What is wrong about this figure? help

[idd031pj]

Hi, I am luis, it wanted to show you a sketch for a monument. I need some help from you.
Autoesteem problem :- )

This project is already in study. I believe that the general design is good. But I have problems whit my client. He don´t unsderstand why the design is in that way.
It is a piece of military topic. It wants to represent the military units of tanks. It wants to show the human aspect so much as the means (the armoured weapons).

FOTO ALBUM LINK (http://photos.yahoo.com/idd031p)

The main and essential shape is, precisely, the subject of discussion for my client: The high composition shape of serie of tank cannons in expansive proyection out of the figure. All framed with the circular shape of another canon ( another scale).

The other elements you can see ... Both in bigger scale the commander over the main shape of cannons and the driver under the tank shape, as if it were the driver claustrophobic window.

The below image are an historical composition not important to me at this stage.

I need your sincere opinion about: 1.- Do you consider this design could be a valid composition?
and 2.- Do you think it show the idea of "power and team" and show also the idea "the man is very important here to fonction it"

(http://f7.yahoofs.com/users/451839c8z1f91c5c4/dfb0re2/__sr_/e3f6re2.jpg?phQNEGFBI7Wet4Lj)

[mark pilato]

links dont work

[idd031pj]

YES THE LINK DON´T WORK
YOU CAN TRAY THIS
http://lmcorsini.googlepages.com/home

[GlennT]

Hi Luis:

Here are my thoughts on your composition:

The piece is interesting and compelling because of the force of action and variety in the forms. As a composition it has some good things going for it. However, if I understand what the client is wanting to communicate with the piece, I do not see how it does that. In fact, I am not really sure what it is trying to communicate. It just is visually interesting without applying any particular meaning to me.

One problem I have with the composition is that from the left side view it appears as though the commander is being impaled by the array of guns rather than controlling them, or perhaps that they are growing out of his abdomen. The other views don't give that impression. In that same view, the tank treads seem to also be his thigh, but in this case it works well.

If the figures beneath the tank are supposed to represent the teamwork idea, for me it does not work because they look like they are being crushed by the tank. If they were to the side rather than underneath, it may work better.

I think the strongest part of the composition is the upper 1/2 of the frontal or frontal right view, which expresses a lot of powerful energy.

Since you are apparently working for a client rather than doing this for yourself, it is important to understand the reasons why he wants the piece and what it needs to communicate in order to serve his needs.

As a reference, might I suggest the bas-relief elements of The Artillery Memorial in Hyde Park Corner, London , by the sculptor Sargeant Jagger. I believe it is a WW I memorial.

Good fortune,

GlennT

[Thatch]

To me the figures below look more like victims than team members. First impression of the gun tubes was of impalement, but that was momentary.

I like the dynamics of the work and how it creates eye movement, but the message is unclear.

Thatch

[fused]

The first (1) and fourth (4) views are best and remind me of Raymond Duchamp Villon, while the other views are very confusing as already pointed out by Thatch. View two (2) the tank treads become bent knees in relation to the goggled head, the arms seem to expose a belly full of projectiles and the people below seem to be in the wrong place at the worst time.

The tank turrents become identifiable in several views, but all those barrels poking out defy logic. The scale/proportion between the cluster of cannon barrels don't share a perspective or depth of field (with their random lengths) to clearly define what is happening there. The close ones (in front) from the far ones (coming up from behind) might require some exaggeration (or artistic license) to solve the confusion and achieve a visually believable effect.

The people below bring to mind Tianimen Square and should be evacuated unless you plan to identify them as the vanquished (squished?) enemy depicted in this conflict with more detail.

Is this design intended to represent conflict and conquest with the victorious above and the defeated below?

[Cantab]

Well, I must say I like this a lot. I particularly like the way the body of the main figure has merged with the machine. The artist's comment on the nature, and implications, of modern warfare is clear. The mechanised legs (side view) are particularly effective. I find the idea, in general, both very clear and complex - man and machine have become one (with all the implications that can evoke). Even the impalement others have written about is very effective for me, as it implies a political perspective on war. The visual echo of the man being speared (primitive warfare) is good too, evoking a sense of how modern warfare is no better for its technological sophistication. Perhaps worse, given the mechanisation of the combatants and the self-destructiveness of the new processes of warfare. Unusual for monuments, in my experience, the work also acknowledges the brutalising effect of war on the participants.

