Why are bronze statues of celebrities so horrible?

Cafe Society
41

Thanks for all the replies. I think quite a few of them offer important clues, particularly those who spoke from first- or second-hand experience of working in bronze.

Thanks to @Alessan and others who mentioned classical statues. This is quite relevant to me because my wife and I just spent three weeks in Europe, including Florence, Venice, and Athens, and saw lots of classical sculptures, including Michelangelo’s David.

However, I’m not sure I’m convinced that the presence or absence of an expression is major factor in the unreal quality we’re observing. ISTM that most of the clues we get about emotions come from the eyes, and that the difference between a toothy smile and a grimace is mostly in the eyes and eyebrows.

For instance, here’s a less familiar view of David, looking straight into his face.


I think you’ll agree that his tension and anxiety, as well as his determination, are seen mostly in his eyes and eyebrows, much less so in the mouth.

(Seeing him in person, this view was the biggest revelation for me. We’ve all seen the standard photo of him, straight on, with him looking to the right. But that angle doesn’t convey this expression at all. It’s only when you go around and look him in the face that you see what’s really happening with him. So I was rather gratified to read that Michelangelo did not intend him to be seen the way he is displayed in the museum, but from the side, as Goliath would have seen him.)

Oh, and BTW, not all classical statues eschewed emotional expressions. (click to see the full image)

Google Photos

Obviously, as others have pointed out, not every sculptor is Michelangelo, and working in marble is quite different from working in bronze. To the extent that it is harder to render eyes effectively in bronze, that certainly would add to the uncanny valley effect.

One thing I note is that many of the bronzes lack fine detail, and have a sort of balloonish quality to the features, reminiscent of Jeff Koons’s animals. The Fonz and Oprah, among the examples above, seem this way. (Of course, their shiny finish, missing in the Ginsburg piece, contributes to the effect.)

But others, like the Queen, seem quite detailed. For those that have some experience in bronze, is this entirely an artistic choice or am I right in assuming that the former style is easier to achieve technically?

But all these contributing factors aside, I think there’s still something missing, and I’m reasonably sure it’s what I mentioned in the OP: the artists aren’t working from life, but from 2D images.

I wonder if high tech would do a better job: laser scan the subject, 3D-print a model, then use that to make a bronze casting. Would that work better? (Is it even safe to laser scan a person with their eyes open?)

Of course, this would remove most of the artistic input to the project, but would it also eliminate or reduce the uncanny valley effect?

42

It’s possibly of note to consider why that piece works?

The areas lighter and darker really help, which includes both relative oxidation how the eyes are handled seem to be big aspects. Do other artists just not know how to do that? Of note an exact replica of her wouldn’t accomplish that. Shadowing by adding depth accomplishes dark color.

43

I think it would take more than just an accurate scan of a person’s body. Artists have to add more to a work, understanding how it will be viewed. There was a comment above about Michaelangelo’s David being out of proportion so that the viewer will see it as proportional. I have to agree with the others who blame the artists for the hideous results shown above. In the mold making process they can easily see what the final result will look like along the way and those artists clearly just lacked the eye for the job.

44

IMO I agree with Inigo’s assessment upthread, it is lack of technical competency hiding behind the “artistic vision” facade. I think that a contributor to this is that, in modern times, gaining technical competency may be much more difficult given the expense of the medium. An independent “starving artist” vying for a commission isn’t going to have an experienced production studio full of masterwork artisans, they’re going to market themselves on vision and concepts. Going back in time, brass/bronze/iron works shops producing art probably also had a significant share of producing non-art factory and industry doodads that would build a core expertise. Steel, aluminum, and plastics probably replaced those type of multi-role art/industry casting shops.

45

Given even though David’s not Greek, the statue was clearly going for that Hellenistic vibe, I’m gonna say it’s supposed to be a petasos, as that’s typically associated with rural folk like shepherds, and so more likely than not, it’s wool felt.

That’s not a statue, though, it’s a mask for theatrical performance.

46

I think that the Rocky statue is pretty good. I’ll note that Rocky has a rather neutral expression.

47

Man, I feel sorry for the actor who had to wear that heavy thing!

48

Thanks for finding that. I had been thinking about that one while writing the OP, but didn’t get around to finding a shot if it. I think you’re right, it’s definitely one if the better ones.

49

Sorry, I was a bit unclear there - it’s a stone replica of a mask for theatrical performance. Actual stage masks were of lighter materials.

My point was that it’s a stone representation of an already-exaggerated-expression artifact, not a representation of a person’s face.

50

In contrast to the statue of Mick Jagger, Freddie Mercury looks pretty good. Like David, the expression is carried more in the eyes and brow rather than the mouth.

There’s also this lumpy statue of Albert Einstein on the National Mall. It’s not as lumpy as the Fred Rogers statue, plus the pensive expression absolutely works for a pre-eminent thinker.

51

For my money, the Ralph Kramden statue at the Port Authority Bus Terminal is a pretty good likeness.

52

My personal feeling is that bronze is a cold and lifeless medium, so it doesn’t present the image of a living being at all well. Also, it doesn’t seem to lend itself to presenting fine detail, either.

53

I disagree. Bronzes in my local botanical garden have the sculptor’s fingerprints cast in them, that’s how much detail they can represent. If they don’t, that’s a failing of the sculptor, not the medium.

54

Interesting! I guess I just don’t like the medium.

55

The Mary Anning statue is gorgeous. I like the fossil poking out from the bottom of her pocket.

56

I was joking on both points: the first post and my response to your reply.

57

Wow, that’s a great likeness. The same group sponsored statues of Mary Tyler Moore and Elizabeth Montgomery which I think are less successful.

58

I think the texture works on this one in part because it’s situated on the seating and invites people to touch it, kids to climb on it, etc. It’s a piece that encourages physical and tactile interaction versus Einstein standing on a granite plinth.

59

Jimi Hendrix in Seattle is also a very good example of mouth open and a strong expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electric_Lady_Studio_Guitar

60

Not just sculpting: I also see this in “consumer grade” paintings, such as art prints, and interestingly, puzzles. No one seems to understand perspective and vanishing points anymore. The stuff is horrible, out of proportion images that bend or float or run off in different directions. Cars don’t have four wheels on the ground. Does no one learn art basics any longer? or do they all go to art school at the University of Please Yourself?