of the surrounding elements by virtue of its artlessness.

But that is as I see it.

[sculptor]

To say that Segal’s or Hanson’s work are not about the figure
is like saying that
air travel is not about airplanes
or
capitalism is not about money
the figure is a key feature and cannot be so lightly discounted
one could as readily argue that my ISIS (http://home.mindspring.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://home.mindspring.com/~mandali/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/IsisOsiris2pixSmudged.JPG&target=tlx_new) is not about the figure
that may be true-especially when considering OSIRIS and HORUS
I would say that the sculpture uses the figure

As I said earlier, it boils down to ones goals
Matt rightly pointed out that it is a time consuming passion with little monetary reward
In the “real world” if money is the goal, then by all means, bastardize the art by using cast from life figures, bastardize the language by calling taxidermy art or sculpture(I think it is neither)…do whatever it takes to find shortcuts and go for the fast buck

I think Blake hit the key as to why I would eschew casting from life
I am not into photorealism.
Everything I do from housing/habitat/landscape designs to woodworking and sculpting is done to serve an aesthetic.
I have rarely found a model who fulfills my ideal, so in any given sculpture, I’ll use bodyparts from different models, or my own vision---and for stability, the wrists and ankles are usually a tad thicker than human.
Even though I eschew casting from life, I have taken it as a compliment when accused of this…most recently from a museum curator as/re ISIS, so I helped her up on the tailgate of the truck and pointed out that her arms were too short(done so the tilt of the arms would mimic the slope of the entrance to an Egyptian temple) and other variations from life.
So I take license to modify the parts of the body when it suits the aesthetic vision.
It took years of work to hne in to the figure so that I could use the parts I want to clearly share my vision while maintaining the veneer of reality.
I think that the art suffers from academics who would discard the differences between what Blake defined as high and low art, and from wordsmiths who misuse the language.

A local woodcarver, Bill Schnute used to borrow stuffed animals from a local taxidermist to use as models for his carvings. They don’t complain, they don’t squirm about, they can hold a pose just about forever, and their a tad less macabre than using the folks in the morgue.
I think of casting from life as a tool, and as such it is a very limiting tool. Which constrains the product, while real sculpting frees the vision and the soul.

But then again, I’m poor and old and acknowledge that my arguments are specious to my attitudes.

Whither hence?
Rod
sculptor (http://home.mindspring.com/~mandali/index.html)

[grommet]

I think of casting from life as a tool, and as such it is a very limiting tool. Which constrains the product, while real sculpting frees the vision and the soul.

At this point I'd like you to consider that perhaps this is one tool / material we haven't learned to fully utilize yet. Stone chisels each have their own mark and use, clay is recognizeable for its flowing malleability, metal for its self supporting rigidity, fibers for their tactile quality as well as their familiarity. Bodycasting reproduces in unflinching detail every soft curve and annoying imperfection. So you've got a mold. You're only limited by your own creativity as to what fills that mold or how it's manipulated.
Take a detour Jason; do what the Prof. says & explore the other side (the dark side? ;) ), your own work will benefit from the investigation. Don't just think about it, DO it.

[JasonGillespie]

grommet,

I'm sorry to say I won't be trying any bodycasting...not out of obstinancy, but just plain old lack of interest. It isn't something I have any faith in and to use it ...even as an experiment....would run counter to everything I believe in. Those who use may do so with impunity...but I will not. It does not fit into my plans. And at my age you know what you want to do and that is what I need to be doing. Not to mention I've already spent the last 20+ years working in a different medium. Time's a wasting.

Sculptor,
You are right..it is one's goals that will dictate your choice of techniques, materials, etc.... My choice is to get even better at rendering the body myself so I can give voice to my ideas in a more powerful way just as someone who bodycasts is to avoid having to worry with the time consuming..and to them ..the unnecessary task of creating a believable figure by hand. To each their own...as long as I do not have to consider it art.

[fritchie]

Wow! It's amazing what's come out in this thread since I last was able to visit. 33 posts to date!

We've had debates on issues of this sort before, and I'm happy to see that this one is being conducted with mutual respect for the divergent and strongly held opinions that have surfaced. At the same time, I have to wonder where this is going, beyond repetition.

Certainly, I long ago wrote off the "Art World's" pontifications about value in art. To me, a work of art, let's say sculpture in this thread, carries its own value, and it either will or won't express that value to a given observer.

That conclusion is verified through comments made here, some people praising works by well-known sculptors, and others rejecting the same. Maybe we all should take a deep breath and wait a day or two before continuing, to see if we really have new things to say.

(And, not to be provocative, but I can't let the reference to thermodymanics above go unremarked. My longest professional career was in physical chemistry, and thermodymamics is a big part of that. Entropy or disorder in a physical system, such as this Earth, in no way demonstrates design in its formation.)

[grommet]

Congratulations Jason, you have remained unmoved. Your focus is admirable.
So, I'm thinking this is the kernel of a fun undergrad segment for sculpture exploratory. As a group come up with a list of "unworthy" processes, mediums, etc. The challenge, of course, is to prove the list wrong. My only question is ... how big could you possibly make a Chia sculpture depicting the protest of the more strict immigration laws?

[JasonGillespie]

Grommet,
Actually it is not not about being unmoved so much as it is being committed to an idea...at least until a better idea is intoduced and proven. A personal truth is something that is not of value until it is tested by the fire of controversy.....and.....An opinion is a belief that has never been tested. I want to know my opinions can withstand scrutiny and be personal truths I am not ashamed to hold. If they don't then I need to discard them.

I don't know if any process is unworthy so long as someone finds merit in its use...this is my stint as devil's advocate. I do understand that those who use bodycasting do so....some anyway....from a genuine need. To them it is worth using and that is their reality. Just as realistic figuration is mine. My process is to some artists...I know...outdated...oldfashioned...passe..etc... We each consider our individual processes worthy. There is no real proving them wrong because each person subscribes to the circular reasoning that upholds their use of that particular process. How can you disprove the worth of some thing that exists outside your circle of reasoning in the first place? My arguments against bodycasting are specious beyond my particular way of seeing. As are yours and anyone elses. (The question is can you see the paradox in the above two paragraphs?)

It would have to be as big as the Chia representing the wanton breaking of our country's already existing immigration laws by the thousands of illegals streaming across the border on a daily basis and many citizen's lack of concern for the damage it is doing to our economic and societal stability.



Fritchie,
Yes, redundancy has crept into this thread. Due in part to some of the same questions being posed after already being asked and answered. I know for my part that I followed up some posts tenaciously to see if there was more to the opinion than merely knee-jerk reaction.

My interest in asking the question in the first place was not just to get responses on a general level....I was also intested to see if anyone had a logical refutation of my argument. This whole line of inquiry stems from some of the very well thought out debates we have had in seminar courses here at the academy. Obviously everyone here at NYAA is figurative on some level. That makes for less radical departures of thought in discussions...though they can be quite interesting nonetheless. In the arena of this online community,where a great diversity of thought exists, I assumed the question would spark greater debate...which it did. What I didn't expect was the degree to which people's affirmation or negation of bodycasting depended upon a larger view of what art is and that this would displace the original question as a point for discussion. I was very intrigued that for some sculptors'.....bodycasting being art wasn't viewed as a separate issue... it was an automatic response connected to that larger philosophy. My lack of acceptance of it was connected to my larger view of art as well but I was still willing to consider it in sculptural terms alone.
That we base our smallest opinions/beliefs about art on a much greater understanding/viewpoint is logical, but one that was interesting to me in that it divided down "party lines" so nicely. How far are we willing to go to defend our respective belief systems? How well defined are these beliefs? How well thought out are they? The thread could have easily been a fill in the blank question...."is ____ really art?" Take your pick of subjects that are hot buttons connected to an individual's way of thinking about art. And with all the dogma of a religion. A contrast of thoughts and feelings that speaks volumes about our respective positions in the art world and where we think it should go.


That being said....there is an element of talking at each other rather than to each other that I have noticed and probably makes your suggestion a valid one. It may very well be the end of the thread. Although, I would be interested in your own well thought out view...pro or con.:)







As to the scientific aside..The lecture I went to (in undergraduate days) was not about entropy/disorder being a sign of design, rather that the existence of life, which is complexity personified, happening at all reflects an order being imposed upon a system that can only become less ordered not more. When I questioned the gentleman later about this....he clarified for me the application of the second law to the creation of the universe...life on earth...etc... I've since read/researched a little on it from a layman's perspective and according to some.....the complex evolution of life on earth and the increasing entropy of the universe do not point to random chance accounting for the second law being suddenly flouted so we could evolve from single celled organisms. Obviously this is one view within the scientific community, but the logic seems straightforward to me. No doubt it won't to others.

[fritchie]

Thanks for taking the pause I suggested. I have no difficulties with anything to date in this thread, though some in the past have gotten so contentious they have had to be terminated by a moderator. Everyone here has been commendable for good expression and consideration of differences.

Let me go to some of your points. "What I didn't expect was the degree to which people's affirmation or negation of bodycasting depended upon a larger view of what art is and that this would displace the original question as a point for discussion. I was very intrigued that for some sculptors '..... bodycasting being art wasn't viewed as a separate issue ... it was an automatic response connected to that larger philosophy. My lack of acceptance of it was connected to my larger view of art as well but I was still willing to consider it in sculptural terms alone."

This actually is a logical response by other people to your question, though clearly not the perspective you sought. The whole definition of Art (or Sculpture) is changing rapidly today, just like the options and rules of life in general. When people think of installations, ephemeral art, art made primarily from fabric, wire, broken wood or other materials (even dead animals or animal products), it is natural and even necessary for a given artist to place his/her own ideas in a wider context. As I expressed earlier, I have not used bodycasts in my own work, but I see nothing wrong with their use by others.

What I think what you may getting at here is the essence of sculpture - something along the lines of "expressive and coherent 3D imagery". In your case, this is imagery of the human figure. For many others today, the human figure is minor or even unnecessary. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but you probably hoped to confine the issue to something like "What is the proper role of bodycasting in figurative sculpture?" Even with that limitation, I suspect others will say it's OK, and even fine. I think that way myself. Also, as I said in my first post, you have opened a broad topic, even with these limitations, so I'll stop here a bit arbitrarily.

With respect to your additional comments on thermodynamics, that earlier scientist overlooks one of the basic requirements. The law about entropy requires an isolated system, one with no inflow or outflow of matter or of energy, such as heat. Life on Earth required a heat source for its origination, and it requires heat for continuation. To make a quick point - ice certainly is more ordered than water (ice has lower entropy than water), but it forms without difficulty each time the temperature is lowered, or heat flows away from it. That in brief is the error of the original statement.

[JasonGillespie]

Fritchie,
your remark about the thermodynamic question oversimplifies the point. It is not a random few scientists who can not agree when a system is closed, how large the closed system is, or whether or not it can even be considered closed at all. Too, the different uses/meanings given to entropy (logical, configurational...) further create confusion within the scientific community...it is no more harmonious than the art world. Some scientists argue that thermodynamics has little to do with entropy as applied to biological systems...but some disagree. Suffice it to say, until a consensus is reached....there will be no sure or certain answer only many assertions.

As to your comments about the thread...I was simply looking to see if a logical rationale supporting the use of bodycasting would be put forward. Yes, those that hold to the post-modern idea of avant gardism figuration isn't the thing. But that doesn't free one from having to consider the idea. I do not personally create non-objective work, but I certainly have spent more than a little time considering what makes it good or how it functions because it is art my own work must coexist and to some degree compete with. My observation is that some of those that have given blanket acceptance to bodycasting as a viable form haven't actually taken time to consider whether or not it functions within the context of figuraton. That figuration isn't their bag is no excuse for an artist to be unaware of what is happening in other areas of the art world....or to be unable to understand something outside the context of their own creative sphere. You are right in saying it was a broad topic...still the applications are specific enough. Fini.

Have a good weekend.

:)

[Blake]

You will forgive me if I make one more comment on this subject in respect of the development of figuration in sculpture and thus the use of body casting. I will leave the two of you to the debate concerning thermodynamics and entropy.

Considering the place of figurative sculpture in terms of the development of art, one should admit that the “Classical representational” figure is done and the abstract figure has also pretty well been exhausted. In order that figurative sculpture somehow move forward into this new century, perhaps body-casting represents a way to further develop this art.
In terms of avant gardism post post modern figuration and giving consideration to the tendency in art today to include an obligation towards originality, an artist, in order to explore new ways either to present or to represent the figure requires that any restriction concerning the aesthetic or technical handling of the figure be forgiven. In this context the use of body casting could be considered both appropriate and necessary.
In order to move the art of figurative sculpture forward the old traditional sculptors like myself need to try to promote the new and daring use of the figure without bias as to the manner inwhich the art is constructed.
Blake

[oddist]

I believe the "direct" sculpting of the figure is a "spiritual" experience with a deep connection between the visual, tactile, and emotional elements.

Without the knowledge of the elements that makes up the animal form and the operation of these parts, how can one expect to produce a sculpture with emotional impact? Even of a human drapped in clothes!

Try to body cast someone holding a position driven to by deep sorrow or strenuous activity. Try to body cast a horse leaping over a fence or big cat lunging for a prey.

But with knowledge of bone, muscle, and flesh--and empathy which should drive any serious figurative artist--a sculptor can impart life into a static medium. And as for "style", this knowledge can only contribute to the achievement of great things.

And I add here from "The Sculptor's Way" by Brenda Putnam, first published in 1948...Chapter XI, Running Templates and Enlarging By Hand:

As this chapter concerns itself mostly with mechanical processes, it may be well here to say something about plaster casts made directly from the living, or dead, model. Although such casts can hardly be called "art", they may on occasion, prove of great assistance to the artist. A death mask, for instance, may be very useful to the sculptor who has the unfortunate task of making a posthumous portrait. Flesh forms, to be sure, will not be quite as they were in life, for they naturally drop away from the ridge of the face, but bony construction under them will be a valuable asset to the sculptor.

Just my views.

Argue all you want.

Good luck to all in all your endeavors.

[Blacksun]

Is bodycasting really art?

No.

It is a mechanical process that replicates a natural object. It is not art and definitely not sculpture.

[fritchie]

Fritchie,
your remark about the thermodynamic question oversimplifies the point. It is not a random few scientists who can not agree when a system is closed, how large the closed system is, or whether or not it can even be considered closed at all. Too, the different uses/meanings given to entropy (logical, configurational...) further create confusion within the scientific community...it is no more harmonious than the art world. Some scientists argue that thermodynamics has little to do with entropy as applied to biological systems...but some disagree. Suffice it to say, until a consensus is reached....there will be no sure or certain answer only many assertions.


I don't want this side discussion on entropy to take over the thread, but the Three Laws of Thermodymanics were formulated some time in the mid- to late-1800's and are a matter of pure logic, combined with astute observation. They are totally precise, and not in the least uncertain. Beginning in the early to mid 1900's, and continuing today, people have worked to extend these subjects to open systems, removing the restriction of no inflow or outflow of matter or energy. These extended "laws", really only tentative theories to date, are still under development, but that uncertainty is typical of a growing science. I have heard enough charlatans evoke "entropy" as "proof " of Creationism or Intelligent Design that I have been sensitized to this topic for a couple of decades. The comments are simple obfuscation, and I think we ought to consider this subject off limits in a thread on sculpture.

[dayleebob]

When I went to college as a non-trad and graduated w/BFA sculpture from Univ of South Dakota, bodycasting was taught as a means to an end, a technique to build from, not for it's realistic qualities. Very few used the technique.

After I studied Segal, Neri, KiKi Smith & Rodin, taking it all in, I've created my own body of work utilitizing bodycastings.

Just because I use it for this body of work, doesn't mean cannot create a figure with another medium.

I invite you to see my website in connection with the SD Artists Network.
http://www.sdartists.net/members/dsundberg/index.php

Check it out, is it art or craft?

[fritchie]

Daylee - I looked at your site, and I think you use the technique very well. Your work definitely is in the "art" category for me. My main criterion, as I said earlier, is creativity or concept, well-executed.

[realsculpt]

as a somewhat well know lifecasting artist, with figures in museums, one in an airport, ect,. I will be honest. bodycasting/lifecasting is a tool and a bodycaster can be an artist.
Painting is just a tool, so is stone carving. it is a means to an ends.

Like painting, sculpting in clay, its a process. it would be like me asking if freeform sculpture is really art, i would think some would laugh some would be offended, others just would be indifferent. personally i dont like it, its not for me, but i can admit it is art, just not for me.

what you do with the castings, how they are arranged, painted ect is the artistic part (unless you have an art director they bleed all that out of you) but i believe some of my work is art, in fact i have gotten paid very well because someone considered it art. ( and before someone says that thats a sellout, if i dont make money i dont eat, and cant afford to do things i want to do) I highly promote selling out, otherwise burn your artwork when you are done so noone can buy it. truth be told if you are agiant "selling out" burn your Nikes, boycott starbucks, and ignore xmas. oops.

there are alot of people out there bodycasting lifecasting, but very few do it with the artistic ability needed to capture the moment in time trying to be captured. I equate it to norman rockwells ability to capture a moment in time, mabey he staged it but so what it comes across as a moment frozen. That is the art in bodycasting. now personally i could care less for unrealistic figures, i prefer the hyper realism or surrealism, but lets face it, its art, a tool, its what ever anyone wants it to be.

as far as ability, i seriously doubt that more than 10% of the sculptors on this thread could take a realistic body cast and make it work. The methods of proper casting are incredably hard to master, and the hardest part it to create a full figure that is seamless even under a magnifying glass, opening eyes, changing expressions, making sure that the neck position effects the forearm properly (and it does effect it) . I see that some people feel that this is not sculpting but i think it is either indifference (which is fine) or it could be sour grapes, lack of knowlege on how to use the tool of bodycasting when needed for the outcome of the project.
but like i said the tools are different thats all. Its mold making, sculpting, painting, its everything its more mixed media.



anyway a life/bodycaster is an artist. Is bodycasting art, well it depends on the critic.

