Figurative Sculptors Please move to the Back ...

[Georges]

Recently, I went to an Opening in New Hope, PA that featured the work of 35 sculptors (most were present) and figurative work was well represented.

When I asked one artist if she was a member of the ISC she responded: "But I'm a figurative sculptor!" as if I had asked a girl to join the "He-Man Woman Haters Club".

Taken a little aback I pointed out that a third of our over six hundred online Portfolio Sculptors do figurative work, Elizabeth Catlett is the ISC 2003 Lifetime Award winner, Seward Johnson is one of our biggest fans and Judith Shea is keynote speaker at ISC's first regional "mini-conference" in July - "Figuratively Speaking".

In any case, please weigh in on the question as to whether or not you feel figurative sculptors are an overlooked underclass or an undervalued elite. In the case of the above-mentioned sculptor it was very difficult to tell where she came down on the issue - but it was definitely one or the other.

Having met Tom Otterness, on the other hand, I can say with great confidence that he is neither. He was far from arrogant and well above false modesty. Granted, we would all love to do so well at what we love to do. Nevertheless, one usually finds that successful sculptors have inflated egos.

(And, I don't care what the "purists" say; Tom is a figurative sculptor. His allegory and satire put the essential power of the figure to great use even if his forms are akin to political cartoons.)

[fritchie]

Georges - I like to come down on multiple sides of a question, so I'll say I think figurative sculptors are both an overlooked underclass and an undervalued elite, except that I’d put the elite part first.

We do tend to feel overlooked, but I think the times, they are achangin’.

[Georges]

As I have said before - I'm not a figurative sculptor.

However, when I was 8-10 and 15-18 I lived in Brussels and Geneva respectively. And my family took as much advantage of the proximity of these two cities to the great art of Western Europe as we could. Figurative sculpture and painting enriched my imagination (the television sucked) and liberated my parochial midwest Catholic schoolboy's soul.

Don't get me wrong, unlike Magritte, I believe their are more than one abstract painting (and, by extension, sculpture). And both the abstract and the conceptual can affect me both primally and intellectually. But only figurative work can reach me on a purely and wholly human level. It is figurative sculpture that best conveys parable, myth and allegory and compassion for the human condition. For we all move around in similar casings - no matter how much we exaggerate the distinctions.

So, I guess figurative sculptors have a right to feel they have a special space in the field of sculptural expression.

[Araich]

Originally posted by Georges
So, I guess figurative sculptors have a right to feel they have a special space in the field of sculptural expression.
Apparantly so. Just see how they have their own special board here... And judging by the serious naval gazing and fretting over relevance, it also appears that it is sorely needed.

Personally I couldn't take these sorts of concerns to the workbench with me. At least not without it seriously damaging my work.

-

I once heard that Calder refused to call his sculpture, sculpture (let alone abstract blah blah, or figurative). Using 'object' instead. A clever way to avoid defending what one does.

Unless of course, defending it, is part of it.

[rderr.com]

Dear George

Several of your threads have caught my eye: « figurative…seat », « Art vs. Craft”. and “Conception…”. How does one limit oneself to figurative, abstract, or conceptual? Is not the metaphor composed of the appropriate symbols and words? That is to say the message dictates the media, Mr. McClure (or McClain?). Although when I use found objects (see rderr.com “fond brun”) the material is the message.

And that brings Art vs. Craft. Of course “Art…is gibberish”. But when Art addresses only itself and does not evoke or provoke i.e. Art for Art’s sake is it not gibberish? Or Craft that is well made but useless is it not gibberish? Therefore I submit, the function of the artist is to use appropriately the material, craftsmanship, to construct the metaphor, art object.

In one of the threads partially deleted by the system failure you wrote, “I would rather be a sculptor than a furniture salesman…” I had hoped to show you a photo of a two armed chair that illustrates the conjunction art|craft. The chair as craft is comfortable and well made. The whimsy of the two arms, feet that are feet, and back that is back is provocative, a metaphor, art. I lend the chair to a friend that has a jazz café in down town Houston so that I can observe people’s reactions. Most go for the space between the oversized fingers as will a child setting on the lap of an adult. Sometimes, poor unfortunates, they freeze from unhealthy memories. Could that observation be considered “Conceptual” or “Performance Art”?

By the by I lived in Belgium for 28 years. Did you visit the park and museum at Mariemont near Charleroi? The last owners collected, among others, Rodin and lesser known Jeff Lambeau. Jeff’s “Temple to Human Sexuality” has not been open to the public for years

[fritchie]

Fair criticism, RH. Figurative sculptors have complained a lot here about lack of attention given to the field. In my experience (as a figurative sculptor, of course), this feeling and vocalization of it are widespread. I think it comes from being in a minority with regard to public commissions and the market in general.

“Abstract” sculpture today occupies the position of “the academy” or predominant authority against which Impressionist and other more modern artists fought in the late 1800's. What abstractionists did then, figurative artists are doing today.

[Araich]

Fritchie - thanks for not taking offence at what I wrote. I did consider editing it, but prefer not to re-write if possible.

When I think of public sculpture here in Sydney (a relatively young city of 200 years) and add up the work in my head, I would have to say that directly figurative sculpture dominates. I would guess this to be the case in older cities to an even greater degree...

Now of course, to be fair, the new work is abstract.

You make a good point. And it is not just here that this sensitivity exists. Last year I witnessed a near riot at a forum, because figurative work was more or less absent from the selected exhibtion the forum was to discuss.

Of great humor to me is that my own work is now extremely old fashioned. But believe me, I spend not one minute worrying over that.

[fritchie]

Araich - Your “navel gazing” comment sent me off on some deeper thought last night. I don’t like to be a complainer, and I don’t think that has been a part of what I, at least, have been doing. It strikes me that the ISC is doing for sculpture as a whole just what these figurative sculptors have been doing - promoting education and awareness of figurative art. It’s not so much complaining as putting forth a call for more work in this vein.

It’s really not for me to expound on ISC’s mission, but that is the message I get from the publication and the web site - sculpture as an art form and as cultural expression is underilluminated and undervalued. I’ll go a little further on this point and say that I find portions of Sculpture magazine fairly embarrassing to the field. Specifically, many of the sculptures featured in advertisements.

The organization is not well-funded, as many similar organizations are not, and I know it has experimented in many ways over the fifteen or so years I have been a member, trying to pursue this mission more effectively. Right now, I think the publication quality and the art featured editorially are as good as I have seen, but I suppose the need for advertizing revenue overshadows esthetic judgement in this one way.

[fritchie]

Araich - Here is another thought that came out of your criticism of figurative artists last night. I didn’t want this to get entangled with the remarks on ISC and Sculpture magazine.

It strikes me that figuration is suffering in a subtle way today which generally goes unremarked. That is, I think many sculptors of large public commissions for the last fifty years or have been treated by the media as craftspeople rather than as artists. This factor more or less coincides with the rise of nonrepresentational work, and I think the two are linked as cause and effect.

