body mold question

updated tue 18 mar 08

Lili Krakowski on thu 6 mar 08

I have been following this thread with curiosity. And amusement.

When I was in art school--for a brief and please-let-s-forget-it time, we
made sculptures, and then in early Spring, after the
weather turned bearable, we all were sent outside to cast our pieces. It
was a glorious day. Now there was a young man in our class, who truly was
very very handsome, and who loved going about with his shirt off, to show
the world how hairy his chest was. (Hairy chests being considered very
masculine at the time. I gather this vague vogue has changed.) Well
several people went up to the teacher, a very amusing war refugee from
Vienna, and suggested he tell M. to put his shirt on. The prof just
smiled....
You know the rest.

But I do have a question. Hard to put it modestly. The human body, esp.
the front, esp. the male, has, harrumph, some protuberances. Would it not
be the first thing to do to put on some restrictive, confining underwear?
Or do something to
eliminate worry about undercuts?














Lili Krakowski

Be of good courage

Ivor and Olive Lewis on fri 7 mar 08

Dear Lili Krakowski,

To be honest, I cannot understand what will be learned from this =
exercise that would not be acquired from taking a cast from a rock.

I suggest far more would be gained from an extended course in Drawing =
from the Model and then using the human form as a means of learning =
basic sculptural modelling techniques. Far more exciting.

Best regards,

Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.

Steve Slatin on sat 8 mar 08

Ivor --

My pleasure to explain this to you.

Learning to cast from the human form teaches
the craftsperson to cast from the human form.
(Casting from a rock does not teach how to cast
from a human form.)

Casting iteself is a means for the craftsperson
who does not have the skill of, say, Praxitiles,
to create a representation of a living form that
truly resembles that living form in great detail.

Extended courses in drawing are useful only
for those who have great native skill at drawing.
Those of us who can't draw (I am one such --
and I'm not proud of it, but I'm not ashamed)
often find comments like yours somewhat
obtuse.

-- Steve Slatin




Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:
Dear Lili Krakowski,

To be honest, I cannot understand what will be learned from this exercise that would not be acquired from taking a cast from a rock.

I suggest far more would be gained from an extended course in Drawing from the Model and then using the human form as a means of learning basic sculptural modelling techniques. Far more exciting.

Best regards,

Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
South Australia.

______________________________________________________________________________
Clayart members may send postings to: clayart@lsv.ceramics.org

You may look at the archives for the list, post messages, change your
subscription settings or unsubscribe/leave the list here: http://www.acers.org/cic/clayart/

Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots2@visi.com



---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

Donna Kat on sun 9 mar 08

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:19:46 +1030, Ivor and Olive Lewis
wrote:

>Dear Lili Krakowski,
>
>To be honest, I cannot understand what will be learned from this exercise
that would not be acquired from taking a cast from a rock.
>
>I suggest far more would be gained from an extended course in Drawing
from the Model and then using the human form as a means of learning basic
sculptural modelling techniques. Far more exciting.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ivor Lewis.
>

The shoe that fits you may not fit someone else. People take different
paths to get to where they want to be, and take that path in different
ways. Bicycling may be grand for some, walking for others, running for a
few. Our life is a painting - the colors, the brushes, knive, etc. we
choose makes each painting unique. If we try to make an exact copy of
another's work then we are not ourselves but simply a copy. Sorry about
the silly analogs but using words hard...

One other point that is entirely separate from this but...

ANYONE can learn to draw! Having a good teacher makes it easier. You
need to not copy others but appreciate what you do yourself. One good
exercise is to close your eyes with pencil (chalk, pen, whatever)on paper
and simply let the pencil flow easily around the shape you see in your
minds eye. One of the problems people have in drawing is they want
perfection and a photo copy of what they see with their eye. Some of the
most beautiful drawings we see are those on caves and those are NOT photo
representations.

