Awesome Heroic Sculpture by Living Artist

[Greybird]

"[...] drawn in equal parts from Wagner and James Thurber" (my italics).

Neither part of the comparison seems on target to me. I think that Rand did have an image of herself which distorted, but not in the ways Wagner's self-image did. And James Thurber? I don't get this comparison at all.

The Thurber allusion is, I'd say, almost certainly to his brief, iconic story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." Wherein he dramatized a milquetoast who, within his own mind's confines, is a heroic legend. (Danny Kaye perfectly played this as to physical type and gestures in the movie of the same name, though it spun its own Hollywood plot that far extended the original story.)

I'd have to give backhanded props to that reviewer: As clueless slams at Rand's supposedly arbitrary sense of self-importance go, it's at least somewhat original. Though no more fair.

Even she might have taken some pride in being analogized to, say, a Siegfried. But to a Walter Mitty? I wouldn't have wanted to be within Manhattan Island when that explosion of outrage came on her part {rueful smile}

[Ellen Stuttle]

The Thurber allusion is, I'd say, almost certainly to his brief, iconic story "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

Oh. I suppose you're right about that, but if so, I find it a really insulting and inaccurate analogy.

Even she might have taken some pride in being analogized to, say, a Siegfried. But to a Walter Mitty? I wouldn't have wanted to be within Manhattan Island when that explosion of outrage came on her part {rueful smile}

Likewise.

Ellen

___

[Philip Coates]

The Schipperheyn giant that opens this thread certainly is magnificently carved, satisfyingly bold in its large than life-ness, perfectly muscled, an attempt to do something Greek-like with the head and the body.

Clearly a major -attempt- to do something heroic. Which is something to be grateful for in this day and age, and is a defiantly “anti-modern” titanic male nude, a throwback in many ways to a vanished millennium.

But in absorbing or reacting to a work of art, you have to integrate *the whole thing* not the pieces or parts you find awesome or impressive while dropping or minimizing the full context of the work or performance or execution.

The problem I have is the ambiguity of what he is doing or feeling which the artist has allowed to remain. The body is bent backwards and his hands are together in sort of an odd crossed way with one open and the other pressed against it in a fist. If someone were bent back in a soaring ecstasy his hands wouldn't be that way...maybe his arms would be spread wide in joy. Someone who has just been whipped and is arching his back in pain might do that. Or someone, in a more prosaic situation, who is in an agony of anticipation "come on, come on" as his horse rounds the final curve of the track might press his fist against his hand in just that way -- as he is waiting to see if his horse wins the race. Or in an agony of disappointment when he didn't win, having lost a lot of money.

The problem -- other than the weird hands and the ambiguity of the "bend back" -- is you can't see his facial expression in this shot (or maybe not even from ground level since he's larger than life size?). Maybe seen from another angle or from above? That might have helped clarify the exact emotion or mental state he's in.

Twisting and contorting and bending the body backwards does not connote heroism, just some kind of strong (and perhaps transitory) emotion. *That* would be a concept from Objectivist kitsch. Again - education - one needs to grasp how the great, classic Greek or Renaissance sculptors (I've already given the examples of the David and the Winged Victory of Samothrace, but there are others . . . and I'm sort of embarrassed to discuss the over-wrought Schipperheyn in the same breath) would have and did project powerful emotions and mental states. And heroism.

One more point: You can project a strong emotion or clear mental state in a sculpture. You can portray concentration or fear or rage or exaltation, but you can't project 'heroism' as such without more specificity, a context or object of heroism, a situation or event or historical context (for example, a young man being about to go into battle against a much larger and stronger foe -- but in the case of, say, the David, you are projecting a particular kind of heroism, or more narrowly resoluteness and determination).

[Newberry]

The Schipperheyn giant that opens this thread certainly is magnificently carved,

You open with getting an important fact wrong. This sculpture is a bronze, it is not carved. Stone is carved. Bronze originates with sculpting or molding clay, an artist doesn't carve clay. That is one red flag before you finished your first sentence. Am I to ignore your ignorance and marvel at your opinions?

Michael

[Matus1976]

Is mulling over the meaning of life or something very important, especially where a value judgment must be made, a pleasure? I have always thought it was pleasure, but in a very special almost metaphysical sense: a sober, intense pleasure that has its own nature, which includes a great deal of focused effort. Not a joyous laughing carefree kind of pleasure.

