Talk:Sculpture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic sculpture topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!


Sculpture was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{DelistedGA|insert date in any format here}}
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Mobile sculptures

Aren't mobile sculptures called kinetic sculptures?--BlackGriffen

[edit] Joan Miro

Added mention of Joan Miro's proposal of gas sculpture. Daniel C. Boyer

[edit] Duomo

The Duomo picture doesn't belong on this page. - snoyes 21:42, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] alterations to sculpture wiki

Hello I have just edited the scuplture page because the definition seemed a bit amateur. I hope it meets with everyones approval.

I have removed the reference to a dubious term 'sculpting' In 25 years as a sculptor I have only ever heard it used by people who dont know anything about sculpture - the same ones who call me a sculpture (meaning sculptor).

I am fairly new to wiki and am not sure if my use of bold tags is good form - I havent time just now to search the form documents, but will asap. if they need correcting please feel free...

I have also fleshed out -so to speak - the section on nudes It wasn't really saying anything. i hope i have managed to represent the previous contributors meaning.

I am currently writing a book on sculpture as a process. if its ok with you I will come back and add content to this section when I write anything broad enough for inclusion.

thank you David

[edit] me again

After writingthe above post about changing the sculpture page i thought it would be better if i registered. added this so that you can see my username and contact. DavidP 18:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scuplture of the United States

Just a notice for all of you sculpture-heads that Wikipedia is in need of a Sculpture of the United States page. 72.1.206.21 14:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] straus=strauss?

someone changed the link that said straus with one "s" to strauss with two "s"s. why???

[edit] another visit

I'm not a full time wikipedian, but am a full time sculptor, I drop by once in a while to look at how this page is doing and usually get fairly depressed. so once again I have added a bit. I hope that the previous editor isn't too miffed about the changes I made to his text. I tried to keep the essence of what he/she had to say in the newer version. Still this page is a mess. it is need of a coherent structure. and please no more lists.

Dont forget when you are about to add something that the word sculpture means many things, including:

  • a single object - a sculpture
  • an activity - the making of sculpture - the tools of sculpture
  • a collection of sculptures - exhibition of sculpture
  • a discipline in the arts - the proffession of sculpture - those famous sculptors
  • an art historical area of study - schools and movements, traditions and styles - classical sculpture, totemic sculpture.

as well as iconographic, archaeological and theoretical subjects.

So next time you want to add your say, please try and put it in some context, before you ruin one that someone else has taken the trouble to describe.

thanks DavidP 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sculpture & sculpting v portraiture & portraiting

Thanks for tidying up my edits so neatly Bppen, although I hope you dont mind that Ive gone back and changed the word 'sculpting' from your version.

Perhaps I'd better try and explain.

The word Sculpting exists but it is seldom if ever used as the verb to describe the act of making sculpture.

In many ways a similar case is the word Portraiture - meaning both a discipline and a genre - that should change into the verb portraiting. Another term that is also hardly ever used.

The same is true of the words 'architecture' (architecting) and literature (literating). Simply adding an 'ing' certainly makes a word, but it doesn't always make one that makes sense, when was the last time that anyone did some mechanicing to your car?

The reason for the exceptionaly rare use of these terms is perhaps that, when one is looking for a verb to describe the specific act, a far more precise one is always available that actually suits the activity involved. In the case of sculpture, carving, modeling or assembling and in the case of portraiture, painting, drawing, carving etc.

So the question "what are they doing?" would be far more likely to be answered with "carving a portrait" than "sculpting and portraiting".

Perhaps I'm being a bit fussy here, but you know how it is when something just sounds plainly uninformed, its hard to let it go un-commented. DavidP 13:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] an attempt a more inclusive entry

.................................................. Hello -- I'm the new wikipedician who boldly revised this entry 11/2/05. The notion that "sculpture is PRIMARILY concerned with space" applies to one direction of contemporary sculpture but it does not apply to my direction -- to several other contemporary directions-- or to any of historical traditions of either Europe or the rest of the world.

Sculpture has become a very divergent field. We could now say that if a piece of sculpture is in the next room, all we know is that the room contains something smaller than itself.

I'd prefer to omit discussion of "form" , "content", and "meaning" because I do not believe that they should be distinguished from each other -- i.e. that this distinction accompanies one point-of-view --- but not all points-of-view.


Whatever "neutral" definition we would agree on would probably be too general to be useful -- but Wikipedia could then offer outside links to offer further discussion of the variety of directions sculpture has taken, now and in the past.

I could do that on my website -- you could do it yours -- and Wikipedia could invite anyone else to do the same.