[oddist]

The methods of proper casting are incredibly hard to master, and the hardest part is to create a full figure that is seamless even under a magnifying glass, opening eyes, changing expressions, making sure that the neck position effects the forearm properly (and it does effect it) .

This appears to me to make the results of a bodycast an armature--requiring artistic skill to build on in order to achieve the ultimate goal.

Thanks for the education!

[realsculpt]

I agree 100% ODDist, it is basically an armature. I think your perspective should please all involved in the thread.

[Tandigon]

This is quicksand! So am going to leap from one end to the other. The ability to draw exactly what one sees can be learnt if one has the aptitute. The ability to create a 3D figurative can be similiarly learnt. Over time one becomes skillful. Transalating this figurative into other medium can also be learnt. If the end is seen as the content, then in this example the means are the skill and the medium. This is the sacred ground of traditionalists. On this ground, having learnt to use the pen, alphabet, words, one is free to create prose or poetry. What you say and how you say it with the mediums you use matters.

[Keropian]

Today the word art has been streched and diced to mean pretty much anything.
So whether a figure is lifecadt, photo-realistic, stylized or merely free form it could be considered art in todays society.

Life casting started when the cave man stepped into muck and saw his foot print.

I have seen some quite nice projects created with this life casting methods but in some cases when artist use it as a short cut to create a figure it falls short.

I have found the lifecaster Duane Hanson's workmanship interesting, but after the first impression of fooling the viewers eye it doesn't do much for me.

I enjoy following the forms of the body in clay and modeling and incorporating the human form in composition. I like the craft part of creating sculpture as well as the process. I'm not into fooling the eye per say just creating a fine figure. Each figure composition to me is a new challenge and I look forward to this and the solving the problems that come up.

Unfortunately in the world of making a living with art. I find there are way too many people on committees that don't know the difference between the many styles of figurative art or the difference between good and bad figurative art. With this in mind, my concern is for the craft person who may get sidelined by the new digital technology which can create a 3-d photo rendering of something without the need of a professional sculptor, merely someone to lay clay onto a surface and rake it. This to me is not fine art.

We all need to help educate our children and those in our community.

Mike

[Landseer]

I think body casting makes too realistic a sculpture since it's taken off the actual body, so then it almost takes on a store manniquin or wax museum look. With clay I like to see texture that LOOKS like it has been worked with small hand tools- not to see all those little cracks in the skin, pimples and hair roots on the surface- it then doesn't look like a sculpture.

[JasonGillespie]

Unfortunately in the world of making a living with art. I find there are way too many people on committees that don't know the difference between the many styles of figurative art or the difference between good and bad figurative art. With this in mind, my concern is for the craft person who may get sidelined by the new digital technology which can create a 3-d photo rendering of something without the need of a professional sculptor, merely someone to lay clay onto a surface and rake it. This to me is not fine art.

I think here Keropian, inadvertently, hit upon a possible way of understanding the problem "is bodycasting sculpture?". Because the lack of understanding among many outside of the art world (and some inside) of what is good and bad figurative art, there is a blanket acceptance of whatever looks relatively "realistic". This acceptance doesn't take into account the ease or difficulty in creating the sculpture or even whether or not there is artistic ability involved in the process, merely the outcome is considered.

While artistry may be applied in the use of bodycasting once the cast is made...the actual casting of a real body is no different than the 3-D technology Keropian describes....both displace the need for a sculptor who can create a figure. The body cast is, in a manner of speaking, a "photograph" of the body that has no artisic interpretation or artistic skill involved its creation. It is not art.

Remember, we are talking about figurative sculpture...not abstract/non-objective sculpture where the use of non-artistically fabricated elements is common. Oftentimes process becomes art in the abstract/non-objective realm. In figuration process is never a replacement for ability...though some try to make it seem that way. To forget this distinction is to lump the creation of all sculpture together as if their are no differences....and.......to do this is to is to ignore the history of figurative sculpture as if the advent of Modern art made such distinctions irrelevant.


I see that some people feel that this is not sculpting but i think it is either indifference (which is fine) or it could be sour grapes, lack of knowlege on how to use the tool of bodycasting when needed for the outcome of the project.

Now, it is easy to call into question the motives/abilities, etc..of those that don't agree with you. Be that as it may, making a mold and casting is not an artistic process despite realsculpt's comments to the contrary. I know people who are excellent at making molds and making casts, but cannot sculpt themselves....these are processes that can be learned whether you have a smidgen of artistic apptitude or not. I've known skilled foundry workers who haven't any real scultptural ability, but they can piece a sculpture together and turn out seamless finished work. There is artistry in how they use their tools, but they would not presume to call themselves sculptors. Skill and artistic skill are not the same thing though some confuse the two. One is in the domain of the tradesman and the other belongs to the arts. Though both may show artistry in their use of their skills, only one is an artist.


If to some this seems a redundant comment...my apologies.

[mountshang]

Thankyou, Jason, for this interesting thread.

Unbeknownst to me -- I was touting a body-caster (Isabel McIlvain) on my blog -- and now Jason has provoked me to discuss this issue here:

http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/07/isabel-mcilvain-and-body-casting.html


Overall -- I'm not as skill oriented as Jason.

I appreciate that without great skill, nothing could be made that I like -- and that without reference to skill, the notion of art becomes meaningless (or institutional) -- but I confess that over the past few years, the word 'art' has increasingly become less important to me - as I approach the position of the classic artworld outsider: "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" --- while adding that "other than it's institutional history -- or for specific technical purposes -- there's nothing about art to know"

Maybe you could say that I prioritize results over process -- and the act of viewing over the act of making. I want a work to take me to a (good) place --- how I got there is irrelevant. (And, by the way, I have found nothing to like in George Segal, Antony Gormley, or Duane Hanson - and every body-cast that I have ever seen in person has depressed me -- as dreary, awful, creepy things that need to be swept up and thrown away)

I would also suggest that this arrangement (result over process) is what has summoned the historical work that we identify as great achievements today -- while the reverse (process over result) is what resulted in the forgettable stuff that we call hack-work. I would further suggest that even students should prioritize results -- by seeking teachers who make things that they especially enjoy -- rather than just those who are good teachers of various skills. Great skill is necessary -- but only as it serves a great vision. (which should not be called a "great idea" since it is not an abstraction that is independant of its physical presence) (but I suppose this is moving off topic -- isn't it ?)

BTW -- it's very exciting to watch Jason negotiate the conceptual rocks and shoals of contemporary art education (can you guess that I've just been river rafting?) -- and I'm very curious about his work.

Chris

[mountshang]

Thankyou, Jason, for this interesting thread.

Unbeknownst to me -- I was touting a body-caster (Isabel McIlvain) on my blog -- and now Jason has provoked me to discuss this issue here:

http://mountshang.blogspot.com/2006/07/isabel-mcilvain-and-body-casting.html


Overall -- I'm not as skill oriented as Jason.

I appreciate that without great skill, nothing could be made that I like -- and that without reference to skill, the notion of art becomes meaningless (or institutional) -- but I confess that over the past few years, the word 'art' has increasingly become less important to me - as I approach the position of the classic artworld outsider: "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like" --- while adding that "other than it's institutional history -- or for specific technical purposes -- there's nothing about art to know"

Maybe you could say that I prioritize results over process -- and the act of viewing over the act of making. I want a work to take me to a (good) place --- how I got there is irrelevant. (And, by the way, I have found nothing to like in George Segal, Antony Gormley, or Duane Hanson - and every body-cast that I have ever seen in person has depressed me -- as dreary, awful, creepy things that need to be swept up and thrown away)

I would also suggest that this arrangement (result over process) is what has summoned the historical work that we identify as great achievements today -- while the reverse (process over result) is what resulted in the forgettable stuff that we call hack-work. I would further suggest that even students should prioritize results -- by seeking teachers who make things that they especially enjoy -- rather than just those who are good teachers of various skills. Great skill is necessary -- but only as it serves a great vision. (which should not be called a "great idea" since it is not an abstraction that is independant of its physical presence) (but I suppose this is moving off topic -- isn't it ?)

BTW -- it's very exciting to watch Jason negotiate the conceptual rocks and shoals of contemporary art education (can you guess that I've just been river rafting?) -- and I'm very curious about his work.

Chris

[Tandigon]

Body casting goes back to Roman history. To imply that body casting is a symtom of the modern impatient era is questionable.

Is body casting art? is the question of this thread. So are we saying that this is art and that is not. Or that that is craft but not art. In that case forget about body casting but ask instead what is art.

Go on a visit to the Vatican and purchase an almost identical replica of the 'Pieta' in scaled down version. Then go to a rapid proto shop and arrange two models with drapery and all, emoting the moment, scan that scene and mill it out. Presto! Was the emotion projected art and the rapid proto tech used a craft. Is art the medium? Is art the skills involved?

In my line of work, I do body casting on a daily basis to replicate the disfigured part of an individual. Then I create a restoration in silicone rubber. Is my work art, or is the fact of psycho social benefit to the disfigured individual.

Art in its true sense, like beauty, is abstract. It creates an aesthetic experience. I've seen a lot of photographs many done by creative individuals, which were able to move me.
Was it art?

Like I said before, in my line of work I used to model the restoration painstakingly in plasticine or wax. Today others in this line of work are using RP to do the same. Should I protest?

"Tandi honey have you seen that bicycle seat with the handles just above it. Does it remind you of a bull?' " Sure it does baby, and a famous artist put it together"

[Kevro]

All creative expression is art. Best, Kevro

[mountshang]

Now -- you've got me curious.

The ancient Romans made body-casts ?

Can anyone offer any more details on the phenomenon ?

(I've seen the life-casts that Vesuvius made in Pompeii and Herculenum -- but that's something different -- isn't it ??)

[Tandigon]

'In Rome, it was not the apotheosis of the deceased, the fusion with the gods that was celebrated as it was in Egypt, but his terrestrial grandeur, his virtues and his merits; only worth ensured immortality.

The imago was molded directly on the deceased's face, painted naturally by a specialized polinctor, adorned with embedded eyes and false hair. It was exhibited next to the body during the conclamatio, it accompanied the convoy to the tomb; in the Forum, it even substituted for the corpse, as the orator addressed his laudatio to it, as thought it were a separate being. Its final resting place was in the atrium among the ancestors, and a wooden tablet, the tabulinium, was devoted to it, on which was inscribed the text or the summary of the elegy. But the effigy's role was not limited to the glorification of the deceased; the imagines took part, as did all the household spirits, in the life of the people. During the funeral of one of the family members, they were taken from their reliquaries and were made part of the ceremonies.' http://www.bergerfoundation.ch/Fayoum/english/rituel_romain.html
http://www.geocities.com/regilifecaster/index.html

Lets begin here, then we can go to the Egyptians!

[Texstralian]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow...
I am a very new sculpture student. Mostly I am a suburban housewife who goes to museums on a reasonably regular basis without any background or education in art. And while I am embarrassed to admit this, it may go some way in supporting an aspect of Jason's argument- I have apparently seen figures that have been casted and thought them to be sculpted, as I remember being amazed at the virtuosity of sculpting in the pores and fine lines of the skin! So again, I admit to being a total rube, but now I also feel misled. I like seeing effort, skill AND creativity all wrapped up together. Art has a fairly tenuous position in modern society, it seems. While the boundaries keep getting pushed by artists they leave us rubes so far behind we just scratch our heads, because so much of it seems irrelevant and removed from our understanding. I'm not saying art has to hold our hands, stroke our hair and spell everything out, but I think artists have to understand that it will be harder and harder to find the money to support urine in a jar with a crucifix because average joe thinks it's either sacriligious or puerile. From the outside it appears to be a secret society where art is made for other artists and then we get to pay for the priviledge of it in our museums. Perhaps this is part of Jason's point, or at least part of what creates the desire to make a distinction. Anyway.... just two cents from the "rube" contingent. :)

[mountshang]

Wow -- thanks for the history lesson about ancient Rome.

Although I'm not sure how the ancient practice of death masking makes body-casting any more of an art -- i.e. requiring extensive skill, practice, training, finesse, knowledge etc. How long does it take to learn how to pour a good death mask ? Ten minutes ? How long does it take to learn how to carve a marble portrait to the level of the masterpieces of ancient Rome ? (it must take a very long time -- because I don't think anyone has done it since the 19th Century -- or even earlier - depending on your judgement)

So my suggestion that contemporary art schools teach body-casting instead of figure modeling/carving because it's oh-so-much easier still stands.

Teaching modeling is like teaching the violin --- there's a long period of unhappy, frustrating results -- and many people just never get the hang of it.

But teaching someone how to body cast ? That's like teaching someone how to spin records at a party.

My own experience in body casting was very memorable.

For some reason, a handsome and playful Iranian friend of mine back in the seventies (before the Revolution) had the notion of making a torso-cast. He had tried it with his girl friend -- and it was a disaster. She was burned by the plaster -- she lost her public hair -- she nearly suffocated -- the pieces had to be broken off of her with a chisel -- and she never spoke to him again.

So he ran a help-wanted ad and got a retired army sargent who couldn't wait to be punished.

We slathered him with vaseline and covered him with plaster from the waist up. So there he was -- eyes covered -- - breathing through two straws -- and staggering under the weight of all that plaster. I guess it was cruel of me to laugh -- but he sure looked funny stumbling around the studio until we pulled the mould off -- and presto -- a perfect reverse-image -- containing all his chest hair that had come off in the process. And wouldn't you know it -- he asked us if we might do it to him again.

Come to think of it -- making a full body mould with plaster -- that did require a certain touch -- because the mould had to be separated at the precise moment when the plaster was setting but not set. But making a death mask over a face ? I think that's on the same skill level as shining shoes.

[JasonGillespie]

Texstralian,

Having read your post I would say you are not the 'rube' that you think you are. You understand some basic human responses better than quite a few experienced artists do.


Tandigon,

The Romans used this form of 'bodycasting' in creation of an effigy that was used in funeral ceremonies specifically...not as a part of their creation of figurative statuary. The distinction may seem small, but it removes the usefulness from the parallel between them and our present culture's use of body casting as art.

I'll grant you that it does establish the age of the process though. It makes sense that man began early to experiment with 'duplicating' his own image in a more direct fashion. The use of skill to fashion classical sculptures, however, was the norm and not by using any casts from life. All the way down to Rodin's day, to be thought of as one who cast from life was to be considered a hack....less than an artist.

[Tandigon]

I once read some apocryphal accounts of early Roman attempts at bronze casting. A slave would be covered in a mold and molten bronze poured. Possible / probable in the days of early experimentation. But the use of face death masks as a model for replication in bronze or marble seems to be factual.

We seem to be in a debate as to what is art and what is not, as also who is an artist and who is not. The repeated line of reasoning seems to be that art is a skill and artists are skilled. A multitude of viewers at art galleries wonder about the skill of Picasso or Henry Moore or Alexander Calder, or a M.F. Hussain. Whilst they have no problem admiring British or Euorpean equestrian art, the Last Supper, or the Pieta. While modern day collectors will spend a fortune for old masters for sheer investment value, they will decorate their corporate offices will modern art to impress that they are very much with the times. In other mediums, like photography, some pictures which hit the front page can make or break a nation, can create mass reaction, and can even cause grown ups to cry. During a trip to Vienna, Mozart uplifted me, as Bruckner caused me to wonder. At home my son freaks out on dark side of the moon. And then there is modern ballet, and musicals just as there was Shakespeare.

Pray tell what is art and who indeed is an artist.

"Tandi honey.." " Not now babe, I have an identity crisis"

[mountshang]

Pray tell what is art and who indeed is an artist.





This topic is currently being discussed in another thread "Is contemporary art a fraud".

In contemporary art, the question "Is this practice an art?" (as if it were important to distinguish between art/non art) is presented simultaneously with the assertion that "any practice can be an art" --- and it's a position that I have claimed is fundamentally fraudulent -- and culturally catastrophic when accepted as the basis for education in the arts.

[JasonGillespie]

We seem to be in a debate as to what is art and what is not.........

For the purpose of this thread it isn't necessary to debate such a universal question. (Though the above question/debate may control our responses)
In the context of a figurative tradition that spans many millenia and many continents it is, I think, only needful to question whether or not 'art' (figurative)that is created through non-artistic means(body casting) can be given the same degree of credibility as 'art'(figurative) made by a skilled artisan using artistic means(sculpting).


Since body casting has no connection to non-objective art it can't be considered by non-objective standards. It must be viewed and scrutinized through the lense that all figurative art is seen. It seems that this distinction may be a stumbling block for some. There is a prevailing body of thought that sees ART as a hodge podge where all things are equal, the same and no lines of demarcation are drawn..... but that isn't applicable here. (Here I sense a storm approaching and its name may be... 'what is figurative art?')

Be that as it may...figurative art....by its nature.....has critera that governs it that non-objective does not have. Body casting, in my opinion, violates that criteria by circumventing the purpose behind the act of creating an artwork that resembles a human form. Body casting is a copy, a three dimensional xerox and is as close to a sculpture in its nature as a color copy of the Mona Lisa is in its nature to the original painting in the Louvre. Though some disagree, it is a clear cut case of apples and oranges.

Now, I will heartily agree that the question/topic quoted at the top of this post and those who answer it with a non-specific 'anything or everything' are the ones who make body casting acceptable at all. Perhaps in that light the question of 'what is art' might be turned inside out and prove useful by remaking it into, 'why is everything art or why can anything be art?'. Then perhaps the distinction I speak of in the preceding paragraph might grow more clear for some as they try to defend...logically....what is ultimately an illogical view point.

[Alex]

Yes, bodycasting/lifecast really is art . Lifecast might be the best art. Because it is created by the greatest artist of them all......Mother Nature.

Alex

[Tandigon]

It is apparent that this discussion will go nowhere as long as 'some' of us close our mind to other points of view and are opionated. In his first post on this thread, Jason wrote that he wanted to know what others think about this topic. And others are telling, but...

