Sculpting a hand from clay


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/09/15/sculpting-a-hand-from-clay.html


#2

vaffanculo!


#3

The sculptor is Phillipe Faraut.


#4

He created a woman and-a, lots of lovin’ for a man.


#5

It’s not sculpting. You sculpt from stone or wood. If you can make corrections, it’s modeling.


#6

That was amazing, but all he had to do was (to paraphrase) remove all the clay that wasn’t a hand.

:grin:


#7

Funny, the sculpture classes that I took all featured clay.


#8

So what? It is still the difference between sculpting and modeling. Most sculptors start by modeling in clay. But if you can stick a bit back on if you f*ck up, it’s modeling.


#9

Nope, it’s still sculpting.


#10

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but as an occasionally semi-pro sculptor (in synthetic clay, as it happens), I see absolutely no merit in pursuing the distinction.


#11

I don’t know about you all, but I want to see the process of sculpting Lionel Richie.

ETA: I remember seeing an interview with Richie explaining that he complained to the director of the video that it looked nothing like him, and the response was, “Lionel, she’s blind.”


#12

I think that @anon74729030 is confusing carving with sculpting… :wink:


#13

You carve wood. You model clay. You sculpt stone.


#14

Although, you can carve stone. But then it’s a stone carving and not sculpture.


#15

All sculpting: some are additive, some are subtractive – wood/marble are subtractive; metal (welded) and other assemblages are mostly additive; clay is usually both.
Michelangelo whittled marble…

You funny!


#16

Take it up with Webster. Lots of people who work in clay consider themselves “sculptors” and most dictionaries back them up.


#17

They may well consider themselves sculptors.But with all due respect to their talent, they’re modelers. It isn’t any less wonderful, but it is modeling because if they make a mistake they can stick another bit of clay on and keep going.
It isn’t really about addition and subtraction - but that is a good starting point.
I wouldn’t expect Websters in twenty word definition to get the point. I’m surprised, if you’re interested in art history, that you find this an adequate argument or approach to discussion. You may wish to revise your approach to art. And debate.


#18

With all due respect to yourself, you can’t just impose your own definition as the only valid one and expect others to agree with you even when dictionaries don’t.

This isn’t even a recent definition. If you’re a fan of art history then you know that Auguste Rodin (who worked primarily in clay) is widely considered “the progenitor of modern sculpture” and copies of his work are in museum collections all over the world. Virtually all those museums refer to those collections as “sculptures.”


#19

Interesting that almost every article/treatise on sculpting marble/etc refers to the act/process as carving the stone…

Ya, vehemently repeating that one’s opinion is correct is a very admirable debate tactic.
– Trump 2016!


#20

Said he, who unleashed the mighty power of Websters-Merriam dictionary for the hard of thinking.
Rodin modeled in clay, for sure. Before making the sculptures by casting them in bronze. Two processes. Actually, three because if memory serves he Damian Hirsted the production process by having smaller clay models upscaled before casting.
But anyway, you’re the art historian…