For your information, my website is: www.ilovefiguresculpture.com .............................................. 11/4

I've put up a new entry -- as an attempt to present the diversity of sculpture in a way that would hopefully be acceptable to advocates of each of the divergent directions.

I'd then like to see out-side links to advocates for every possible kind of direction.

I apologize to those who created the definition that I replaced -- as I accept that mine will eventually (maybe immediately)be replaced as well. Hopefully we'll eventually have an entry acceptable to all of us (which is my notion of the "neutrality" that Wikipedia strives for)

Mountshang

hello mountshang. thanks for taking the trouble to write something, and from such a clear point of view. I have to say that I agree with all that your new version says.
My previous attempts were all aimed at trying to be as inclusive as possible too. The starting statement that sculpture was concerned with space in particular, had evolved as a common denominator to almost all entries on this page over time, It was meant in the sense that 'space' and its issues are what makes sculpture distinct from say, painting - the bottom line of sculpture being that it is in some way three dimensional, even if it is only involving concepts of three dimensionality as you prove in your 'sculpture next door' example.
Space is not just a contemporary stance, sculpture IS always set in the context of space, wether conceptual, abstract, ancient, figurative or spiritual - otherwise it would be 2 dimensional, literary, or some other form. perhaps you mis-construe the term primary, in this case it means the first, before any issues of likeness or subject, tradition or genre. establishing that sculpture is three dimensional seems a very good place from which to develop sections about any additional concerns.
your new text appears to take this for granted and begins the subject at a degree of higher sophistication, something that perhaps might have been more appropriate somewhere other than the first paragraph. we must remember that wikipedia is a tool for the uninformed as well as the well versed - it is usual for the first para to be a basic overview. So a neutral statement is more or less exactly what is required above the sections.
I am unclear about what you mean by 'anybody could put up a website...' but it does seem that to state that wiki's content should be through outside links rather defeats the purpose of wikipedia.
I am sorry that you are unhappy with the terms 'form' and 'content' - but to remove them for having that pov is to deny readers access to two terms that are well established, important and what is more critical to a coherent understanding of sculpture as a subject. I will revert that para. It is not neccessary to discuss them at all - there are linked pages for that, but they should be present as they are currency in 99% of debate (even if the debate is one that says they should not be distinguished, have you added to those pages?).

DavidP 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] artisan and class

I removed this para

In societies with sharply divided social classes, sculpture has always been considered a trade to be practiced by artisans (except, as with Michelangelo, an exceptional sculptor was promoted to a higher status).

because

  • It is social history that is just as pertinent to any branch of the arts as sculpture - see flemish painters - so is more appropriate on the visual art page
  • It doesnt follow that artisans are low status - as was not the case in renaisance italy - even michaelangelo never made it beyond sculptor.
  • Sculpture hasn't 'always been considered a trade, but the artisan probably does predate the very concept of art as we use it.
  • societies with sharply divided social classes such as Los Angeles, in the present - doesn't have an artisan class - but the dominant class (the getty) does refuse to see the sculpture or murals of its hispanic lower class as worth patronising, even though it is arguably amongst the most exported art forms of the US.

Class and status are far too relative terms to make such generalisations with. class and status in renaisance italy are not comparable with today, for instance. where status may be raised by notoriety or a degree of fame, class, or even social position may not.

[edit] a proposed outline

Someone (an administrator of some kind? ) has identified our section as a mess -- and, though I think that a mess is an appropriate way to display a messy topic -- I'd like to propose the following structural outline - with nested categories indicated by the number of X's that precede each of them: .........................................................

X WHAT IS SCULPTURE: Three dimension, man-made objects selected for special recognition as art.

XX historical reasons for making that selection : Romanticism/ Orientalism/ history of art museums/ etc.
XX additional current reasons for making that selection ( contemporary art museums/ cowboy art / ethnic art / other special theme art ). This is where a discussion of form and content would occur. (historically, items were selected as sculpture, and put into the Louvre, for example, without any idea of content -- and that still happens with artifacts from prehistorical societies. But today, intended content may be the only thing that distinguishes the found- object in the gallery from the found-object that is left in the trash can.
XX various outside links for individuals to argue their case.

X HISTORIES OF VARIOUS TRADITIONS OF OBJECT MAKING.

