Classically Trained ?

planetFigure

Help Support planetFigure:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

gordy

A Fixture
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
8,474
Location
O'Fallon, Missouri
So I hear the phrase "classically trained" time to time describing a sculptor.

I'm curious to hear what the members here think that definition means.
 
I think that 'classically trained' can also mean someone who has studied under a master sculptor for a number of years. I would consider myself in this category since I studied under a Bavarian Woodcarving Master for 6 years.

Berg Heil,

Patrick
 
The context it was said might be important but generally I'd take it to mean a traditional art school/atelier training with all that implies - starting with drawing and value studies, human anatomy classes, and the full sculpting routine (small to large, starting with clay and so on).

Einion
 
I would tend to agree with Einion in this context of Clasically Trained. But it would also mean apprenticeship under a master sculptor after graduating from the art school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I take it to mean having had some form of formal education in it.

After all, 99% of people on here are self-taught hobbyists really. Regardless of the standard they may have reached.
As they say, it's where you're headed that counts, not where you're from.:whistle:
 
I can give you an example Gordy. I have a mate who has done sculpts in the National Gallery and is Classically trained.
He is doing a buddha atm and the commisioner wants the hand of Buddha touching the ground.
As he is classically trained he was going to do it in a forcefull, dramatic manner with the hand reaching out with the shoulder forwards.
The commisioner said it was to be humble sudued touch more in line with buddism.
 
I can give you an example Gordy. I have a mate who has done sculpts in the National Gallery and is Classically trained.
He is doing a buddha atm and the commisioner wants the hand of Buddha touching the ground.
As he is classically trained he was going to do it in a forcefull, dramatic manner with the hand reaching out with the shoulder forwards.
The commisioner said it was to be humble sudued touch more in line with buddism.

Interesting, I would suppose with formal training it's difficult to unlearn what was taught.

One could argue that subtle influences of masters are environmentally passed down to the pupil, conversely self taught could have a more open interpretation.
 
Interesting, I would suppose with formal training it's difficult to unlearn what was taught.

One could argue that subtle influences of masters are environmentally passed down to the pupil, conversely self taught could have a more open interpretation.

Hi Gordy,
I would have thought that a "Master" (who would be full time at this) who classically trains a pupil/student would give them the grounding over many years of knowledge, tools, techiques, application, support and coaching so they could unleash their self expression!
Just my take he says, he who still struggles to knead milliput together uniformally.
cheers
Richie
 
Most of the answers are pretty on the money. There are still art schools were it is masters and students and are not really degree programs. They work on the old principe of guild and trade system. You apprentice. Part of that apprenticeship is working in the real world for at least two years. When you feel you have reached the level of a master you submit a master piece and it is judged by the other masters. If they feel it is worthy you are made a master as well.

There is a Guilds and Trades Museum in Europe I believe is in France were you can see just such master pieces. A friend brought back photos from it and it is very interesting you will a beautiful violin and think it is pretty but what makes that a master piece, and you see the card on the case and see that it is made entirely of chocolate. It was the master piece of a member of a chocolate makers guild.
 
Interesting, I would suppose with formal training it's difficult to unlearn what was taught.

One could argue that subtle influences of masters are environmentally passed down to the pupil, conversely self taught could have a more open interpretation.

Well, I have to agree with this. Training under a "master" I think qualifies as "classically trained" in the literal sense. But then we are primarily hobbyists and any training that is passed along is not "formal" in the sense of going to school and such.

Being full-time professional, I guess I qualify as a "master". Although I did spend some time working along side Terry Worster in my early days, the stuff I learned from him mostly involved casting. It was useful knowledge but it really had little to do with actual sculpting skills. He primarily worked in Sculpey while I worked with putty. I learned sculpting on my own. I think that is the case with most sculptors of miniatures.

I know that Luca at Pegaso has tried for many years to create a classical type of "atelier" for miniaturists. I think they kind of do a "peer review" sort of thing. I found the whole process a little too controlling for me. Also, the distance and limited communication ability made things too fussy - thus no more work for Pegaso.

Most miniaturists are autodidacts (look it up!). Classical training can come into play. But I think most of us learn our skills at home, alone. That was my school. I am proud of it. I think it is quite true that we all learn from the field we work in through a process of osmosis. Being immersed in a field is an impetus to specialized learning. I believe that people can learn anything this way if they are sufficiently motivated. I am still learning from the work of other sculptors. But the only "master" I work under is myself. And unlike formal training, you learn what you like. That way, as Gordy says, there is less to unlearn..... :whistle:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top