Instead of filling up the chasm that seperates art and the people at large, this attitude of anything and everything cannot be art, will deepen it. Why on earth do we try to create art? For our own gratification? For public monuments? For praise of our ability to carve a Michaelangelo? To make a statement? To earn a living? What is our purpose? Can anybody and everybody afford to purchase our creations? How does our work impact on the lives of people at large?

If 'some' of us want to use a live mask of an individual long dead, to create a portrait, and then perhaps indulge in the glyptic art, thats just fine. Or perhaps one may proceed to the lost wax process, leaving the actual process to those who do it routinely.

If it is my objective to study the human form with the dedication of Michaelangelo and achieve the skill he had to bring marble to life, I will dedicate my life to the activity. But I will not write off others who use other methods to achieve the same, because I am too focused on my own work.

Are we trying to increase the distance from the mundane by saying that art cannot and should not be trivial. Is my five year old grandson's sketch of me trivial? I love his sketch because of its originality. Or should I wait until he grows up, studies sculpture, and carves my likeness in marble, without the spontaneity.

Lets us take the question of 'what is art' , turn it inside out and ask 'why is everything art or why can anything be art?

Before you try to shoot me down, let me tell you that I studied the nude for four years until 1969, and since then I use my skills to create likenesses down to skin textures. Why ? Because my art is actually used by people who are disfigured (as a camouflage), so my creation has to be so lifelike as to be mistaken for the real thing. I have mentioned this before in other threads and somewhat explained the process.

But catch me looking down at the means others use.

"granpa tandi, see my sketch" "At last I know what my soul looks like, sonny"

[janeb]

Jason suggests in his original posting that it is the likeness to reality of the bodycast, which gives the work incorporating the bodycast its claim to “legitimacy” as a work of art.

This discussion has been lively, but perhaps most participants agree more than might be apparent. I haven’t understood anyone to be claiming that a bodycast per se, should be valued as a work of art. Regardless of the fascination in seeing features like skin pores reproduced, I don’t think anyone is claiming that this confers artistic value. We probably all agree that photorealistic likeness to reality is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition for something to be a work of art.

As Fritchie says, “a work of art … carries its own value”, and so rather than pursue a fruitless consideration of what constitutes “Art” – a question argued about by philosophers since at least the ancient Greeks – perhaps it would be helpful to consider how one goes about making judgements on the artistic value of any specific work.

I expect there are a few readers of this forum who, like me, have no education in art but would like to know how to regard dubious objects posing as being “art” worthy of our regard and contemplation and purporting to offer us an experience worth having.

A short and very readable book that I found helpful guidance in how to think about art is:

Looking at Pictures : an introduction to the appreciation of art
Author: John Armstrong
ISBN: 0 7156 2701 5

Don’t be put off by the fact that is written by a philosopher! Here is a sample from the Preface of the readable style:

“There are no shallow-ends in philosophy, wise people say … But there are deep-ends and deep-ends. Some books insist that you leap from storm-lashed rocks into raging torrents from which no one has emerged alive (Nietzsche), some take you far out to sea in a tiny, minimal skiff which then disintegrates leaving you to slip deep into the icy waters (Kant). But there are other, less traumatising deep-ends. There is the quiet, sunny pool, with clear water, calm voices and sensible help at hand; this book is, I hope, of the last kind. It is written for those who think they might like to do a little philosophical swimming, if the weather turns out nice …”

The book is specifically about painting, and the resources of painting, but similar considerations apply to sculpture. The author makes the point that rather than the paralysing “But is it art?” question, there are many other smaller questions we can ask of any specific work – questions which do admit of answers, and which together can provide us with means to make a judgement of the object’s merit as a work of art.

The author suggests a framework for consideration of an object as a work of art (regardless of what other value it might have), in which the “But is it art?” question becomes the question: “Does this object have intrinsic value, is it irreplaceable and has artistry been exercised in the creation of such value?” The specific considerations covered by these terms, and what the author means by valuing something “as a work of art”, you need to read the book to understand.

I took notes for myself when I read it, and this is a paraphrase of a point made by the author, which directly relates to one of Jason’s concerns:

“This kind of valuing [described in the book] is more important than the discussion of whether something is or is not to be called a work of art. It was to this category of value that all the great artists of the past took their work to belong. We cannot stop this category of value being central to us, but we may find that the cultural institution of the ArtWorld provides us with less and less that matters. It remains open, however, and always will, for someone to take up his brushes and paint works which are valuable in the way described; and their value is utterly independent of whether or not they are labelled ‘art’.”

So Jason, while it is true we can’t stop anyone who wants to from calling himself an artist, this need not bother us. That some “art works” are given a status they do not deserve by the current Art Establishment does not, as you suggest, “decrease the meaningfulness of all art”.

As Armstrong discusses in the book mentioned, the fact that we can not “measure” artistic value in an empirical sense does not preclude us from making valid judgements about it. An obvious and trivial example would be my claim that my work has artistic value comparable to that of Michaelangelo’s work. You can be quite sure that you judge rightly when you declare me to be seriously deluded! Of course, whether I accept your judgement does not actually matter at all, to anyone.

While it’s important to protect the public from charlatans who would call themselves mechanics or doctors, when it comes to artists this really doesn’t matter. We are all capable of forming judgements about the merits of their works. As ExNihiloStudio points out, if bodycasting is used as a second best choice to compensate for lack of ability, the piece will be correspondingly lacking.

Have you seen the bumper sticker: “Hairdressers do what only hairdressers can do”? It’s the same with sculptors.

A bodycast, regardless of how it is valued, can not have the same intrinsic values as a sculpted work made, as Rod puts it, with “attendant skills in service of an aesthetic”. Armstrong would explain it: “It is precisely the fact that it is painted [sculpted] which makes a picture [sculpture] valuable in subtly different ways from other lovely or fine things.” Sculptures produced by means of bodycasting, regardless of their own value, can not demean or devalue what you are trying to do.

[mountshang]

Thanks for introducing me to John Armstrong. I like his approach.

In his Amazon book review, the conservative commentator Orrin Johnson wrote:

"But the points he's (Armstrong) making all deal, as his subtitle suggests, with internal reactions and personal likes and dislikes. This is fine up to a point, but there does come a point where this kind of intensely individualistic approach really abandons the idea of art and particularly of great art."

I agree with Orrin -- but am less concerned with such an abandonment.

[JasonGillespie]

janeb

Like mountshang, I appreciate your making me aware of Armstrong. I will look for a copy of the book you mentioned.

I do actually agree that on a certain level that it really doesn't matter about what others think or perceive in regard to the art you make. It is every person's perogative to create what they themselves like and find enjoyable...worthwhile. This type of art is done outside of the 'art world' and not for comparison or scruntiny by those who are in it. I made this distinction as a art teacher..helping students do the best work they could, not with any intention of comparing them to a master artist. They were creating for individual enjoyment. It is a different application. I think, from the little of his writings you provided, that Armstrong is viewing all art this way. He seems to be espousing lumping all art made by anyone into one category.

There is, however, a difference between 'Art'...as we consider those great works down through the ages....and what the little old lady down the street paints on weekends, the public school student creates in class, or some person has thrown together with no understanding of what they are doing and a result that shows it. It is an important distinction that gets lost in today's discussions about art. Perhaps some might see it as unfair to have such 'standards', but that is just recent politically correct thinking and lacking in logical or historical support.

The reason art is art is because we have always been able to distinguish it from something that wasn't art. Therefore there is that which is art and that which isn't..despite the attempts to confuse the two. Now, we can remove those distinctions, but then what would be art...there is no defining it any more.

And though you say:
While it’s important to protect the public from charlatans who would call themselves mechanics or doctors, when it comes to artists this really doesn’t matter. We are all capable of forming judgements about the merits of their works.

The fact is it isn't true. Our present educational institutions don't teach student's not majoring in art how to appreciate a painting or a sculpture...and sometimes they don't teach the students that are majoring in art either. You give institutions and people too much credit for being able to intuitively understand a work of art.....or what isn't a work of art. Some do have that innate discerning eye...but is by no means commonplace. Personally I have witnessed in the course of my life too much ignorance of art to believe otherwise.

We may all have judgments, but they aren't all equal. I am not going to tell the neurosurgeon what he should be doing in the operating room and he shouldn't be instructing me...because we have different knowledge bases. Read the journal of Delacroix or writings of Rodin on art and sculpture, Robert Henri's, (and others) and you will realize that great art isn't a happy coincidence....it does conform to a science of sorts. It has definite innate rules that create pleasing or unpleasing convergences of lines, shapes, colors, etc.... It isn't just something you walk up to and instantly understand or know how to do.

This is part of why it is important, in my opinion, that we do keep the charlatans from being given blanket acceptance. If the world you write about existed it would be different.....there we could rely upon everyone to keep each other honest because everyone would know the difference...but that isn't the world we live in.

[MountainSong]

Just went to the link on mountshang post number #53 and had my first taste of body casting.
It left me feeling quite empty, the work feels utterly lifeless and cold, which is odd given that it is actually portraying humans. I can not reconcile this in my mind, being accustomed to feeling both the life force of the artist in the work and in good art - the individual life force of the work itself. My gut instinct says this work was not done by an artist but by a technician because it has no energy - it feels dead or like a zerox copy.

[Merlion]

I have no general comment to add on to what I wrote on this topic quite sometime ago.

What I want to add is about the acclaimed English sculptor Anthony Gormley, winner of the 1994 Turner Prize, and creator of 'The Angel of the North' and 'Another Place'. My apology if this has already been mentioned here. I quote a webpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Gormley) on him, "Almost all of his work takes the human body as its subject, with his own body used in many works as the basis for metal casts." and more clearly, "many of his works are based on moulds taken from his own body".

[JasonGillespie]

It left me feeling quite empty, the work feels utterly lifeless and cold, which is odd given that it is actually portraying humans. I can not reconcile this in my mind, being accustomed to feeling both the life force of the artist in the work and in good art - the individual life force of the work itself. My gut instinct says this work was not done by an artist but by a technician because it has no energy - it feels dead or like a zerox copy.


MountainSong's remarks are dead-on observations of what happens almost everytime some one uses bodycasting...there is a lack of life, a lack of spark that moves the figure. The static quality that is a result of the process creates an anomaly...an artistic deadness in a figure that should have the qualities of life.

[Blake]

In another thread I have come upon an artist "Isabel Mcllvain" at
http://www.isabelmcilvain.com/
and I thought how does she sculpt detail like that? I am very impressed with the work, thinking that I have found another mentor, another sculptor that I need to study and learn from. Then I find out it is a body cast, my initial reaction is disappointment, but then I have to say that I think it is beautiful and technically this is excellence. The poses are simple but I think that the work is beautiful. As casts I wonder if I can learn something from her work, to me it is like working with a live model, but I do think that there is something that I can take away from seeing her work.

Blake

[Scout]

I'm not sure what to think about casting. I'm sure it's a lot of work and talent but it seems to me it is different in a few ways. Like not having your hands in the clay. It is a little more rigid. And I think people in general will be disappointed when they find out it was cast. Her work is amazing but a little disappointing too. It's like computer art vs (shall I say it?) fine art. But what do I know? Scout

[MountainSong]

To Blake: Same artist. The work is empty. I can't think of any other way to described it. It is simply soulless - like looking at bones. A mortician trying to do the David. It speaks of what was, not of what is. You could learn perfected anatomy from her but not timeless living art.

[Blake]

You could learn perfected anatomy from her but not timeless living art.

I understand what you are saying and perhaps the beauty that I see is in the perfect anatomy. There is beauty in the perfection, it may be considered as technical perfection, but I can see the beauty here and I would say that this is the only example of body casting that I could say that about.

I may still be able to learn something from this artist that I can apply to my work, much like George Segal, to whom I have learnt a great deal, there are always things to learn.
Blake

[MountainSong]

I understand what you are saying Blake and agree. There is always learning to do and observations to be had and they can come from the most unlikely of places to the most obvious. It is the observing and learning that are important.

[JasonGillespie]

Blake,

I can see the artistry of Isabel Mcllvain's work...or should I say the artistry in her seamless use of the body casting technique.....not the 'sculptures' themselves. Though I still think that she hasn't created art...rather very good facsimiles of an actual human form...there is an informational merit to her work that is based on the beauty inherent in the models she pulls these very well made molds/casts from. I can see how one could learn form her work...just as you would a real model or an ecorche.

As a result I respond to a number of the models on her site the same way I would if they were really standing in front of me living and breathing. Some of them are graceful or have an interesting morphology that is artistic in and of itself......but it is due to the slavish qualities of technique she uses...Mcllvain can take none of the credit for any of the artfulness of her work save the expertise in creating the body cast and posing them...and many of her poses are still quite mediocre.

Mcllvain is an excellent example, in my opinion, of why there is a natural flaw in work done using this technique. What is artistic in her work isn't her work. And it is equally true for all who use body casting to attain a naturalistic result.

Now, Gormley and Segal are a different breed..there is no confusion in their work between the model/body cast and the sculpture. Though they still don't use traditional techniques to attain the form, there is no deceitful memesis at work in their art and I can turn a blind eye of sorts how they achieve it.

[Stevem]

From what I saw of Mcllvain's work I can not call it anything but art! It's very beautifully executed. It actually makes one think it's not a life cast. If the description of being an artist doesn't require one to have to actually do the work theirselves but to only come up with the initial idea ( see thread Help In Understanding http://www.sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=2836 ) How can this be any different? Isn't there more work in this than hiring a fabricator to bring your idea to fruition?

[iron ant]

When I studied in Italy the sculpture that won the student show was a bodycast of the front of a women cast in bronze.The Italian Locals loved it,I though it was an easy way out of not having to sculpt it in clay first,or maybe an attempt by a desperate sculptor to see real teets?Regardless,it was art.....................IA

[Blake]

Dear Jason
I would agree with you that there is artistry in her seamless use of the body casting technique but I think that you have identified what I find beautiful....


What is artistic in her work isn't her work. .

She has beautifully reproduced the anatomy and I am unable to see that as being anything but beautiful. Her reproductions have also given me some ideas that I will borrow so I have learned something from her models as well.

Blake

[fritchie]

Ordinarily I stay away from severely criticizing any specific artist, but I have to say, after visiting her demonstration page, that I find her work as dead as Mountainsong says. These works come across to me as plastic mannequins, utterly devoid of value as art. I certainly would not want to own one, and I think I'd be disappointed in a museum that displayed one, except as a curiosity.

I see she teaches at Boston University, and I'm sure she is excellent in teaching technique.

There are sculptors using bodycasts as starting points whose work I admire, so it's not just a question of technique. It may be the air of detachment I see in the figures. On her demo page, only a few works can be seen in magnified view, but I think that is a factor in my reaction

[deborah4923]

I just looked up McIlvain's website. Her work is beautifully photographed. I find it interesting the whole website (www.isabelmcilvain.com) is just these beautiful photographs. She doesn't say anything about her work. I wonder how she feels about it.

My sister and her husband have a large foundry. I am amazed at the number of "artists" casting with them who cover a form (taxidermist's form, for example) with clay, scratch around on the surface and then sign their name to it. (Or have their studio assistants do eveything but sign the name.) Personally I don't consider this to be art and I feel the same about body casting, whether the cast itself is the finished piece or whether it is used as a basis for more work.

I realize this is a little simplistic, but one of the things I love about sculpting is the rush that comes when I get somewhere near what I see in my head and heart. Maybe that goes away when you become well-known and the pressure is on to play to the crowd. But when I look at art, I want to see the heart of the artist, not what I can see in an anatomy book.

[Scout]

Is the entire body cast at one time, no seams? It might be cool to have one made of ourselves. Spooky. Scout

[sculptor]

Dear Jason
I would agree with you that there is artistry in her seamless use of the body casting technique but I think that you have identified what I find beautiful....



She has beautifully reproduced the anatomy and I am unable to see that as being anything but beautiful. Her reproductions have also given me some ideas that I will borrow so I have learned something from her models as well.

Blake


agree-----'cepting the main question-is it art or artistry-or craft-or skill set

She obviously touches up her castings and does a darned excellent job of it---maybe 'cepting the pubic hair
I wish I had her skill
wouldn't it be wonderfull to do several body casts, and have them cluttering up the studio as permanent stationary models
sculpt a second degree of seperation piece using the legs of one, breasts of another neck of another, face of another---etc.etc

technique?
how does one approach bodycasting a standing figure

my old caveat remains-the poses are rather static---limiting factor

[Jamo]

you cant cast someone running. the pose would never be as dynamic as a skillfuly sculpted one. You are limited in certain ways. But then again the castings are another realm of artistic expression in itself. The way you cast it doesnt neessarily lend itself to a copy of the the model. Like you said hack an arm off here, assemble a leg on there, switch things around, turn a head 180 degrees. I would say yes it is art but it doesnt fit in the same category of traditionally sculpted pieces. And I have to add that it depends on the context in which you are considering it as art. Manequins are frequently cast from models but they are used to display clothes. I think this all comes back to our friend Marcel Duchamp.

[daaub]

interesting opinion about Ron Mueck

The Great Pretender

"Ron Mueck is supposedly having an exhibition at this year's Edinburgh festival. I say supposedly because I'm not convinced the artist actually exists. Perhaps a clever novelist made up Mueck just to expose the tastelessness and stupidity of our time?"

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/08/03/the_great_prete.html

[Merlion]

It is from the UK Guardian, but it is a blog.

Bloggers say all sorts of things including hoxes to get attention, and to get their blogs read. Making such comments also attract responses.

There was a term for this sort of comments in the newsgroup days.

[Tlouis]

Great blazing balls of fire! I have never read such a gushing torrent of words about a subject less deserving. Body/life casting DOES NOT produce art. This method of working is dishonest, cowardly, contemptible, even shameful that can only result in a pathetic, utterly dead simulacrum no matter how the surface is jazzed-up or finished. And as for George Segal, ex-chicken farmer...what piffle! Wake up! If you haven't the guts, imagination and innate creativity to make art with your own two hands, a few tools and suitable material, then give it up. Go and do something useful like volunteer work at a children's cancer hospital or your local library.