I think media have followed the tastes or fashions of the day, trying to be trendy themselves, and in doing so have undeservedly denigrated figuration. As example of what I mean, any knowledgeable person can identify more or less on sight a large sculpture from a century ago by Rodin, Carpeaux, Malliol, and a few others, and most people who follow art can identify Bourdelle, Lehmbruck, and other lesser-known artists. However, for about the last half-century the trend has been to celebrate and publicize the donor of the art or the cause of its creation rather than the artist.

As example, New Orleans is a celebrated international city and has in its downtown area three large bronzes of French, Spanish, and British figures, each donated by the respective country or one of its principal cities. The figures are Joan of Arc (France), Winston Churchill (Britain), and Bernardo de Galvez (Spain; he was probably the best of Louisiana’s Spanish governors). I may have missed something, but I examined each of these sculptures carefully a decade or so ago when I began sculpting seriously, in order to see who made them, and I failed to find the sculptor in each case.

The same thing has happened with more recent pieces. Media carefully note the sculptors of nonfigurative work when this is erected, but in almost all cases, ignore the sculptor of figurative pieces. As I say, I think the media are following the herd of art critics, and deliberately downplay figuration. Figurative artists seem to be placed in the same category as the engineers who certify structural integrity of a building, or the workers who erect it, and not in the creative category of architect or abstract sculptor.

[jwebb]

Most of my sculpture is figurative, by which I mean only that it has a head and a tail to it, or some some aspect of a head or a tail, at least at some point during its making. In the process of making, I often become more interested in the abstract character of forms; something in the character of the material itself with which to "interact"; something which seems "new" and visually interesting; and I may abandon the intent to represent the figure or to represent anything at all. In fact, I strive to reach that point, as that's when things really get interesting. I end up with sculptures that are obviously figurative as well as many that most people see no figurative associations in at all, and a spectrum of work in between. I feel quite ok about all of them, and make no huge distinctions. And I don't feel compelled to be one thing or the other. My mentor, whose name I'll omit for his sake not mine, told me one time that there is only one reason to do sculpture that makes any sense (and I will contribute this in response to some of the discussion I see on other threads also). That is, he said, because you want to. If you're doing sculpture for any other reason, you are going to be disappointed. For me this was one of those simple statements that, the more I've come to remember it over the years in different circumstances, seems more and more profound. I guess what I really like and want to see in sculpture is some emotional response to form. Most often I get that from the figure, but also from a great deal of "abstract" work, in ways that I can't verbalize. On the other hand, a heap of gravel in the corner of a gallery room... or a few bottles with varying amounts of liquid in them.... or much else that is called "sculpture" today illicits no such response, for or from me, and I think it's something else entirely.

[Victoria]

Hello All, Hello Georges,
I was looking through some old postings where you wrote....

"Taken a little aback I pointed out that a third of our over six hundred online Portfolio Sculptors do figurative work...."

This surprises me too, a figurative sculptor. The magazine ISC puts out seldom if ever features figurative sculpture. In fact I have always been under the impression that ISC is strictly a place for abstract elitists, yet I continue to subscribe waiting for the day that positive change will take place LOL.

[anne (bxl)]

is sculpture world divided into two drawers, abstract and figurative?
my today work is not abstract. nor figurative.

the real debate shouldn't be "tradition vs modernity"?

[Araich]

Originally posted by anne (bxl)
the real debate shouldn't be "tradition vs modernity"? I agree 100%.

I for instance refuse to be painted with a single brush. Denying the figure in my work would be as stupid as to deny the truly abstract.

This appears to lock me out of both camps.

So be it.

[rderr.com]

Chere Anne and Dear Araich

Hear! Hear!

I am a Sculpter PERIOD. If I need a horse I abstract from the material "what is not horse". Thank you, Mike. If I need "This is not a horse", I take away all that is horse. Thank you Rene. If I need the concept of a horse, perhaps the perfume of oats 24hrs. later is sufficent. Thank you, what is the Englishman's name? If I need a box, hopefully it is to stand on to see over the horizon.

ps Araich

Do you know Herge(le problem d'accent encore, Anne) the nom de plume of Tintin's creator George Remy inverted RG.

Ardor

[Araich]

Originally posted by rderr.com
ps Araich

Do you know Herge(le problem d'accent encore, Anne) the nom de plume of Tintin's creator George Remy inverted RG.

Ardor Lol, yeah, but I read it 'her-gh'. That's a good parrallel however to 'ar-aich' - which doubtless gets read differently to.

-

Amongst certain abstract sculptors here in Sydney, there is a compulsion to destroy the figure in their work, whenever it appears. Often, because of human nature, the vaguest similarity to a figure can be seen, causing a complete rethink of the work. Such as having a block element high on the sculpture could appear as a head.

I think this is a kind of madness, and quite infectious I might add.

[anne (bxl)]

as long as our civilisation will stay anthropocentrist, we all will have the reflex to search anthropomorphics interpretations in artwork. it doesn't mean that everythink is figurative.

(bob : amazing you refer to tintin as I am living 2 blocks from hergé's home and as my dog is very much like snowy...)

[rderr.com]

Chere Anne

Tu habit Bousvalt? Or however it is spelt.

[Victoria]

Hello Australia
Rh wrote;
Amongst certain abstract sculptors here in Sydney....

I visited your country in the early 70's and lived in Brisbane, Queensland for 3 years. What a great country for promotion of the arts. I got my first opportunity to exhibit my work in Australia. Would have loved to have settled in Sydney. Alas, it was not to be.

Regarding your "infectious" comment. There will always be more little indians than there are big chiefs but in Australia I guess it is "more sheep than rams?". Enjoyed your post.

[rderr.com]

If I may bring us back to the topic, since I led us away. I contend there is no figurative or abstract. There is only the metaphor and its appropriate material and style. The addressed audience will be captured only by what it brings to the show. Sometimes in human history there are those that add to the pool of symbols, and the audience goes away with a new “word” in their vocabulary.

The photo is of work in progress and is illustrative of what I hope to explain. The work goes from the very anthropomorphic “Mike’s Chaise with God and Adam” to the artnouveaudecoitaloscandinavain “Thing” in bent wood, and several whimsical things such as “La Chaise” (chair is a female noun in French), “The Art Crawler”, in the background, and “Rocking Chaise”. (Ps a friend has done a “Rock in Chair”.) What I wish to say is that each time the material and style are integral to the subject. Thank you to all those who have added a word here and there to the human symbol.

[icreate]

Being new to the group I should probably just sit here and listen but....

"When I asked one artist if she was a member of the ISC she responded: "But I'm a figurative sculptor!" "

I must say that my responce would have been the exact same thing. I subscribed to the sculpture magazine years ago. I let my subscription go for that very reason,and I belive my membership. I did not feel that it represented figurative work, or should I say that it was on rare occasions that I would see something in there that did, besides the ads in the back for foundries.

I can remember wishing there was another magazine and organization that specialized in figurative work.

Recently when someone told me about Ron Mueck and his work that was featured in July/august issue of the magazine I thought that certainly they were mistaken. I was pleased to see that it was true.

So as it may be true that there is a lot of representation of figurative work in the organization, within the magazine it is not as apparent, and that is what is in the eye of those who would reply with the same ignorance that the two of us have.

[fritchie]

Two things here, First, Bob - I have heard what you may consider a variation on your contention that “there is no figurative or abstract”, namely that all figuration is abstract. However, I think the two statements point in very different directions.

