[BobD]

Wow...what an informational post this is!

We need to work out a way to really rank posts and get a good search function! This is wonderful, and I'd hate for it to get lost!!!

Bob

[Irish]

OK ... I'm back.

Even with the rebar armature your sculpture still will not stand up without a counterbalancing base! The best armature structure in the world is not going to keep that horse from falling face forward onto his nose.

So as you plan the rebar infra-structure also plan a base that will both support the front excess weight of the sculpture as well as create a place where you can secure the carving with the use of the rebar armature.

Personally I would follow the original painting and the artists use of the background hill area as my base lines. The foreground rocks and ledge add mass to the front area of the base. The hill area could be brought under the horse's front legs as a point to allow the feet or even one foot to touch ... therefore taking the strain off of the back legs.

I might consider drilling holes into the underside of the base for lead shot weights to insure an even weight across the entire work.

This problem is why we see sculptures where a tree trunk, fence post or even acanthus leaf column appear out of nowhere under the front chest area of an animal. It is the second support area that is necessary to keep the work from cracking at an impossible point ... in fact such elements are more often the prime support areas. Think of the post that runs through the center of a carousel horse.

Susan

[Irish]

Two more thoughts then you can all be relieved that I am headed off to studio work

The other answer ... a simple answer ... and one that I believe would be spectacular is to totally throw away the idea of this being a free standing 3-D sculpture.

Go back to your photo Nap6 where we can still see all of the back level wood behind the horse's head. I am looking at the area where the deepest wood level has been gouged in a flowing line down to the head then the head 'escapes' that rough area to take on it's shape and form.

Image adding one or two new levels of wood to the back and have that horse and Napoleon escaping from the 'sculpture's wood block'. Use those back layers as your support and as a visual element with your carving being released from the wood by the carver!

I think it would blow me away .... It would explode the idea of a 3-D carver taking that 2-D painting and pulling them - Napoleon and his horse - out of the painting into an accurate live form. Don't hide that this work is coming out of a rough cut glued wood block - USE IT!

I am adding one more image from the original painting. I have run a line through the major element lines of the painting. Can you see the artist's original focus point - the point where everything originates.

Susan

Just my opinions - OFF TO THE GRIND STONE.

[Ashbys]

Susan ,

Thank you. I started thinking about this about 4 days ago. As I started bringing the front pastern into place and realized just how small to the mass it really was. I have weighted it , as of now it is slightly over 30 pounds. So at this point I have removed almost 29 pounds of the wood .

So the concern became the angles. Although I cound possibly get the legs to support the horse, the center mass concerned me. You have justified the reason of that concern.

Now the questions become two fold. If I leave it as a "flat" relief caving I can structure it to look like a work in process, almost to the realm of incomplete, how will I feal about it. If I contintue to the 3d work , I will have to give other support to the work and do I want to do this.

Yes I weld , so now to go into my hole and think about what I am going to do. .. knowing me it will not be a striaght answer , but twisted .. OH ! I have an idea.....

Thanks again Susan ! Your awesome .

[Ashbys]

Susan ,

Your statement about leaving the work in a block form , that would look as if it was unfinished started me thinking, about other work that is seen as unfinished.

The works I am thinking about are the 4 slaves and Atlas. I have always been told these works were unfinish, yet were they? Each of the statues , were in different states of completion , when the work work stopped. But beyond that , each were slaves who were bonded by the world in which they lived.

Could it be possible that they were not unfinished , but completed by a man who felt he was bonded , if not by chains then by the church to make the tomb. Could Michelangelo actually been making a statement , about the bondage of man, and the freedom that each felt , each one being different , and allowing more of the statue to be finished?

If you consider Atlas was bound and chained , and yet he shows the least amount of completed work. And each of the slaves are in more completed states, each more than the other.

You see you have be considering much more than what you expected , so the question is; can a completed carving , be left unfinished and be seen for more than it is . Or would it be forever considered unfinished ?