I don't know what kind of thinking the people who are criticizing that 'agonizing' aspect of Rodin's "The Thinker" are doing, but it's clearly not the kind of thinking that comes from wrestling to grasp a difficult concept or figure out a new way to do something. One philosopher of science or science writer I read once said that the scientist is the man who looks like he is agony even though he is doing nothing. While agony is certainly an overstatement, I have never found myself brimming with an ear to ear smile while I am wrestling to understand say the motions of a complex mechanical device or try to determine if something is feasible through a series of complex calculations. Usually, I am sitting quietly with my hand at my chin, with a few small expressions this way or that, much like "The Thinker" When I am caught by a wayward thought that temporarily captivates me, I gaze off, eyebrows twitch and raise, I might rub my forehead, if I have a sudden insight or change in a train of thought, my head might jerk to one side quickly, someone watching me might think I was in pain, but I never catch myself smiling lazily and blankly; except for when I figure it out - then I am all smiles.

Its not the thinking per se that should be exemplified, after all, a cross word puzzle or pointless soduku game can cause one to struggle in mental agony, but it's the thinking for a purpose, that is, it's the purpose and goal of the thought, that moment of gestalt, that brings the smile and joy and invigorating sense of life. Struggling to understand something difficult is more like the mental equivalent of a physical workout at the gym than a relaxed moment in quiet reflection, thinking of say childhood memories.

That being said, I like the theme of all of Rodin's work, but I definately do not like the ugliness in the physical outward appearance in for example, The Thinker or Fallen Caryatid, though both are powerfull sculptures to me.

[Jonathan]

I'm trying to zero in on what about the statue doesn't appeal to me. I don't think "Objectikitsh" is a fair description. Near as I noticed on a rapid read of Schipperheyn's website, I see no signs of any reference to Rand. And he's very much his own person.

I wouldn't be surprised if Schipperheyn had never heard of Rand or Objectivism until meeting Newberry.

What I'm thinking is that it's something about the legs, maybe the appearance of the knee joint. I'm reminded of my own childhood-polio-affected "hamstrung" appearance of the lower legs. Few people would notice this, but I notice. There seems to me something "tied down" about the statue -- though not by the artist's "intent," I feel. The intent seems to me a major "Eureka!" experience. And that's from before I read his description of having gotten the image during a near-waking dream state. I like "the idea," but the execution -- with all respect to the artist -- just doesn't do it, from my view. (The hands, though, I think I'll remember as connecting with images I love of hands.)

I also think the legs are a significant part of what makes the statue not connect with me, along with other little bits of body language, which I'm sure imply different things to each of us.

Dance has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread, so I did a quick search, looking for an image of a dance pose which would fit my earlier description of the type of body language that I might see as expressing the "heroic," and, though it's not a perfect representation of what I envision, this is much closer than the body language of Schipperheyn's statue to my view of a figure "making use of [his] powers from on high rather than appearing to be perhaps begging for God's guidance or assistance."

J

Edited October 22, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

The Schipperheyn giant that opens this thread certainly is magnificently carved,

You open with getting an important fact wrong. This sculpture is a bronze, it is not carved. Stone is carved. Bronze originates with sculpting or molding clay, an artist doesn't carve clay. That is one red flag before you finished your first sentence. Am I to ignore your ignorance and marvel at your opinions?

Michael

While correct that bronzes are not usually thought of or referred to as carved, Michael is not correct in saying that an artist doesn't carve clay. I've professionally created dozens of sculptures during the past decade which originated in clay and involved as much carving as molding.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know what kind of thinking the people who are criticizing that 'agonizing' aspect of Rodin's "The Thinker" are doing, but it's clearly not the kind of thinking that comes from wrestling to grasp a difficult concept or figure out a new way to do something. One philosopher of science or science writer I read once said that the scientist is the man who looks like he is agony even though he is doing nothing. While agony is certainly an overstatement, I have never found myself brimming with an ear to ear smile while I am wrestling to understand say the motions of a complex mechanical device or try to determine if something is feasible through a series of complex calculations. Usually, I am sitting quietly with my hand at my chin, with a few small expressions this way or that, much like "The Thinker" When I am caught by a wayward thought that temporarily captivates me, I gaze off, eyebrows twitch and raise, I might rub my forehead, if I have a sudden insight or change in a train of thought, my head might jerk to one side quickly, someone watching me might think I was in pain, but I never catch myself smiling lazily and blankly; except for when I figure it out - then I am all smiles.