I agree with the second one. It says that we as human artists simply cannot reproduce what is present in a living person, and we therefore must abstract a portion of reality in order to present it. However, figuration as a category is well defined and the definition is helpful, it seems to me. Figuration in art simply is art which refers to the figure, however realistic or abstracted it may be.

My second comment regards the position of ISC and the art world in general vis-a-vis figurative sculpture. I have had and often have commented on the same feeling that these groups tended to ignore figuration. However, the art world in general now is paying much more attention to the figure, both in sculpture and in painting. ISC and “Sculpture” are doing the same.

[Araich]

I've looked back through my issues of Sculpture - there is a huge amount of figurative work represented.

I suspect when the word figurative is used here, it is often meant as realist figurative. And this will always be but a part of the larger sculpture community.

Even when the figure plays a huge part in current sculpture overall.

[fritchie]

Araich - I'm sure you're right about people here using the term to mean realistic figurative. Clearly that is the type of work, if not meaning of the term, I favor. Although I believe I said in replying to a question about defining the figure, that anything referring to the human figure or even to human activity could be figurative, very shortly afterward, I regretted that statement as being too broad.

I accept cubist renderings of the figure, and forms in cut or welded sheet or pipe, but I think realism offers the sculptor a deeper palette. It gives the viewer more, if the artist is good. Other forms are akin to dream in a way - they active the viewer’s imagination, but give less direct input.

[rderr.com]

Fritchie

I see no difference either in the direction or substance of what you or I have written You are quite right, we, as visual artist, abstract what is in our field of vision, modify it to present our vision. . The eventual difference could be “la raison d’être”. There are several “rasions”; to be the first at the table, first in bed, first at the Charmin, or first with a question All art is provocation. The rest is decoration. And, all art is an abstraction. Thus “figuration” is the “realist “ sub class of abstraction. I suppose what needs be defined is “non-figurative” abstraction. Have a go at it youall on the “other side”.

As to the second reflection what will dominate (if domination is a real question) History only is judge. In the “present” (now, past and future) two things always float, cream and shit.

Art is provocative

[sculptor]

........"an undervalued elite"....
yea----uh huh that'll do.

[sculptor]

As example, New Orleans is a celebrated international city and has in its downtown area three large bronzes of French, Spanish, and British figures, each donated by the respective country or one of its principal cities. The figures are Joan of Arc (France), Winston Churchill (Britain), and Bernardo de Galvez (Spain; he was probably the best of Louisiana’s Spanish governors). I may have missed something, but I examined each of these sculptures carefully a decade or so ago when I began sculpting seriously, in order to see who made them, and I failed to find the sculptor in each case.

The same thing has happened with more recent pieces. Media carefully note the sculptors of nonfigurative work when this is erected, but in almost all cases, ignore the sculptor of figurative pieces. As I say, I think the media are following the herd of art critics, and deliberately downplay figuration. Figurative artists seem to be placed in the same category as the engineers who certify structural integrity of a building, or the workers who erect it, and not in the creative category of architect or abstract sculptor.

Perhaps there is a concept barrier between figurative sculpture and statuary--it seems that michaelangelo was miffed when someone referred to him as a maker of statues---even Frederick Hart had no luck in generating reviews of his work.

[fritchie]

Perhaps there is a concept barrier between figurative sculpture and statuary--it seems that michaelangelo was miffed when someone referred to him as a maker of statues---even Frederick Hart had no luck in generating reviews of his work.

I had to look back at my statement you quoted, to see the context. Over the 15 or so years I have worked in sculpture, I have had a shift in my own view of public monuments, more or less to the position that in general they don’t really qualify as “sculpture” in the same way that other figures may. That, of course, invites a line to be drawn in some way, and I’m not ready to set the line. Portraiture in 3D, similarly, may not qualify as “sculpture”, depending on the treatment.

It is this line of thinking that led me to say somewhere, earlier, that I don’t consider the Statue of Liberty to be art or “sculpture”, though I respect it as an international gift and as a symbol of liberty or freedom.

All this leads to a fuzzy position in logic. All nonrepresentational 3D objects, considered as objects, are either craft or art, and the largest ones typically are considered art, irrespective of “quality”. On the other hand, the largest figural objects typically are considered craft, and generally it is smaller work which is classed as “art”. Unless, that is, the creator is officially blessed by the art establishment, where large figurative works may be “art”.

At this point in time, I think I have to fall back on the old saws, “Art is in the eye of the beholder”, and “Caveat emptor”.

[Gdog]

"A man is what he thinks about all day long"
Ralph Waldo Emerson Man what a great quote R.W.E. is the best, I've been inspired by this man a hundred and some years my prior countless times, what a spirit he was! He says '' when I read Plato time is no more" and I feel the same way, when I read Emerson, He was sculptor of words!

I apologize for go'in off the path, it seems to be one of my tendencies.

What's up fritchie?

[JAZ]

Why is the discussion about classification rather than form, color, texture, negative space? I was under the impression that art defies classification/neat description/pigeonholing. If there is a rule in art it is to break it. For example, if figuration means literally, art that involves the figure, how does one "classify" a sculpture of a raven or a teacup? Is it realism as opposed to figuration as opposed to abstraction? It makes no sense to worry about one exclusive of the other. Art is an expression of something new, some new visual way of looking at any aspect of life. There are no boundaries.

[rderr.com]

Why is the discussion about classification rather than form...There are no boundaries.


Bravo

Robert

[fritchie]

Why is the discussion about classification rather than form, color, texture, negative space? I was under the impression that art defies classification/neat description/pigeonholing. .... truncated ...

There also is humanity, or is art inhuman?

[JAZ]

There also is humanity, or is art inhuman?

Art is very human. It can be about the human form, or a metaphor for human experience, or an allegory or abstraction or a conceptual piece. No matter how hard the artist tries to de-senitmentalize it, it's impossible to escape the connection with some aspect of human experience. My point is that all of what all of us can conceive of is figurative in the sense that it is always about some aspect of us, of what it is to be human in this world. And at the same time all of it is abstract in the sense that everything that we make is automatically an invented form, a newly created entity. Even if it looks exactly like something specific, some human form, it is not in fact that form, that figure. It is something "else". Categorizing is useful for indexes in books and for labelling in a gallery, but philosophically the categories don't actually matter. I don't care whether the art I'm looking represents a human, an object, or an invented form. What concerns me is whether I see something in it that is new to me. Sculpture reliant on the human form can be very meaningful if it brings some new aspect of the figure forward. Abstraction can be very meaningful if it adds something new to our experience. The bottom line is what is added to what we already knew.

[ALH]

I just spent ten minutes scrolling through this conversation (time well wasted). This topic 'do those guys have the upper hand or are we still on top and who are they and what are we' is very popular throughout the arts - for good reason.

Much of the money and prestige that fuels an artists studio is dependent on a shadowy 'elite' that chooses winners and losers

[so if I find myself on a jury I guess that’s me].

We compliment their brilliant foresight and good taste when they pick us, or those whose work we like, and rage against their unbelievable stupidity when they reject us, choosing instead something we can't stomach. When those decisions add up to an obvious trend (I almost never see a bias admitted to, either way) then I think its fair to question that.

