While driving north from the Florida gulf this past week I was ruminating over a life-size horse waiting for me at my studio. My musings came to rest on the activity of measuring a horse and how it has inadvertently affected contemporary horse sculpture. How an artist goes from a concept to the actual sculpture, from little to big spurred me on to examine the process. So I wandered back to the measurement of a life animal and where it has taken contemporary images of horses.
I’ve measured horses and dogs mostly and relied on published measurements of lions, birds and other animals, etc. and applied them to life size models. I’ve also seen accounts where artist’s claim measuring a horse supplies the artist with enough information to create a perfect copy of the horse in miniature (usually 1.4 life size or smaller). The copy part struck me as odd and I wanted to examine what that meant. Words easily pop out of one’s mouth but I’m always looking for the real meaning of statements people make.
First I can’t accept the perfect copy of the horse begins with careful measuring of a horse unless it’s directly applied to a life-size model. This is the only method that gives the artist leeway to adjust and create from the inside out, not just take a digital foam enhancement and apply clay to the surface with no adjustment for the scale of the piece or correct a flaw in the tiny pro-type.
Measuring a horse to produce a life-size digital scan from the miniature is nothing more than pure theater and while it looks exotic and complicated with all the expensive tools required to produce such a three-dimensional scan, it’s disingenuous because it’s a step that is solely done to hurry up the sculpture process but instead it’s used to impress the client with the precise method of reproduction. This won’t insure a reasonable likeness of a horse anymore than pouring rubber over a live horse. Why? Because a miniature model can be off slightly or more than a little and it’s compounded by the enlargement of that mistake.
I’m not denying the measuring tape helps in developing a sculpture, but it won’t insure an exact copy especially if the math isn’t codified into an exact representation of a living a breathing animal. This process also produces are real problem for outdoor art, the miniature isn’t to scale for a outdoor installation. A little bitty sculpture enlarged and placed in an open space look well small, they don’t have the presence it takes to command the space, they were designed in the miniature and they look that way in the outdoor space.
The example below is a copy of a human by Ron Mueck. Is this art? Yes, the artist’s point is the question of scale; they look like real human beings in the way a wax museum exhibits portraits of people that are uncanny in their detail and their scale is either too big or too small. to be realistic copies. And they’re three dimensional photographic renditions of the human. They wouldn’t be so off putting if they were loosely rendered in a more painterly way. Didn’t the tool of photography put a whole generation of portrait painters out of work? It’s seriously hampered the sculpture community too, and this artist addresses this dilemma in his work. Society accepts a photographic copy of your loved one or special person, he can do this by using high tech plastics and real hair and clothing. They’re uncanny by their super realism and with this artist’s considerable skill and talent they’re amazing sculptures.

Photo credit: Ron Mueck

In the past an artist would first create a miniature of the horse as a pro-type for the larger version to express his idea in a three dimensional form. And this was a sketch of sorts, a working model, not the final version and done from observation of the horse. It allowed the artist to further refine his sculpture. You can be sure the measurements were off enough to affect the proportions of the larger statue. And I believe these sketches were purposely loose so the artist had room to further refine his work; given a breath, a moment, a slice of time which belongs only to the artist and nobody can encroach on the personal space which defines the finished sculpture.
The example cited below which is a design for monument submission done by American sculptor Lorado Taft shows this perfectly; a loose design done in plaster, created as a working model to be referred to as the artist creates his masterpiece.


Many artists’ today defer to technology and assume the miniature and three-dimensional foam manikin is the cutting edge process in producing an exact copy of the horse in sculpture. The sales pitch from the enlargers is how the artist can avoid the backbreaking work it takes to enlarge the piece themselves. I’ve studied this process and have resisted the suggestion to give in and let them scan my work and skip the drudgery. I won’t subject my work to this terminal method of creating a sculpture. Maybe the base for the sculpture could be mocked up in a digital foam if the sculpture is a monumental piece; a landscape form to support the animal, but not the core of the piece, which is the center of the essence of the sculpture.
Today it’s more than likely when a foam reproduction is delivered to the artist for them to “butter” some clay on the surface to ready it for the foundry process; there isn’t much adjustment to the foam enlargement, just surface preparation. This expensive new age process is now the go to technology for artists and they are keen to inform their clients of the magic of this technology to make their statue perfect in every way conceivable. Unfortunately it locks the artist into a form that has no where to go if it’s off here or there. And by its very nature the artist typically won’t re-work a foam model because it’s a finished model only missing a clay skin. I’ve observed a well known sculptor re-working a life-size figure and while he was cutting away, and rasping some of the surfaces, it was minimal up to the entire surface of the piece he was finishing for molding. While foam enlargement works well for architectural ornamentation or set designs, it lends itself to static designs whereby the inner movement of the sculpture can’t be realized by a mere smear of clay.
Art is not meant to perfectly mimic reality unless that’s your point as the artist did above. Reproducing a copy of a horse through measurements pales against hundreds of minute measurements of a living animal as observed in life. The real test is relying on experience and talent to look at the measurements decide to follow them or throw them to the wind and rely on the indelible mark the horse has on one’s eye.