[anton]

hi all i would say yes bodycast is a art form i do life cast it is not a simpel as it look it take me +- tree jaer of tral and erra to get it rigth but what one das with it after you taken the cast then the art work realy get going take a look at www.lifecasting.org and let me know what you think.
waiting to hear from you
anton

[Scout]

A long time ago we were in a big city and we saw a sculpture of a women sitting on a bench with I think her groceries. I thought it was amazing. I've thought of it many times. Unfortunately, if I thought it was a body cast it would loose some of the appeal. Also unfortunately that kind of general attitude exists and it may take a while to correct it. All anybody can do is work at what you know you will be great in some day. We all reach for that "some day" and the knowledge somewhere deep inside you that tells you every time the next one will be even better! Scout

[Thatch]

I found this all quite interesting if a bit drawn out. As far as is it art or not I say it can be. 1st of all it is an artifact. There are many who view an oriental rug, Native American pottery as 2 examples to be art. Is it? In my opinion at least some of it is. To make a blanket statement is a bit presumtuous.

I happened on a John DeAndrea nude quite by accident in a Fine Art gallery owned by Foster Goldstrom over 20 years ago. He had put it in the restroom on the toilet. Maybe the setting had something to do with it but I had an immediate and very strong emotional reaction to it. More than most art moves me to. It was spooky and haunting and quite the experience. There was no social statement being made. It was a piece of art that was a natural extention of practices that have been around for centuries.

Now you might argue that it was not sculpture. Maybe not, but it definatly was art. I don't know if DeAndrea is a sculptor because this is the only artifact of his I have seen. Picasso is known mostly for his cubist paintings, blue paintings and what I consider to be mediocre at best sculpture but he was producing master, like in old, quality drawings at a young age and no matter what your feelings are about his art you have to agree that he was an artist. DeAndrea might be a great sculptor but his market is life casting. Who cares?

In my opinion the super realism that lead to the life castings of DeAndrea and Hanson is a direct desendent of the Tromp D'oil (don't know if I spelled that correctly but everyone knows it means "Fool The Eye") that has been practiced in European painting for centuries. It gets down to materials and practices. If they had the acrylics, air brushes and other things that we have at our disposal now back then somebody would have already been there done that long before our time. The fact that Estes and others were making a living selling paintings that were in a way more realistic than a photo could be, and who really cares what the technique used to do it was, then it follows it was going to be tried in a sculptural form.

How do you best make an artifact that is more realistic than a photo in 3D of the human body. Life casting. It is just a means to an end. The end is art. The means is materials and process.

Does the fact that I do most of my carving with power tools instead of a mallet and chisel make me less an artist. I am absolutly sure that there are a number of folks would say yes.

[Tandigon]

Well done Thatch!
Ever since Uni, this question about what is art and what is not kept cropping up. Art like beauty is abstract, leading to an aesthetic experience. But to try to put a finger on it and say that this is art but that is not, is to miss the whole point. Like you rightly pointed out, various artifacts throughout history have been considered art. What this forum is doing is discrediting a whole lot of individuals who don't meet their standards of what constitutes art, and this kind of attitude of intolerance is hardly what one expects from an art community.

[Arnis]

Recently, as a result of my graduate studies, I have become interested in what other sculptors think in regard to the technique of bodycasting. My main interest, and the reason I am attending NYAA, is to develop my understanding and ability to render the human form to a high level...with my reference point being reality.....and expressly to do it with my own skills and talent. That puts me at the opposite end of the spectrum from this technique and firmly in the camp of bodycasting not rising to the level of Art. (Well, maybe art with a lowercase "a".)

That being said, I will say that there are some sculptors that use bodycasting as a preliminary to a further process and I wouldn't consider them as true bodycasting sculptors. The best example that comes to mind of this type of sculptor would be Antony Gormley. His work does not bear the image of the person being cast rather it is a rough framework for him to build upon and manipulate. His figures are worked beyond this technique and have meaning in their own right as a result. ( To see what I am refering to go to http://www.antonygormley.com )

Those who follow in the footsteps of the grandfather of bodycasting, George Segal, however, are, in my opinion, creating something, but it isn't Art. Their work is dependent upon the likeness drawn from the bodycast to give their work legitimacy. Herein is the problem I have. The likeness has nothing to do with their ability or skill. How they may compose or patinate the figures is the extent of their artistic effort. This in and of itself, I think, does not rise to the level of sculpture or art. A very good example of this type of sculptor is Marc Quinn with his "sculpture" of Alison Lapper in Trafalgar Square. Not only did he rely upon a bodycast of his subject as the positive for his work, he then had other artisans transfer and carve it in marble. You can go to http://www.marcquinn.com/ to see the above mentioned work.

I am interested in hearing what other sculptors, figurative and non-figurative might think about this and why. By all means try and convince me otherwise if you are in favor of bodycasting. I by no means have a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

A point, my interest is in a dialogue not a brawl. Please keep posts on topic.Hi Jason.The bodycast is a tool.You can turn it in art .But it will cost more time and work .The bodycast is a shadow of complete object.So you have to make degenesis of the shape in order to inplant your art idea.Or use it as a contsept in modern art.Arnis

[JasonGillespie]

Tandigon,

When you said...
What this forum is doing is discrediting a whole lot of individuals who don't meet their standards of what constitutes art, and this kind of attitude of intolerance is hardly what one expects from an art community.
I think you might have oversimplified the situation.

Art is defineable...it exists distinct from things that aren't art. The whole point in trying to discuss these sort of questions is to come to a better understanding of what art is. That there must be some standard is obvious...otherwise it wouldn't be art.

Now, if you advocate having no standards so everyone can be an artist your indictment might have validity, but it won't change the fact that there are some people who just can't create art...try as they might. I am not going to lower the bar so they can become artists. That is like going to college, making bad grades and still wanting a diploma...or asking to be made a doctor without ever having gone to medical school. You must meet some criteria before being considered an artist. It doesn't need to be academic or educational...but it should show in the work itself. In my opinion good intentions are not enough. Every other type of work/job has this same ethic.

As to your comment about intolerance....if you want to make having a standard of ability, having some sort of skill ...in whatever area of art....a case for intolerance, you are going to be stretching the meaning of the word a bit. Your expectation of the art community's tolerance seems to border on blind acceptance.....and that is something I would never expect from the art community.





The bodycast is a tool.You can turn it in art .But it will cost more time and work .The bodycast is a shadow of complete object.So you have to make degenesis of the shape in order to inplant your art idea.Or use it as a contsept in modern art.
Arnis,
I do think that bodycasting is a tool and your reference about a shadow is a good one. I know some use it only as a tool to construct something that is wholly different from the original casting and the bodycasting is therefore a smaller part of a larger work of art....which no longer resembles the cast. (like Antony Gormley's great conceptual work)

But then there are those who use it as the means by which they create distinctly figurative works...works meant to supplant those modeled by hand....figurative works that they wouldn't otherwise be able to produce without this process. This is still a problem for me. The element of charlatanism about this kind of work is too strong for me to ignore or make peace with.

I appreciate your comments as well as the varied reasonings offered by others and have learned more than a little from the responses in this thread. The line between the above two ways of using the bodycasting technique is more definite for me now and I appreciate the clarification.

[ironman]

Hi, In the right hands, Segal (I forget his first name, I want to say George, but isn't he the Actor? Maybe they're both named George!) for instance made a career out of body casting and as far as I'm concerned, he did it very well.
Of course, It (in his case, at least) wasn't about the figure, but about the situation, alienation and loneliness that he put them in. A commentary on modern society, so to speak.
That's what makes them ART!
Have a great day,
Jeff

[JasonGillespie]

Ironman,

I concur about segal. He not only used it first as a form, he also did it in a very original way that was far removed from traditional sculpture. His figures were certainly about the idea first and foremost and as such did not worry themselves with the details normally associated with figurative works. While I don't like every work of his....there are some that are quite effective. The work below is, in my opinion, one of his best.

[Tandigon]

Wow Jason, you took my wind!
First let's recap............

"I think you might have oversimplified the situation."

Really?

"Art is defineable...it exists distinct from things that aren't art."

Pray, tell us about that distinction and standards.

"Now, if you advocate having no standards so everyone can be an artist your indictment might have validity, but it won't change the fact that there are some people who just can't create art...try as they might. I am not going to lower the bar so they can become artists."

Jason, I am passed 60, but I don't suffer from dementia. So please point out to me where exactly I advocated having no standards. My point is that you are trying to judge the work of others by your standards.

"That is like going to college, making bad grades and still wanting a diploma...or asking to be made a doctor without ever having gone to medical school. You must meet some criteria before being considered an artist. It doesn't need to be academic or educational...but it should show in the work itself. In my opinion good intentions are not enough. Every other type of work/job has this same ethic."

As I said before, this kind of simplistic explanation is like talking down to a child. Let's raise the bar.

'As to your comment about intolerance....if you want to make having a standard of ability, having some sort of skill ...in whatever area of art....a case for intolerance, you are going to be stretching the meaning of the word a bit. Your expectation of the art community's tolerance seems to border on blind acceptance.....and that is something I would never expect from the art community."

Wow Jason, this is turning out to be a brawl. You seem to be reading whatever you want in my sentences. You sound so accusatory. Now thats intolerance of the point of view of others, if anything.

Some examples of intolerance:
bodycasting not rising to the level of Art. (Well, maybe art with a lowercase "a".)

Those who follow in the footsteps of the grandfather of bodycasting, George Segal, however, are, in my opinion, creating something, but it isn't Art

BUT:
I realize that this topic seemingly presents a lot of "grey" area and would be willing to make George Segal fall on the other side of the line because of his texturization and excellent use of the figures to create meaningful compositions...and..... mostly because he did it first as a mode of expression that was meant to stand on its own merits.

I actually like Segal's work. His pieces about societal alienation are very well done.

More intolerance:
Bodycasting is a technique which alleviates the "sculptor" from having to do the work themselves. In the past these people would have been considered charlatans and fakes. Today we give them a pass....worse we treat them as if they had actually created something. They may have fabricated something, but that is not the same as the act of creation.

Not so bodycasting. It is in no way an artistic element. By its very nature it can't be. It has no intrinsic artistic merit as an object


Finally:
I am interested in hearing what other sculptors, figurative and non-figurative might think about this and why. By all means try and convince me otherwise if you are in favor of bodycasting. I by no means have a comprehensive understanding of the subject.


Jason, I really do not care to convince you. For that matter I do not care to convince anyone. I do not need to. Art is a very wide topic with a total spectrum. You do not have to approve or like or agree for art to be. Art has no boundry, no standards, its open ended. My grandsons art is just as valid as yours. The true mark of artists would be creativity not skill. And finally from my personal experience, another characteristic of true artists is tolerance.

And hey, I would not hit below the belt.

[Thatch]

This is going to seem to be OT but bear with me it isn't.

I studied sculpture at university, had a career in fine wines, know how to cook as well as most professional chefs and do consider myself an audiophile. My ex is a stage actress and director.

All these things are subjective yet each and every one requires objectivity, training and a specialized vocabulary to be able to communicate about them. The key words here are subjective and objective. All people rely on their senses to create their reality. When you view, smell, taste and listen it causes a reaction that is subjective and personal.

To be able to communicate about our subjective perceptions we become objective and with specializations even create a vocabulary.

Since one persons subjectivity is not the same as anothers the emotional context created by viewing, smelling, tasting and listening is going to vary. We are each and every one the center of our universe and how we percieve it is personal. It is not possible or correct to assume that our objectivity based on our subjectivity is the only way to percieve things.

Thus is Art. It is emotion. It is subjective. No objective arguement can change that. To make an example of a unique artifact and state that it is or isn't art based only on personal subjectivity about the process used to create it is..............fill in the blank.

Thatch

[JasonGillespie]

Tandigon,

I will beat this horse for one more post. You said What this forum is doing is discrediting a whole lot of individuals who don't meet their standards of what constitutes art, and this kind of attitude of intolerance is hardly what one expects from an art community.

I was responding to your accusation of 'intolerance' within this art community and your expectations that it is somehow not living up to.

The complaint you registered was about the standards that some are wanting to maintain in regard to art. If you notice, I never said you were advocating no standards...I said if you advocate having no standards because I was not sure. I am not talking about judging by my standards in this post...I am advocating having standards. At some level, however, we do make artistic judgments...it is a normal process that brings us to understand what is the difference between mediocrity and excellence. One does not get better with out judging oneself against those around and we must make judgements about who we think is a good influence on our work or what medium suits us best, etc....That is another discussion though.

What is and isn't art is a topic too large to try and address in this thread...it deserves its own space. Suffice it to say I do believe there are distinctions between the two and I am by no means alone in this belief.

I apologize if my analogies seemed as if I was talking down. I prefer simplifying ideas whenever possible.

There is no brawl...your original comments were quite pointed and I was giving my response and using questioning hypotheticals....without slinging mud. There was no name calling...or personal attacks. If you were to address all my points as I was trying to do yours....then we would be discussing.....the point of a forum in the first place.
Reread my post and notice I use words like I think, if you, seems...words that do not imply assumption....because I could be wrong. I used these words to preface my remarks regarding your post so you could clarify your comments or my understanding....which ever needed to happen.

You, my friend, are the one who made a broad generalization about this forum discrediting a whole lot of individuals and that this was...using the word you like to throw around...intolerant. I did not read anything into that remark of yours....you were not specific and did not give examples. If you don't see the oversimplification of this sort of statement...then we will agree to disagree.




One thing that needs clarification though...just because I say something that isn't embracing of all art...that doesn't make it intolerant. We all have the right to disagree or not like something and that doesn't mean we are intolerant. It seems you are misusing the word. Intolerance means you don't tolerate.....you do not put up with something. (see definitions below) My saying I don't think this or that is art.....isn't intolerance. If I was trying to stop others from creating art I didn't like or advocating that they stop....that would be intolerance. I may express my dismay at this or being disgruntled by that, but that does not constitute intolerance.

I don't mind if people want to create anything they want or think differently than me, but I have the right to say whether or not I like it. We all do.
Are you are trying to say just disliking or disagreeing with something is intolerant? I am unsure, but it seems that way almost.
The paradox there is....the meaning you seem to want to give the word intolerance....one person not agreeing with another person....would make you intolerant as well....because you very vehemently don't agree with me.

Anyway, don't convince me...that is fine and your right. Honestly, I'd rather discuss the topic at hand than respond to negative posts, but...I did it on behalf of the many fine people who I have met here whom I think you might have 'discredited' with your comments.


Just for FYI

Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: -r&nt
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>


in·tol·er·ant (ĭn-tŏl'ər-ənt) pronunciation
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:

1. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
3. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

[Tandigon]

Jason

I rest my case!

[JasonGillespie]

Very witty.

[Gabrielle]

After reading most of the responses to this question.... I'm blown away.

Add me to the "view my work" www.arttao.com/Gabrielle.html (http://www.arttao.com/Gabrielle.html) - section and if there is any breath left in anybody to comment further then blast away. Anything that could be said has been said.

Love what I do and love the visual literacy in the outcome.

[Scout]

Gabrielle, I've seen your work before and I love it. It must have been on this forum. I love to do parts of things. You are amazing...keep it going. Momentum is 99% of it. You are on a roll! Scout

[JasonGillespie]

Gabrielle,

My feelings/thoughts about figurative work not modeled by hand aside, I enjoy the artistry of your technique....the 'Pollock"-like spattering, the randomness of the metal drips/dabs adds character to the lifecastings.
The partial form has been an interesting genre in figurative art it seems particularly the last few years and to some degree this treatment helps to offset the usual static quality in such castings. It is an intelligent endrun around a problem I think is central to all bodycasts.

In some ways it reminds me of another sculptor's partial figures....Richard Becker, a member of this community..though he models his. You both have a looseness of technique that gives greater dynamic surface tension. I've included a pic of his work below.

Have you also done any of these from a form you modeled by hand I wonder. The difference would be interesting to see. Perhaps done with a compositional effect not easily accomplished by a living model. The opportunity for really engaging the positive/negative space with your approach could be exploited to great effect.

In your bio you sculpted portraits at an earlier stage in your career....is there a link to any of them or could you post some pics?

[Thatch]

Love what I do and love the visual literacy in the outcome.

If you create for yourself and others like your work, what else needs to be said?

Thatch

[Gabrielle]

I haven’t checked the forum for a while, but I see I have a response from some of you.
Pouring bronze in this form is an incredible rush and the end result depends so much on the "splash".
The next phase of this is combining other metals of different color. Since the bronze doesn't really melt but rather loops in and around to create the whole...the different melting points aren’t' an issue.
After that it's the inclusion of glass.... it goes on and on. I have not had any negative response with creating these images from live figures. To me, it adds a very private and personal touch. This originally was experimental and the casts were available. Hence the series. Sculptural works in clay are in progress. I doubt there will be a huge noticeable difference between the two, simply because of the application of the bronze. I will definitely pass it on when completed.
If any one knows a glass artist (I’m in the GTA) who has a large slumping kiln…. I would love to work with them.
Thank you for your encouraging words. :)

[anton]

hi all here is a casting i did of myself part of my facse moulded with silicon and coldcast in browns powder and resin to get the bronze to show up it had to be scrabed with steelwool to remove the top layer of resion then holding it in my hand casted with alganate , casted in acrilec resion the sprade it gold the resalted is............
two cast then became one 3d art ? that is left to the beholder !!!!

[Gabrielle]

I thought it may interest some of you to see the results of new work with the open sand cast method. Faces are incredible to cast this way. www.ghbronze.com
"Jason" was chosen to be in ARTmagazine next March.
Wishing all Happy Holidays.
Gabrielle http://www.ghbronze.com

[JasonGillespie]

Gabrielle,

I looked at your site again..specifically at the "Jason" piece and do think that you have a nice technique working for you, but still I would like to see your modeled work rather than the life-cast ones. I would again request some pics of the work mentioned in your Bio....the LaMotta, Norton, etc.. Also, feel free to answer any of the unanswered questions in my earlier post. Best of luck.