(this is where the sociology of artisans/patricians/art-stars would be discussed -- and yes, I do think that literacy = social status in every human society ---- and painting is usually closer to writing than sculpture is. The outstanding example is Mandarin culture in China -- where painting can be considered a kind of caligraphy (and China is , after all, the world's largest and oldest society.
XXX China (with various nestest categories to be determined.
XXX India (with various nestest categories to be determined).
XXX Africa (with various nestest categories to be determined).
XXX Pre-Columbian Americas (with various nestest categories to be determined).
XXX Europe (and Euro culture areas ) (with nested categories as follows).
XXXX Classical
XXXXX human figure
XXXXX portaiture
XXXXX animals
XXXX Christian
XXXX Modern
XXXXX early modern
XXXXX post-modern
XXXX other European traditions
XXXXX doll and toy making
XXXXX folk arts
XXXXX commercial / industrial design.


Some explanation follows------------------

1.We should present sculpture as a category of things selected for recognition as such --- rather than as a kind of human activity (like warfare/farming/religion etc.

Because -- many things that we now consider sculpture were originally intended to be something else: knives, helmets,fetishes, toys, propaganda,ornaments, etc. --- while most such things are still not considered sculpture (like 99% of the tombstones found in any cemetary.


The idea of collecting a variety of things -- regardless of their original purpose --as sculpture rather than as a trophy or curiosity or ancestral relic -is unique to Western European culture and is less than 200 years old - even if the objects collected are hundreds or thousands of years old.

2. The kinds of things that people and institutions have recognized as sculpture over that 200 years are many --as is the language/art theory used to explain those various recognitions.

3.To be useful -- an encyclopedic discussion of sculpture can list the different reasons for calling something sculpture -- and to be even-handed-neutral --- this discussion should try to present those reasons in the language used by those who use it.

4. The best way to accomplish the above -- is to let advocates for each kind of sculpture speak for themselves ** without editing ** on their own outside link ** even if an overall editor (or team of editors) must decide which links are presented and which are not.

5. How we separate the various categories of European traditions cannot help but be controversial.

The Romanesque sculpture of Autun is Christian but not Classical --- the stone figures on the facade of Rheim cathedral are both Classical and Christian --- while Donatello's erotic young male nude is distinctly a Hellenistic Classical revival, even though it's called a "David" to fit it into the Christian liturgy.

And of course, there's that recent distinction between the Modern and post-Modern --- made messy by the fact that the first iconic artist of the post-modernism, DuChamps, worked in the golden age of Modernism.

I'm guessing that irreconsilable versions of these histories will be presented -- and that's where a selection of outside links should be offered. - Mountshang

i added the "cleanup" template to the top of the page, as the introductory paragraph is way beyond a paragraph! there are no real "administrators" on wikipedia, we are all equal editors. there are some Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines we all try to follow. I'm fairly new here too, just learning and reading as i go (there are a LOT of guideline pages once you start digging, dont worry about trying to learn it all at once ;)
re: the article and your suggestions. good ideas, but this sculpture page is meant to be an overview of the idea. the "history of" has its own seperate page(s): History of sculpture.
see also Category:Sculpture and Wikipedia:Sculpture basic topics for other subtopic pages that have/need to be started. --Quiddity 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I was about to say that I too think your ideas are good mountshang, but wished to make a representation for the activity as well as the consumption (object) of sculpture... then I read quiddity's comment about the history being more appropriate elsewhere and suddenly the sense that was starting to form was gone again - quiddity is right I think.
So perhaps a with a bit more discussion here, we can sort out a similar definition of what could go both here and on the history of sculpture page and then post the appropriate stuff to the right places - we might even help the history page by doing this - altough at the time of writing I havent looked at it. besides its always good to discuss the subject, whatever comes of it.  :DavidP 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

............................... ............................... ............................... Thanks for the encouragement, DavidP and Quiddity.

So let the main entry just be the sentance about "three-dimensional objects selected for recognition" followed by history of recognition up through today (i.e. a survey of sculpture art theory)

David wishes "to make a representation for the activity" -- and that would be covered in the historical section that follows (which would include sections for contemporary activity )


All of the below topics, as now written on the Wikipedia site, should go into the European sub-section of the "history of sculpture" -- and these topics should also be presented for each of the other subsections (Chinese, India,Africa,etc)

1 Traditional materials
2 Contemporary materials
3 Forms
4 Sculptors
7. Sculpture genres

While the following topics would be specific to European:

5 Greenfield Products Pty Ltd v. Rover-Scott Bonnar Ltd.
6 Nudity ( which I think is a discussion of the Greco-Roman tradition that continues to this day.)
Topic # 8 -- External links -- should be sorted --

one possible sorting would be:

  • scupture web-museums.
  • sculpture brick&mortar museums (including all those one-sculptor museums -- like the one for Brancusi currently posted as "Sculpture from Roumania".
  • sculpture organizations
  • vendors of sculpture materials
  • dissenting opinions concerning anything on the page
  • sculpture schools
  • individual sculptor sites
Mountshang

Hi, I cleaned this article up a bit. It still needs a lot of work though. I removed a lot of vague comments that can apply to most forms of art and tried to group some related concepts. I tried to keep most of the relevant material in some way though. Hopefully someone with more time and a deeper knowledge of the subject can take it further. It looks like you have a good plan for this article. Merphant 06:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the introductory paragraphs

I'd like to remove the entire first section except for the first phrase -- because everything else is superfluous and can't help but be confusing and digressive.