Michael,

We are so much on the same page here it hurts. I wonder if the criticisms of "The Thinker" would have been the same if Rodin had made another statue of the same man called "Eureka!" and placed it beside "The Thinker."

Michael

[James Shay]

The Schipperheyn giant that opens this thread certainly is magnificently carved, satisfyingly bold in its large than life-ness, perfectly muscled, an attempt to do something Greek-like with the head and the body.

Clearly a major -attempt- to do something heroic. Which is something to be grateful for in this day and age, and is a defiantly “anti-modern” titanic male nude, a throwback in many ways to a vanished millennium.

But in absorbing or reacting to a work of art, you have to integrate *the whole thing* not the pieces or parts you find awesome or impressive while dropping or minimizing the full context of the work or performance or execution.

The problem I have is the ambiguity of what he is doing or feeling which the artist has allowed to remain. The body is bent backwards and his hands are together in sort of an odd crossed way with one open and the other pressed against it in a fist. If someone were bent back in a soaring ecstasy his hands wouldn't be that way...maybe his arms would be spread wide in joy. Someone who has just been whipped and is arching his back in pain might do that. Or someone, in a more prosaic situation, who is in an agony of anticipation "come on, come on" as his horse rounds the final curve of the track might press his fist against his hand in just that way -- as he is waiting to see if his horse wins the race. Or in an agony of disappointment when he didn't win, having lost a lot of money.

The problem -- other than the weird hands and the ambiguity of the "bend back" -- is you can't see his facial expression in this shot (or maybe not even from ground level since he's larger than life size?). Maybe seen from another angle or from above? That might have helped clarify the exact emotion or mental state he's in.

Twisting and contorting and bending the body backwards does not connote heroism, just some kind of strong (and perhaps transitory) emotion. *That* would be a concept from Objectivist kitsch. Again - education - one needs to grasp how the great, classic Greek or Renaissance sculptors (I've already given the examples of the David and the Winged Victory of Samothrace, but there are others . . . and I'm sort of embarrassed to discuss the over-wrought Schipperheyn in the same breath) would have and did project powerful emotions and mental states. And heroism.

One more point: You can project a strong emotion or clear mental state in a sculpture. You can portray concentration or fear or rage or exaltation, but you can't project 'heroism' as such without more specificity, a context or object of heroism, a situation or event or historical context (for example, a young man being about to go into battle against a much larger and stronger foe -- but in the case of, say, the David, you are projecting a particular kind of heroism, or more narrowly resoluteness and determination).

Philip, I hope you're not put off by the odd, incorrect and somewhat mean-spirited post that said you used "carved" incorrectly. According to my trustworthy, if old, Webster's 7th New Collegiate, a definition of "carve" is to "to work as a sculptor or engraver." (I think that the piece was first carved in smaller form, perhaps in plaster). Additionally, friends of mine who are fellow artists occasionally describe a drawing as "carved", because of a particular character having to do with how forms are delineated, and I believe that may apply with your usage. "Carve" has more than one meaning within art. At any rate, I enjoyed your post.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I also think the legs are a significant part of what makes the statue not connect with me, along with other little bits of body language, which I'm sure imply different things to each of us.

Dance has been mentioned a couple of times on this thread, so I did a quick search, looking for an image of a dance pose which fit my earlier description of the type of body language that I might see as expressing the "heroic," and, though it's not a perfect representation of what I envision, this is much closer than the body language of Schipperheyn's statue to my view a figure "making use of [his] powers from on high rather than appearing to be perhaps begging for God's guidance or assistance."

J

I sure do like Herrera's pose. Whew! "...a sense of prowl." The line comes from a novelette by John Rowe Townsend titled Forest of the Night -- an allegorical rite of passage/coming of age story taking its primary image from Blake's "Tyger, Tyger."

In regard to "making use of [his] powers from on high rather than appearing to be perhaps begging for God's guidance or assistance," however...

