Sculpture Community -

Sculpture Community - (
-   Sculpture focus topics (
-   -   3 d sculptures (

Lois 06-03-2014 07:59 AM

3 d sculptures
In what areas are used virtual sculptures? What are the geniuses? If you can specify their webpage.
Is there a market for the sale of 3 D sculptures?

Andrew Werby 06-03-2014 01:58 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures

Originally Posted by Lois (Post 105887)
In what areas are used virtual sculptures?

[Mostly in movies.]

What are the geniuses?

[What or who? Look up 3d "special effects artists" in a Google image search and see if you can find anything to admire.]

If you can specify their webpage.

[You might start by looking here: ]

Is there a market for the sale of 3 D sculptures?

[If you're talking about sculpture that doesn't exist in any physical form (all sculpture is 3D), no, not that I know of, but if you can put up a website that allows people to see them on a 3D monitor or navigate around them, someone might buy one. ]

Andrew Werby

Chris_Johns 06-05-2014 01:37 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Digital modelling can sometime be a useful tool in the design and creation of sculptures, especially technically complex ones where a lot of planning, collaboration and visualisation is required.

However it it not without it's limitations and creating, even a very accurate and detailed model of something is by no means the same thing as a physical object. Not necessarily better or worse but definitely very different.

I do use digital modelling quite bit in my own practice and it's certainly a useful tool for getting things done and in many cases can be a helpful extension to 2 dimensional sketches and you can visualise things which aren't very practical in conventional modelling materials. Having said that I do find it a bit clinical and in no way a complete substitute for handling the physical materials.

Another thing to bear in mind with any media, especially when you are appropriating an established technique into art is that you do need to take the time to get to know and understand it and be able to take it further rather than seeing it as a purely a quick or easy way to realise an idea. I strongly believe that the practical problem solving and technical understanding that doing any process well requires is a vital part of turning a concept into worthwhile art.

Personally I would be wary of thinking in terms of digital sculpture, not because I'm precious about 'traditional' sculpture media but because it's such a different thing that it really needs a different term.

Another issue is that you need to think seriously about how you are going to display it as the display medium is going to have a very significant effect on how it's perceived by the viewer and it's something which doesn't have a definitive physical existence so some of the basic considerations of sculpture like scale, material and environment need to be reassessed.

Lois 06-05-2014 04:34 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
The world is immersed in a virtual dimension. Who does not understand, he does not understand the ways of development of the world and as a result will lose. Here many people who present to the public 3 D sculpture, but in order to see them you need to enter a magic 3 d world.
I was interested in, is there for 3 D sculptors, any other possibility than the closed worlds.

mantrid 06-06-2014 04:11 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
As mentioned before sculpture is already 3d.

As to your spam post about the online game, I already live in a 3d world why would I play a poor simulation on a computer screen.

Lois 06-06-2014 09:15 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Do you think that any of the links on the topic is Spam?

CroftonGraphics 06-16-2014 07:01 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
I don't think it is spam,
He is referring to view his sculpture in the online game or 'simulation' second life.

ssculptor 11-23-2014 07:49 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Personally, I do not like the idea of making virtual sculptures. It is strictly personal. There is no feel to it. I like to actually feel the materials when I work.
I always worked, mostly part time but also as a teacher in Drafting. I spent years board drafting - pencils on paper. In 1990 I was invited to learn computer drafting so I learned AutoCAD and have been teaching it and doing it for money ever since.
The problem is, after 24 years on the computer I still miss the feel of the pencil on the paper. Computers remove us from the real world that way. The tactile sense is missing. That is acceptable in drafting as it is a means to making money. But I will not sacrifice the tactile sense of making sculpture. Necessary is the feel of the clay and wax on my hands, The feel of the sculpture as I run my hands over it, the smell of the materials, the feeling in my hands and body as I manhandle the red hot steel bars, as I weld steel to steel, the feel of the wood and stone and even the entire ambience of the sculpture studio. Even getting the occasional splinter is part of the artistic experience. I will not give all that up.
I cannot speak for other artists, just for myself. Everyone is different. But digital sculpture is not for me.
BUT, on the other hand, I can see making a piece of sculpture the traditional way and then duplicating it by scanning and then printing it in 3-D using the new machines and materials that do all this. I like to use multiple figures in my diorama- like art pieces and scanning and printing would be a good way of doing that. Yes I could make molds and cast duplicate pieces in the traditional ways but I do not like to do that. If I do not enjoy a technique I do not do it. I am a hedonist in that respect - I do what I like to do and I do what I do because I do it.
Stephen Auslender