[anton]

hi all please go take a look at this lifecasted web page's www.philiphitchcock.com and you will see that lifecasting is a art form like i said before !! or what do you think????? and this web pages www.louisxvimannequins.com that is done with silicon and is allmost life like that takes some dowing.
anton

[spiderfab]

Was Andy Warhol an artist? That picture of tomato soup cans looked like the color copier was out toner. If a person uses an air driven chisel instead of a mallet and chisel can he still call himself a stone mason.

I watched a show on PBS about the Shaker village and the man who ran the wood shop. When the tours came into the shop he made Shaker furniture the way the Shakers had with the tools they had in their time. When the tours left he went to another room with modern power tools and made Shaker furniture with them. When ask if this was in keeping with the nature of the village. He replied that it was a Shaker lady who came up with the idea for the circular saw blade and the Shakers looked for the best way to do what needed to be done.

Andy Warhol used modern tools and techniques to make products we see as art. On that I’ll ask this question. Should the words “commercial” and “art” ever be use together?

Three hundred years ago art was all about the skill because most people were to busy just trying to live to master such things. Today art, for most people, is about the idea or emotion that is trying to be conveyed.

Just my thoughts I’ll put my hood down and strike an arc on another steel gate.

Ted

[evaldart]

its just another way of arriving at a human figure to eventually serve ones artistic purpose. Usually the exaggerations and misproportions that come about by modeling give the sculpture life, but sometimes its just wrong. Some artists choose not to bother with that stuff on their way to figuration. Maybe their work does not afford misproportions. I wonder if their was a time when some stone -cutting purist doubted the validity of the little innovater down the road getting things done twice as fast with his balls of clay and then handing the whole thing off to someone else to bring it to fruition?

[Tlouis]

NO!NO!NO!

[Arnis]

Lets put this more specific .Is the body casting sculpture.My experience shows that it is harder to make a sculpture out of body cast instead to modeling it.You can make workable plaster molds of course and carve them.But fundamental the body cast is a shadow of the reality and needs some rework.It is not the reality itself ,like a photo pic.It is two way process .Modeling and genesis of the shape or .You already have shape and you have to make analysis and go back.Of course in the Art you can use the body casting for some ideas and purpose .It ease the long process but you should exactly know what you doing.The body cast is NOT an art itself. Have nice day Arnis

[JasonGillespie]

Anton,

I looked at Mr. Hitchcock's website and would have to offer my opinion that whether he was using bodycasts or not, I wouldn't consider his work or ideas art. Obviously he is making extensive use of that technique as an artsy gimmick and this makes him a prime example of how anyone can pick up this fabrication technique and start "making art". He is someone who isn't an artist, but is using a not too difficult to learn method to crank out his "sculpture" in a particularly faddish way. I am posting some examples from his "classical" section for all to enjoy below.




I wonder if their was a time when some stone -cutting purist doubted the validity of the little innovater down the road getting things done twice as fast with his balls of clay and then handing the whole thing off to someone else to bring it to fruition?

evaldart,

This isn't the same thing.
A master carver pointing a stone sculpture from a pre-existing work that was modeled by hand by the artist is matter of reproduction only. Also, pointing from an artist's modeled work has been around since antiquity...as has life casting...but the former has been an accepted means of reproducing a pre-existing work of art in another medium since that time and the latter has up until this last century been frowned upon and rightly considered cheating.
Bodycasting being used by a person that calls themselves a "figurative sculptor" is much like a person who uses a ghost writer and then changes a few things before putting their name on it. It is a form of artistic plagiarism. Look at the pics of Phillip Hitchcock's "sculpture" below to see examples of my point.

Edit note - Mr. Hitchcock sent a email asking that his website images be removed from the forum posts. Of course, you can still go to his website to see images of his work. - Russ

[evaldart]

This Hitchcock work has nothing to do with hyper-realism, which is the area of body-casting that I am supporting. I have taught freshman business majors how to make a copy of their buddy's face and hang it on the frat house wall. Hyper- realist work needs to look like flesh...not stone or plaster or plated metal or anything else.

[Ed McCormick]

See the Life Casting Artist Awards Here:
http://www.lifecasting.org/ali_awards/2006_winners.htm


“It’s just a life cast . . .” How many times have I heard that? In fact, how many times have I said it myself? I suspect that there is no other sculptural technique that creates so much ambivalence. Anyone who sculpts the old fashioned way may feel that lifecasting is somehow, well cheating. After all, anybody can make a reasonable likeness by just pulling a mold off of something or someone. Most artists may have even tried it somewhere along the line. The results were about as dead as a corpse. But remember, when the first practical form of photography was invented in the 1830’s, painters looked upon it with equal disdain. The main complaint was that photography was not selective. A photograph was only able to capture what was actually there and unable to add, delete or change the image; it was felt that there was no creativity, no skill involved. Yet photography, which is every bit as cheating as life casting, has gained acceptance as an art form. So what is different, so disagreeable about something that could be called three-dimensional photography? Before I answer that, let’s digress just a little, just a few thousand years.

Life casting has been around a very long time. The Roman historian, Pliny the Elder, relates in his Natural History how one Lysistratus of Sicyonia made a plaster mold of a face and cast the positive in wax. In Malvina Hoffman’s 1939 book, Sculpture Inside and Out, she claims, “Molds were made from living subjects even as far back as 1300 B.C.” She then gives detailed directions for casting masks from both living and dead subjects. It is hard to imagine that a contemporary book would describe the making of death masks as a normal procedure, something that a sculptor should know to make a living.

But until the invention of photography, a mask was the only way of capturing someone’s exact likeness and it survived as an accepted art form at least as late as 1939. Since most common mold material was plaster, which had obvious detrimental side effects, the subject usually had to be dead to endure the process. Who has not read of the death mask of Napoleon or Lincoln? But anyone who thinks that any living caster, including myself, is responsible for inventing the techniques need only see an 1887 painting by Edouard Danton entitled Moulding. It shows an artist and an assistant removing a mold from a model’s leg. It reminds me of my own studio. And if anyone thinks that he/she is discovering new territory, get a copy of Carl Dame’s Moulding and Casting subtitled Its Technique and Application for Moulage Workers, Sculptors, Artists, Physicians, Dentists, Criminologists, Craftsmen, Pattern Makers, Architectural Molders, etc., This book will make it clear that almost anything you can imagine has been done before. But while the steps of the procedure have changed little, the materials have improved.

Modern materials are an improvement in two ways. First of all, there is no reason ever to put plaster directly on the skin. While there are some fast setting rubbers available which have the advantage of making reusable molds, they have some disadvantages in both safety and cost. The most suitable material for general use is alginate, which is essentially powdered kelp. It is absolutely harmless to the skin, the detail is excellent, and its is relatively inexpensive. There are numerous brands available with different characteristics. I have tried every brand that I have come across and my favorite is Prosthetic Cream Alginate made by Teledyne Waterpik. The second improvement is in the materials for the final positive. Any plaster will work, of course, but the only thing worse in terms of durability would be cast paper. An improvement would be any of the cast “stones” or Portland cement or hydrocal or fiberglass resin, etc. One can even pour wax directly into an alginate mold for casting into bronze. By far the most suitable material that I have used is Forton MG.

The manufacturer describes it as “…combining alpha hemi hydrate gypsum cement with sophisticated polymer chemistry resulting in a permanent casting with remarkable variations in appearance. The basic matrix is three powders and a liquid to which you add chopped fiberglass for strength and various fillers for particular effects. For example, adding powdered limestone will give you a pure white marble appearance. Since the system is water soluble, it will accept water-soluble dyes and pigments. The most interesting effect results from adding metal powders. The final product can be polished and/or patinated as if it were hot cast metal and looks remarkably like the real thing. It is easy to work with, odor free, very durable and not hazardous.

My own involvement with life casting began when sculptor Thomas Schomberg mentioned to me that a life mask could be very helpful for anatomical reference. I have been sculpting since childhood and casting for almost ten years and am well aware of casting’s advantages and shortcomings; even I view it with some ambivalence. On one hand I feel that it is a technique with unique possibilities, a technique that every artist would do well to have at least a fundamental grasp of. Who could possibly see the work of John de Andrea and Duane Hanson and even think that it could not be accomplished without a great deal of training and practice? The most famous piece of art in Denver is certainly de Andrea’s Linda at the Denver Art Museum. After all great art is not just great realism nor great abstraction nor great workmanship. It is great emotion.

So where, on the other hand is the cheating? I would guess that most sculptors suspect that anyone whose primary work is casting probably can’t sculpt and isn’t willing to make the effort to learn how. I agree. I am always quick to point out that my primary work is my sculpture not my castings. I admit that I don’t want anyone to think casting is all I do because anyone can do it. I explain it this way. After one of my two or three day workshops and some practice, it isn’t long before anyone should be able to make acceptable castings. In a couple of days I could explain everything needed for one to sculpt. But sculpting takes years of practice. It is analogous to photography versus drawing or painting.

But the question still remains about casting from life, why would anyone who is any sort or real sculptor ever want to try it? For reference. Don’t most of us photograph our models in a particular pose so as to have something to refer to when the model isn’t present? Well, why not do the same thing in three dimensions? One of the preparatory steps I take when I begin a new sculpture is to cast at least the model’s face and hands in the desired position. It is their very realness, their exactness that makes them so useful. In some ways, they are superior to the actual model. I can refer to them at any time and for as long as I need to. They can be turned in my hands and studied from all angles. I can even store them indefinitely and refer back to them if I enlarge the piece at a future date. The second use is to make the casting an end in itself. Most people would treasure a bust of a loved one. But sculpting an accurate portrait takes time—enough time that the final product can require a significant financial investment. But I can cast a face including the neck and ears (in other words all of what is needed for recognition) and remain within most peoples budget.

The actual impression takes about fifteen minutes and the preparation and explanation require that the person be in my studio for only about an hour to and hour and a half. The process is reasonably pleasant but just involved enough that the subject usually departs with a feeling of accomplishment for having “suffered for art” and been a partner in the creation of something. Unfortunately, the mask is not finished in an hour and a half. It takes me about eight man-hours of work over a week’s time before it’s completed. One of the things that I do is to make a secondary mold in silicone rubber, partly because it improves the final product and partly because it allows for additional copies. It is not just the affordability that makes a mask so desirable; it is the realness. I had people tell me that they commissioned a bust of their child only to admit that they were disappointed with the results because it really didn’t look like their child. Obviously, they chose the wrong sculptor. Portrait sculpting is not easy; you cannot be very far off and have it actually look like the subject.

I like to say that around my studio, “parts is parts.” And of course, I have cast the entire human body either as a whole or in pieces. The face is the most important since we are recognized by our faces. The other parts that I most commonly cast are hands and feet of infants, clasping hands of couples, and torsos.

In order of difficulty, hands are the least difficult, followed by torsos, with faces being the most difficult part of the body to cast. Not only are faces very involved structures, but also covering the face can induce claustrophobia, not to mention suffocation. I have not explained here step by step how to do a casting because it would be beyond the scope of this article. It is complicated enough and with just sufficient risk to the subject that it probably shouldn’t be attempted at home without some instructions. I have developed some dummy heads so that one can practice prior to spreading goo on a living person.

I have been casting long enough that I do not ask whether life casting is fine art or cheating. To me it is just another art form, a different art form with its own limitations and advantages. But if great art causes great emotion, nothing is more satisfying to an artist then to arouse this emotion in even on person. I am often amazed at the reaction of parents to their children’s castings. I have seen a mother cry over a hand, a face, or a body saying that she will always have her child at that age. The two things that are the essence of castings are realism and permanence. A photograph is real but will last only perhaps a hundred years. A video is real but may last only a generation. But a casting can capture a moment in time forever. A casting may survive until the sun goes supernova.

David Parvin

[cooljamesx1]

the way I see it, life casting is a hinderence more than an advantage. take the analogy of painters projecting a photograph to paint from. they can only paint things there are pictures of. more than that, they can only paint things that exist. the same applies to sculpture. Vasari's description of Michelangelo's Pieta in st. peter's basilica reads something like "it is a miracle that a formless block of stone should be shaped to a perfection that nature herself is scarcely able to create in flesh.". well if nature can't create it, it can't be cast. and if the exact face you want exists, good luck finding it. If you just cast people, they will never look exactly how you imagined the sculpture in the first place. more important than realism is realizing your vision as accurately as possibe.

[Tlouis]

Lifecasting is a cowardly way of working. If you haven't the GUTS, the intellectual and emotional wherewithal to create sculpture from scratch, give it up. Stop infecting the world with this garbage.

When Rodin's "Age of Bronze" was first exhibited he was accused of the shameful practice of surmoulage. Nothing worse could have been said about a sculptor. And he fought hard to disprove that charge.

Nowadays, in the era of no standards and anything goes, more and more so-called artists are resorting to this despicable practice and have the balls to call it sculpture/art.

Lou

[JasonGillespie]

David,

Thanks for your post. As one for the "pro" side of this discussion, it was well thought out. The Egyptians used life casts as sculpture reference as well as the later Greeks. (I ran across an interesting example of this recently.)

Your link to the Awards page was interesting as well. Apparently some out there deem body/life casting to be worthy of special attention. Though the work shown there did not change my opinion...probably reinforcing it if anything....I did think that your particular work was successful in removing itself from the pitfall of being mistaken for a modeled form. Not being focused on mimesis, your work has the opportunity to be judged apart from usual figurative standards. (I also looked at yours and others work at life-casting.com.)

I did, however, take note of one particular piece that seemed to exemplify (this since Phillp Hitchcock's work has already been used) the faulty foundation upon which most life cast work is built.

Allow me a moment's digression on that "faulty foundation". Body/life casting doesn't create sculpture/art....it is a process. As a process...it has no inherent artistic qualities. Making a cast of a person's body can not create art any more than just putting eggs in a skillet will make an omelet. And...despite remarks to the contrary...most I have seen do not work the cast much after making it...other than to clean up the details. (I say most..not all) They allow the "process" to do the bulk of the work..not some meaningful art ability. They put the eggs in the skillet hoping an omelet will emerge. It almost always doesn't.
Now, this is not a random generalization of ignorance on my part. In the time since I started this thread I have done quite a lot of studying of the various "life casters" working and have seen very little in the way of artistic addition to what comes from the process. (Gabrielle's work I would consider a notable exception)
Now, by "addition" I mean a real contribution to the form...the sculptural idea....the "meat" of any sculpture. Usually the contributions I have seen are superficial in nature and don't go far beyond what was delivered by the life cast itself. I'm talking about a real artistic addition/contribution...not just a patina, polychrome, lifeless drapery or the typical truncation of form that is seen so much...but a truly creative amendment that gives the cast an artistic quality it inherently didn't have to begin with.

Back to the work I couldn't help but notice as a shining example of this lack. It was Roy Butler's shameless use of the life casting technique to imitate 19th century memorial sculpture. It is a slap in the face of such masters of the form like Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Daniel Chester French, and others who by skill and the applied effort of years of study/practice created true works of art. The irony was that his award was Most Meaningful Use of Art Form. The intended use was certainly meaningful, but in my opinion, the actual work as executed brings no artistic quality to that use. It is a fairly bald fabrication meant to be taken as an artistic rendition....to me it cheapens the memory of the courageous Americans who fought and died in that bloody period of our history rather than imbues it with meaning.

I post some images below..the standing soldier of Butler's life cast and some of Saint-Gaudens Shaw memorial. Which captures the power and sad eloquence of African-American soldiers during the Civil War? Is there really a question?
What's more, Saint-Gaudens sculpted these figures in relief and so they are compressed to fit the space. They still look convincingly full-volumed from the viewpoint of the spectator though. This is far more difficult than just modeling the figures...it really takes a mastery of form that most today just don't have to condense forms and warp them them without losing the integrity of their truthfulness. Saint-Gaudens did all this without a short cut "process"....instead relying upon the refinement of his hand and eye to bring these heroes to life. And Butler's contribution to this great artform.....it looks like what it is..a model dressed up in a poorly made replica uniform in a pose that shows absolutely no thought towards composition....very sad that someone settled for such a poor memorial.


Once again, it is another example of why life casting is nothing more than a "bell and whistle". One of my undergraduate professors wisely observed that art isn't made by merely using techniques, "bells and whistles" as he called them, it is the application of skill and knowledge that result in a superior work of art...a superior work regardless of whatever technical veneer that may be put over it . Over the years in my contact with numerous works of art....what I have seen and experienced has been borne out. I've sat in front of a number of De Andrea's casts of real people and felt nothing, and then stood in front of the Burghers of Calais or the John the Baptist by Rodin and been moved by one man's use of clay to create his own understanding of life.

It is why poetry can say with a few words what an entire book can't. The artistic distillation of memory, emotion, and symbol is greater than reality..it is what elevates man beyond the mere impression of his physical self. This is why there are those who are creators and those who aren't...why some efforts fall short and others exist for millennia in our minds and hearts.

Now, some may (and in the past have) reacted as if these sorts of remarks are an attempt at exclusivity or elitism, but that only works if you hold to the notion that art shouldn't have any standards. Be sure these same people won't be nearly so blase when it comes to the degree of training/skill their general practitioner, plumber, electrician, accountant, financial advisor, or mechanic should have. No "anything goes" there. They want their money's worth and then some. An illogical and paradoxical world view, but rampant nonetheless. And as of yet...one that hasn't been explained beyond its own circular reasoning.

Edit note - Mr. Butler asks that his website images be removed from the forum posts. - Russ

[JasonGillespie]

Here are some more images of Saint-Gaudens Shaw Memorial. The second one shows some studies of individual soldiers and the third shows an extreme angle of the memorial and really gives an idea of how masterfully Saint-Gaudens used the space to convey great depth.
It amazes me that people are so easily satisfied with works like Butler's that are a pastiche of real sculpture when there are examples like the Shaw Memorial which testify to what a sculptor can do when driven by vision and skill. (in his defense I think Butler and those like him have been led down this path by a much larger artistic philosophy that has undercut the educational process in this country...in regard to so called "traditional" art.)


Ah, well.