You're quoting there from your initial post on the thread (see), in which you wrote:

[...] the whole bending backwards, looking/reaching upward, wanting to be higher type of expression[...] usually implies to me a sort of uncomfortable submissiveness or perpetual incompleteness. I guess my tastes in heroic sculpture lean more toward figures making use of their powers from on high rather than appearing to be perhaps begging from below for God's guidance or assistance, or always being a bit needy in yearning to be higher, better or more than what they are.

I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation. I do like "the idea." It just...doesn't...quite...make it, as I see it.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation.

I can see how you'd see that. Where you see the victory of an emotional breakthrough, I see spiritual or emotional preparation for a victory that is yet to be achieved. I wonder, is there much of a difference, visually, between how a person might look while experiencing a "HA!! That!, there it is!" moment versus how he might look while psyching himself up by appealing to his "god" to convince himself that he will be victorious, or good, or true, etc.?

J

[BaalChatzaf]

I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation. I do like "the idea." It just...doesn't...quite...make it, as I see it.

Ellen

___

Tell me if I am mistaken. You are trying to read the mind of a piece of stone (or plaster)? Is that what you are trying to do? That is god damned weird. I can see maybe trying to decode the body language of a living thing, but a piece of stone? Jeez!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Newberry]

Oh you guys won't let me have my fun. Shame.

1. to cut (a solid material) so as to form something: to carve a piece of pine.

2. to form from a solid material by cutting: to carve a statue out of stone.

3. to cut into slices or pieces, as a roast of meat.

4. to decorate with designs or figures cut on the surface: The top of the box was beautifully carved with figures of lions and unicorns.

5. to cut (a design, figures, etc.) on a surface: Figures of lions and unicorns were carved on the top of the box.

6. to make or create for oneself (often fol. by out): He carved out a career in business.

–verb (used without object)

7. to carve figures, designs, etc.

8. to cut meat.

The art sculpting is clay is of "adding", that of carving is "taking away." No biggy. Jonathan I am sure you talking about scrapping off clay you have put on, unless you are talking about a block of wet clay that then scrape away to get out the figure living inside? You do get #7 of the list.

My purpose in showing you this work is to offer you something exciting that is happening today.

I have enjoyed Michael and Kat's responses. Ellen's responses have been absolutely superb. She is making countless observations, and identifications. She did a little detective work, finding out that Peter, as far as I know, doesn't know anything about objectivisim--he and I have never discussed it or Rand. The ponder connection with the Rodin, simply great. Actually, I think her finding and identifying the theme of the Thinker, is one of the most difficult things to do in art observation and criticism. And she made a stellar connection between Rand's b/w thinking and her dramatic writing.

Those comments are thanks enough. For the others, bah.

As far as tilting heads and twists and turns art history is riddled with great artists doing some or all of it--Nike, Rubens, Michelangelo, yada yada yada--they were not discovered with Rand.

Cheers,

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tell me if I am mistaken. You are trying to read the mind of a piece of stone (or plaster)? Is that what you are trying to do? That is god damned weird. I can see maybe trying to decode the body language of a living thing, but a piece of stone? Jeez!

Bob,

Ellen is responding to a piece of bronze that was shaped in the form of a human being by a live human being. (Bronze, not stone—if you missed that in the beginning, didn't you even read the mini-flare-up over it a few posts above?)

This is called art. Art is an activity of human beings and it is present in all cultures since recorded history. You are supposed to respond like she did.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I didn't get a feeling from the sculpture of "begging from below," etc., of supplication; instead a feeling (or attempted suggestion) of jubilation, of victory, of some kind of breakthrough. I see the hands as being forcefully struck together -- HA!! That!, there it is!, as I said before "a major Eureka experience," but not just of discovering an answer to a thought problem, instead an emotional breakthrough, a liberation. I do like "the idea." It just...doesn't...quite...make it, as I see it.

Try to assume that pose before a mirror, chin higher than your forehead, then you'll notice how unnatural and uncomfortable it is. You are vulnerable and powerless, nothing liberating about it. It is that exaggeration of the head thrown backwards cliché that makes it kitsch.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder, is there much of a difference, visually, between how a person might look while experiencing a "HA!! That!, there it is!" moment versus how he might look while psyching himself up by appealing to his "god" to convince himself that he will be victorious, or good, or true, etc.?