Andrew Werby 11-23-2014 03:14 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Don't be so quick to dismiss digital sculpting for an alleged lack of tactility. I've been using a system that provides it, with a force-feedback arm device that lets me feel what I'm doing as I'm sculpting in real time. Once I've come up with something worthwhile, I can bring it into physical reality, even carve it in wood, splinters and all...

Your idea of scanning and reproducing your sculpted figures is perfectly feasible, but lacking a way to pose them differently, I don't see how it would differ in effect from molding and casting them - you'd end up with multiple identical figurines (although you could scale them). To take full advantage of the 3D printing process, you'd want to use virtual figures that were "rigged" so their joints would move realistically; then you could populate your dioramas with figures in different attitudes.

Andrew Werby

Blake 12-01-2014 05:05 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
I believe that the use of 3d scanning and the subsequent manipulation of the image for use in re-developing the original sculpture is a valid practice in todays world of 21st century sculpture.

This is to say,
1) You make an original sculpture using wax, clay, plaster, steel or other material.

2) You take a 3d scan of that original sculpture.

3) You manipulate the resulting digital image, changing it digitally from the original sculpture and then...

4) You create a copy of that manipulated image by 3d printing or using foam and having a copy carved in that foam by computerized router, or like method.

5) You then use the new printed or foam image to sand cast, or take a mold if you wish to make an edition of the new manipulated work.
( I would sand cast as i have taken to only making unique pieces.)

You have to admit that this is a defendable use of 3d scanning for the purpose of making original fine art.

Otherwise, if you are taking a 3d scan of a person and then using the resulting image to cast that image you are making an expensive body cast,
and then it is simply a body cast.

Defined (by me) as:
(A copy made through a technical process that requires or is subject to no, or very little, creative input or manipulation from an artist or person.)

Then you will run into the type of resistance that has been fully discussed on this forum over the years.

Your thoughts fellow sculptors?

Andrew Werby 12-02-2014 08:42 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
That's certainly one way to go about making sculpture that utilizes this technology, but it's not the only "valid" workflow. Lifecasting is a technique that can result in good art, even if the results aren't altered by the artist. It's like photography - the artist chooses a subject, poses it, uses a process to fix it in tangible form, and stages it for presentation. Each step is susceptible to the input of creativity. George Segal's work is an example of how it can result in fine art, although I'll admit that there's also a lot of crappy lifecasting that doesn't rise to any particular artistic heights. But that's true of any art technique - all these methods enable good art, but don't ensure it.

Andrew Werby

Blake 12-03-2014 04:23 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Thanks Andrew
Body casting is a topic that has been explored here at depth.

You can find a thread here;

I tend to say that body casting is more technique than art, but then that is my opinion.

I have seen several scanned foam "body casts" nice thing is the eyes are open, and it is again my opinion that they lack life and the aesthetics that only a human being can give.

So I use the scan to manipulate a "created by hand" sculpture and love it.
Perhaps I will come to see you next time I am in LA.

Stay well

Andrew Werby 12-03-2014 03:58 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
That's an interesting thread, from before my time here. You're right, many of the issues involved were pretty thoroughly explored there. It seems that at the time, your stance on the matter was closer to mine:

"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 in which the art is constructed."

In the interim, though, you seem to have come around to Jason Gillespie's point of view. But everybody's entitled to their own opinions about art, and there's no reason they can't evolve (or regress) with time. Good luck with the scanning process, however you utilize it, and sure - do come visit me if you'd like to talk about it in more depth. But LA is about 500 miles to the south of where I am, so you might want to budget some extra time...

Andrew Werby

Blake 12-04-2014 02:25 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Hello Andrew

Thanks for your reply.
I do indeed feel as I stated above, let me say it again;

"In order that figurative sculpture somehow move forward into this new century, perhaps body-casting represents a way to further develop this art."

