Originally Posted by rderr.com
Bronze and casting are very good examples of why the ART of a piece is completely divorced from the artifacts biography.
Well, you could say that, but, then you'd also have to say the same for prints or other reproductions of 2D artwork. By extension, you'd have the same basic relationship between an actor's work and the final edited film he appears in. If his work consists of his performance, is the reproduction of that performance somehow divorced from his original performance? Not necessarily. If the actor's intent is that his performance be
a part of the film and the medium of film is the vehicle for his performance, then his performance is an integral part of the film and is not
in any way divorced from it. The same is true of a painter who creates a painting explicitly intending that it be reproduced by some printing medium, and, in the case of the sculptor carving or modeling plaster for bronze casting, the "art" of the original carving in plaster is intended to be fully realized in the subsequent bronze, is it not? It is accepted, by most sculptors, that the bronze itself is the final medium and that the plaster is just a preliminary step toward it. But then, that brings us back to the original question of whether the bronze then becomes a collaborative work, since there are other artisans involved in its creation. Even so, the sculptor's intent is that the bronze casting represent his artistic expression. Of course, how well this is carried off by the foundry artisans is yet another matter and I'm sure some very particular sculptors have taken issue with the way in which their carving is translated to bronze.