Edit note - Mr. Butler asks that his website images be removed from the forum posts. - Russ

[evaldart]

In the biggest of pictures the artist will eventually retract his achieved abilities, placing far greater importance on the lessons learned through some failures that beget epiphanies, some successes that yielded disillusion and some misteps that reminded him of his bewilderment. All this after a thousand pieces have been made and ten thousand not made. A rigid pursuit of a craft or an single minded obsession with a tradition will only leave him unaccomplished in the end. He must think of ALL the art he can make in his life, not just some of it.

[BobClyatt]

Gabrielle's innovation imho is in her method of casting. It is incredible and creates something we've never seen, cool illusions of flight and dream, and a sense that there will always be a new way to work with old materials. (and no doubt much more which we would each experience in the presence of her work). Whether the cast she is dripping these metals into is made from a bodycast or a hand-modeled piece seems immaterial.

Creating art for me is about wanting to communicate experiences of feeling, emotion, idea and doing it in a fresh or effective way. Talent and skill help a lot here, but don't make it art. (With a nod of acknowledgment to the notion that if a person makes anything while feeling it is art, then it is art -- I get that but it doesn't seem a very useful definition in these debates here.)

In some ways, modelling the figure the old fashioned way has more to do with craft than art. (I know, heresy here! and I do all my modeling the old fashioned way so I am talking about myself, too.) We learn all the anatomy, how to build armatures, a few 'approved' methods for laying down clay, the peculiarities of the clay, how to make an iris look like a real eye without the eyelashes etc etc. All craft, really.

Art is about creating and communicating Idea. Bodycasting can be a dandy way to do that, in the hands of an artist. Modelling the figure by hand can be just as un-art-like as bodycasting in the hands of someone without anything to say.

[JasonGillespie]

Modelling the figure by hand can be just as un-art-like as bodycasting in the hands of someone without anything to say.


This is very true. I would never espouse modeling by hand just because. I have seen a lot of really uninspired hand modeled figurative work..especially in recent years. Much of it due to the same misunderstanding that gives life/body casting credibility. Sculptors mistakenly thinking all they have to do is copy the body verbatim and everything will be right. That doesn't always mean you have art either.



Art is about creating and communicating Idea. Bodycasting can be a dandy way to do that, in the hands of an artist.


The problem is this happens very seldom. Body/life casting is by and large a means by which many who wouldn't otherwise are able to pursue a figurative sculpting career. If I'm wrong then show me the great numbers of accomplished figurative sculptors who have chosen to use body/life casting in place of their modeling ability. Heck, just tell me some life casting sculptors who have turned their casts into good sculpture. Hansen and De Andrea are excluded....Segal and Gormley too. They've already been mentioned and I'll even consent that they could, for the sake of argument, be considered "good" examples of the form.



Whether the cast she is dripping these metals into is made from a bodycast or a hand-modeled piece seems immaterial.

The way in which she casts the work is only a facet of what sculpture is. I grant she has a nice point of sales in using the metal in that way, but it doesn't enhance the form or the true sculptural aspects of her work. It is a nice treatment and looks quite fetching, but it is closer to painting than it is to sculpture.
Sculpture is form and the way positive/negative space interacts....and if you think it being hand modeled or bodycast doesn't make a difference then you are missing a big part of sculpture. If all you want is a fluid and ephemeral technique...look to painting. Sculpture is meant to occupy space and create its own reality within that space...not just look pretty because of surface technique. To create form you have to understand how it works and what makes it do the things it does. Merely taking a cast from a form gives none of this knowledge. The form must be made, manipulated, subdued and then eventually it will give up its secrets. Form is the back, the front, the sides, and the inside as well...not just one view.

Part of the problem is that too many figurative sculptors today work with a painter's mindset. Form has given way to illusionary techniques and fancy patinas that do little to mask the fact that there is something important missing. And don't think when I say "form" I am talking about making something look like an eye or a nose or an arm either. That is just anatomical imitation and the lowest rung on the figurative ladder. Whether or not you have a proficiency in copying from life isn't the most primary concern in creating figurative sculpture or good sculptural form.
The body must become something that doesn't really exist...it must become an architectonic idea...turned into a three-dimensional form that conveys thought, emotion, and life. Even in the nearly abstracted figures of an artist like Henry Moore...the idea of form is being wrestled down and made into a meaningful object that owns the space it is in. He wasn't the world's best at relating the realistic aspects of the figure, (that wasn't his interest either) but he understood its construction and that form must be first and foremost or the work will suffer.

Body/life casts will never give the artist this architectonic form...they can't...they can only give an unresolved cast of the unedited volumes of the body. These volumes merely represent the raw material for a figurative sculptor...material that must be then turned into coherent form.

[GlennT]

There has been a lot of great discussion on this thread. Thanks!

My idea about art has much to do with what the artist has within them and what they put into the work. If an object is placed on a copy machine and a copy is made, I would not call that copy "art". But it is possible for an artist to take that copy and make something else from it that could be called "art".

I believe it to be the same regarding bodycasting. I personally do not like the idea of it, and would echo most of what Jason gillespie said as to my reasons why. But I do think that works of art can be made from work that has begun in that way as a starting point, but then infused with the eye and experience of an artist to make something else out of it. In other words, if the bodycast is seen as a raw material from which something else of merit evolves, then it is possible to warrant the term " art" .

It was just as important to acknowledge that all figurative work done in the traditional manner is not art either. One can create sculpture, and one can create art. Art to me has a higher standard and is reached by an artist, not a copyist. An artist uses their heart and genius to interpret and express something beyond the form.

GlennT

[evaldart]

I must say, waking up and strolling over to the studio everyday for a full day of MOLDMAKING sure doesn't sound too fun. And if it was 1876 I'd certainly be up for an illustrious career hammering on stone. God had not yet made the H-beam.

[BobClyatt]

If I'm wrong then show me the great numbers of accomplished figurative sculptors who have chosen to use body/life casting in place of their modeling ability. Heck, just tell me some life casting sculptors who have turned their casts into good sculpture. Hansen and De Andrea are excluded....Segal and Gormley too. They've already been mentioned and I'll even consent that they could, for the sake of argument, be considered "good" examples of the form.

[/QUOTE]

Jason, admittedly it's a short list but here is one more person to add -- Nan Smith teaches at Univ Fla. and has done some intriguing work taking body casting to another level.

http://www.arts.ufl.edu/ART/ceramics/Faculty%20Pages/Nan%20Smith/Faculty_Nan%20Smith.html


Good points, too, about Form being the (or an important) defining dimension in sculpture. I need to keep adding to my understanding in that area and incorporating it into my work.

[JasonGillespie]

Bob,

I looked at Nan Smith's work and actually enjoyed aspects of it. There were parts that had a sense of delicacy and interior dialogue. She used those parts in a disjointed way that took the focus off of the illusion of reality and juxtapositioned it against the more symbolic forms. She seems to be thinking more about the overall compositions.
I still feel very aware that the figural aspects are too "real/photographic", but this seems mitigated by her ideas and overall treatment. To my way of thinking she would be more in line with those artists who are not trying to pawn their casts off as figurative work. (Gormley, Segal, Kiki Smith, etc...) Instead she seems to want the idea to be as important as the forms. This is far less a disturbing use of life/bodycasts.





An artist uses their heart and genius to interpret and express something beyond the form.
Very, very true Glenn.

[Tlouis]

For me, these pieces are as white and slick and utterly dead as dinner plates. No where is the 'artists' touch in evidence. They might as well have been made by a robot in a sterile and hermeticaly sealed chamber.

After viewing these so called sculptures, I looked at the work of Caro Sweet, a member whose birthday is today. Have a look. See the world of difference between the work of Ms. Smith and Caro Sweet.

Lou

[JasonGillespie]

For me, these pieces are as white and slick and utterly dead as dinner plates. No where is the 'artists' touch in evidence. They might as well have been made by a robot in a sterile and hermeticaly sealed chamber.

Tlouis,

I think that you have hit upon the point of her work....though you don't realize it...and ultimately don't like the result. (your perogative-no questions from this corner)
They aren't meant to be personal, they are objects..symbolic in nature and more akin to non-objective found object sculpture. That is why her use of these casts is less objectionable...at least to me. She isn't trying to give the impression she has handcrafted these images....therefore there is no "artist's touch"...it would run contrary to what I suspect is her intended goal.


Caro Sweet is not a life/bodycaster....I understand why you would like her work more. Though not a proponent of life/bodycasting...in this thread Nan Smith's work is worth considering apart from much of the life/bodycasting that goes on. At least that is my ultimate goal for starting this thread...to divise a way of distinguishing usages of a much abused technique...and to see whether or not it leads to art....if if so when?

[Philip Hitchcoc]

Dr Mr. Gillespie,
Regardless of your opinions of my work, you have pirated copyrighted images from my website and posted them on this site WITHOUT my permission. You are in violation of the rules of this site and U.S. Copyright laws. I am demanding that you CEASE AND DESIST. Remove the images you have posted immediately.

Philip Hitchcock

[Roy W. Butler]

Mr. Jason Gillespie

CC: Mr. Russ RuBert
http://www.sculpture.net contact of record

REF: USCT National Monument

· Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net - Is body casting really art?
It was Roy Butler's shameless use of the life casting technique to imitate ...
I post some images below. the standing soldier of Butler's life cast and some ...
http://www.sculpture.net/community/archive/index.php/t-2617.html - 204k - similar pages
Mr. Gillespie:

While routinely monitoring Google for my name and professional compositions, I noticed the link pasted above. After considerable searching I discovered numerous postings you authored and was appalled by the malicious, derogatory remarks made about my composition.

Granted everyone is entitled to their opinion about any given subject, but to broadcast vicious remarks publicly worldwide without thorough knowledge of the project requirements, subject, sculpting process or complete fabrication techniques, is another matter. Also to display photos of my work, as an example to substantiate defamation, that were copied and published without my permission from an authorized website, is in direct violation of United States Copyright Law.

Mr. Gillespie, you do not know me and quite apparently know nothing of my professional sculpting skills, regardless of whether my total body of work is created from scratch in clay, lifecast or any other medium or combination of mediums that I might choose to utilize. My long list of satisfied clients are the sole, end decision makers of whether my work is legitimate art, not you.

However, to state the facts on the USCT National Monument in question, I will tell you the entire sculpture, head to toe, is a composite of both fine art clay sculpting and lifecasting, as if it makes any difference to the final result. Due to the high level of detail I am renowned to obtain in some of my composite work, it is often very hard for the trained eye to tell where one technique stops and the other begins. You did not personally attend any of the numerous and lengthy committee meetings and you were not responsible for any decisions that were made involving this sculpture. Nor I doubt if you are aware the model, a highly renowned and dedicated USCT re-enactor, was chosen by the USCT committee to represent 2,133 colored Civil War solders which fought and died in the war and provided internment of honor in a cemetery owned and maintained by the National Cemetery Association of the United States Veterans Administration.

I would also like to make a comment on one other quite erroneous, uninformed quote from your lengthy list of postings…..”it looks like what it is..a model dressed up in a poorly made replica uniform in a pose that shows absolutely no thought towards composition....very sad that someone settled for such a poor memorial”. Mr. Gillespie, you have personally attacked an official USCT military protocal standard, faithfully reproduced as requested by the USCT historical committee. The pose has absolutely nothing to do with artistic pose composition, it has to do with official military protocal as directed by people with considerable more historical knowledge than you.


This sculpture and monument have been nationally recognized by numerous entities including the Tennessee Historical Commission, The State of Tennessee, read into the Congressional Record, archived by The Smithsonian, documented by the National Cemetery Association as a national historical monument and now owned by the United States Veterans Administration.

In reference to the fact that photographs which I originated and was authorized to originate on federal property and own the copyright thereof, have been used without my verbal or written permission; I request the following:

My original photographs and any derogatory reference to my name, sculpting abilities, professionalism and USCT be removed from the sculpture.net website immediately and not used for personal self-esteem achievement in the future regardless of the venue, or the violations will be directed to counsel and respective parties for further action. I also request sculpture.net have the Google link removed immediately.

I take this matter very seriously, both professionally and personally, therefore further expect a public written apology be made to me on the sculpture.net website by both parties, in relation to defamation of my professional abilities, respect to the USCT and allowing the material to continue on a monitored, public website.

Respectfully,



Roy W. Butler

[StevenW]

Well,...Poop.

[GlennT]

Apparently, Mr. Butler assumes that his art is above criticism.
Even if that were true, his Gestapo-like reactions and threats are not.
Whatever dignity he thinks that he has earned by the recognition of his sculpture by the named organizations is lost here when attacking sincere commentary from fellow artists with demands for apologies or else he will go crying to the legal profession for help.

He defames Jason for using the criticism of his work for " personal self-esteem achievement ". I think someone else here has self-esteem issues. Most of us professional sculptors who have had our work praised and blamed on this site may not enjoy the negative comments, but take the good with the bad and try to learn from both. It is all part of a process known as personal growth. If we all ran to big-daddy law firm every time our egos were bruised, there would be an even greater imbalance of rich lawyers and poor sculptors than currently exists.

[StevenW]

I concur with you GlennT... While I do side with the gentlemen that it is a copyright infringement to post images and would ask that the poster or moderator remove them and replace them with links to those images instead.

That said, I don't fault anyone for standing up for themselves and what they believe (even if what they believe somehow indicates that checkers is equal to or somehow superior to chess) and if it were my work on the prosecutors display table I would be hurt and stand up for myself too. In that regard there is no shame and in fact it displays a spirit to be admired and not belittled. I applaud all in this thread and fault none.

Finally, my personal view on this topic would echo that of Paul Morphy, "Checkers is for Tramps".

[obseq]

Hi, Everyone,

While Jason's posting record and reputation as a valued contributor to the Community more than speaks for itself, perhaps it's best that we refrain from commenting any further on the matter for the time being.

[fritchie]

Hi, Everyone,

While Jason's posting record and reputation as a valued contributor to the Community more than speaks for itself, perhaps it's best that we refrain from commenting any further on the matter for the time being.

Clearly I respect the reason for my co-moderator, Obseq's, request, but I have to express briefly my own approach to the situation. We've had discussion almost ad nauseum in the Community over copyright issues, and I think the most pertinent comment has been that copyright exists only to the extent it is defended in courts of law.

That said, our Constitution and its implementational laws and procedures ensure the useful, fertile, generative effect of free discourse, and that free discourse, in my understanding, has been ruled under law to include reasonable presentation of copyrighted material in an educational context without permission or even notification of the original source of the material. Laws on defamation I know little, but I expect they are subordinate to freedom of expression in public discourse. Neither Jason Gillespie nor Russ RuBert is profiting to any degree from their facilitating the discourse on sculpture here, so financial gain on their part is not an issue.

Having said my piece, I'll henceforth acquiesce in Obseq's plea.

[Tlouis]

Hey, Butler!

Put a sock in it!

[Araich]

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
"... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies... or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment... scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17_10_1.html


Freedom of Speech
"As the Supreme Court again ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), opinions cannot be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that a lawyer is a bad one, but not permissible to declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Libel.2C_slander.2C_and_private_ac tion

[sculptor]

THANKS

StevenW,
GlennT
obseq,
fritchie,
Tlouis,
and Ariach (for the quotes)

free speech remains so only by it's usage

my comments on the dishonesty of calling body casting "sculpture" would be even more derogatory than those of Jason Gillespie.
Beyond not wishing to associate with that sort of crook, I think that such claims show a belligerent lack of respect for, and ultimately insult and harm the real practitioners of the art.

[Philip Hitchcoc]

Once again, I would like my images removed from this site. You do not have permission to use them. I am not concerned with your opinions. Express whatever opinions you wish. I only want my images removed from this site.

Philip Hitchcock

[GlennT]

Two major practioners of bodycasting are by their own actions making a strong case for answering the original question of this thread in the negative.
They don't seem to want images of their work displayed on a site dedicated to the discusion of art.

[Tlouis]

I've said this 2 or 3 times before in these forums and I'll say it again. In my opinion, bodycasting is a shameful, even cowardly way of working and the end product IS NOT sculpture no matter how jazzed up it is or how pretentious its title.

Get off your high horse and get real!

[Funes]

This in and of itself, I think, does not rise to the level of sculpture or art. A very good example of this type of sculptor is Marc Quinn with his "sculpture" of Alison Lapper in Trafalgar Square. Not only did he rely upon a bodycast of his subject as the positive for his work, he then had other artisans transfer and carve it in marble.

I hadn't heard that before - and I quite like the statue. However knowing that, if he's really has had that little input into the process has devalued the 'sculptor' in my mind.

Using a lifecast as the model for a work is no different from taking photos for reference for painting. However if the 'artist' has simply taken a lifecast, given it to other people and told them to make one the same but three times the size then the real artists are the ones that actually did the work to produce the final piece.

It's not even comparable to producing a maquette, going to a foundry and asking for one twenty foot high - or employing a team to aid in the hard work of reducing the bulk of several tonnes of stone. It's more like coming up with a rough essay plan then employing a ghostwriter to do the work - all the fame for little of the effort.

That said, I can't deny that the statue is a piece of sculpture it's just that the credit may have fallen on the wrong ground.

[Philip Hitchcoc]

Dear Ms. Hutchison,

I came upon a discussion of the validness of "lifecasting" or "bodycasting" on your website, http://www.sculpture.net/community. Member Jason Gillespie took copyrighted images from my web site and posted them in his comments. HE DID NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO USE THESE IMAGES AND IS IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW.

I have emailed the site's moderator, Russ RuBert and member Jason Gillespie and requested that the images be removed. Despite repeated emails to both men, the images have not been removed.

As stated in the attached copy(http://www.sculpture.org/PDFs/ISC_termsandconditions.pdf) of your terms and conditions, is not the policy of ISC to use the intellectual property of someone else without his consent. I would like my images removed from http://www.sculpture.net/community forthwith.

Sincerely,
Philip Hitchcock
http://www.philiphitchcock.com

[Philip Hitchcoc]

Dear Russ,

Thank you for honoring my wishes. I would like you to know that I am a thick skinned individual and have heard before all this discussion about "Is bodycasting art?" I would have loved to have been asked "first" to have been involved, at which point I would have gladly submitted images for review by your forum.

