portrait-sculpture.com

[Stuart]

We've discussed working in a loose manner as opposed to working the surface in a very tight way.
Here is a portrait of Donna, a friend of mine. I chose to leave as much evidence of my fingers and tools as I could. I only left marks and flourishes that pleased me and I felt that her beauty and presence still came through.
For me, this is a much more personal expression.
Stuart

[Phil Minchinton]

Hi Stuart, I've long been an admirer of your work and especially the scope / intention of the surface finish e.g. the deeply personal portrait of your father KHG Williamson to, for example, the 'photo' accurate representations of Washington throughout his life. I have to say though that this posting brought about an emotional response from me and a question I have to ask. I love the general 'feel' of looseness about the portrait and agree that the beauty does come through overall. My question though is about the treatment over the eyebrows where you have placed some small pieces of clay which have not been swept into the same overall texture as in other places. I have spent some time looking again and again at the photos and I am left with a gut reaction - yes they are part of the piece but because they appear to emit from and lay on the skin, they invoke an emotional reaction, especially as one on one side lays at right angles to the other. Could I humbly ask what your thoughts are about these areas? Regards Phil

[Stuart]

Dear Phil
Thanks for the kind comments
and also for your good honest response.

As with all of my portraits I remember the 'journey' in the creation of this one. I was tired of the super reality and super smoothness necessary for the making of wax portraiture and I was enjoying being more expressive in my own work.
In fact in reality there are other crude placings of clay on the lips in particular and in the mouth area, ears etc. which are less obvious in these photos, But for some reason I didn't wish to amalgamate or tie it up.
I realise this 'unfinished' piece is not everone's cup of tea, but fortunately I still like it, even if I'm startled occassionally by my own decisions to leave things be as I study the surface
In other peoples work, I love to see their 'footprints'.
I'm not a fan (sculpturally speaking) of the smoothness I'm so often required to do.
I like to see evidence of fingers and tools at work. Karen Newman has a superbly personal modelling style which I admire greatly. www.karen-newman.com
I especially like her Andrew Jennings, Fantastic variation on the surface, (she's better at it than me!) and the peculiar decision to almost ignore anatomy and let the base determine the line into the neck. Love it!

I've mentioned the work of the american sculptor Jo Davison who inspires me greatly too. His variation in his modelling is wonderful. Great example in the Nat. Portrait Gallery, Washington.

If 'Donna' engenders some thought on this subject of surface I'll be glad.
Meanwhile, Best wishes
Stuart

[Phil Minchinton]

Dear Stuart,

Many thanks for your kind reply, I worried after submitting that I had proverbially backed you into a corner! I have to say that whilst I appreciate Karen Newman's work, I think that the portrait of your father in terms of your working, connection and application to the piece is for me, unsurpassed. Whether consciously intentional or otherwise, the strong stokes and formation of his portrait in your markings reflect not only his appearance but the journey only a son would know about his father. I would be greatly interested to know what your feelings and recollections are about the piece. Finally, I have to say though that for me, Karen's portraits of Violette Szabo and Vivien hold that something and it's interesting to note that both your father's portrait and that of Violette avoid the 'Houdon' eye/ pupil complications........

Best regards

Phil

[Stuart]

That one of my Dad is interesting in that it is very small.........only 7" from top of head to top of base.
For me it is a very important work for a variety of reasons and now has further meaning after his passing. He was and is a very important inspirational element in my life.
I didn't want a smoothed of piece and I wanted something that wouldn't dominate their living space. The modelling style is more usual to larger sculpture and so it took a lot of control and consideration. Much more than for a high finish.
The eye thing is interesting. Some people don't like it, but it just happened, and I believe it is always the artist's decision that is important in these matters. I was interested to find that one of Jo Davidson's portraits has this same treatment. As it happens on a very smooth portrait.
(Incidentally, I don't like those little highlights in the eyes which I'm often asked to do for institutional portraits.) Personal!
I haven't given this 'empty eye' aspect a lot of thought, but perhaps it adds a sort of mask element?
I'm always looking at older work and wondering about the decisions I made. I also believe that when you think it might be finished it usually is. I've spoiled a few by overworking in the past.
I will post images of the pieces talked about.



Thanks for your further thoughts on these matters Phil. It is always deeply interesting to follow other peoples thoughts about one's work.
You're all welcome to comment on these works and thoughts.
Stuart

[Joel Levinson]

Stuart,
Years ago I met a sculptor,Fritz Cleary,a former president of the National Sculpture Society.All his portraits that I have seen had open eyes.I was young when I met him and didn't have the prescence of mind to ask him about it.There is something about the approach I find haunting.I'm working on a series of self portrait studies and I'm trying that approach with one of them.

Joel

[Stuart]

Portrait of Harry Patch......(half life-size water based clay)...........the last of a generation of British soldiers who fought in World War One. He died last week at 109. It is also in memory of my Gt.Uncle Bert who was killed in that terrible conflict.

Joel...........I would be very interested to see work by Fritz Cleary, but couldn't find any on the net. Will keep the name in mind. You'll notice I left the eye detail out in this portrait too. This old man was haunted by the death of his mates, perhaps this device helps in this case?
Good luck with your series of portraits.
Stuart

[Heidi Maiers]

My new favorite piece of yours Stuart. I absolutely love everything about it.
Saw an interesting blurb on the news about this fellow the other night. Interesting that he never spoke of the war until he was in his 90's. The haunting eyes are very appropriate and the piece is overall superb. Love the fleshy unfinished treatment you gave him and I think it gives the piece so much more life and human interest than if he had tight detailed treatment.
_________________
Heidi Maiers
Forum Owner
If you learned something here, consider donating to the COFFEE FUND!
http://portrait-sculpture.com/CoffeeFund.htm

[Chris Wooten]

This is one of those topics that has been on my mind for months now. For larger work I use chavant instead of water clay mostly due to time and that I haven't really mastered the beast that is water clay.

Coming from a background in small wax working I would say that I am more of a carver than modeler. However, now that I have moved up in scale to life size portraits, as much as I love the rake tools, the finish just looks forced if that makes sense. Since joining here I have been looking at a lot of the member's finished surface quality and really have fallen in love with the modeled look with limited rake tool marks to suggest depth and linear movement across the forms of the face.

So I guess my question is how do you approach your finish if it is going to be looser. I for one like the rake tool marks, but I get a little carried away with that. How do certain finishes/patinas look with different tooled surfaces? I imagine this has a lot to do with the process and approach that each individual takes when modeling in the material they are using.
_________________
Chris Wooten

www.wootensart.com