There's no need to talk about what sculpture could be, (for example: the Duchamps reference) because a sculpture could be anything.

There's no need to talk about what it has often been -- because that follows from what we, today, wish to identify as historical sculpture, and there is no permanent consensus on what distinguishes an historical artifact from a sculpture.

For example, the most famous sculpture from ancient Egypt is the Nefertiti. And yet -- this item was found during the excavation of a sculptor's studio, and the current prevailing theory is that it served as a model for workmen (like the plaster death-mask used in later centuries) rather than as an it item for any kind of public display. Have you ever seen a plaster death mask in an art museum ? The only reason for calling it a sculpture is that the public, 3000 years later, likes to look at it for reasons probably best identified by Camille Paglia: Nefertiti looks like an aloof, sexy, modern movie star. If I had to separate Egyptian artifacts from sculpture -- I would call it the former --but we all have our own opinion, don't we ?

Another example: I recently attended an exhibit of ancient, native-American art at the art museum. The exhibit included a fine collection of arrowheads -- well lit to display their elegance and craftsmanship. Is an arrowhead sculpture ? Fifty years ago -- it was an artifact in a dark, dusty case in the local history museum. What will it be in another 50 years ? Who knows -- the point is, that what is displayed as historical sculpture changes just as what is displayed as contemporary changes over time.

All that we know about sculpture is that it is three- dimensional and that some one (or some institution) now wishes to call it 'art' --- and that is all that the introduction to this topic should include.


--Mountshang 17:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes made today

Today, I've made the major changes indicated above.

So far, I've found four ways that articles about sculpture (and other arts) have been categorized in Wikipedia:

by Religion (Buddhist, Hindu,Christian, etc)
by historical period (Ancient,Medieval,Renaissance, Modern etc)
by country (Italy, United States, Russia etc)
by genre (mask,pottery,glass etc)

That means that the same story might eventually be told four times (concerning, for example, the Medieval Hindu masks of India) -- but I think we have to accept that -- and hope that each contributor reads the other relevant contributions.

So far, there's VERY LITTLE about sculpture on Wikipedia.

Nothing about Hindu or Ancient Egyptian or or anything French, Russian or German or --- you name it -- it's not there.

But there is a good entry for Buddhist sculpture, Italian sculpture -- and I've just beefed up the entry for Sculpture of the United States.

It may be several decades before even the major periods get covered -- but, hopefully, time is not an issue.

--Mountshang 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mountshang: a rather brutal series of edits, but I have to say that it is a vast improvement. never thought i'd be so glad to see some of my own words vanish. well done.
next perhaps its time to strip the section entitled Genres of items that clearly arent genres but rather are forms or materials. if suggestions for genre are needed then perhaps stuff like minimalism, formalism, totemism, cubism, realism, and more recently site specific, installation etc. will start to flesh this out in a few days, after i get time to search some existing wikilinks out - Ill also have a go at finding some content for the missing countries.
just to retain that oh so wiki sense of perversity I wondered why you changed the spelling of aluminium when, apparently, as a spelling it is prefered in the US (see [[1]] and the Aluminum page is redirected to the Aluminium page anyway.

DavidP 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Thankyou, DavidP, and others, for your patience.
The fun part of this project seems to be assembling (or watching others assemble) the details for each country, period, and genre. The current section on Buddhist art, for example, really floored me with that picture from Afghanistan. I'd never seen anything quite like it from China, Tibet, or India.
I'm going to be working on the genre I've called "Modern classicism" -- because that's what interests me the most. I've started out with a description of the Greco-Roman classical tradition, which I hope others will amend as necessary.


Some of the best contributions so far have come from CARPTRASH. He documents each of his entries with references and pictures that he has taken himself -- and he doesn't just write about the famous sculptors that everybody knows.
Regarding the listing of "Genres" of contemporary sculpture, I see your point about distinguishing genres from forms or materials -- but have no idea how to do it.
BTW -- I didn't touch the spelling of aluminium/aluminum. My spelling is so bad, I have yet to notice, much less correct, the possible mistakes of others.