Spending time to put in a proposal to some opportunity that will simply reject your 'type of art' out of hand is frustrating but part of the game, unfortunately. Being noticed beats being ignored in the arts obviously.

As to the discomfort with descriptive categories, I don't see a problem with it. We do our best with the language we have. I use the word 'figurative' all the time but so do artists (quite correctly) who do very different work. There's a limit on how specific you can be, I suppose.

I often stumble around with words (like the almost useless 'contemporary' in the context of art) which have a popular meaning that I disagree with. I just have to make the distinction between what I mean and someone else may understand me to mean, if you know what I mean - I just forgot what I meant.

By the way I'm a;

non food producing/craft specialist/art/sculpture/european/figurative

for the record

[fritchie]

// truncated //... What concerns me is whether I see something in it that is new to me. Sculpture reliant on the human form can be very meaningful if it brings some new aspect of the figure forward. Abstraction can be very meaningful if it adds something new to our experience. ... The bottom line is what is added to what we already knew.

I agree with much of this, but with the caveats added earlier, and with some reservations about your reference to “the figure”, as though there is one. We each know different things, and we see things very differently. In a perfect world, perhaps in infinity, all “art” might be available for each soul to study, contemplate and evaluate. In this world, resources and attention matter, or that infinity of art won’t be created.

The criteria you posted earlier, “form, color, texture, negative space” and so on largely are irrelevant to the human figure or to any other natural object. These animate forms were developed by one, two, three, seven, or four thousand million years of change, depending on the chosen starting point. What they say, each individual one of them, (and clearly I choose to focus on human forms) is the subject of figurative art. It is contemporary criticism, in the official sense, that equates a human form with a cube or a sphere. I see an infinity of difference, and of value.

[ALH]

Sculptures of George Bush and Alassane Ouattara in a fetal position wearing body armour would both be roughly the same shape. The formal elements would be a matched set. The choice of subject, Bush or Ouattara would, however, make a vast difference in meaning.

Even the type of body armour, U.S. current, French Napoleonic, would alter the flavour of the final piece.

Formal elements matter in representative work but the subject (which can be absent in other categories of sculpture) carries a lot of baggage.

PS. I’m not picking on these two gentlemen, just using known examples from current events.

[sculptor]

as/re the original
"figurative sculptors are an overlooked underclass or an undervalued elite"
and the "both" reply

I agree with the both, and that 2 "figure sculptors" may have completely dissimilar approaches, desires, visions, and outcomes. The deliniating point is a taking off point which directly or indirectly, photorealisticly or metaphorically has to do with a real, or conceived ideal, figure(and i tend to think human). Then, complete or fragment, hair, clothes, realistic, stylized or idealized with variance in form, + or - space, color, etc..are all within the realm.

I had posted "tiptoeing timorously toward....."
wherein: I was declaring a perceived beginning tendency for public art venues to explore showing and supporting the figurative after what I had perceived as a tyranny of modern art. (some of which, I find absolutely fascinating)

So I was wondering if after 20odd years of plugging away at this, I was just reaping some feedback, or if this is a broader trend (U.S. midwest, or worldwide) to a new renaissance for the figure.

[JAZ]

....
The criteria you posted earlier, “form, color, texture, negative space” and so on largely are irrelevant to the human figure or to any other natural object. These animate forms were developed by one, two, three, seven, or four thousand million years of change, depending on the chosen starting point....
True for the human form itself, but I was referring to sculpture of the human form. What is it that sets a Rodin or Michaelangelo apart from the work of a sculptor who also gets the proportions right, but whose work is missing that particular something that we recognize a genius? Wouldn't it be something about the way the figure was shown, the choices the artist made about what to emphasize and minimize, the way the surface looks fleshy or smooth, the particular position the artist had the model pose in to make him or her look natural and unposed and to gain a certain effect, the media he chose with its own surface texture and color?
I don't know much at all about making figurative sculpture, so I should probably have stayed out of this whole discussion. But as an art patron I do have some experience. And when I look at figurative works some seem ordinary and others have emotional power, or something that is memorable. And it usually has something to do with the artist's skill in one of the above mentioned properties. There are two monuments to historical figures in the town where my studio is. Both of them look like the person they depict, both have good proportion, both are bronze, both are "figurative" in the traditional sense. Yet I think one of them is clearly better than the other.

[fritchie]

True for the human form itself, but I was referring to sculpture of the human form. What is it that sets a Rodin or Michaelangelo apart from the work of a sculptor who also gets the proportions right, but whose work is missing that particular something that we recognize a genius? ...

After about fifteen years of actually working in sculpture, exclusively with the figure, I have set myself the chief target of vitality, with secondary but still nearly essential targets of believability, expressiveness, and probably a sense of personality. Certainly, texture, color, negative space, and so on have their place, but they seem to me clearly secondary in sculpting the human figure, and probably in sculpting any other living entities.

We all know that a war was fought over the direction of sculpture, and of art in general, more or less in the 1940's and 1950's; following an earlier one in the 1870's and 1880's, and I'm not trying to reopen the campaign, but I think these dicta simply are misleading with respect to figuration.

The thing that struck me most on seeing Michelangelo’s David in Florence, and his Moses in Rome for the first time many years ago when I was about 23, was the energy level, or the sense of vitality contained in the figures. The same can be said for his other figures in both places and for the two Slaves in Paris. Rodin’s work, especially his bronzes, carry much of the same sense of energy and vitality, but to my eye his marbles do not.

Of course, the bronzes were taken directly from his own clays, but the marbles were carved by assistants or technicians. In defense of these various others, marble is quite a different medium, and the smoother finish, which removes much of Rodin’s sense of energy, probably is required in marble. (Here one does see the effect of medium, color, and so on, and to my eye, at least, the classically preferred marble is inferior.)

We could go on over these issues, probably to the benefit of many, but let’s take it a step or two at a time.

[sculptor]

, I have set myself the chief target of vitality, with secondary but still nearly essential targets of believability, expressiveness, and probably a sense of personality. Certainly, texture, color, negative space, and so on have their place, but they seem to me clearly secondary in sculpting the human figure, and probably in sculpting any other living entities.

We could go on over these issues, probably to the benefit of many, but let’s take it a step or two at a time.

Vitality--("the peculiarity distinguishing the living from the nonliving")--a seeming life force, the persuit of which proclaims a true virtue in an approach to the art. It may be just a tad more communicable in a dynamic pose. ergo the contrapotal of many of the masters. It seems that Michaelangely tried to isolate the vision of a point in time for the character which embodied the decisive moment in a prelude to action, if not capturing an active moment as in the slaves.

My goal is the same.

as/re the focus on form:
Form first--- then the secondaries?

Often, it seems that these "secondary" attributes can enhance or aid in the persuit of the goal. For me, anyway, the basic form is like a house with no paint, rugs, curtains or furnature.

[jfmenna]

I don't know, I studied classical "figurative sculpture" and drawing for 8years at the University of the Arts, the Pennsylvannia Acedemy of Fine Arts, the New York Academy Graduate School of Figurative Art, the Art Students League, the Scupture Center, and a few more(believe it or not!). None of these places seemed to have the secret of "it". I was obsessed with learning the figure, drawing and sculpting from the living model and plaster casts a minimum of 40 plus hours a week.There was a constant divide between "figurative" and "non-figurative" artists in most of these schools. I had a Russian born sculptor as a mentor for many years (Leonid Lerman) and finally decided to go study where he did. I saved money waiting tables in NYC for a while and wound up at the Russian Academy in St.Petersburg, Russian (formerly known as the Mukhina Institute). The two years I spent there changed my life. In Russia, EVERYONE can sculpt the figure, knows anatomy, can draw, etc. Guys who can sculpt like 19th century masters are a DIME A DOZEN, really. The funny thing is that no one cares. Artists there understand that all that matters is making good sculpture whether its abstract, figurative, whatever. The important thing is to be creative. The same essential principals which drive good sculpture are universal, from the eternal gazes of the pharoahs, to the wood carvings of the congo, to Noguchi's perfect fountain in the Met. In a democracy like ours, anything goes and believe it or not there's room for all of us artists no matter what club we belong to.I think a really good book for anyone, figurative or otherwise is called Henry Moore on Sculpture. It's out of print but can be found online. It is a veritable bible of sculpture and belongs in every artist's library. BTW if any of you guys ever go to the Grounds For Sculpture, check out my piece at Rat's (Daphne) or my 30 foot tall statue of John Henry at the park's Sculpture Along the Way exhibit (Shameless self promotion!).

[jfmenna]

Oh yeah, I work at the Johnson Atlelier for Mr.J.Seward Johnson and a bunch of other clients... the originator of this thread is right, Tom Otterness is a good guy! I met him a few weeks ago and man, was this guy down to earth and just plain cool. At my time at the Atelier I have met a bunch of big time artists like Seward Johnson, Red Grooms,Kiki Smith and many, many more. In my experience it seems like the people who have really made it (and are secure enough to handle that kind of success) are really cool and eminently approachable. Most of these folks also really appreciate the successes they've had and seem to empathize with the position those of us who haven't had our names in lights yet are in....for now! It's always the wannabees and name droppers who seem to stick there noses up or have some "issues". Life is so short, and the time available to work is so precious (at least for me raising two kids on a sculptor's salary!)...who's got time for bad attitudes?!?!

[jwebb]

Amen. And well said, jfmenna. Welcome aboard here, and I look forward to you posting some work.

[fritchie]

Oh yeah, I work ..... It's always the wannabees and name droppers who seem to stick there noses up or have some "issues". Life is so short, and the time available to work is so precious (at least for me raising two kids on a sculptor's salary!)...who's got time for bad attitudes?!?!

At the risk of severe lambasting and in light of your evaluation of the situation in Russia, let me compare figurative sculpture and figurative sculptors in the U. S. with that of political minority communities.

As you have related, (if I understand your comments correctly) essentially all the figurative sculptors you met in the U. S., where figuration more or less has been frowned on for a half century, see a wide gap between figuration and nonfiguration, but “abstractionists” see the world of sculpture as a continuum and regard categories as distracting. In Russia, where figuralists are “a dime a dozen”, or, I assume, a large plurality if not a majority, they also see sculpture as a continuum. Seems to me people are reacting to the presence or absence of critical recognition and economic opportunity.

I totally agree with you that good people will find a way to do whatever they are able to do. However, that clearly is only part of the story. The world is poorer when opportunity is foreclosed prejudicially. My early, student travels in Europe left me with a feeling that the U. S. sculptural world is impoverished in comparison. I have said to myself that their public inventory has been built over anywhere from several hundred to several thousand years, while we have had about two hundred at most, with much of that devoted to simply making a living. And, I’d like to see greater opportunity in the U. S. for figurative sculpture.

[ALH]

" My early, student travels in Europe left me with a feeling that the U. S. sculptural world is impoverished in comparison. I have said to myself that their public inventory has been built over anywhere from several hundred to several thousand years, while we have had about two hundred at most..."

I was thinking, while reading this (above) that I really am an ethnic artist. The work I make limps directly out of the Western European tradition. I don't even see American (Canadian for that matter) figurative work as distinct from the European, 'they all look the same to me'.

Sometimes I feel like a banjo player, no matter how innovative - how contemporary, it's still banjo music... But then who can say no to banjo music?

[fritchie]

" My early, student travels in Europe ... I was thinking, while reading this (above) that I really am an ethnic artist. The work I make limps directly out of the Western European tradition. I don't even see American (Canadian for that matter) figurative work as distinct from the European, 'they all look the same to me'.

Sometimes I feel like a banjo player, no matter how innovative - how contemporary, it's still banjo music... But then who can say no to banjo music?

Well said. Alan, and thanks for the image. It made me revisit your site, and the work is excellent! I am trying to bring the figure up to date and put it in a current, American context, and it is clear, despite your statement, that you are doing some of the same, particularly in your utilitarian works. Keep up the “Nontradition”!

[jfmenna]

I heard an old Armenian proverb which says something like " the empty can floating down the river makes the most noise." Kinda cool, huh? :p

[anne (bxl)]

I really am an ethnic artist. The work I make limps directly out of the Western European tradition. I don't even see American (Canadian for that matter) figurative work as distinct from the European, 'they all look the same to me'.

Of course american and european realistic figuration are the same. They both have the same origin : the ancient greek art expand to Europe through the Roma empire and then expand to America through the settlers.

Ethnic indian or inuit figurative art is very specific and still very active but european ethnic art died about 2000 years ago (with the expansion of the greek/roman art).

And Fritchie, you're right, I guess there are more opportunities for figurative sculpture in US than in Europe. Maybe are we a bit tired of 20 centuries of realistic figurative art ;-)

jfmenna said "In Russia, EVERYONE can sculpt the figure, knows anatomy, can draw, etc. Guys who can sculpt like 19th century masters are a DIME A DOZEN, really. The funny thing is that no one cares."
Well, for 70 years or so, they had no choice but to learn and copy the tradition without beiing creative! Luckily russian artists and others from all those ex-communist countries (including China) arrive now on the international art market with stunning innovative works.
btw, jfmenna, what a great experience to have done so!

[fritchie]

[QUOTE=anne (bxl)] ......... And Fritchie, you're right, I guess there are more opportunities for figurative sculpture in US than in Europe. Maybe are we a bit tired of 20 centuries of realistic figurative art ;-) ......
/QUOTE]

Wow! It’s even worse for figurative sculpture in Europe than in the U. S.?? What a sad tale! Outside the midlands (Mississippi valley, principally), and the Southwest, opportunities for public figurative sculpture are rare here. Reasons may be fashion, certainly relative cost of production, and the sort of internal art wars that accompanied the birth of Impressionism in the late 1800's and modernism in the early and mid 1900's.

Things will roll on, and good work will be done in all fields, but I do hate to see nearly all talent diverted from the figurative field, especially with a principal reason being lack of opportunity in the schools. Beginning students generally are at the mercy of local educational facilities, because many simply don’t know what is possible, or the extent of their potential ability. I guess that’s life!

[ExNihiloStudio]

Did anyone notice all the figural sculpture in any of the Lord of the Rings movies? I saw all 3, and I went to the third one with the intention of looking for sculpture in the scenes. If you look for it you’ll see lots of statuary in the background. Most of it seemed to convey a medieval or gothic sensibility.

