Well, give it to the right rider, I’ve seen allegedly lazy horses go exceptional speed.
Wow, you aren’t kidding!
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/cpbvyzkwyaaviqw-large-141c32843dd54e2d941ce9b90557270d.jpg)
Reverse cowboy?
I also suspect it’s because the expression of a statue is static. Real facial expressions, especially strong ones are normally constantly changing. If a real person was to look at you with a large, unchanging smile that would look weird and fake too. Heck, taking pictures of people you don’t like and picking the right momentary image that makes them stupid looking is an old political propaganda technique.
Y’all might be on to something with the neutral facial expressions; this new statue in Times Square that’s generating a lot of discussion has a neutral expression, and looks pretty realistic.
Nice statue.
“. . . generating a lot of discussion. . .” Oh, yeah, and some of it is comedy gold!
For comparison to sculptures of the past, be careful you’re not selecting only the very best. There were plenty of mediocre sculptures in the past as well.
Who is it depicting?
I’m not its biggest fan, but it’s very well executed and quite realistic. And I was thinking the neutral (slightly annoyed?) expression may have to do with that.
Unfortunately both the vast majority of shitty sculptures and many rather nice one were destroyed. For bronzes, they were often melted down to make cannons. (Marble statues were smashed to make lime).
No one specific. The work is called “Grounded in the Stars” and they describe it like this:
A fictionalized character constructed from images, observations, and open calls spanning between Los Angeles and London, the young woman depicted in Grounded in the Stars carries familiar qualities, from her stance and countenance to her everyday clothing. In her depiction, one recognizes a shared humanity, yet the contrapposto pose of her body and the ease of her stance is a subtle nod to Michelangelo’s David. Through scale, materiality, and posture, Grounded in the Stars disrupts traditional ideas around what defines a triumphant figure and challenges who should be rendered immortal through monumentalization.
That’s a nice idea well executed, a statue of a “normal”, everyday person.
Depiction of “ordinary” people has a long history in art. Edward Hopper, for instance, made a career out of it.
Yes, I know if from paintings, but can’t remember to have seen such art in a public, monumental sculpture.
I think they’re all horrible. They remind me of the ending scene in, “The Empire Strikes Back”, when Han Solo ended up in that awful block of carbonite.
There are plenty of public monuments, statue or otherwise, that are dedicated to some generic member of a particular group - sometimes they actually depict a member or group of members of that group, other times it’s more abstract.
Fallen soldiers (genetically or fallen at a particular battle or for a given cause); workers (in general, or who worked on a particular project); groups of people who used to live in a place, or who founded a town; etc…
Any idea what the going price is on commissioning an artist to make one of these? I’ve hear a range from $10K to $100K.
Even real people look strange when covered in a metallic sheen.
Somehow marble is alright for skin tone, like an apparition. Egyptian sand stone also seems fine.
We’re just used to it. The ancient Romans and Egyptians weren’t satisfied with marble and sandstone; their statues were brightly painted.
I think bronze statues look horrible because the subjects don’t hold still when they’re being dipped.
Which is why Roman statues all have a blank look in their eyes. The details of iris and pupil were painted in.