Ash

[mark yundt]

Ahhh,,carving releases and brings out not only a carving but a philosopher! Excellent!

What was the artists intent? Was it started and not finished or was it purposely left that way for a reason. Michelangelos' last pieces were not finished,,just started and left to do other things.
Then again on my Eagle,,I purposely didn't finish it for a reason.There was a significant section left undone if you remember that piece. Here it told part of a story.
Then too,,there are famous variations of carvings where part is still captured in the original block so it is actually finished,,but not actually done,,here again it was for a reason.
What is the intent? And what effect does it have on the viewer? Obviously some because you are talking and thinking about it making you wonder what was going on. That in itself is important.
Sort of like what movie stars say,," Any press is good press"

[mark yundt]

And with all due respect as I have no formal art background as others do,,,I do not see this angled with the vanishing point off to the right,,though the lines to match to a reasonable degree.But,,if you put a point directly above his head and triangulate from there, everything falls within these parameters,,,and it makes much more sense. The left line of the triangle falls directly in line with the front leg of the horse which discreetly points to the top of the triangle.Also ,,the neck and head of the horse have been pulled back to stay within these lines. Even the line of the neck of the horse follows this line directly as well as the line of his hat. The right line falls directly in line with the riders left arm which is veiled by his cloak.The top of his hat ( our right,,his left) starts near the top of the triangle,,runs past his cloak,,touches the rump of the horse,,and he even pulled in the tail to keep it within these lines...the belly of the horse could if you wanted,,serve as the base of the triangle. Everything falls within these guidelines. It is not off to the right.

And what would be the reason for doing this? It gives the illusion of height and distance. Otherwise Napoleon would look like the Pillsbury doughboy ploped on this great steed! Why is his foot and lower leg out of proportion with the rest of his body? That ,,since things close to you appear large ,,would act as a reference to something taller ,,and things get smaller ( the top of the triangle) as you go further away. It was a trick I believe to make him appear taller and more commanding than he really was.

It's the same reason the hands and lower extremities on the statue of David are out of proportion. The same reason that the body of Jesus laying on Mary's lap in the Pieta ,,if he were standing would be roughly a 7 ft tall person. Proportions are distorted for a reason,,,,And you Gary discovered that the proportions were incorrect. Here is an answer. It was done for a reason. The point of the triangle,,being at the top,,and everything falling as I said within these imaginary lines works perfectly and makes sense,,the whole thing appears much taller given the perspective and these parameters. The artist could have just made him bigger in the painting,,but everyone would have known it wasn't true and he would have looked silly. This solved that problem.He LOOKS larger than life,,but he wasn't. It fools your eye.

It was also pointed out that Michelangelo worked front to back. This is true. But as Doris pointed out he did NOT rough out the piece first as a normal carving is done...he couldn't. He did carve his way ,front to back as indicated,as you would a relief, with the figure emerging in pieces here and there as the surface or ground was gradually pushed back in one whole plane. Considering the size of the pieces he did,,roughing them out was near impossible to do. How did he do this? How did he keep any sort of reference and proportions? One,,he had a perfect image in his head is one explaination,,but I thought of another answer to the puzzle which later found out is what he actually did many times.

The answer is ,,if you imagine a body in a bathtub for example,,totally submerged. Then ,gradually ,,drain out say two inches of water,,what happens? Well,,a nose might start to appear,,and down further a knee or two. Take some measurements and transfer that to your block of marble. Then drain out more water,,and repeat the process. Keep going with this and eventually you'll have the whole body appear through the one surface of the water,,going from front to back without having to rough out a single thing. If you look at his last pieces you can see this is exactly what he did.

If you were working on a block of marble 15 ft high,,4 ft square how could you possibly rough it out no matter what index system you use. The faster way is to simply make even a half scale model,,build a tub the same half scale as your block of marble,,submerge the model in the tub and start draining out the water. Take measurements from the top ,bottom and sides and you have a perfect reference to rough something out. Even if you wanted,,you could rotate the model in the tub 90 or 180 degrees and repeat the process and you again have perfect references to carve from. Clever Huh?

But again,,to prove the point,,put your thumb and index fingers of both hands into an "L" shape,,touch the tips together to form a triangle,,hold it up against the painting and see just how everything fits within that triangle. The width and mass of the horse completes the base,,and the height of the rider fills the top. There is no reason to use a point off the right of the painting,,it serves no purpose. It does seem to angle or hinge from there but serves no artistic purpose to achieve what the artist wanted,,and needed to show.The triangle has been used for centuries from the painting of the last supper on down. Simply because it works. A triangle starting from the side doesn't.It accomplishes nothing unless your drawing a building

[Irish]

WOW, Mark! Great questions and I am copying your comments to notepad so that I can take them into Photoshop CS3 with the picutre .... be back

Susan

[Irish]

WOW again, Mark! Great points that are going to take me several reading to digest.

I did mark out the triangle shape of the painting. A painting will have both shape and line direction in it. As you have noted the main shape for Napoleon and the horse is the triangle. A painting can also use any geometric shape ... square, rectangle, diamond ... as well as s-curves, c-curves and half c-curves. These shapes usually are general guide line areas that contain the main focal element of the work.

The direction of the line flow is the image that I posted earlier. This again is a general guide that the artist uses to move your eye through the painting or work. You usually don't want the viewer to see one spot - one point - and no more. So you try to create a flow of lines that move toward one distance (off the canvas) point to help move the viewer through or across the painting.

Your comments on the proportions is excellent. I would like to add the use of the horizon line in this painting that helps to facilitate those proportions. That horizon line - eye level for the viewer - is below the horses belly. So to help make Napoleon look bigger then life the artist made you look up at him. Then by placing Napoleon on the horse you have to look up ever farther ...

This is the same trick that is used when a court room judge, a king or any important person is placed on a raised dais or platform. It's not just to get their heads over the crowd so that everyone can see them. It is more used to make them higher therefore bigger than you, the viewer.

When Garry's carving is complete to make the carving work with the horizon line it will need to be placed on a shelf above eye level .... otherwise the distortion created by the low horizon line will be confusing.

Susan

[mark yundt]

In this case the horizontal line was purposely tipped to the right. In your second photo with the overlaid lines,,the right leg of the triangle should be more verticle with the peak of the triangle just slightly above the top of the hat. If you follow the left leg of the triangle as I suggested ,,,you can see how accurately the horses leg,neck and the hat fall precisely on this very line.
To more accurately depict the right side and base of the triangle,,you need to move that point in quite a bit,,if you do you'll see it all fall perfectly into place. It's almost an equilateral triangle with the base as the belly of the horse. I'm totally inept with computers or I'd redraw the lines myself. Tipping the triangle as it has been done also serves another purpose.Had the base been left on the horizontal,,there would be no drama nor movement to the painting. It would have more of the placid feeling of DaVinci's Last Supper. That wouldn't work here. When you see something tip,,ready to fall,,or rear up in this case,,it can make your heart jump or at least give you a feeling of tension,,you have to catch it,,or watch in wonder. There is a horizon beyond the horse,,,but that too is tipped and adds to the movement. A climbing feeling,,upward,,since that's the direction he is going,,up and up,,leading ,,rearing,,power to achieve and conquer.....He has managed to tip the world,,rock it on it's ear so to speak. A flat surface would have been boring and too sedate....

As far as a flow line,,I dont' believe it's off to the right. This serves no purpose in this composition. Where does the artist want your eye to go? To the top of the triangle,,not off the horses rump to a point off the painting. No,,he's directing your eye to the riders face. The overtly strong line which so much falls on is the line on the left,,the horses legs are flailing along this line,,as well as his neck and head,,which lead directly to the hat,,Napoleons face is right at the pinacle of both legs of the triangle. That,,I believe is the purpose here. Why draw attention away from your primary subject? In this case you can't help but let your eye continually,,wherever you look,,get redirected back to the face.