Just my 2 cents. Donna

Neon-Cat on sun 9 mar 08

The other day when this body mold thread popped up in my mailbox I had
already smeared myself from head to waist with a layer of white stoneware
paperclay and was sitting gingerly around the house while drying. My latest
school assignment was for a self-portrait - a section of the course not to
my liking since I view other than a semi-static "form" when looking at
people so I'd had a hard time getting started - the mold idea was an attempt
to start "something". Working at home with a simple self-mold seemed a more
modest method than to plaster-cast myself at school as suggested by some of
my more ribald studio buds. Anyway, I do have a few interesting observations
about my project and a goofy piece in semi-completion that looks, in part,
more like a shrunken head using the dried outside of the molded clay. But I
hate this planned way of working - my style is to throw down a lump of clay
and begin, much by feel of the clay and how it wants to settle and go. Like
Steve S., I don't draw and at this late date can see only frustration in
taking classes to learn to draw. I can plot and plan and make endless
patient measurements of forms but I don't like doing that either. So for me
it's 3-D or bust.
What I learned:
1. drying clay is somewhat itchy in places, but not all over and not
unbearably so;
2. it can pinch in a few places, but not seriously so;
3. it does not hurt while on the body (it does feel cold as it dries even
with supplemental heat on the outside and body heat on the inside);
4. it does not hurt coming off the body;
5. it makes a great facial "mud" mask;
6. it really sticks in hair (!!);
7. clay buddies got a kick out of photos I sent out and my kittens, cats,
and dog thought I was a trip all clayed-up;
8. paperclay does indeed force dry very well (2 hours and 45 minutes for me;
but use caution - uncovered surfaces are liable to get too hot);
9. it might be best to eat and drink one's fill before beginning such a
project - on the face it's like having one's jaw wired shut;
10. And, for the science-types like Ivor -- I always thought clay dried in a
somewhat linear manner, that is, in a straight line, degree by degree. Clay
pulses as it dries, almost at my own pulse rate, in a seemingly random
two-step rhythm with an occasional five step "beat" thrown in, as well as a
very occasional three step pulse (I lost count so it can't be said by me
that clay drying is truly random in a technical sense). At any rate, it is
funny to feel it dry (and, in a macro sense, feel heavy, move and slump a
little). Clay is more "alive" than many of us would give it credit - so for
me, maybe this validates my work method of having clay be an interactive
sculptural partner rather than something to be forced into a preconceived
shape. Don't know. It was interesting to contemplate while remaining still
to dry -- there isn't a lot one can do during the drying phase.

Would I do this again? Yes, if I had a reason but I don't. It was a fun
experience (for the love of Art) ...

If ya' need a laugh there are two (cropped) photos of this experiment at the
end of my Ceramics-in-the-Works section:
http://www.neon-cat.com/ceramics_in_the_works

Everyone have a happy, productive week! Play a little while you're at it ...

Marian
Neon-Cat Ceramics
neoncat@flash.net

Kathy Forer on sun 9 mar 08

On Mar 7, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:

> To be honest, I cannot understand what will be learned from this
> exercise that would not be acquired from taking a cast from a rock.

A rock is a hard form and doesn't change with gravity. Body parts
react to gravity and also the weight or compression of the casting
material.

We have a fairly stable concept of what a rock looks like. Even
accounting for various types, it's a very solid identifiable object,
molten rock perhaps excluded. We also have a clear idea of what
constitutes a face or body but because it's generally a more available
and variable catalog, it's more open to influence.

When you cast a face, your own or a friend's face, you learn the
difference between how you perceive something and what the actual form
is. Faces are very much smaller than we think! Color, animation, light
and shade have a tremendous influence on what we see. A bare cast is
quite reductive and has much to teach about form, even if only as a
consideration for what's missing.

Casting from human form helps us reconsider preconceptions. Casting
from a rock would have little change on our idea of a rock except to
enhance our appreciation of detail and undercuts.


Kathy
--
www.kathyforer.com

Snail Scott on tue 11 mar 08

On Mar 8, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Automatic digest processor wrote:

> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 16:33:29 -0800
> From: Steve Slatin
> ...Casting iteself is a means for the craftsperson
> who does not have the skill of, say, Praxitiles,
> to create a representation of a living form that
> truly resembles that living form in great detail...



Casting from life (or anything else) is not really a substitute
for sculpting, for two reasons.