The fact that I was criticized, and that some of your members are... well... opinionated, doesn't phase me. Everybody's a critic. Whatever you wanna' call it, I've been doing it, and teaching it for two decades and I've enjoyed commercial and critical success.

I just don't like people snatching my images. I realize that YOU didn't snatch them, but the problem fell on you as moderator to correct. Thanks again for taking care of this matter.

Very sincerely yours,

Philip Hitchcock
http://www.philiphitchcock.com
http://www.phdstl.com (phd gallery St. Louis, MO)

[jssculptor]

Hi all,
My god what a thread, read quite a bit but phewwww. Jason...good on ya...agree with most of what I have read of you have said so far. Oh and Mr Hitchcoc...get of your high horse...I looked at your website, interesting! No it aint art, but guess it sells well, good luck, sell it as body casts, thats fine, it looks very professional, I hate it but so what...I hate lots of real art as well...thats life. Can't understand why you appear so upperty about negative thoughts about your industry and as to your images being here, as obviously none of your potential buyers would be looking at an art based site to find examples of your work. Cool it, shrug it off...get on with your business you are making me think that you actually care what people like us think about your work!
Good luck in the future, let this go...this site is probably not for you. Calm down. Count the dollars...have fun.

All the best, John

Mean't to add, I would like some of them dollars too LOL

[RuBert]

Ok, everyone calm down or I'll be forced to close this thread - that would be a shame as there are many good issues raised.

I was emailed directly from the artists involved so I removed the photos.

They do have a point that images were taken from their own websites and used here. Who actually did the photography? This is a bit different than taking a picture yourself of art in a public space as compared to ripping off someone else's photo from their own website that they took or paid someone to take.

We all have to develop thick skin as artists. Sometimes an example helps to clarify a point, but at what expense?

Obviously, I would prefer that folks keep opinions and discussions civil on the forum.

So please - just give a link when trying to illustrate a point rather than using someone's else's photos from their website.

And please keep discussions civil, on topic, and without personal attacks. We will all get more out of this if we can keep it friendly.

[Philip Hitchcoc]

Dear Sculpture.net community,

I’ve had it with the nasty personal attacks on me, my colleagues, and now even those who would collect my work. Russ, you are a gentleman and in my next life, I will try to match your example. But for now, I feel I must respond.

I never posted in this forum before this unprovoked pummeling. I didn’t set myself up for ridicule. And I don’t mind criticism of my work. But, criticism moved way past my work and I was personally rebuked. This forum quickly deteriorated into drive-by blogging and schadenfreude.

And most of this criticism has come from middle-aged men, so failed in their life’s pursuits, that they retreat to the security of academia during a time which should be their “prime earning years.” They hide anonymously behind monitors and keyboards and call me a coward. They are unsuccessful men with questionable talent on whom, Starbuck's depends to brew their espressos...

And THESE are the the men who will define “art” for me? Please. Don't quit your day jobs.

Philip Hitchcock
http://www.philiphitchcock.com

[StevenW]

Dear Philip,

While googling around the net, I was astonished to find my 10 inch erect penis duplicated on one of your casts: http://www.philiphitchcock.com/eroticism17.html

I demand that you remove my penis and apologize to it immediately. ;)

Seriously; I can fathom your anger in this discussion, but to turn around and insult me/us/them only invites further degradation. The authenticity police are not lost on sculpture or bodycasting alone and why I turned to the analogy of Chess and Checkers. It's been around as long as mankind has been creating Art (or creating anything) in whatever form and in the end it just is what it is. When Photoshop first made its appearence, photographers and painters and illustrators of all magnitude blasted it as cheap, cheating/hack work and the debate still rages in 2D/3D computer generated art and the use of "premade" content vs. "homemade". I'd like to think that everyone should be able to pursue happiness in whatever form they choose and allow the market to decide what is "authentic" and what is not. On the flipside of the idea that bodycasting is not Art with a capitol "A", there exist collectors and purchasers of the work and it is really up to them to determine what is worthy and what is not. I think it would be insulting to my clientelle to suppose that they are so stupid that I would have to somehow protect them from buying fakes or forgeries. Great points all and thanks for a good thread.

Back to my failed and miserable chess playing life, I drink 7-Eleven coffee btw, I can't afford the good stuff or even pronounce the names. ;)

Take care,

Steven

[Philip Hitchcoc]

My apologies, Steven, but I had to shorten it for artistic reasons... I still have the other "half" if you'd like it back.

PH

[StevenW]

Bwahaha,

A good sense of humor is 90 percent of the battle. ;)

[Aaron Schroeder]

About five years ago I got to see Philip Hitchcoc's work at a good friend's restuarant ( Dragonfly NeoV ) in Columbus Ohio. Since I lived down the street,I would frequently drop in and chat with the owners. Even though I missed the opening for Philip I still spent alot of time in the Gallery thinking about his work and how I felt about it. At first I was kind of shocked, not so much by the depiction of nudity but by the fact that an artist would put such provocative and potentially contraversial work in a public place and then deal with all the consequences. Any body that is willing to engage the public concerning human sexuallity gets my respect by default, it's a charged topic that can get intense. Initially I wasn't to impressed with the body casts, I thought it was gimmicky but like alot of art I think you have to spend some time with it to get the full effect and come to a level of appreciation. I think it can be difficult to appreciate Philip's work, the subject, the method, from photographs and even initial direct impressions but spend a little time with these pieces and you come to realize that they are about the very real people that they represent. Even though Philip arts them up a bit they capture a real person in a way that even the best artist interpretation can't. They are like 3-D photographs that freeze a temporal moment in a persons life. In a way I came to feel that I would much rather look at as close a representation of a real person than an idealize interpretation of a person. A person as a work of art. Philip may not be a great artist from a classical perspective but what he does, provides alot of meaning and alot of feeling for alot of people. His body castes capture what the best artist can't, exact temporal details of real people. Philips work isn't about philips hand/eye coordination, or his superior abilities as a sculptor, it's about the real models and their real bodies. In many regards more interesting than anything he could have done any other way. Philip, love him or hate him, I'm glad I got to spend some time with his work, it changed the way I look at sculpture and people. In a good way. Hopefully Philip will look past the sillyness of this thread and visit us every now and then and share with us some of his knowledge and experiences. Many of you may not appreciate what he does but I do.

[evaldart]

Remember all, To those not calloused by daily doses of this forum we might seem to be a motley crew of over-verbose arrogant brutes sometimes. One must ease his/her way into the mix to reap the benefits of the typed tongue-lashings that can occur. But I'm sure if they took the time to visit the art lounge and kick back a little they would'nt feel so defensive.

And Jason is enviably smart, pure, sincere, passionate, idealistic and seemingly benevolent in his typings...he's probably mortified that he would be the object of someone's typed aggression, perceived as a slanderous attacker.

My few posts here wavered on the side of our annoyed responders. But many of the posts in disagreeance with mine caused me to remember the truth of the stone, not unlike the truth of steel. The world will judge us by our product, waving their arms and casting opinions after only a glance. but we judge ourselves by our process; how well we model the hours and days away efforting to give them all their illusions. We may sell the product but we keep the important part forever.

[Blake]

I think that this is why I love this site so.

As for posting images of Mr. Butler as well as Mr. Hitchcock’s work, it has been correctly pointed out in post number 139 of this thread by Araich concerning “Fair Use”, these images have and may legally be used for the purposes that have been employed on this site.

Russ there would be many of us here, including myself who would be pleased to offer what ever assistance is required to protect the ability of this site to present commentary and criticism as it has legitimately made in this instance.

Mr. Gillespie I respect your opinions and back your attack on life casting.

I am sorry but I can’t refrain from commenting on some past posts.

I wonder if the “long list of satisfied clients” as stated by Mr. Roy W. Butler, knew that the works contained body casts? In order to make an informed opinion as to the legitimaticy of Mr. Butler’s art.
Further, as Mr. Butler requires a “high level of detail” that he is “renowned to obtain” I would like to suggest that there are a many other artists who obtain a high level of detail without resort to technical copying by casting.
Although I am sure that “it is often very hard for the trained eye to tell where one technique stops and the other begins” I would suggest the one cast begins at the wrists of the USCT National Memorial, and the other cast ends at the wrists.
I was sorry to hear that the “The pose has absolutely nothing to do with artistic pose composition,” as the truth of this statement is over whelming. “it has to do with official military protocal as directed by people with considerable” … “historical knowledge”
It is unfortunate that the historians are now trying to create art but this sculpture is certainly much less about art than history.

StevenW
Wow,

Regards
Blake

[JasonGillespie]

To all,

My apologies to the parties who deem themselves somehow insulted and/or perceive their copyright to have been infringed. While I side with fritchie and Araich and their earlier remarks on the matter, I understand their unwillingness to be scrutinized in a manner that might be uncomfortable. I would not want too bright a light shown upon my activities if I were similarly engaged. (my opinion)

Had I not been in the throes of finishing my final semester in school I would have removed the images myself...but I haven't been to the community in sometime. Again, sorry for not responding to earlier requests.

To those who stood in the gap while I was detained...thanks. The free discourse on this site is an important part of its meaningfulness and it is hoped (on my part at least) that we can feel at liberty to continue it without too much censure.

Blake,

It is unfortunate that the historians are now trying to create art but this sculpture is certainly much less about art than history.

It is only unfortunate in the present, the true history that transcends even those who attempt to direct it...will erase or record the names of those of us who it deems worthy.

I second Evaldart's comment......Our efforts will either cause us to be remembered for our gifts or our lack thereof....or forgotten entirely. Our work will be our judge.

[JasonGillespie]

Two major practioners of bodycasting are by their own actions making a strong case for answering the original question of this thread in the negative.
They don't seem to want images of their work displayed on a site dedicated to the discusion of art.
Reply With Quote

In coming back and rereading the responses since the initial firestorm of "copyright infringement" accusations, a nugget of great interest to me resides in GlennT's above remarks. Not that I think that Mr. Hitchcock or Mr. Butler's reactions in and of themselves make it plain that a negative response to my initial query is pro forma....I do not. I do, however, think that the fact that neither gentleman wish to use the opportunity afforded them in this thread to defend and prove wrong my assertion strange. What exactly are we talking about? Isn't it the validity of a form...one they use and seem to hold in esteem? Wouldn't they have much to say on this score?
I for one care about the health of the arts and think debate an integral part of maintaining its well-being. Mr. Hitchcock, at least, wants to dismiss our interest in this topic and such discussions by marginalizing the source of scrutiny.......

And most of this criticism has come from middle-aged men, so failed in their life’s pursuits, that they retreat to the security of academia during a time which should be their “prime earning years.” They hide anonymously behind monitors and keyboards and call me a coward. They are unsuccessful men with questionable talent on whom, Starbuck's depends to brew their espressos...

Despite the speciousness of this remark, it is telling. One who uses a method of fabrication to earn his living is calling those that use their skill to create....men of "questionable talent". The irony is ready to be cut..bring on the knife.
While I personally know my own talent and am more than willing to put it up against either of these gentlemen with no fear of the outcome..... I do take umbrage at the blanket condemnation of the rest of those here who have participated...in a pursuit of greater understanding...in trying to answer the question I originally posed. The sort of mentality this personal attack represents...the sort that is generalizing/oversimplifying/undifferentiating of form or content and seemingly unwilling to give a rationale that would support such behavior.....is, in my opinion, what corrupts and undermines the arts in almost every sector.

I can not expect those who think that bodycasting is a formal sculptural method to understand or agree with my point, but I would expect them to at least listen. (I know I try and do the same.) Neither Mr. Butler nor Mr. Hitchcock seem to want to. I suppose it may be because they are both taking full advantage of their "prime earning years". Perhaps I should apologize for wasting my time trying to hone my skills and elevate my art while at the NYAA instead of the more important earning of the green. In that event, I should probably go ahead and do the same for the upcoming time I plan on spending in Italy this summer studying stone carving. I just hope Starbuck's will hold my postion for me until I get back.:)

To those here who disagree with me, but have the patience to listen...my hat is off to you...you do more justice to the notion you defend than these two who actually practice the method.

[Tlouis]

BRAVO! Jason

You've got Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Butler dead to rights. Dare say they haven't the intellect, erudition or intelligence to offer a rebuttal to your on target post. It's always a pleasure, and I dare say, good learning experience reading your posts.

Have a great time in Italy. I envy you,

Ciao, Lou

[JasonGillespie]

Tlouis,

The pleasure is mutual. As the saying goes..as iron sharpens iron so does one man sharpen another. I imagine we all benefit from our time spent here... I know I have learned a lot while here. It is why I keep coming back. Thanks.

[StevenW]

I wonder if the “long list of satisfied clients” as stated by Mr. Roy W. Butler, knew that the works contained body casts? In order to make an informed opinion as to the legitimacy of Mr. Butler’s art.

StevenW
Wow,

Regards
Blake

I'm not sure what I did to merit (or demerit) a "wow" Blake, but what you point out goes a long way to separate the genuine from counterfeit in my mind in any arena or spectrum and not just art or sculpture. I think it is very important in order to validate any serious assertion that one must present, view and weigh both sides equally and sift through all given content to ascertain some real measure of truth. I respect Aaron’s view of Phillip’s work (#153) [QUOTE=Aaron] At first I was kind of shocked, not so much by the depiction of nudity but by the fact that an artist would put such provocative and potentially controversial work in a public place and then deal with all the consequences. Any body that is willing to engage the public concerning human sexuality gets my respect by default, it's a charged topic that can get intense…. In a way I came to feel that I would much rather look at as close a representation of a real person than an idealized interpretation of a person. A person as a work of art. [QUOTE] as compelling and it deserves notice and I suspect similar arguments could be generated on Roy’s behalf. If what Aaron says is all that need be done to validate body casting as a formal method of sculpture and art with a capitol “A”, then the argument would be sealed for me and I would concede to greater opinions than my own. Jason however; is steadfast in his assertions with effortless simplicity. Who can ignore? (#157) [QUOTE=Jason] I for one care about the health of the arts and think debate an integral part of maintaining its well-being. [QUOTE] This is the kernel of Jason’s intent and not some drive-by or anything of the sort, it is the unmitigated protection of something valuable and with real and tangible meaning vs. the erosion, mitigation and marginalization of sculpture in its formal sense. I think to be fair on any level it is also important to investigate with an open mind and keep personal attacks out of the debate or at least maintain some level of civility. I took opportunity to visit both artist websites, Phillip's clearly uses "Body Casting" in bold letters on the front page and even goes so far as to educate the reader on the process and I defend him as being just, he makes no pretense and sincerely promotes the method. Roy uses “casting”, but I felt the description was murkier and led to believe that the work was created through “hyper-realistic sculpture techniques”. I pictured 1mm chisels and painstaking effort with Italian rasps and such and not some kind of molded silly putty. There are many artist statements in web, galleries and exhibits, which border on lies and hypocrisy from “genuine artists”, never mind art manufacturers and I ask myself why build up and mislead when the simple truth would do? Personally, I don’t care if a man sat on Mt. Olympus with Hephaestus himself chiseling away the deep, dark secrets of stone and metal. I don't care how many countries and cultures they lived with and what famous Italian sculptors they studied under and learned from or what registries they sit in or what academic letters follow their name. Let the work and the raw impact or lack thereof speak for itself and expect and allow others to do likewise. Even great Chefs know they’re only as great as their last meal and Denny's cooks fair no worse or better.

Russ, even if it was technically legal to keep images posted, I think you did the right thing removing them if for no other reason than to be polite, this forum should remain so. It’s not hard to replace them with hyperlinks and I’m glad to hear Jason say he would have done the same.

Roy, I think the subject of your work is noble and being an amateur Civil War buff, I appreciate what you’ve created simply for what it is, it needs no further embellishment. I personally don’t care about the congressional societies it is listed with and wish that your site gave further indication of what “Hyper-Realistic” technique you employ and what you truly think about it and what it means to you. I also wish you continued success in your journey.

Phillip, I like your humor and quick wit, you seem like a fun loving, passionate and well-spoken guy and I like that you defend yourself in a room of seemingly hostile and anonymous strangers; I hope you continue to succeed and participate here even though I personally feel the end result of body casting is a technical manufacture and not art with a capitol “A”. Perhaps I could still be convinced otherwise, but I have my doubts. FWIW though, I always doubt myself first and foremost before others. I defend you strongly nonetheless in the sense that you make no pretense about your work and you come clean under my Starbuckonian scrutiny. From what I’ve seen of your work, I sincerely believe that you possess passion and skill and vision and I personally feel that body casting lies somewhere between sculpture and silly putty and I’m not sure to what degree or where exactly on that spectrum it is. Time will tell perhaps and despite any technical critique, I echo Aaron’s remark that it takes guts to explore human sexuality (I still want the other half of my penis back btw). I encourage you to explore what makes you happy and if that is earnings and fame then so be it, but something tells me otherwise and that you have higher aspirations than money and success alone. I agree with you that academia by itself cannot judge the work, nor tell you what “Art” is and in the end it is up to you and your clients to determine what makes you sleep well at night and not some middle-aged critic like me. In any event, its nice talking to you and I’m glad you took the time to respond with some level of dignity and good humor.

Jason,
I agree with Evaldart about your disposition and your horror and would add to his remarks that; I think sculpture itself is so inspiring that good sculptors need no pretense, evil or malicious thoughts. In this sense I don’t think you have anything to apologize for whatsoever. I believe you have every reason to defend sculpture and be upset as I and many others are upset. Manufacture dawns the guise of sculpture and seemingly reigns supreme and countless other arts as they were once known and relished are systematically replaced with "hyper-realistic" methods, materials and techniques which ultimately (to me anyway) contain less value and meaning. It is a tribute to you that you seek to educate, defend and point out the differences and I thank you for helping me to better understand the issue at-large. Somewhat analogous to the thread and of interest to me was the story of Bobby Fischer. Fischer went quite mad defending his one passion in life, Chess, in which he thought lies and hypocrisy (politics) could not survive, but less known to almost all (particularly and ironically modern Chess Masters themselves); he did more to eradicate communism in our world than Reagan, the cold war and the free world combined. Crushing the Russians at their own national game forced them to re-evaluate their political and cultural superiority on a purely social level and they ultimately rejected their own form of government as a result.
Having the courage to force people to re-think their position, while mindfully evaluating your own is what makes men great and Emerson said; “To be great is to be misunderstood”.
In a throw-away society where we have now and pay later, it is no surprise the difference between “Art” and manufacture are misunderstood as well and to me it is as clear as the difference between Shakespeare and Stephen King. I would rather history forget me and my failed attempts at sculpture than remember me for my successful productions.