So long as the artist is using body casting in a new and original manner as Anthony Gormley has, for example, then we are moving figurative art forward.

Art leans towards originality, (as I see it) and in order to explore new ways either to present or to represent the figure an artist should be able to use any aesthetic or technical handling of the figure.

If you are using body casting in a new and original manner then it could be considered appropriate.

I would ask you if this is indeed the case in the use of body casting as you have experienced in the art world?

George Segal did his thing at that time, no one else had done it and thus it was valid.

Gormley has used body casting in a manner that is original... so if you can show me others that have used body casting in an original and aesthetically convincing manner, I will be delighted to see it. ;)

Cheers Blake

Andrew Werby 12-04-2014 03:20 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
I'm not sure that every work of art has to be novel, or that any use of a given technique has to be new, in order for it to be valid or good. That might make it more interesting, or more significant to art historians, but the vast majority of art is about filling in the gaps left by these big strides forward. At the present time, there are lots of artists working in all sorts of historical styles, from petroglyphs, or 18th century academic oil painting, to Impressionism and Expressionism, which are still going strong. Are these modes of art-making out of bounds, according to you? An artist might have a breakthrough and establish a genuinely new way of making art, only to die young, with many of the potential pathways she's opened up remaining to be explored. Is that supposed to be forbidden territory forever afterwards?

As for people extending the aesthetic range of life-casting techniques, you may or may not be delighted by the work of Mark Prent, who is something of a life-casting guru and operates Pink House Studios which sells supplies for doing it (it's certainly not for everyone, and may contain disturbing imagery: )

Andrew Werby

Blake 12-06-2014 06:22 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Thank you for your response Andrew and the opportunity to discuss this further.

I think that it depends completely on what type of art you are into and this is completely subjective.

Trying to break from the past while using the figure as my foundation is what I am into, I think that to meet this challenge almost anything goes, including body casting.

Otherwise body casting has very limited value in my eyes.

Valid and good are subjective points of view, and I think that I can say that novelty is less subjective and is less important to you than I.

There are lots others who are doing wonderful work using old techniques as I am, the challenge is to make the art new, bring something to it that others have not, or push it into something else through the use of new technology.

Here is a good example, an art restorer specializing in 16th and 17th century restoration, who uses old techniques to paint new and old subjects.

Yes this will interest the art historians but it will also interest the galleries, which is again where I am coming from.
But again this is my challenge and my opinions, they are not necessarily important to others.

If you are producing something that has been done then you must do it extremely well to be competitive in todays market, i take it this is what you means by:

"the vast majority of art is about filling in the gaps left by these big strides forward."

I agree, many artists are filling in "gaps" and doing it very well, (perhaps that is what I am doing and can only hope that I am doing it well.)
I don't know many that are using body casting in a way that I would consider an aesthetically important way of "filling in the gaps", while 3d scanning and printing is a different matter and I do know some that are using this (these) techniques brilliantly.

I can't say that I was delighted by the work of Mark Prent but it is aesthetically accomplished and although I would not want to live with it in my home, you have provided a sample of art made from body casting or 3d scanning that I think is novel and may be important to some.

As far as I am concerned we artists should seek out any "forbidden territory" and spend our life time if necessary to make it art that is aesthetically important if we can.

I think that a great deal of art being made today is stretching to fill in a gap left behind and a lot of it is valid simply because it pushes the art and the public further than it has in the past, providing art that is both novel and "gap filling"

Best to you
Cheers Blake

Chris_Johns 12-06-2014 11:05 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Personally I would say that good art is usually a result of someone who gets deeply involved with their process and materials and that creativity is often a product of practical problem solving.

It's not just about having good ideas or indeed just having well polished skills at a particular process but about tackling the tension between the two. To put it another way the detail which makes art good comes from the way that you solve the problems which present themselves when you try to translate an idea or vision into reality, whether you are starting from an abstract concept or an interpretation of a real subject.

I think that too often in contemporary art too much emphasis is placed on the concept and the execution is either cursory or handed over to somebody else.

This isn't to say that there is an inherent virtue in doing something and a way which is unnecessarily difficult for it's own sake but that originality and character comes from the decision making process in translating and idea into a finished piece of art and if you short circuit this process you loose something very important.

