From:
Walter Arnold <sculptor@xxxxxxx>
Date:
Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:30:15 -0600
Subject:
sculptor/carver collaboration
At 01:45 PM 3/6/99 -0500, Seamus O'Mahoney wrote:
Quoted text begins.In response To Walter Arnold about carvers and artists such as Hart,
Noguchi, and Moore:
I can't speak for any of those artists other Henry Moore. My experience
is such:
End of quote.
I'm glad Seamus could add some personal insights to this
subject... it fits in with the things I've observed and
felt about it. Just a couple of his points I'd like to
comment on:
Quoted text begins.believe, was not really interested in exact reproductions. To use
walter's analogy of composer and musician; Mr. Moore's approach was of a
jazz composer. The musicians (carver) have an idea of a framework to
work from. Mr. Moore deliberately left some things up to the carver in
order to see what would happen when his idea was translated into stone
(or wood for that matter).
End of quote.
The one difference is that the jazz musicians are known
and recognized; the carvers are anonymous. The ones I
knew who were executing the works of Moore, Noguchi, and
others (including a couple of Miro's that I saw) were
getting paid the equivalent of $15 U.S. per day in 1974,
and making major aesthetic decisions about the piece.
They were extremely knowledgable and sensitive about art
and the style of the artist whose work they were doing,
but for the most part the artists just viewed them as
strictly fabricators. In general the carvers never met
the sculptors; the sculptors would contract with the
owner or manager of the carving studio.
Quoted text begins.I can understand how this approach would
raise havoc with the Italians and their pointing machines,
End of quote.
For the enlargements they were using a very tricky and
difficult technique of enlarging through triangulation
with sets of three calipers. On the Moore pieces, and
others where the degree of enlargement was so large,
they would only set the capi punti, the main points, and
then take it by eye. They are very flexible carvers,
adjusting technique to piece at hand. I've seen artists
spread the belief that the Italian carvers are strictly
mechanics; if you spend time with them in their studios
you'll see that isn't the case.
Quoted text begins.painting the Sistine Chapel). Rodin was trained as a stonecutter after
all.
End of quote.
Interesting. The things I'd read, and the one posed
photo I saw of him holding a "chisel" and carving (no
chisel at hand at the time, he's awkwardly holding a
screwdriver or a wood chisel against a large block of
marble, not holding it like someone used to wrapping his
fingers around a stone chisel) lead me to believe he
didn't have any carving experience. I may be wrong about
that.
Walter S. Arnold * walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-ups
- message 00126: Carver vs Creator - Patrick Healy (16 Mar 1999)
- message 00124: Carver vs Creator - Patrick Healy (16 Mar 1999)
- message 00123: Carver vs Creator - Seamus O'Mahoney (15 Mar 1999)
- message 00122: Carver vs Creator - Dominic Welch (14 Mar 1999)
- References
- message 00116: sculptor/carver collaboration - Seamus O'Mahoney (06 Mar 1999)
- Previous by Thread: message 00116: sculptor/carver collaboration - Seamus O'Mahoney (06 Mar 1999)
- Next by Thread: message 00122: Carver vs Creator - Dominic Welch (14 Mar 1999)
- Previous by Date: message 00119: Zimbabwean stone sculpture - Bonnie Jackson (10 Mar 1999)
- Next by Date: message 00120: Carvers vs. sculptors - Patrick Healy (12 Mar 1999)