[ALH]

"Did anyone notice all the figural sculpture in any of the Lord of the Rings movies?"

I did! Some of it was terrific - a big head on it's side stuck out for me. Much of it seemed to lack a certain coherence though - the sense that it all belonged to a particular view of the world (dwarves/elves etc.). The sculptures, as part of the sets, in this type of movie can communicate a great deal about the overall setting being sold to the viewer (this being a completely fabricated world).

A very cool job would be to cast the artists who would create such a fantasy world, maybe a remake of the Wizard of OZ with Rona Pondick and Andy Goldsworthy?

[daniel baharier]

I am a figurative sculptor in Israel.I or we are considered not artists especially after the large influx of russian arists who for want of a better word are in the academic tradition.My work by critics and curators is considered less than people who work in life casts and the galleries dont want my work because its not cmmercial enough.Nine years ago I did the then largest commission in Israel twenty four figures from two and a half to three and a half meters high no critic no reports etc.I have just completed the second of seventeen outdoor sculptures for the Wingate Institute an internationaly renown sports institute no interest from the press plus my peers at the organisation for proffessional artists turned down my application for membership on the grounds of not enough art education[5 years no degree] or exhibitons[first exhibition 1979] I have taught since 1985 at different colleges and privatley.Some of my students are members. Who said we are an elite?

[sculptor]

Hi Daniel........welcome

I'm posting a link to your one work that I found on-line..(we speak in images here) 1 (http://www.tchelet.co.il/sherover/ArtistWorks.asp?PageNum=1&ArtistID=1320)


Would you care to tell us about it

and
post more

as/re critics .
..Don't feel too put out.....Frederick Hart,one of the U.S.leading figurative artists of the last century, bitterly complained that he got no critical mentions for his openings nor public monuments.

as/re : " Who said we are an elite?"
I had thought that that was a given-----a glaring example of how being an elite doesn't necessarily translate into fame nor fortune.

...accept criticism from those whose arogance is supported by their work.....

at least-"....second of seventeen..." --you have work---

I look forward to seing more of yours

rod(sculptor) (http://www.artwanted.com/images/large/4318_63939.jpg )

[fritchie]

Daniel - Thanks for giving us another report on this subject, and Rod, thanks for the image. I did a Google search and didn't even find that one. Daniel, can you provide more links? I’d like to see more also. As Rod said, the reward of good work isn’t necessarily fame and fortune in one’s own time. It may be simply the satisfaction of knowing you have done well.

[ALH]

It was mentioned a couple of times that figurative sculptors didn't get press (serious/informed/any) on public works or show openings.

I may be wrong on this, in general, but I don't see much non-representational work getting press (serious/informed/any) either. If anything a public work with a figure will find its way into the 'Lifestyles' section of the paper, with someone in shorts eating an ice cream and sitting on it to give a sense of scale most often.

God knows I love to complain but I don't see any one approach to art running away with all the attention. {With one exception - any work that can create a controversy will be picked up in all the popular press with the inevitable angle on what a waste of taxpayer dollars it all is}. The 'ART Press' seems to have settled into distinct bubbles (with some overlapping venues). If you want leaping rodeo bronzes or rose petal/razorblade installations you simply purchase the appropriate magazine (chocolate or vanilla take your pick).

-pet peeve-
Where I'm from images of public art in the media are almost never accompanied with an acknowledgement of the artist responsible, figurative or otherwise. - then again, architects don't get free press when a building is shown either so maybe I'm just being precious here.

[fritchie]

ALH - I may be the person who started this "no media exposure for figurative artists” topic, so let me say a bit more here. I mainly was describing the situation in New Orleans, where the one daily paper has a Friday art column that routinely devotes about 1 ½ to 2 pages (in magazine format) to art reviews, with pictures, and where a free weekly devotes about 1 - 1 ½ pages to the same subject. The former almost never gives attention to figurative sculpture, but raves about anything abstract or trendy. The latter is much more balanced, but also is heavy on abstract, plus “out-of-the-ordinary” work or galleries.

It’s been informative (Isn’t that why we use this forum?) to see other comments on this subject. We’ve had descriptions now about the situation in Russia and Israel, and from many across the U. S. Russ has said that in Missouri he gets little press with his abstract pieces.

All in all, I’ve settled into the routine that most artists probably do - work as you will and let the world catch on later, if it will.

[JAZ]

.... All in all, I’ve settled into the routine that most artists probably do - work as you will and let the world catch on later, if it will.
Amen, Fritchie. But we can also try to change the situation. Ever since you brought this up I have noticed that figurative works of public art usually don't have any indication of the artist's name and often the only text on the base or accompanying plaque commemorates the donors, city officials, or whatever. However, in a sculpture park or exhibit, new figurative work does get credit for the sculptor. For example, tonight I posted ten images from Grounds for Sculpture in the web Gallery and the figurative ones are identified. However, there was an exhibit also at Grounds for Sculpture of photographs of sculptures in a Polish cemetary and those bore the names of the photographer and the deceased person the sculpture honored, but not the artist. Perhaps this is because they were done at a time when this was normal, and becasue the sculptures had a function? It still isn't fair, though. And I find it very surprising.

[jwebb]

I find this whole argument strange and, frankly, it's getting tiresome. Up until half way through the 20th Century, virtually all sculpture was "figurative", except for some Symbols and decoration. And sculptors, as well as painters, etc., had to fight like hell to legitimize any other kind of Art. This anti-figurative prejudice you guys feel, if it exists, is quite recent, and not all that widespread. In most of the U.S. it is still the case that the majority of the "public" considers abstract or non-representational work to be just more or less the product of ego trips by self-styled artists who can't render the figure. In fact, some of that opinion seems to be very shallowly veiled among some of you figure freaks. I do figurative as well as figurative-abstract, and abstract work, and some which I cannot even classify in words myself. My own mother, at 90, walked into my studio and said, "...and what's this junk?" My brother gets all embarrassed about how he "just doesn't understand abstraction". Don't try to understand it, I tell him. Just look at it. It's Visual Art, not some puzzle. It's quite ok that different people are receptive to different kinds of sculpture. Damned if I think I've gotten the recognition I deserve, either, but I see sculptors flourishing in a very wide range. So I take responsibility for the fact that it may just be something to do with the Quality of my work, rather than prejudice on the part of everybody else.

[rderr.com]

I find this whole argument strange and, frankly... So I take responsibility for the fact that it may just be something to do with the Quality( should be underlinded) :) of my work, rather than prejudice on the part of everybody else.


Hear Hear... In life two things always float, cream and shit.

Robert

[sculptor]

anecdotal:

Once upon a time, and a very long time ago it was:
A friend called and asked
"do you get the trib?"
"yeh"
"Have you seen the Fridays section?"
"No, I just got home a little while ago"
"Open it up................."
"OK"
and I did, and there on the front page, full page was DONNA----full frontal nudity and all.............yippee
.......at the bottom of the page, was the photographers name, and a blurb about our art-fair.........(I'm thinking......"sculpted by that crazy guy who no-one ever talks about.......that crazy anonymous guy blessed with no name)
ok so I called the photographer and asked her about it-------she didn't know it had been published---though she sounded pleased----(and she is a very good photographer) In response to my "Why?"..she said..."probably a slow news day"
next year, they did the same thing with Angelicus------and 2 regional papers picked up on the pictures and story of the artfair.....

