Friday Night Art Class

I wish I was as fantastically talented as that...*



*Instead of being a useless twit.
 
Well is he that talented? He's a technician rather than an artist in my book and what he produces is a 3D photograph by a rigorous but uninspired craft process. It doesn't actually add anything but solidity to the original photos, impressive as it is in its execution.
 
Good point, mate. Unlike the 'art' which, as you suggest, seems rather pointless.
 
Very relaxing video and impressive end result, though I wished he had used a good looking woman as a model. I disagree with the "uninspired" classification of the crafting process. Sculpting is a form of art, precisely about adding solidity, regardless of how meticulous his process is.
 
peterstorey said:
Well is he that talented? He's a technician rather than an artist in my book and what he produces is a 3D photograph by a rigorous but uninspired craft process. It doesn't actually add anything but solidity to the original photos, impressive as it is in its execution.
Click to expand...

Of course he is talented. You cannot be untalented and produce work like that. He is a talented techician though rather than a talented artist, I agree with that point.
 
Certainly talented.

It's an interesting debate as to where the maths ends and the art begins, or if it's just a long smudge. Almost any decent artist trying to represent the human form in an accurate way, will rely on learnt mathematical proportions. The great Italian Renaissance artists were slaves to mathematical form. Da Vinci was lass an artist than an engineering genius. And Raffaello's use of composition even to the untrained eye is amazingly geometric. Perspective is extremely confusing and complex to represent without a structural understanding. Then you have tools like the camera obscura, suspected to have been used widely by some of the great Dutch masters.
 
Yeah, Vermeer made extensive use of the camera obscura in his 'View of Delft' but to my mind that picture transcends the photographic in a way that Reid never does.
 
True and there is no cheat for the delicate representation of light in his paintings.

As for the video I like seeing the detail applied to the front plane of the head and the toes. Although I must admit the use of the set squares and rulers on the actual wood itself is a little disheartening.

Michelangelo hated people seeing his drawings and measurements and famously burnt most of them. I believe he thought it destroyed the illusion of the finished art work. Whereas for me the sketches by Michelangelo that have survived are far more interesting than say his Sistine Chapel frescoes.

Likewise the Disney traced and rotoscoped characters (Snow White dancing for example) always lacked the energy and charm of it's most skilled artists' hand drawn animation.
 
There is no evidence of his flair for anatomy and his love for anatomy which most skilled sculptors normally represent through their sculptures. I would really like to see him do a nude sculpture rather than one with drapery both on his torso and the pelvic area.

Apart from the Sartorius muscles and the deltoid, you really couldn't see the tendons in the leg and the hands and the feet looked very unorganic. A very good rendition of the photograph but thats all its going to be. Sculptors have this love for anatomy which is evident in almost every great master's work but just to see him go about the whole process trying to replicate the photograph was pretty sad.

He has the technique and is meticulous about sculpting, but a real master's love for anatomy and making a sculpture speak volumes? He is far from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.