Mountshang 14:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Modern sculpture

I've put in a section for Modern Classial sculpture -- along with entries for all the sculptors that are mentioned. Eventually, I hope to expand it with further discussions of genres like animal sculpture, expressionism, socialist realism, and cover the classical sculpture from South America, Mexico, South Africa, Australia, the Middle-East etc.

What's missing is -- of course -- all the other directions that sculpture took in 20th century European-culture countries.

I know very little about these kinds of sculpture -- and I'm hoping that others will work on this area.

Mountshang 21:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New top image

the new picture by the ToC is a terribly lit photograph. all that can be seen is the silhouette of the whales, completely removing the important characteristics of form and texture. please replace. --Quiddity 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

(Full Disclosure - I did take the phtograph.) You are right, of course, that the backlighting does not allow much of the texture to appear, though you can see a lot more if you click through and view the image at full size. However, I don't think the texture is that central to appreciating this work. I think that the most interesting thing about this particular sculpture is the overall form, which does come out in the silhouette. The sculpture stands out very strongly from the background, calling the viewers attention to its shape and imposing size.
I think the inclusion of this photo benefits this article partly because it is a different type of sculpture (scale, location, combination of statue and fountain) than any other found on this page. Also, it has the advantage of being a good shape to fit alongside the table of contents. Johntex\talk 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be harsh, but i think your personal connection is biasing you to a large extent. Of the 3 elements of a photograph (shape, form, texture), this image only contains shape (with a hint of form at fullsize). The effort is appreciated! but the image is just not an excellent one, and why settle for anything less? (this is a good photograph of sculpture, even though a large amount is out of focus.) --Quiddity 22:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually think I am very able to control my individual bias almost completely in this case. I am fond of the photo, but not tremendously attached to it. That is why I point out up front my connection to the photo - so that anyone here can keep it in mind when evaluating my opinion. Any fondness I do feel is for the photo itself, not the sculpture, so if we decide this is not a good illustration of the concept of sculpture, then I will happily remove it myself if no one beats me to it.
A bigger factor in this dicsussion may be the fact that I am not a sculptor! My reading of this article has led me to understand that the "form" of a sculpture is what I would have called the "type" of sculpture, for example a bust or fountain. Under that understanding, I believe that the shape of the article and the form are both well represented. There is an added advantage that we don't have another photo of a fountain form in the article.
Is my understanding of what "form" means incorrect? If so, then perhaps the article should be reviewed on this point to be more accessible to a novice, and perhaps you can tell me what "form" actually does mean in this context? Johntex\talk 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The definition i'd intended was that from "The Art of Photography": "In art, form is distiguished from shape as the three-dimensional aspect of an object". I was meaning that in the whale sculpture photo, it is hard to get a sense of the overall 3d shape of the piece. If i didnt already know quite well what many different whales look like, i might have a very hard time deciphering what shape the sculpture was, as it is mostly in silhouette (due to the backlighting). This is probably less clear for you, as you have a very good mental 3d representation of the sculpture, because you saw it and walked around it! I very much agree that it would be useful to have pictures of a fountain and other larger works in this article. I still suggest that this may be a poor photograph, but my major concern was with it being displayed so prominently at the top of the article. You're welcome to place it lower down, until it gets replaced by something better. Hope that all makes sense :) (am still on 1st coffee..) --Quiddity 20:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

re-tabbed.

Oops sorry Johntex I must have been changing the image as you were writing your last comment - sorry I have to agree with quiddity in as much that I too thought the image a bit unclear. I take your point about the need for balance in the examples shown here, but really dont think that the dolphins are particularly good examples of a fountain, and hate to say that they aren't really very acomplished sculptures either. (I do hope you didn't make them, if so, my apologies). I chose the Boccioni because it was about the only figurative yet reasonably recent sculpture that I could find in commons - It also nods towards a degree of abstraction which might satisfy both the classicists out there as well as the the more avant garde (tongue firmly in cheek).

Johntex strictly speaking the 'form' of a sculpture is widely understood to mean all the physical attributes of the work, including its scale, material, technique and location (in other words everything that is physical about it). this is usually in contrast to its 'content' which is understood by the same to signify all the narrative, symbolic, representational 'meaning' that the maker has inserted, or the viewer can perceive. as you can imagine these distinctions overlap, and are often the subject of debate. The 'type of sculpture', as you put it is more the domain of art historians, who do love to tidy things into neat categories, they like best to divide things up into 'schools', styles, nationalities and ism's - mostly things that artists aren't too concerned with.