Steven

[Blake]

StevenW
I applaud your words and commend your voice.

The “Wow” expressed an impression concerning the dimensions of the genital exposed in the previous post to which you admitted partial legal rights.

My comment in an earlier post
“It is unfortunate that the historians are now trying to create art but this sculpture is certainly much less about art than history.”

Was to mean that the sculpture appeared, in my opinion, to be more like a historic replica of the soldier for the USCT National Memorial, than a work of art. This would be the same class of “art work” that I would associate with wax museums. I do not deny that there is talent and ability required to create a work of that nature I just don’t consider it to be the highly creative form of art from which I draw my inspiration nor to which I aspire to create.

I have felt that this forum allows and encourages the opportunity for artist and non artists to express their opinions and examine the many items that are today considered to be “ART” and I feel that we had very good examples of a variety of opinions both for and against body casting.

I will still hold that the law allows the “fair use” of images for the propose of education and criticism and that the photos referred to were posted for that purpose and not for “advantage or monetary gain”, and could therefore appear on this site “in public” without reproach. However, I agree that this is a polite and proper community and should continue to maintain the respectful attitude that has been demonstrated.

I congratulate the contributors of the debate that was shared here and I personally feel that I have gained for having participated.

Blake

[StevenW]

StevenW
I applaud your words and commend your voice.

The “Wow” expressed an impression concerning the dimensions of the genital exposed in the previous post to which you admitted partial legal rights.
I congratulate the contributors of the debate that was shared here and I personally feel that I have gained for having participated.

Blake

Oh, yes of course I had forgotton,..The Crippler. I recant my earlier demand and share it freely in the spirit of “fair use” and not for “advantage or monetary gain”. This, despite years of drive-by princesses behaving rudely with it like so many kittens at a bowl of milk.

Thanks for reminding me.

Steven

[mountshang]

Correlative to the topic of this thread:

"Is photography really art?"

... and if so ... why would the mechanical reproduction of an image pass muster -- while bodycasting would not ?

(for the record -- I don' think either question is very important -- but while I do enjoy momentary glimpses at some people's photographs --- I would as soon look at a mangled corpse as view a bodycast)

[fritchie]

Mountshang - Thanks for bringing up the analogy with photography. I've been tempted to do that myself. Mostly years ago, I shared many conversations with a couple of area professional photographers on just that subject, and I went back to art books and the early photographic artists such as Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, and others of their vintage to decide the issue for myself. I came away agreeing with them (of course) that photography CAN BE an art, if the proper person is handling the camera and probably controlling his/her own image presentation in the transition to positive form.

Obviously, not every photographer is an artist, nor is every sculptor of body casts. The final product decides the question.

[sculptor]

"The Art of photography"
"The Art of bodycasting"
"The Art of furniture design"
"The Art of landscaping"
"The Art of cabinet making"
"The Art of painting"
"The Art of sculpture"
"The Art of war"

If we are using the term "art" to indicate a step beyond/above the mastery of the craft...

(When I was a lad, working construction in the summer, occasionally a worker would show up and make difficult tasks seem easy, efficiency of motion, sure and careful use of the toolkit, confidence in his skills, and always, a product that epitomized the skill and virtue of the craft.
The other workers would say of him, "He's a real artist")

in such a context
,
sure, why not?

I liked Hitchcoc's site because he was upfront about what he does and how he does it. On his site he seems proud to be a bodycaster, while here, he seemed a tad defensive...

My only objection comes when people call:
bodycasting ..."sculpture"
war..."a police action"
despotism and tyranny ..."the patriot act"
gas chambers..."the showers"

need i go on?
........
epimetheus:
When it comes to mastery/artistry of a craft...bodycasting... I think Philip Hitchcoc has done it.
Sculpture just happens to be a different craft.

[JasonGillespie]

Blake,

Thanks for the clarification. I found that fact interesting as well. I am something of an aficionado of old photography and especially the Civil War era and still don't think the replica uniform was cut right. The cloth hangs much more where the cloth in photos of troops from that time seems to billow more...as if it is a thicker material. Too the fit for the figure is awkward. You are right....his effort has very little to commend it as a pleasing work of art. Your observations are well made.

If a moment's digression is allowable....let me return to a remark made by Roy Butler
Mr. Gillespie, you do not know me and quite apparently know nothing of my professional sculpting skills, regardless of whether my total body of work is created from scratch in clay, lifecast or any other medium or combination of mediums that I might choose to utilize.



As Mr. Butler was insistent that I had not the knowledge of what he was capable of when modeling himself (though to me the differences between hand modeled work and casts from the body are always pretty obvious), I did my research and found his site with examples of that very thing. Here is the link... http://www.androscollection.com/andros.php ........draw your own conclusions.

I think Mr. Butler has given us the clue by which this whole situation can be unraveled when he said...My long list of satisfied clients are the sole, end decision makers of whether my work is legitimate art, not you.
Money is the arbitrator here. Whether or not it is art is entirely out the window. What is important is will it suffice for the job and will it bring a paycheck? These very practical questions are answered in the affirmative and are why our culture is dismal when compared with those of the past....those that valued the thing itself above what it could get you...the creator, the client, or the investor. I just went to see the new Greek and Roman exhibt at the Met again and am continually overwhelmed by a culture...cultures that held the arts in such esteem that every aspect of life was enhanced by artistic erudition and refinement. It is a shame we have our priorities so far askew.


Mountshang,

"Is photography really art?"

... and if so ... why would the mechanical reproduction of an image pass muster -- while bodycasting would not ?

Photography is not and has never has been a memetic replacement for an actual painting (though we use the process in lieu of paintings). I've heard this sort of argument made before and it seems to always force an issue that is basically an apple and orange situation. We do not confuse the two because they are so different. Photography is a diffrent process with a different outcome. Where this way of thinking falls apart is in assuming just because a process has reproductive abilities it must be memetic. Not so. The question of "is photography art" should always be an obvious "YES" because we recognize that it is a singular process that owes nothing to painting. Is origins are in a different area (science of optics, chemistry, etc..). It is irrelevant that it has been used as reference by artists and is at times combined with painting. This intermarriage of two intrinsically diffrent forms only creates a third new form which still doesn't lend itself to this sort of comparison. (Except perhaps when the artist use is solely a tracing of said photograph....and this comparison would be against not for bodycasting. Interesting that you should pose the question if you could care less.)

Lifecasting can not say this. It has always been a part of the sculptural process It is by its very nature a sculptural byproduct...though usually in history seen as a tool for creating reference material for the sculptor. To employ it is to create an object that is exists through sculptural techniques...minus the important factor of sculptural skill.

Oh yes,...
The final product decides the question.
Another way of saying the end justifies the means. I do not subscribe to this as a way of approaching art. (And a good many other things as well) Why...because I feel that it is flawed logic in that it is unreasonable to assign an equal measure of value to those that work to achieve a refined result and those who do not.

[Denis]

Does body casting rise to the level of fine art ?

That should be the question. The issue of "what is art?" has been given over to the "Whatever" crowd several decades ago.

Well does it ? What do you think about this work ? It is "Woman Bitten by a Snake" By Clesinger 1847. I think it does.

It is a body casting. If you don't think it's fine art then you need to get to the Orsay and look at it...truly beautiful. Heavy sigh here. She would now be what ? 187 years old.

The real problem is that body casting seldom rises to this level but when it does we as artists should celebrate it.

Denis

[JasonGillespie]

Denis,

The sculpture in question (Woman Bitten By Snake 1847) was rumored to have been bodycast, but considering Clesinger's other works (he was a pupil of Thorvaldsen and a very skilled modeler as well as marble carver) and the mastery they show it has been put to rest. The current opinion I have found by most scholars is that the sculpture was modeled from a bodycast of a Mme. Sabatier and was previously vilified as a lifecast due to its great naturalism...but in the end is not itself a lifecast piece.

This public scandal was much like the one Rodin would be embroiled in decades later when he exhibited Age of Bronze. It is a testimony of sorts that even when artists of great reputation or ability in the past did works that were highly naturalistic, they could run the risk of being negatively viewed of using a technique, lifecasts, that would utterly destroy the positive qualities of their work as art.

It is only in the most recent past that this way of thinking has been turned on its ear...and mostly it has resulted in a dumbing down of the general viewer in regard to what is a sculpted work and what has been fabricated through the means of the lifecasting technique. Nowadays the "artistry" of what many assume, erroneously, to be sculpted is merely the novelty of lifecastings inherent documentation of the living form...not an artist's skillful rendering of form.
The mistaking of the Clesinger piece as well as Rodin's as lifecasts were not the beginnings of this trend though and should be seen for what they are.... a natural cultural backlash against what might be construed as charlatanism on the part of a public that has a general grasp of what skill is needed to create such a work. (A grasp that sadly is no longer in evidence.) It is a reflection of Clesinger and Rodins' technical skill that the issue was raised at all....(and a shifting in stylistic leanings which both sculptors were advancing).

[StevenW]

Does body casting rise to the level of fine art ?

Denis


According to this it is a "mimic" of fine art. http://www.androscollection.com/lifecast.php

Is this bronze spray paint? :|

The "Whatever" club is a dangerous one too I think.
One of their proudest members, Rosie O'Donnell, just left the "Vue". ;)

[JasonGillespie]

StevenW,

You are right. The bronze painted resin casts are almost funny....more a parody. In every way it is a facsimile of a sculpture, yet falls short of the real thing by virtue of the sum total being as weak as its parts.

I suppose this was meant to be somehow related to Greek or Roman fragments from antiquity. What might have escaped the casual observer (or casual artist) is the high degree of manipulation that both the Greeks and the Romans subjected the human form to when rendering them. They were willing to change subtle anatomical details when it created a more pleasing sense of rhythm in the overall form. The bodycast has no such rhythms and is only an exact copy...minus whatever artistic editing the sculptor would make to enhance the form.

[StevenW]

StevenW,

The bronze painted resin casts are almost funny....more a parody.

It certainly covers the theme of tragedy quite well. Nonetheless, 2007 is not 600 B.C. and the figure manipulation of which you speak, the idealization of the human form personifying flow and rhythm as opposed to the license plate stamping of one is perhaps lost. I feel sorry for the archaeologists ten thousand years from now who will be sifting through the rubble of the Walmartonian epoch.

[fritchie]

Re Post 166: "Oh yes,...
Quote: [from Fritchie]
The final product decides the question.

"Another way of saying the end justifies the means. I do not subscribe to this as a way of approaching art. (And a good many other things as well) Why...because I feel that it is flawed logic in that it is unreasonable to assign an equal measure of value to those that work to achieve a refined result and those who do not."

Jason - My take on this is that we both probably were careless in our thought processes here. To be a little more careful, it certainly is possible for an amateur, even a child, to produce an occasional good or even excellent photograph, given that the film was submitted to some professional firm for developing and/or processing into a final image.

What determines the work of Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz and many other photographers to be art, and them artists is their capability to produce excellent work again and again. It is the vision of such people, together with their technical mastery of process, that classifies them as artists and their work as art. Even here, some of their work will rise above or fall below their average standard, but overall, one has to consider them and the work to be what I have said.

To be sure, I have read only a small part of this thread overall, but I cannot agree with your apparent premise that only work produced by one with ability in a relatively work-intensive medium should be called an artist, and the product of such a person, art. I'm fairly sure this question has been asked, and probably with following commentary, also: What mimimal portion of a person's work must he/she do in person for the result to be called art? Must a sculptor fashion his/her own tools, gather and refine the clay and bronze, build the furnace necessary for pouring, if the end product is bronze? Why should a photographer be treated any different, if he/she uses a ready-built camera, tripod, and other equipment? Ansel Adams, for example, another photographic artist I admire, is said to have chosen the exact season of year and time of day, cloudiness of the sky, position of the moon, and other factors in composing his work.

Where is the dividing line between art and craft for you, in light of these examples? I find art in the conceptualization ability of the artist, and his/her mastery of the techniques needed to give physical form to those ideas. (Not to overlook Conceptual Artists who partly forego the last step, or even people who submit their ideas to others for fabrication.)

[Merlion]

The sculpture in question (Woman Bitten By Snake 1847) was rumored to have been bodycast, but considering Clesinger's other works (he was a pupil of Thorvaldsen and a very skilled modeler as well as marble carver) and the mastery they show it has been put to rest. The current opinion I have found by most scholars is that the sculpture was modeled from a bodycast of a Mme. Sabatier and was previously vilified as a lifecast due to its great naturalism...but in the end is not itself a lifecast piece.

This public scandal was much like the one Rodin would be embroiled in decades later when he exhibited Age of Bronze. It is a testimony of sorts that even when artists of great reputation or ability in the past did works that were highly naturalistic, they could run the risk of being negatively viewed of using a technique, lifecasts, that would utterly destroy the positive qualities of their work as art. .. .
Just a passing comment. Apparently they could not, or didn't want to get out of the age old mind-set that their nude figure sculptures must be life size. Just creating them different from life-size would avoid havng all these doubts being thrown at them.

This is perhaps partly, but not wholely, the reason Ron Mueck makes his either bigger or smaller.

[fritchie]

Just a passing comment. Apparently they could not, or didn't want to get out of the age old mind-set that their nude figure sculptures must be life size. Just creating them different from life-size would avoid havng all these doubts being thrown at them.

This is perhaps partly, but not wholely, the reason Ron Mueck makes his either bigger or smaller.

Rodin did just that in his second major work, St. John the Baptist, (aka) Striding Man or similar title. He made it about 7 - 8 feet tall, as I recall, in response to that criticism about Age of Bronze. Unfortunately, he still was very poor and working in a studio where things froze in cold weather. That piece fractured from the cold, and all he was able to preserve was the torso, with, I believe, fragments of the upper legs and portions of the arms. The head today is intact, but I don't know if he kept it in good shape or remodeled it.

Probably one reason for the lifesize casts is that people can relate better to those than to much smaller or larger figures. I've been startled frequently on seeing some lifesize pieces out of the corner of my eve, thinking for a brief instant I had seen a living person, even though the material and color were not correct.

[Merlion]

I've been startled frequently on seeing some lifesize pieces out of the corner of my eve, thinking for a brief instant I had seen a living person, ...
These are figure sculptures in the days of plaster, marble and bronze. Not now. It would be horrid if you see this life-size in an art museum.

http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue6/images/hyperrealism_deaddad.jpg

[JasonGillespie]

fritichie,

Most of what you said in re post #166 I agree with and wonder what it is I seemed to have said. Your comments on photography seemed, to me at least, aimed at a post I am unaware of. I said I think photography is always to be considered an artform of its own...I'm confused.

Too, I think that you misunderstood my premise. I know I've elaborated on it in greater detail throughout the thread, but it certainly isn't that I think that an artist must create/control every aspect of their process. As I have been putting forth...I think that when an artist uses a device/technique/method that removes skill from the equation (meaning they or anyone could do it) and yet is rewarded with a by product that gives the impression they have skill...that constitutes an abdication of artistic responsibility. In this instance I will speak specifically to the issue of bodycasting...given that is the thread's topic.

Since the examples you used don't seem to jibe with what I said (to me at least)...I am at a loss to answer them. Truly I am unsure what I said that gave the impression I meant to paint with such a broad brush. Perhaps my wording was too ambiguous.

Concerning your final remarks....I can say that if an "artist" ends up contracting out more of their product to others than they do themselves...perhaps they are really not artists. I have great ideas for inventions quite often as well as book and movie concepts, but until I roll up my sleeves and do it...I am no inventor, author, or screenplay writer. It is not the first man who thought of flying that is credited with the achievement, but the one who accomplished the task. (In many ways this is the root of my problem with bodycasting. The cast itself is a non-achievement) An idea is not art in and of itself ( I say this in regard to the visual arts)....yes this takes aim at much of the conceptual/installation art that is foisted upon us in the present day. If it is worth my consideration...it should be worth the time and effort for the artist to create it.

Unfortunately, he still was very poor and working in a studio where things froze in cold weather. That piece fractured from the cold, and all he was able to preserve was the torso, with, I believe, fragments of the upper legs and portions of the arms. The head today is intact, but I don't know if he kept it in good shape or remodeled it.

The John the Baptist was cast whole (a number of times) and is not the same work as the Striding Man. One such cast is in MoMA...by the elevators of all things.

[fritchie]

Jason - My apologies on the matter of photography. I misread your post 166 in which you said photography always is to be considered an art since it is not mimetic of painting, but is altogether different. In fact, referring to my memories of long-ago conversations with the local photographers I mentioned, and readings of the time, many early photographers DID try to imitate painting (in black and white, of course) by adding in some manner brushstrokes to texturize the image.

Where I differ from you is more fundamental. You rephrased my saying "The final product decides the question" in regard to the defining quality of art into "The end justifies the means". To a large degree, but with qualifications such as the child who accidentally produces a good photograph, I DO think it is the art that reveals an artist and not the artist who turns everything he touches into art. That is, I consider art self-evident, much like truth. This, of course, is dangerous ground, because people can be fooled regarding the truth of a situation, but that is pretty much analogous to the case with art. I'll leave the discussion here for now, as not to get too complicated in one post.

[JasonGillespie]

fritchie,

Thanks for the clarification. I think that we have commonalities in certain areas and think that to a great degree you are right in saying that art is much like truth...but as Pontus Pilate said, "What is truth?" While I can't give credibility to anyone claiming to an artist just by virtue of their effort...regardless of quality...I do think that there are exceptions to the rule.