One: total verisimilitude is not always a desirable goal,
even for highly representational work. Viewers are
seldom aware, when looking at representational work
(even Praxiteles') that to convey the intended look or
meaning, a good sculptor will take liberties with reality.
Sometimes the result can look more real than a life
casting would because it shows the subject in a way
that the viewer is prepared to see it. Few people are
truly 'open' viewers, and the sculptor's modifications
can be invisible to their conscious perception, while
conveying the artist's intent more effectively than a
true representation ever could.

Think about the 'David' by Michelangelo - still held up
as one of the great works of representational sculpture,
outsized hands and all. And remember how Rodin's
'Age of Bronze' was accused, in its day, of being a life
casting. We look at it now, and see how little it truly
looks like life, but the qualities that its first audience
saw were not those of true verisimilitude, but those in
which it violated the expectations of the viewers of that
era - the casual, graceless posture, so unlike the more
elegant and mannered poses of the period which had
become invisible to conscious consideration.

Further, if the artist's intentions go beyond mere
representation, the need to show a less realistic,
more expressionistic or abstracted figure may make
life casting a more difficult means to the end than
simply working from scratch. As a figural sculptor
myself, I know how to do life casting and have done
it when it seemed appropriate, but for the vast majority
of my work, it's both quicker and more effective for
my purposes to do the job from scratch than to make
the mold and modify it as I would require. I often get
viewers asking how I made some piece that would
have required a very complex mold. I make darn
good multi-part molds, but for nearly all these questions,
the piece in question was simply made from scratch in
a fraction of the time that a mold would have required,
even if I could have found a suitable model. Sculpting
the human (or semi-human) form isn't an unattainable
skill, but too many artists have come to see life casting
as a convenient shortcut to avoid learning it, even at
the most rudimentary level.

Two: Casting from life has its own merits and purposes
which are obscured and trivialized when it is seen solely
as a means of easy replication of the human form.
Casting from life can never be generic: it is inherently
about the particular, about specific human beings with
all their personal traits and idiosyncracies. The absolute
connection between the model and the artwork cannot
be erased except through considerable effort on the
part of the artist. Even if details of skin texture - moles,
wrinkles, creases - are wiped away, the contours of
that particular flesh remain. Even if those contours
are altered, the sense of posture - the way that real
person held themselves on that day - is almost
indelible.

Look at the work of George Segal. Rather than making
negative molds which then produce a positive replica,
he simply coats his models in plaster and gauze, leaving
a gloppy surface to obscure the details of facial features
and anatomy. Even with the roughness of such exterior
draped molds, the spontaneity and 'alive-ness' of the
models comes through.

There is also an essential connection with the model in
a conceptual sense. The viewer of a life casting, even a
modified one, is always aware of the past presence of
the model. The casting says, "A fellow human being was
once here". The Pompeii castings, for all their coarseness,
affect us less for the form they show than for the awareness
they convey of life once present. Even castings taken
from less dire circumstances retain a sense of human
contact. A casting in bronze has typically been through at
least three iterations of negative mold to positive mold to
negative and back again, but like the secondary and
tertiary relics of medieval Christianity, we know that a
human being's form made this object, however far
removed it may be in process.

Moldmaking is not an effective shortcut to direct sculpture.
Direct sculpture is not necessarily preferable to mold-
making. The artist must choose the appropriate method
depending on intent, using neither one as a substitute
for the more suitable process. Process and intent must
suit one another, regardless of which an artist uses as
the starting point for their work.


> Extended courses in drawing are useful only
> for those who have great native skill at drawing...


I don't believe there is such a thing as native skill at
drawing. What there is, quite often, is a native skill at
SEEING. Drawing is primarily about learning to see
what it is that you are looking at. Most people don't. Life
drawing is just a way to note down what is there. Holding
the pencil and making marks is the easy part, figuring
out which marks to make - that's the essence of it. When
you draw from reality, you compare what you see in the
world with what you see on the paper in front of you. If
it doesn't look the same, you have to figure out why and
where. Seeing is the purpose of life drawing, not the
making of nice pictures. The picture is just a way to
keep you from lying to yourself about whether you are
seeing accurately.