I really must agree with you that the page needs work. It is quite a while since I last visited, and it is amazingly better than it was. but unfortunately it is still very confused.

It is hard enough imagining a template that can handle all the vested interests of producers, critics, historians, and all the opposing views that they have... making that template work and then it surviving more than a few edits, when someone really needs to add bloody sandcastle making to the mix, is a superhuman task. thats why I gave up on it ages ago.

dont let my cynicism put you off though - keep asking those questions. ---- regards DavidP

  • Hi David and Quiddity - thanks for your dialog about this. I very much like the image David has found. I think it is a great choice for the head of the article. So, I feel good that an article on sculpture actually leads with an example of sculpture. Concerning the sculpture of the whales breaching from the fountain, I still think it may be good to include this image in the article somewhere for two reasons: (1) we have no picture of a fountain (2) we don't seem to have any examples of a sculpture that approaches this one in size. I don't know where in the article would be the best place, so I would look to you for guidance. If you have better examples of fountain sculpture or large-scale sculptures, then of course that would be fine. Or, we could start with this image and replace it later as better photos are found. What are your thoughts? Johntex\talk 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested improvements

I saw this article nominated at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations but I don't think it fully meets the criteria yet. The lead section should be longer, giving a two or three paragraph summary of all the article's content, and also there need to be some references. I would also suggest trimming the number of images and not having the large gallery sections interrupting the flow of the article; perhaps including a mention of some particularly notable sculptors; and converting the lists under 'Greek-Roman-classical' into prose. Worldtraveller 10:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just wandered in here

made a few changes - saw a lot more to do - and then discovered this discussion page and almost "unwatched" the whole thing. But decided instead to take a few deep breaths, try a couple more edits and see what happens. I could not help but notice that there was no mention of water, for example under "fountain" and found myself wondering why "bust" and "relief" were listed under European [or whatever] when they are pretty universal, reliefs at least. Anyway the best thing to do is get out my straight razor, have at it, maybe nick a few faces, draw a little blood, have some fun and see what develops. Carptrash 06:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) oh yes, apropos of a discussion up the page, my daughter once said of her trips on the road with me, looking at sculpture, "Sculpting with Dad is no picnic." There was a use of the word 'sculpting" not mentioned.

Also. while I'm here, what does anyone/everyone think of these statements?

  • Free-standing sculpture, not intended to be displayed on a pedestal or shelf.
  • Perhaps the majority of public art is sculpture.

Perhaps?

[edit] "It is common for film sculptors . . ."

Is this referring to sculptors who create sculpture for movies? Like Rudolph Parducci's giant figures for the Circus Maximus in Ben Hur? If so, it can be better worded, and those folks are certainly not the only ones doing this sort of thing. I don't want to change it if it is referring to some technique that I am totally ignorant of - not out of the question by any means. Carptrash 06:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the mill Carptrash. I share some of your observations. As for 'film sculpture' It seems to me to be a bit of an advert for ferrocement (personaly i find that polymerised tile adhesive works so much better) anyway - my point was to be that we really dont need a 'how to' guide right here, right now, or we'll have to do one for every obscure process that sculptors get up to (what adhesive do you use for sticking fresh flesh onto green ash poles?). so I would like to suggest its deletion. one more thing, why the pre-occupation with sand on this page? huh god knows. DavidP 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes,, it seems to me too, that with all that can be written about sculpture, sand need not be mentioned more than once. However the sand folks might have a strong lobby and I'm more comfortable just adding what I wish to add and leave subtraction to folks like . . . ... well like you. So, go for it, with my blessing. Carptrash 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
the section on modern technicques goes into a lot of detail on some but little on others and should probably become a sub-section somewhere Holdspa 16:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sculptor article badly missing

The article that discusses the skill/trade of sculpture-making. The current one is devoted to sculptures only and totally ignores people who produce them, i.e., sculptors. `'mikka (t) 17:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

what the history modelng sculpture

I took this adit of yours and am moving it here until i [or someone else] can ffigure out what needs to be done with it. it is not very complete like this. Also, please consider registering and singing your edits. Carptrash 15:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
==modeling sculpture are found all round the world for expamle:==
See also History of sculpture

[edit] External Links

I deleted all the external links. Most were simply promoting minor artists or dealers. A couple weren't but were about much more specific subjects than "sculpture" (e.g. the gargoyles at Yale University). The only one that somebody might want to reinstate, if they are feeling incredibly generous, would be http://sculpture.org.uk.

To anybody reading this, please don't feel shy about having another clearout of the external links when this sort of stuff pops up again. If something is really important then there should be a wikipedia article about it. External links can be useful, for instance to point to online timetables in an article about a city's transit system or to provide sources to validate the content of an article, but there is no excuse for inserting them indiscriminately.