J

I don't know, J, what details, if any, might make a decisive difference between the interpretations. Consider the difference in how people are seeing the Rodin. ;-) Also, we only have a photo to go by; what the effect might be in the round...?

E-

[Ellen Stuttle]

Try to assume that pose before a mirror, chin higher than your forehead, then you'll notice how unnatural and uncomfortable it is. You are vulnerable and powerless, nothing liberating about it. It is that exaggeration of the head thrown backwards cliché that makes it kitsch.

Ah, but you see, I did experiment -- and with a variety of similar poses. My experienced report doesn't agree with yours. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's a poem for you, Bob K.

The italicized part addresses your question; the poem as a whole I think is a good rebuttal to you, in more ways than one.

Ozymandias

By Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert....Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away."

___

[Brant Gaede]

Great poem!

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I don't know, J, what details, if any, might make a decisive difference between the interpretations. Consider the difference in how people are seeing the Rodin. ;-) Also, we only have a photo to go by; what the effect might be in the round...?

I don't know if you saw it, but there is a page on Schipperheyn's site which shows a couple of frontal views:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/SCHIP/zarathu.htm

...which are the ones that made me comment on the overemphasis on the frank and beans. From the front and below, the figure appears to me to be covering his face, almost as if he has just been punched in the nose. I'm thinking that if the statue were placed in a courtyard and I were to view it by walking around it from slightly above, I might have a more positive response to it.

J

[Dragonfly]

He just looks as if he got some pepperspray in his face. The next moment he'll be kicked in the balls to finish him off.

[Newberry]

...which are the ones that made me comment on the overemphasis on the frank and beans.

Another interesting fixation Jonathan!

Perhaps there are couple of things you can double check. This is just a query, do you have a mid-western puritanical upbringing? Second, with your photoshop savvy measure it all out. Perhaps you can use your own anatomy for comparison. You know what to do, I think, figure out the width of his big toe, the length of his fingers, and see how his penis measures up. My guess is that you will find it is smaller than average.

Btw, this is something our trusted Ellen can't not do, well...she has her husband, perhaps he will volunteer.

Perhaps it is the hips thrust forward? But for me, that only maintains the arc.

Michael

Edited October 23, 2007 by Newberry

[Newberry]

Here's a poem for you, Bob K.

The italicized part addresses your question; the poem as a whole I think is a good rebuttal to you, in more ways than one.

Ozymandias

By Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert....Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!'

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away."

___

Moving poem. Thanks for the introduction to Shelley. Poetry is a frontier I do not know, though I look forward to discovering it over time.

Michael

[Newberry]

Couldn't resist including this. Ascension Day, 1990, oil on linen, 7x5'. Sold, for a little more than $30,000. I don't think the collector ever heard of Objectivism.

Anyone who calls it objectivist kitsch, will never be invited to my studio. BTW, the studies were drawn from life, with a ballerina, who kept asking me if I needed her to bend further back. We did the posed broken down in stages, the arch from the waist and pelvis, then the legs by her standing on a table alternating leg positions. I think if we unbent her she would be about 6' 5".

Michael

[Jonathan]

...which are the ones that made me comment on the overemphasis on the frank and beans.

Another interesting fixation Jonathan!

Perhaps there are couple of things you can double check. This is just a query, do you have a mid-western puritanical upbringing?

Midwestern but not puritanical.

Second, with your photoshop savvy measure it all out. Perhaps you can use your own anatomy for comparison. You know what to do, I think, figure out the width of his big toe, the length of his fingers, and see how his penis measures up. My guess is that you will find it is smaller than average.

I said nothing about its size. I said that it's "overemphasized."

Hey, maybe I've figure out the problem -- do you think that the word "overemphasized" means something about size because it contains the word "sized," kind of like how you think that if a work of art contains something that is just a part of the artwork, then that's what it means as a whole? If so, that's not how either art or language works.

Perhaps it is the hips thrust forward? But for me, that only maintains the arc.

It's the hips thrust forward combined with the convergence of the lines, and, from the front view, the absence of the head and face.

J

Edited October 23, 2007 by Jonathan