Groundspeak Portal

I think thats why I stay away from figurative. The ones I posted I was pretty sure were figurative, but I've stopped by dozens and dozens that probably were figurative, but I wasn't quite sure, so I didn't bother contributing them to that category.

All in all I find the category confusing. Now that I see there is a subjective aspect, I can see I'm best looking for another place to post somthing that catches my eye. The nice thing is that there are usually several choices of where to post a sculpture.

Would anyone in the forums object to me creating a "representative sculptures" category? If so, I need a few volunteers to be officers. Please speak up and I will begin to create the category after school. I will have it up and running tonight and will call the officer vote this evening, and send it to peer review before midnight.

Please let me know by responding in here and also, if you can, send me an email.

This effort on my part in no way represents a knock against caverspencer. I understand his goal and what he wants to accomplish and I respect that. I simply want to create a category which acknowledges all other beautiful works of art which do not fit the "uniqueness" he seeks.

I am waiting for your response.......

im glad this isnt one of my regular categories....

but i was RALLY BUMMED when i found a few really old and unique headstones with figures sculpted onto them. only to be denied based solely on the fact that they were headstones (i was told to post them elsewhere), but the problem is, there wasnt anywhere else to post them--thus, i tried the figurative cat.

oh, great, another 'anticat'.....

caverspencer:

lets take a trip back to grade school for a minute www.ccs.k12.in.us/Creekside/Teams/.../Figurative_Language_PP.ppt


You are confusing figurative with literal or representational.
lets apply englsih terms which are parellel with art terms

I am not confused at all, I am using how you defined figurative in your category description, ""Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal."

I don't need to nor should I have to go to a childhood text to define what you want you did the definition for me in the category description. The definition in the category description agrees with the definition of figurative art given in Wikipedia (don't need comments whether that is a good source or not as the referenced sources are in agreement)  "Figurative art, sometimes written as figurativism, describes artwork—particularly paintings and sculptures—which are clearly derived from real object sources, and are therefore by definition representational."  It goes on to say that it usually applies to the human form and sometimes animals. 

Figurative art is contrasted with abstract art as seen in the glossary of the Tate Museum "Since the arrival of abstract art the term figurative has been used to refer to any form of modern art that retains strong references to the real world and particularly to the human figure."    When the category was created it was proposed because of sculptures of the human form not really being acceptable in the abstract category.

We could add a category for Representational sculptures but I think that it would confuse things more as there is already confusion on what is abstract and what is figurative.  Defining what is representational and what is figurative would be still more of a judgment call. 

So you are not interested in helping with this new endeavor? :0)

What rubs me is the deletion of approved waymarks that still meet the criteria how its written.  The officers of the category were unaware based on the requirements that they were approving waymarks that didn't meet the intent of the category.  The forums are a place to receive feedback on categories as are the types of waymarks that are being posted.  In the categories that I lead or am an officer of my experience is that we've corrected areas of confusion and ambiguity rather than deleting or declining waymarks to leave the community guessing on what fits or doesn't fit and which are required and optional variables.

Intent versus impact seems to be misaligned here.  If all of us aren't meeting your intent you need to revise the category and make it clear what you are looking for.  (And leave old waymarks alone.)  You need to be as clear as possible so that others outside the geographical areas of highest waymarking participation can understand what you are getting at.  That is if it is not clear to those of us whose first language is English, its not going to be clear to others.

Perhaps, as I suggested previously its time to create a category that meets your intent - not one that we have been documenting to.  If others have passed by sculptures that may have met the category requirements but they weren't sure and passed them by that too speaks volumes.

BruceS:

We could add a category for Representational sculptures but I think that it would confuse things more as there is already confusion on what is abstract and what is figurative.  Defining what is representational and what is figurative would be still more of a judgment call. 

I agree. I understand the current dilemma, but I think it would be better if something could be worked out using the current category.

By the way, I really like the descriptive phrase "Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal.". I always thought that was a pretty clear description of what was being sought for this category. It was elegant, concise, and easy-to-understand.

Or at least, I thought it was up until this recent situation arose ...

I am just looking over the original description fo the group again I see where one spot of confusion came in.

The first paragraph of the expanded description states "Expanded Description: Also if the waymark can be listed in another category, that is where it belongs first. Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal. (example: A abstracted statue of a little girl holding a basket would fit, but a statue of a young Helen Keller holding a basket would not.) Abstracted means that you can tell it's a human/animal form, however it's not like any human/animal you'd see strutting down the street.) "

I think this paragraph says exactly what I was trying to get across last night. Although the word abstracted makes it confusing since there is a already an abstract category. If my memory serves me correct I started this group because my fish tender waymark was denied from the abrstract category because it resembled a human. here is the waymark that started it all http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1HE4_Fish_Tender

I saw in a correspondence today where one of the other offices left out a word (not) as what she was using to judge waymarks. the sentence she was leaving out the word not is "however it's not like any human/animal you'd see strutting down the street." You take out the word NOT and I can definately see why every statue of a bear or deer or any other animal would fit.

Since there does not appear to be a better category for the animals that are not abstracted I think the best thing to do is to just continue the way things have been the last year while I ahve been gone. Go ahead and resubmit that donkey and other animals.

If you want an idea of what I had in mind though take a look at the waymarks Bruce has posted int he category he has some of the best in the category.