And please watch out for Shira Tal. Someone (it might not have been her) has spammed her link to Painting, Heidelberg and Sculpture - and possibly to other articles as well. Ireneshusband 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youri Messen-Jaschin Article needing some attention

Might someone who frequents the sculpture article be able to do some clean-up of the Youri Messen-Jaschin per a note at Talk:Youri_Messen-Jaschin? Just a thought ... Thanks! Keesiewonder 00:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India

I had a good hack at this, apologies if I hurt any feelings. The sculpture of India is well studied and sorted into periods and styles. Ideally this section could set them out clearly, with an inline image for each (of better quality than those provided). Short of this, one can hack and push it around ... 20:08, 31 December 2006. Rsaum 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am joining you in hacking around the India section, starting with dates and periods for the images, which need some identification [please DOUBLE CHECK MINE] - but.... Carptrash 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a comment placed in the India section that I'm moving here in toto, and I paste:

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK, IT WILL HELP U TO GET MORE IMAGES OF INDIAN SCULPTURE,,,UPLOADED BY NAQUASH

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indianartnaquash/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/indianartnaquash2/

--otherlleft 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BUT, more important (opinion)

is the fact that there seem to be no sources anywhere to be found and as this article grows and becomes more and more complicated there will be voices raised soon, very soon, demanding some accountability from us. So... do we add sources after each section ? [what I intend to do for starters], or at the end of the whole piece ? or WHAT ? Carptrash 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

One of my friends is into sculpting using modelling wax. I was hoping I'd find some helpful information about it in this article, but I just found that the materials section is virtually nonexistent. Will somebody add to this post soon, lease? Alphapeta 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info on how sculpture was made was removed in February

It appears a User:Sparkit removed a whole section explaining how stone sculpture was made and removed it to its own page at Stone sculpture in February. I just did a test to see how big it would be if I readded it to this page and it doesn't say the article is too big. The situation is further complicated by the exact same text existing at Stone_carving#Stone_Sculpture. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello and HELP

Can we please get an art historian here to help? I teach sculpture and practice it as well and this page is an embarrassment. The "Materials..." section, though short contains sweeping generalities that are not now nor were ever true. Just because all we have left from antiquity are stone and bronze sculptures doesn't mean they weren't making 3-d objects from wood (Trojan Horse) and paper maché, etc.. Durability is not the usual objective as is stated here. Point here being that early sculptures, like most art before Duchamp, including all sponsored by the Catholic Church, was made to function as document or as idol, or mediator, object of worship or, in general to refererence and/or stand-in for a 'being' ( or phenomena) to commemorate or worship. Examples include: Stonehenge, Easter Island, the statues of ancient Greece, Rome, General(s) Everybody, the Metric System (outside of Paris) and so on. This is a huge topic. Andy Goldsworthy is mentioned early on in the materials section and yet there is no reference to Donatello, da Vinci, Bernini, Rodin, Brancusi, Giacometti, Davd Smith, Tony Smith, Eva Hesse, Ed Kienholz (to get to the 60s by leap-frogging countless artists) yet someone named Jim Gary is included? That section shouldn't be on the page at all since materials evolved with time, which would be obvious to anyone reading through the entire history. Just to note: Pablo Picasso was primarily a painter who dabbled in sculpture like his buddy Matisse. Neither significantly advanced the genre. This whole section is just wrong.

If I could, I would take a year and get some help, but I have three full time jobs and a family. I teach sculpture at a university with a relatively lame Art History Department, but excellent Graduate Fine Arts Department, or I would forward to the resident expert(s). It's too much for one, or even all of us, to take on. Most Art History Departments have historians that specialize in specific time periods.

Is there anyone out there with an encylcopedic knowledge of the history of art, including the contemporary? The mention of Rosalind Krauss in the Post-Modern section is excellent (she is citable for starters) and I would suggest that fields be kept more general until there is consensus. I've been around a while, had a pretty good, international education, and haven't heard of a lot of the "guys" mentioned in that section.