.....Why should I complain?......

So...........I was here in Iowa getting no press and feeling ignored...so I called the local paper and asked if they'd care to do a story about me and actually mention my name.....small chatting time and I said...OK I just e-mailed you some pictures.....small chatting as he downloaded....then he said "Sure, when can we meet".......
"How's tomorrow look for you?"
"I'm free in the afternoon"
"OK, how about 2ish"
"That would be good"
.................bla,bla,bla (and some pictures)......he recalled and came early, and we sat on the balcony after a tour of the studio and sculptures, for a 2 hr interview.............
so.........he gave me 2 pages and published 4 photographs......I had obviously strayed way off topic on some of my rambling stream of consciousness rapps...so philosophy and personal history were not neglected......
...........a couple years later................
I called another local paper..........This time, the reporter brought her photographer.....
...........a year later, I called another local paper....twice.....then the story repeated-----------the local papers avoided publishing frontal nudity, so some of the pieces were shot from peculiar angles.....

Why should I complain?

To this day, I meet local people who remember the articles---e.g.: today a local photographer called in response to my call for models, and said that she remembered the article.

seems lots of artists want the attention of art critics---and that is what I had understood from the post by Daniel Bahrain of the 29th.
Ergo the Hart reference.

I e-mailed the publisher of the Iowa art paper----and included pix links and a bit of a blurb about the travels with ISIS------he emailed and called back and said he wanted to do a story of the work and me this autumn..............

from the above.......it would seem that even an offbeat eccentric rural recluse of an artist can garner press with a couple phone calls and e-mails...
....and....the attention of a good staff photographer and a slow news day...(a.k.a. blind luck)

and then........there's dozens of e-zines hungry for a little story here and there....... e.g.: all about art, another sun, arteutile, .............

........I'm sure there's a moral in this story .........somewhere..........

[fritchie]

I find this whole argument strange and, frankly, it's getting tiresome. Up until half way through the 20th Century, virtually all sculpture was "figurative", except for some Symbols and decoration. ...

As I posted elsewhere here recently, only about 10% in jest, “Vive la difference.” I wholeheartedly endorse what I consider good “abstract” sculpture, but in my view those pieces are about as rare as Michelangelo, Rodin, and some of the Classical Greeks in figurative work. OK, not as rare, since we probably have a world and also art-active population 50 to several hundred times as large as the comparable groups 120, 500, or 2500 years ago, when they respectively were working.

I do think it is objectively true that the press, at least here, and by repute elsewhere, generally ignores figurative work in favor of “abstract” work. The cause - vogue, trendiness, snob value, residuum of the 1870 - 1950 art wars over subject matter, whatever? As I stated above, I decided some time ago to travel my own road. But I do thank JAZ for the openmindedness to see that there might be a case here, and I also admire her for her sense of mission in making opportunities better for all.

[jwebb]

Fritchie, as I've said before, I love your work. And I also have great respect for all the wisdom you contribute to these pages on such a wide variety of topics. However, I think you're all wet on this one. If the press or the establishment there or anywhere is paying undue attention to "abstract" work they are A.) about 50 years late, and B.) probably trying to make up for having ignored the abstractionists they're featuring completely, while they were ALIVE. I think it's true that the popular press focuses on the outrageous prices being paid lately at auctions, a lot of which is for works by early 20th Century "modern" artists. That's clearly all about "names" rather than appreciation of artistic merit. Even the American "Art press" is more about big sales and big Collectors and big administrators of big museums and collections, than it is about Art. But I do not accept that representational, figurative sculptors get less attention / credit / adulation than "non-representational" ones. My experience - all around the country - is quite the opposite.

[fritchie]

Fritchie, as I've said before, I love your work. And I also have ..........However, I think you're all wet on this one. ....... My experience - all around the country - is quite the opposite.

jwebb - I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this one. The local art reviews to which I have referred are about local galleries. They rarely mention the national art scene. And, comments dispersed throughout the forum, not only in this particular thread, suggest to me that my perception is a common one among figurative sculptors nationally.

Close to the beginning of this Community about a year ago. Russ ( I think) relayed some comments he’d heard from figurative sculptors across the country, to the effect that “I thought ISC was for [abstract] sculptors only!”

And I do think the quality issue regarding “abstract” sculptures is a real one, thought not one I want to push. Very few people in any field reach the pinnacle, but I think the “fine art” press of today is quite lax in serious review of “abstract” work. It mainly serves as a promotional tool.

[RuBert]

I suppose it partly depends on what your definition of figurative work is. Recently I was at the Whitney Biennial 2004 in New York and just about everything had some link to the representational, sometimes including the human figure and sometimes not. But defiantly not abstract - actually I don't think most of the work would fit fritche's pure definitions of figurative or abstraction.

But for this Biennial, lines have formed going out the door and it has gotten lots of press by any measure. A friend of mine that likes more classically figurative work didn't much like the show. Another friend who does abstract work also didn't like the show. However the show is a success, and has generated a audience that likes this almost pop work that pays reference to a large number of figurative and cultural elements.

This question about who gets the most press seems inflammatory at best especially as referenced to what any individual believes "good" art is.

The grass must always look greener on the other side of the fence.

[sculptor]

Just a curiosity...

Can anyone here name one national or New Youk Art Critic who writes about the figurative as fritchie or I would define the figurative?

as/re Lot's bargain.........name just one

[fritchie]

I suppose it partly depends on what your definition of figurative work is. Recently I was at the Whitney Biennial 2004 in New York and just about everything had some link to the representational, sometimes including the human figure and sometimes not. But defiantly not abstract - actually I don't think most of the work would fit fritchie's pure definitions of figurative or abstraction. Etc.

Russ - Can you post a link to this show? (Of course, I could look it up and probably will if you don’t beat me there. Each of the many times I’ve been to NY, I ‘ve made the Whitney an early stop, sometimes liking what I see and sometimes finding the whole visit a waste of time. One thing about this place - they certainly are experimental. I’ve not looked at national art magazines for several years because of more pressing matters, but I think the Whitney’s annual “new art” show a couple of years ago was widely panned.

What is the critical vies of this one? Or has a consensus formed yet?

[RuBert]

Hi Charles, we also had a bit of a discussion going before about the Whitney show here: Is Sculpture Too Free for Its Own Good? (http://sculpture.net/community/showthread.php?t=876)

There is a site for the show, but it is very different to look at than the show itself. It is here and you need flash: http://www.whitney.org/biennial/flash/poplg.php

I know you are broad minded about definitions pertaining to the very nature of art, and don't just see all sculpture as just fitting just two categories. The other end of the spectrum is to create a new category for every "ism" there is, however that only pigeonholes art in a different way.

[fritchie]

I suppose it partly depends on what your definition of figurative work is. ........

This question about who gets the most press seems inflammatory at best especially as referenced to what any individual believes "good" art is.

The grass must always look greener on the other side of the fence.

