Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/08/23/translucent-acrylic-statues-ha.html
…
2 Likes
Predator.
6 Likes
It looks like a Doctor Who monster.
7 Likes
These are cool—and they are triggering my Photoshop detectors hard. It’s hard to believe they’re real!
3 Likes
I felt the same way until I realized they are silhouettes, so the refraction can be manipulated easily.
If these were actual statues it wouldn’t work.
Suspended by fishing line from neighbouring trees? An alternative might be a large mirror with a person-shaped hole, but that doesn’t quite work for this picture.
You can see the wires in that one. I think these are all reflective, not translucent.
2 Likes
He hired Chris Angel for that one.
4 Likes
Yeah, they look to be polished chrome of something similar. Pretty cool, but not translucent
The imgur says “acrylic plexiglass” [sic] so I’d imagine they backed it with reflective mylar.
Here’s another one that makes the reflectiveness more obvious:
7 Likes
Two exposures, maybe. A plate, and then the piece, then removing the support.
That’s very cool. And effing spooky.
Mr. Mulholland lack of art knowledge and missing of originality is a sort of disturbing, expecially if he shows his “translucent figures” around on internet as if it were his own genius.
Well known and acclaimed italian artist, Pietro Gallina (just google for him), has already created these specular silohuettes many years before him. But, as previously said, Mulholland didn’t know…
MIRROR SILHOUETTE, by Pietro Gallina (1970 c.ca) Modern Art Gallery of Turin
totally!
but actually the real predator is this embarassing #RobMulholland that is a plagiarist
It looks like Galina’s are flat, whereas these are 3D? The forest setting also really adds something. So while I see your point I do feel these are worthwhile new sculptures rather than just blatant plagerism.
Well, since this is the internet, anybody can accuse anybody of anything, and it’s just fine. However, in the other world, the word plagiarism has a definition, which does not fit here. The term for this situation is two unrelated people have similar ideas.
1 Like
Agreed. I don’t see plagiarism here.
The basic notion of reflective silhouettes isn’t that remarkable an innovation, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to for one artist (or a random third party) to claim that one iteration trumps all others. The setting is a major element of Mulholland’s work, too; I do think the difference in context adequately distinguishes it.
2 Likes