We should stick to major shifts in the genre with the major artists who we associate with them. Flushing out comes after the basics.Bmccarren 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put BmcCarren, you have just re-iterated exactly my feelings when first coming to this page. I spent a while trying to sort it out too, until I realised that not only would one need an encyclopaedic knowledge, but you would also have to virtually live here to repair the excessive tangents that this page is prone to (what is that reference to 'retroarchaeology doing in the first para?)- and that is even before the problem that arises when you consider that the page has to satisfy not only those seeking a definition of sculpture as an academic subject, but also any 'sculpture' regardless of merit as an object in its own right, not to mention the hundreds of inexplicable, but valid disciplines that also lay claim to the word i.e. Scenic sculpture, body sculpture(athletic), hair sculpture, sand sculpture, even natural topographic sculpture.
Really this page is a perfect example of conceptual exasperation sculpture. 81.102.245.79 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

While I tried to look up templates, I couldn't get there. It seems obvious to me that the first section of "Sculpture" should be a "History of Sculpture" which is the hard, comprehensive, citable and continually expanding portion.Bmccarren 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

Having re-read the article and then this discussion page, a thought occured to me that just might help to put some perspective on where this page is getting confused. The article from the start makes the assumption that sculpture is Art, with a capital A.

Now clearly sculpture can be Art but it is not exclusively within the domain of art. Primarily Sculpture is a definition of an object with certain 3 dimensional or spatial qualities. not neccessarily even 'visual' art. Secondly sculpture is an act.

If we start with a clear definition of exactly what defines a sculptured object, whether it be considered art or something else, a wind sculptured landscape for instance. It should then be a fairly simple matter to chapter out all the various aspects of sculpture that need representing, such as the history of sculpture, contemporary sculpture. In doing so we could conveniently link to pages that deal with these eminently legitimate subjects in their own right.

Then we would be spared the task of writing a conclusive history of everything, as most 3 dimensional objects seem to count in some way or other as Sculpture - and there are rather a lot of them around. 81.102.245.79 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your shepherding us through this fairly simple matter. Carptrash 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Americas section needs expansion

First off, I was surprised to see there's no Sculpture of Canada and Sculpture of Mexico articles, and in what mention of Mesoamerican cultures there is no mention of those cultures by name; jade also being important to note as a medium, no? Then the mention of totem poles etc in North American aboriginal cultures - I think I'll change "boat" to "canoe" by the way - should go on to say that sculpture in the Northwest Coast area reached a very high degree of sophistication, accelerated by the advent of metal tools after European Contact, and again the particular cultures/peoples should be mentioned, as well as the latter-day renaissance of same, perhaps mention Bill Reid (sculptor) and others in the process; there is no Northwest Coast art article but perhaps there should be.... Similarly Inuit sculpture is a whole topic obviously in need of mention here, also with its own article, and likewise there's a great modern-era resurgence and, from all aboriginal traditions, new forms of experimentation (one huge display at the Vancouver Art Gallery last year was Northwest-type masks and paraphernalia - made out of hockey gear, and damn some of it was good (normally I retch at the Canadian obsession with hockey-related whatever). In both Northwest Coast and Inuit examples, jade again should be mentioned, and in particular argillite as a notavble specialized medium (Haida artists only, nobody else has access to the stuff....).Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas, all. And looking at your user page suggests to me that you are about as qualified as anyone to do it. I have a surprising (to me anyway) amount of information on Canadian sculpture and would be willing to toss in a few things, but since I am hopelessly addicted to both opinion and original research, I'm not going to be the flag carrier here. Also, I'd check into Canadian copyright laws about pictures, - having just had about a zillion of my pictures (mostly American (as in United States) sculpture plucked out of wikipedia. I have Canadian sculpture, and a few Mexician, pictures too, but am not inclined to share if they are just going to get removed by the Copyright Crusaders. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added some, but was amazed to find how little we had on Pre-Colombian art in other articles - scary! Is this article really B standard - parts certainly, but other bits.... Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Painting on Sculpture

I've removed the painting that User:Sherurcij added to the article Sculpture because it is really out of place there. The painting doesn't illustrate the text in any way, or add to the section where it was placed. It is an article that depicts SCULPTURE not sculpting, or making sculpture, or sculpture techniques etc. Perhaps adding a piece of Tibetan sculpture might be more apropos. The added image by the way had no date, no artist, no material. Moreover it is an obscure painting by an obscure painter, and really is out of place following Michelangelo, Lipchitz and the Classical Greek. I would appreciate discussing that image further on this articles talk page. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact this article currently only discusses standing pieces of art, and not the process of creating them is a weakness of the article, since it is the redirect location for sculpting, sculptor and others. Landor is far from an "obscure" painter, and the date is clearly displayed as being 1905. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your post. If I (or you) can find a few similar images, and we can add some referenced text, then perhaps creating a new sculpture technique section can be added with a gallery and/or just some images and text. We might have images of casting, welding, carving wood and stone, etc. Landor is a valid painter, but he is indeed obscure, as are lots of good artists..Modernist (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)