I don't think that using digital media is inherently any different from any other process...but it does offer a lot of ways to easily achieve things which with other processes would have involved a lot more decision making and involvement by the artist. So the challenge is to make suer that you are pushing your media to its limits rather than just following the line of least resistance.

Personally I'm less interested in second guessing future art history by looking or things which are obviously novel and I tend to think that if you involve yourself enough in the process and produce art that YOU (not galleries or agents or art critics) want to see then you will ultimately produce art which is both the best that you area capable of and which reflects your own, unique style.

I suspect that a lot of weird and unsuccessful stuff comes from artists trying to write their own chapters in art history rather than perusing things that they are genuinely interested in.

(note that this this is a general observation and not aimed at anybody in particular)

Andrew Werby 12-06-2014 02:19 PM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Thanks for the response, both of you, but you're not giving me a lot to disagree with here. Chris brings up issues that I deal with a lot in my own work - avoiding the path of least resistance is difficult, while following it can be quite seductive. One has to balance the pull of new techniques and technology with the push of ones own aesthetic bent, discard things that come too easily in favor of those that must be struggled for. Blake is right on the money when he talks about the emptiness of novelty for its own sake; that was what I was trying to get at in my earlier remarks. I do think that novelty is important in contemporary art, but only when it's the result of a genuine process of discovery, as he points out. It's no better to do something simply because nobody else has thought of doing it before than to avoid doing something simply because "it's been done".

I can't say I'm a fan of Guiseppe Gigli's work, although I recognize its technical accomplishment. Light effects that were exciting when Caravaggio first explored them seem hackneyed now that we've seen them in countless photographs. Certain tropes just don't wear well, and the obsessiveness that insists on an extremely laborious process to accomplish results that can be achieved much more easily (by taking a photograph) makes me feel impatient - but maybe that's just me. Karl Marx put forward a theory of value based on labor: the more work put into an item, the more valuable it must be. But even if it holds true in industrial products (which is questionable) it has nothing to do with art, where a mere scrawl from a master is worth much more than endless weeks of toil from those less talented - or less recognized.

Andrew Werby

Blake 12-07-2014 03:52 AM

Re: 3 d sculptures
Chris you make some very good points, I believe the artist must be deeply involved in the process and trying to push that process into new territory.

As you say "practical problem solving must be involved while you translate the idea into reality", but there are other problems that need to be considered as well, and these too will change or develop the art.

Years ago one of the gallery owners I work with said to me that the artist has to have a style so unique that when the client walks into a room of 20 pieces of figurative sculpture he knows immediately which one of the 20 is yours.

Perhaps you don't have this problem, who cares what the gallery or critic thinks, but I have to care and I WANT to pursued the challenges that are given to me by both the critic and gallery owner in order to push my work further.

Luckily I love these challenges and I think that this is where the commercial requirements of the market place are making my work more dynamic.

So these are part of the problems that I need to solve, in addition to good ideas, a polished process and the way you solve a problem concerning your process.

You have also included something that I feel strongly about;

"too often in contemporary art too much emphasis is placed on the concept and the execution is either cursory or handed over to somebody else."

I could not agree more and I think that this is where I can find an advantage over the artists that do this; my process includes the "done by my hand" aesthetic choices or process problem solving, and then I will re-create the art again either with analog or digital manipulation.

So I have added resistance or difficulty instead of using a process that would allow me to avoiding resistance, as allowed by processes such as body casting... any good technician can make a body cast.

Because as you say
"originality and character comes from the decision making process in translating an idea into a finished piece of art and if you short circuit this process you loose something very important."

So you can say I am a sucker for punishment, or as Andrew pointed out;

"the obsessiveness that insists on an extremely laborious process to accomplish results that can be achieved much more easily (by taking a photograph) makes me feel impatient"

Yet I would say that I have developed a process that can not be replaced by a machine and I find it only getting more interesting with the millions of decisions that only a human being can make and two million things that will change the art.

Art history is not ours to write, I think that if you are true to your materials and you make your process yours, then you will have fun and at some point make money.
The art critic will write the history but if you can interest a critic in your work, he or she will tell you things that you need to know in order to get your work into the market place.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.

Sculpture Community,
International Sculpture Center,
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert