I let my imagination run rampant and came up with this design

[Wolf Kiessling]

I was going to do a relief carving of a young Indian girl but decided I wanted to do something offbeat. This design is the result of three day's effort. Please let me know what you think about this, it will give me an idea of whether or not it might be a waste of time as this project would take about 4 - 6 weeks. Well, probably closer to 4 weeks because I don't have to follow the rigid specs that I would when carving a real person's image. All y'all might make me change my mind about doing this project that I call "Tiger Woman". Thanks to all of you who will venture an opinion.

[Ed Falis]

I voted "like, but would not display". I like that you took the chance with it. It's not intensely to my tastes. So, I have mixed feelings about it. But keep on keeping on.

- Ed

[Martin Shupe]

Wolf, your carving skills are excellent, but I am just not into abstract art.

Sorry, but I voted "didn't like".

I would rather see you spend your time on a beautiful bust of an Indian woman, rather than something that would go in a museum of modern art.

You do get bonus points for creativity.

Sorry, but I guess I am just old fashioned.

Hey, I really loved your bear and dachshund.

Just my opinion, and you should do whatever pleases you.

[Mark Mandell]

Wolf,

Strongly suggest you spend some real time with bones, or at least full size replicas, both human and animal. Take some calipers and measure things to find their relationships. For instance, the distance from the bottom of the chin to the middle of the closed mouth will equal the distance from the mouth to the center of the eyes = the distance between the eye pupils = the distance from the tip of the nose to the corner of the eye = the distance from the corner of the eye to the ear bud = 2/3 of the elevation distance from the eye pupils to the top of the skull [all in humans].

Rather than drawing your piece, put the two different skulls in front of you and work out the needed transitions in the underlying structures from all directions rather than on a piece of paper which compresses everything into the two dimensions available and thus distorts the results.

Keep Going

[John Schreiber]

I like it. It has a strong "folk art" look. It is clearly not meant to be representational and the stretching and scrunching is part of the look. Have some fun with the medium.

I'd have a hard time spending four weeks on something that's that far from my usual zone though. I'd do a variety of similar projects, but simplify to see if I like what I'm doing. Then see where to go from there.

[Wolf Kiessling]

Wolf,

Strongly suggest you spend some real time with bones, or at least full size replicas, both human and animal. Take some calipers and measure things to find their relationships. For instance, the distance from the bottom of the chin to the middle of the closed mouth will equal the distance from the mouth to the center of the eyes = the distance between the eye pupils = the distance from the tip of the nose to the corner of the eye = the distance from the corner of the eye to the ear bud = 2/3 of the elevation distance from the eye pupils to the top of the skull [all in humans].

Rather than drawing your piece, put the two different skulls in front of you and work out the needed transitions in the underlying structures from all directions rather than on a piece of paper which compresses everything into the two dimensions available and thus distorts the results.

Keep Going

Mark, I find your facial feature relationships very interesting and I thank you for posting them. I learned a couple of different formulas, one of which I favor over the other, but they come out to about the same thing. I'm going to take yours and compare them to the other two that I learned and compare them. I would imagine the results should come out to be about the same, or, at least, very close.

Normally, when I carve a bust, I work from photos showing four different angles (front, back, and two sides). I have worked from just a facial front photo and have had to interpolate the profile. Don't really like doing that. Obviously, this is for a real being. On imaginary beings, I just follow the generally accepted guidelines and work from there. In this case, I NEVER draw them out.

The reason this abstract was drawn out is that it has no basis in reality and, besides that, and even more importantly, is that it is going to be a relief carving. This will be result in, what?, two and a half dimensions?

The way this poll is going, it looks like this project is going to be put on the back burner. I have a bust and a stylized bull to carve, also. Thanks for your input, I appreciate it.

Wolf

[Wolf Kiessling]

I like it. It has a strong "folk art" look. It is clearly not meant to be representational and the stretching and scrunching is part of the look. Have some fun with the medium.

I'd have a hard time spending four weeks on something that's that far from my usual zone though. I'd do a variety of similar projects, but simplify to see if I like what I'm doing. Then see where to go from there.

John, that four weeks is really misleading. I stated it that way because I usually don't work more than two to three hours a day on relief carvings. Flat work seems to put a strain on me, particularly my eyes. On in the round work I can put in more time on any sitting.

Wolf

[Kirk (KC) Constable]

Wolf...that's a bit 'out there' for me, but Jean says you could pull it off. And she'd be happy to display it. :)

KC

[Ted Shrader]

Kurt -

Kind of reminds me of Bev Dolittle's art. She hides animals with in obvious paintings of Indians. Very intriguing.

Following that logic, would it be possible to have a little more human face with smaller details diguised within?

Bev Dolittle <a href="http://www.zartgallery.com/html/prayers.html">examples here</a>. If you can see these in person (vice a computer screen) they are much more intriguing.

Regards,
Ted

[Mark Mandell]

Wolf,

The danger in bas relief, whether high or low, is what I call the Maybe Trap. Successful relief is a fusion of one or more 3 dimensional objects into an essentially 2 dimensional space. It therefore requires the use of both sculptural forms and drafting skills including a strong grounding in the use of perspective in order to deal with the distortion of forms that results from and at the interface betwen the positive (3-d) portion of the "image" and the 2-d ground. Unless you can harmonize the two portions of each form, the viewer is left with "maybe", as in "maybe this section is the drawing" and "maybe it's the sculpture", but "I can't tell and I therefore don't like it because my tiny brain can't figure out what's going on here . . ."

When I taught sculpture and 3-D design, I posted a sign in the class studio. It read: "It's Better To Be Clearly Wrong Than Unclearly Maybe".

Every piece, including a photograph, is a distortion of reality. A piece succeeds or fails to the extent the artist's vision and execution are consistent and understandable throughout the entire piece; not whether its an accurate or lifelike representation of the subject. Looking at your drawing, I see two different distortion "systems" being applied to the 2 different "subjects". I voted for "don't like" because the depiction of the 2 objects didn't join the halves into a gestault of a third "being". Merely juxtiposing left with right at the center doesn't mean that the joining works.

Your presentation of each half separately before the unified image served to highlight the problem that "woman" and "tiger" haven't been fused into a unified object. This is not a matter of style or representational accuracy, but rather an unresolved conflict within the design itself. I think you sensed that because your use of the two large bright green eyes is an attempt to visually glue the 2 sides together with the isolated color. Giving the human side a tiger's nostril and the animal side a human eyebrow isn't nearly enough. Hence my original comment on transitions.

Suggest you look at the work of Gilberti (Italian) on the doors to the Lorentian Library, Rodin's Gates of Hell, Chinese reliefs (notably from the Forbidden City), and most anything by Grandma Moses and Marc Chegal. Find the unified "system" they use in each piece. Remember that bas relief is an artificial construct, just like drawing objects in 1,2 and 3 point perspective; you know the railroad tracks never meet at that point way out yonder.

Again; Stay With It. Tiger Lady may force you to grow more than any other piece you've done, and even if you never show it the light of day, working through it is likely to be very beneficial to you as an artist. Your comment about becoming fatigued while doing relief carving indicates to me that you're having trouble with the visual conflicts and are unhappy with the ways you've tried to resolve them in the past.

Mark Mandell

[Phil Phelps]

Tell someone not to continue with "his" interpretation of art? Now that would be rediculous. If one person likes it, it is worth it. You are an artist, Wolf. Continue.

[Doug Olsen]

Wolf,
I like it very much. It's intriguing and the woman is mysterious. Her left slow eyed look suggests playfullness and an ambivalence. She is a wiley woman, tender, clever and tough. This is what I see and I think it is very creative and artistic. If you like it that is what really matters IMO and I hope you are not discouraged by unfavorable opinions since it goes "with an artists territory". Not everyone cares for Andy Warhol :cool: Please go forward with this project, I believe you will be very happy and proud of the result.