This is different from drawing as an art form. For this, as
with sculpture (as noted above), liberties are taken with
reality in order to convey the artist's intent more effectively.
Varying the contrasts in value just a bit, emphasizing a
contour or texture - even highly representational drawing
has the artist's choices embedded in it. Drawing as an
artform-in-itself is a matter of choices, and may involve
little or no reference to the real world, depending on
the artist's intent.

Drawing from life, as an exercise, is a very different
thing. The intent is to learn to see; the drawing itself
is merely a tool; a reality check. You may never want to
make drawings as an artistic pursuit, but drawing with
pencil on paper is an effective way to learn seeing
simply because it is simple. And cheap. And fast. And
the skills you learn in seeing are not limited to paper
and pencil because in a sense, they never really were
the medium being used. They were just the recording
method; the real medium was your own brain. The
skill you learn in seeing is infinitely transferable to
any other medium, whether clay, textile, paint, video,
or anything else that gets perceived by seeing.

You can practice seeing by working in clay or
anything else you like; drawing on paper is just one
method. A good one, but not the only one. And I don't
mean drawing on a flat slab. Anything you make in
reference to anything else will serve the purpose.
It's the looking, and the feedback offered by the
rendering - in whatever medium - that's essential.

When you see a pot and evaluate its form, or the
relationship of its surface qualities, you are using a
trained eye. When you see a milkweed pod and
use it as inspiration for new work, you are using a
trained eye, one that sees what is there. More
importantly, when you look at your own work, you
will see what is truly there - not what you wish was
there, but what is. And when you envision a new
from in your mind's eye, and sit down to execute it
in clay, the correspondence between that mind-pot
and the clay-pot is rooted in the your ability to really
see that mind-pot, and compare it to the clay-pot,
just as you compare a still-life to your drawing of it.

Too many artists sit down to work, produce some
thing in art media, and when the result isn't what
they intended, lie to themselves and pretend it is,
because they can't see where the discrepancy
sits. They haven't really learned to see, and what
they aren't seeing is their own work! Not really.
With the best of intentions and all earnestness,
they lie to themselves. Or worse yet, they give up
wondering "Why doesn't this look right?" Some
will simple call it 'spontaneity' as though casting
a critical eye on their own work might somehow
ruin the magic. Well, it ain't magic. Spontaneity is
great, and can be very effective as a way to make
art, but you still gotta look at it when you're done
and see what's really there. Go ahead at tell your
gallery, or your friends, or the critics, that "Yep,
that's exactly what I had in mind", but never lie
to yourself. It's a great way to make no progress.

Drawing is just a tool. Seeing is the goal.

-Snail

Kathy Forer on tue 11 mar 08

I don't know why posts or threads get killed, but here this one is
again. Sometimes you can learn from what something is not as much as
from what it is, though it's hard to learn from a conversation if it
is incomplete.

On Mar 7, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Ivor and Olive Lewis wrote:

> To be honest, I cannot understand what will be learned from this
> exercise that would not be acquired from taking a cast from a rock.

A rock is a hard form and doesn't change with gravity. Body parts
react to gravity and also the weight or compression of the casting
material.

We have a fairly stable concept of what a rock looks like. Even
accounting for various types, it's a very solid identifiable object,
molten rock perhaps excluded. We also have a clear idea of what
constitutes a face or body but because it's generally a more available
and variable catalog, it's more open to influence.

When you cast a face, your own or a friend's face, you learn the
difference between how you perceive something and what the actual form
is. Faces are very much smaller than we think! Color, animation, light
and shade have a tremendous influence on what we see. A bare cast is
quite reductive and has much to teach about form, even if only as a
consideration for what's missing.

Casting from human form helps us reconsider preconceptions. Casting
from a rock would have little change on our idea of a rock except to
enhance our appreciation of detail and undercuts.


Kathy

Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 12 mar 08

Dear Kathy Forer,

<again. Sometimes you can learn from what something is not as much as =
from what it is, though it's hard to learn from a conversation if it is =
incomplete.>>

Came through Ok in yesterday's Digest (069). I like your interesting =
logic. Negative space is a powerful tool.

Best regards,

Ivor