Well, Gary, I beg to differ about foam and fiberglass not being fine art. As
early as the fifties, it was used by fine artists and there are various
examples since. Robert Howard, a friend of Alexander Calder's, was one of
the first to do use the medium. Duane Hanson is another name that comes to
mind. I'd watch it with shoot-from-the-hip statements like that, if I were
you. There was a time when metal sculpture wasn't considered sculpture,
either. Now, everyone and his dog is doing metal sculpture.
As for the limitations of the medium, there are none, to speak of. It can be
sculpted more easily, in fact, than any other carving medium and, no, the
foam is NOT "merely filler" - it IS the armature, as well as the principle
form of the sculpture. Depending upon the density of the foam, it is quite
stable and sturdy enough to be used for outdoor sculpture and it has been
used that way many, many times. The outer shell material gives the piece
it's outward finished appearance, as well as adding protection and
reinforcement. Think of the fiberglass as an endoskeleton, of sorts.
Actually, the entire structure, both foam and fiberglass, is a symbiotic
structure. It requires no armature, either, as foam is very light weight and
capable of supporting many times it own weight, especially at higher
densities. 16 lb. polyurethane has a compressive strength in excess of 500
psi, a sheer strength in excess of 300 psi and a flexural strength of over
750 psi. You'd need a hammer to put a dent in it.
To answer your other questions, no, there is no fine detail, but that
wouldn't be a problem, as foam (again, depending upon the density) can be
carved to a remarkable level of detail. It can also be mold cast to assume
any level of detail. But, my sculpture is non-objective abstract sculpture,
so detail is a moot point. Most of the time, it will have a smooth surface
treatment and that's all a function of the shell material; i.e., the
fiberglass and/or gel coat. But the foam itself can be sanded very smooth,
also. Keep in mind, we're not talking about the large celled packing
styrofoam variety, here. This is fine celled dense foam especially made for
carving and sculpting. The closest example I can think of to the forms I'll
be creating would be the work of Richard Erdman
(http://www.sculpturesite.com/artists/Erdm.lasso). His style is very similar
to mine, though his medium is not.
I'm very familiar with Henry Moore's work and most of his large scale
carvings were done in plaster for bronze. Some of his earliest pieces were
stone, but most of his monumental works were done in plaster for bronze and
I don't believe he ever did anything in foam, though it's a possibility he
might have flirted with it at some point in the later years of his career
(the eighties).
Clay is A medium, not THE medium for expression. Having worked with it, I
know very well its strengths and its limitations. There are numerous
sculpture media and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Clay is
not the medium I would prefer to use for the pieces I have in mind. It's too
slow a process and, unless its fired (and ceramic sculpture has a limited
market appeal, due to its fragility), it is just another modeling medium for
bronze casting. I much prefer plasticine if bronze is to be the final
material, as plasticine is reusable, doesn't dry out, requires no firing,
isn't breakable and won't crack. Plus, it has all the best qualities of
clay. Anyway, I can swing either way, but the subtractive process of carving
just feels more like sculpting to me. Besides, clay wouldn't cut it for
these forms and at any kind of real size. Foam, as I said, is
self-supporting at any size and can be very quickly sculpted.
Where casting is concerned, either the carved foam itself, or the completed
sculpture can be the pattern for a mold for bronze casting. It is also
possible to use bonded bronze (via Design Cast 66 as the bonding medium)
over foam, as well. There are many ways to finish a foam carving, fiberglass
being only one.
By the way, Gary, it might be a good idea not to assume complete ignorance
when you're answering someone's post. I've been sculpting for over twenty
years in a number of media. I asked about polystyrene vs. polyurethane only
because I'm trying to make up my mind which to use.
Having just today been informed of Design Cast 66
(http://www.design-cast.com/products/products.html), which is especially
intended for use as a shell material over foam, I'm now thinking I'll use
that instead of fiberglass, thus eliminating any concerns over the use of
EPS. In other words, I can use either EPS or polyurethane; it makes no
difference because, unlike polyester resin, DC-66 doesn't attack the foam.
Thanks for the reply, Gary. It's always good to have a "devil's advocate."
;)
Gary
--
Post by GaryR52I'm interested in trying my hand at carved foam as a core material for
fiberglass sculpture. I've been reading up on both EPS (expanded
polystyrene) and polyurethane foam and the benefits and drawbacks of
both, but I am having trouble deciding which to use, and when to use
either.
I like the easier carvability of EPS, but, where using it with fiberglass
is concerned, it requires the intermediate step of coating the piece with
some type of barrier coat before glassing it, as the polyester resin
dissolves the foam, otherwise. That seems to be the only major drawback
with EPS. Polyurethane, on the other hand, doesn't have this problem, but
it costs more than EPS, I believe.
As for carvability, polyurethane is probably just as easy to work,
depending upon the density of the foam. Where that's concerned, since
this is core material for the sculpture itself, as opposed to a foam
pattern for casting in a more durable material, such as bronze, I think
using a density of less than, say, 8 lb. is probably asking for trouble,
right? Of course, the fiberglass shell, plus any gel coat I might add on
top of that will add to the overall strength of the piece, but even so, I
wouldn't want to use something like 2 lb. Styrofoam, especially if it's
to be displayed outdoors. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks.
Gary
This is not as an easy question as it may seem. I need to know the type of
sculpture you propose - is it highly detailed? is it highly polished? how
big is it?
Unless you are proposing some modernist, globular, piece - you are
probably concentrating too much on what goes between the armature (the
frame which holds everything steady) and the final finished surface - the
foam is merely the filler between and not worthy of too much mental
exuberance or expense.
There are a wide variety of techniques for working foam for commercial
work (movies, amusements, signage) but the "art' of foam carving has never
been considered a 'fine' art. There is just something about the medium,
even the 8 lb foam, which limits the work.
This is not the way artists seem to work. As an example, Henry Moore, in
his emerging artist stage, proposed to produce 35 pieces a year - this is
carved stone by the way. He hired an assistant to carve within 1/4 iinch,
working from mostly drawings, and then Moore finished the piece. As a
prime artist, bidding on major monuments, etc., he did commission large
eps foam carvings, again from his drawings and direction, to help 'sell'
his ideas and concepts - the final pieces in monumental stone or bronze.
The only impressive trick I have learned is to take polyester shell molds
from pottters/water clay. Clay is the medium for expression. The armature
is the key for large work with many hundreds of pounds of wet clay. Speed
is also the key - if you piss about, the whole thing will start to crack.
From the polyester shell mold, you cast a polyester model (reuse the
armature (and the clay)) - now you have captured the expressiveness of the
clay, and can add infinite details, time and polishing for the final
stretch. This gives you the best of both worlds.
In general - I think to learn how to work clay will be far more rewarding
for you than learning to work foam.
Start small, ask some more question, go from there.
Gary in Vancouver