I would like the main figure to have greater depth, though (side view), and perhaps draw in more elements of the tank in doing so. I'm not sure about the little figures at the base - are they needed? I'm not a fan of shifts of scale within sculptures. (Scaling figures was a popular device in medieval religious statuary, though, that spoke of status relationships between figures in the work, or commented on their role, so you are working within a recognised tradition. But does it work here? Perhaps if these figures were redesigned to be identified with the caterpillar tracks of the tank......). It might also be interesting to have the main figure echo some significant sculpted heroes from the classical past - to reinforce the contrast between the herioc and the modern, contrasting, er, classic heroic individualism with this modern mechanisation of men at war. Personally (Yes, I'm rambling on now!) I'd also like to see more reference to the feminine in war monuments, as that is what is most neglected at times of war and is, I feel, the antidote to war too. The tank guns are quite close to being phallic, so that might go some way to refer to this.

An exciting idea! Well done!

Regarding the client: you are the artist. Keep clients in their place! Do what you can to meet his/her needs, but the aesthetics are, finally, up to you. Even the Pope didn't get the Sistine Chapel ceiling he wanted!

[GlennT]

Regarding the client: you are the artist. Keep clients in their place! Do what you can to meet his/her needs, but the aesthetics are, finally, up to you. Even the Pope didn't get the Sistine Chapel ceiling he wanted!

I find this quote worthy of examination, perhaps on a different thread.
It strikes me as being rather arrogant, and I am an artist. All the time I have to educate clients about various aspects of art and the process of creating it. Occaisonally I have to compromise my intent on a commissioned work of art, but usually it involves very minor things. Most of the time I am able to articulate the reasons for what I am doing and the client agrees.

I don't understand the concept of keeping a client in their place. Without them you would not have the opportunity to earn a living while creating your art. If you are independantly wealthy then perhaps you can keep them in their place, which would probably be somewhere else ignoring your work. Is their a good reason to disrespect a client because they have a different perspective than you?

When one has developed the genius of Michaelangelo, perhaps they can get away with being haughty and tempermental and think that as an artist you are not to be kept from your all-knowing perch of artistic insight. Perhaps it is part of the mystique and role-playing that goes with the territory.
For me, its just excess baggage and does not help to further the aim of communicating ideas. I want the attention to go to the work of art, not the cult of an artist's personality as some kind of "tormented genius" who has the only God-given insight about what is art unlike the rest of the Philistines out there.

GlennT

[Cantab]

Hi GlennT

You may be right – we could be highjacking this thread. The issue of clients may be of general interest, and I would add to a new thread if you wish to start one.

[mark pilato]

This work kicks, Great Job, for me I think you nailed all three points.
No criticism here.
I do a lot of commission work and sometimes a client will come in and want to make a major change, some would say the hell with it, others like me take the challenge to make even a better piece. Its the nature of a commission. You are working for your client, Its that simple. Most of the time my clients let me run with an idea never once asking me to make a change, I love these of course, but I also love the others as well, because it forces me to step outside the box and try to find new prospective. Look forward to seeing more of your work -
all the best,
Mark

[idd031pj]

[QUOTE=mark pilato]This work kicks, Great Job, for me I think you nailed all three points.
No criticism here.
I do a lot of commission work and sometimes a client will come in and want to make a major change, some would say the hell with it, others like me take the challenge to make even a better piece. Its the nature of a commission. You are working for your client, Its that simple. Most of the time my clients let me run with an idea never once asking me to make a change, I love these of course, but I also love the others as well, because it forces me to step outside the box and try to find new prospective. Look forward to seeing more of your work -
all the best,
Mark[/tHANKS mARK i FIND all your comments they are really suggestive and interesting to me.
The 26 OCT I´ve another and last main meeting to explain the project. I´m te openmind attitude to offer to the client a better work. The challenge is to win the heart trough the eye. I´m working.]

[mark pilato]

You have a lot of time to get really strong proposal together. Stay true to yourself, maybe write down what moves you about your work, go back to the process of creating it and also write down what your goals are for the finished piece. I hope you get the project because I would love to see your sculpture monumental size. When I am in a meeting discussing a possible commission I speak from my heart, I let the committee know what I feeling and what the sculpture stands for, also I am open to their suggestions and often we will brain storm different ideas, like Patina, size, placement, etc. Let them know you are the person for the job and that you are looking forward to working with them to create the best possible piece for there project - I hope this helps a little.
all the best
Mark