Russ - On this point, you might change the title of this thread to something like ”Media and Criticism”, as that’s the main issue discussed here. Or you could just shelve is as inactive if you prefer. Most of the major issues have been aired. “Abstractionists” don’t see things the same way, but the question of current critical reception is a significant one for figurative sculptors. Many have moved to the “Western” or “Wildlife“ arenas because of deflection by “high art” critics and media.

Sorry I didn’t connect the essay on the nature of sculpture to this Whitney show. As I said at the beginning of that thread, I decided to blow off the essay as superfluous. I guess I’ll have to read it now. So much for titles!

[ironman]

Hi everyone, First of all, I'd like to say that I totally agree with JWebb on this subject. The art going public (who you'd think were knowledgeable) looks at non-objective (a better term than "abstract") sculpture and says "What is that?". They think that we do non-obj work because we can't do the other. Well I can, but choose not to! I find that doing non-obj sculpture is much more challenging. To convey feelings and emotions non-objectively and to avoid letting the piece become decorative (I always watch out for that) is to me much harder than doing a realistic piece.
To Daniel , I'd like to ask is it recognition you're after or just doing good quality work? Art is all about the journey and the doing. As far as publicity is concerned, you sound angry and bitter about your lack of press or recognition but none of that will come your way with the attitude that you've shown. I haven't seen your work so I can't comment about it (and who am I, anyway?) but perhaps you should take a good long honest look at what you're doing and ask yourself those tough questions like "Is this really good work?", etc. If you can honestly answer "yes" to that and any other questions or doubts that you may have then you should stick to your guns, have faith in your work and your abilities and just keep producing "your" work. It's not always easy to do when there are no sales or recognition but that's what separates the artists from the dilettantes. Be confident in your work and try not to be such a curmudgeon. Jeff

[sculptor]

IRONMAN
Hi Jeff:

would you post a picture of your figurative work?

~¿ô there may be hope for you yet..........

rod

[fritchie]

[QUOTE=ironman]Hi everyone, First of all, I'd like to say that I totally agree with JWebb on this subject. The art going public (who you'd think were knowledgeable) looks at non-objective (a better term than "abstract") sculpture and says "What is that?". They think that we do non-obj work because we can't do the other. Well I can, but choose not to! I find that doing non-obj sculpture is much more challenging. ........ [QUOTE]

Jeff - I may be the chief recent lightning rod in this thread, because I have insisted rather loudly and over time that what you call non-objective work tends to get a free ride in sculptural criticism, whereas the more classical forms, perhaps better called realistic, are derisively labeled genre; or worse, are omitted completely by the media world of free critical reviews.

Looking back, the title of this thread might better have been something like “Are sculpture critics blind?” Or maybe “ ... One-eyed?”

You say you can do realistic work but choose not to, because you find abstraction more challenging. I take just the opposite view. Most of my professional background has dealt with highly abstract spatial concepts, in the area of atomic and molecular structure as well as mathematics.

I haven’t tried abstract or non-obj sculpture because I think it would be trivial and add nothing of significance to today’s art world. Maybe I’m wrong, and it would be more of a challenge. Nonetheless, I find the irregular, esthetically somewhat awkward human figure more of a challenge, and I prefer to work with that. When I began about a dozen years ago, I asked myself “What can I add to a field that is, in terms of classical western art, about 2500 years old, and in terms of world art perhaps 30,000 years old?

It didn’t take me long to realize that each person’s work is unique and my figures are unlike those that would be produced by anyone else at any time or place. That doesn’t address the issue of quality, of course, or whether my pieces would as well dropped into the sea as displayed. But I think today’s art world largely is driven by the field of professional criticism, and I think that field itself is about a half-century out of date.

Sorry this has gone on so long. This has been a highly contentious thread, but one that I think contains valuable material, nonetheless, and one which is worth considering. (Maybe after a good Drambuie or two.)

[ironman]

Hi Fritchie, I don't agree that non-obj art gets a free ride from the critics but I do agree that realistic work is often ignored. Work done in any genre by sincere professional artists should be recognized and dealt with by the critics. I've been doing sculpture for over 30 years and I've done some real stinkers (that have never seen the light of day) as I'm sure we all have but what really pisses me off is to walk into a gallery and see non-obj work that is just derivitive of something done better 30-40 yrs. ago or Dave McGary's work, which to me is god awful (sorry Dave, if your listening) yet commands such high prices. I've also met people (non artists) who have told me "abstract sculpture looks easy, I think I'll make some". Needless to say, I've never heard from them again! I think that good work is good work wether it be realistic or non-obj. One has to find ones own voice and then just do it. I've had great reviews and I've been panned and I've learned more from the later. You can't let yourself get bogged down worrying about critics, gallery owners or the art viewing public, they're beyond your control, just worry about what you can control, "your own work". There seems to be some sort of "realist VS abstract" contest going on here in this thread and I think that's abhorrent. Most of us are sincere, well meaning and honest people who are just trying our level best to do good quality work in whatever genre they choose. That should be enough. Sincerely, Jeff
p.s. I lived in New York and was schooled there in the late 60's, early 70's and was taught that you had to know how to do realistic sculpture first before you could go into abstraction ( which was implied to be a higher calling). No one back then was showing realistic art in NYC and getting any sort of notice, except maybe Marino Marini who's work I love and Moore's who I don't particularly care for.

[fritchie]

Ironman - Very good post, and unfortunately you're right about the contest. My current inclination is to “Blame the critics - the umpires!”, the same people who led to your eventual decision to leave NY. I also think it’s time to leave the Us versus Them! approach and to welcome all sincere 3D workers to this Community.

That’s what the Internet does - let ordinary people bypass the Authorities and create their own world.

And, by the way, I reverse your order of preference. I vastly prefer Moore, but do have an appreciation for Marini.

[ironman]

Hi Fritchie, I think your right about ending this realist VS abstract thread but I would like to say something about Moore & Marini. I'll preface this by saying that we can only look at and appreciate work from our own perspective. A 20, 30 or even a 40 year old person isn't going to see the same thing as my 57 year old eyes and mind see them. I find Moore's work too awkward, his limbs too much like a gumbie figure. Of course gumbie wasn't around when he did his work otherwise I think his critical eye might have said "I've got to change that, it's too gumbieish!" I also find his figurative work to be too much of a stylization which is what students do as a transitional phase into the understanding of abstraction. Here again Moore (Nadelman also) could only come from their time and their work is to me probably a reaction to Rodin. But what really turned me off to Moore was a retrospective at the Metropolitan Museum of art in NY. One piece in particular, a mother & child was just so offensive to me that I just couldn't believe that a sculptor of his stature could let it out of his studio. It looked as if the mother & child were done separately and then just stuck together. Scale and size were just all wrong and the piece didn't work (to me) at all. I also find his work too sullen, morose or somber, take your pick. Marini on the other hand although he did many many horse & rider pieces expresses humor and a joie de vivre, you smile when you look at them. In the late 80's I could have bought one from a gallery in Manhattan for only about $2 million. Ah, missed my chance!, and when the judge asked me why I robbed the banks I'd just answer "well your honor, there was this Marini sculpture.........". C U later, Jeff