Groundspeak Portal

Sorry to post this in the forums, but I don't know who denied from Figurative Public Sculpture. Otherwise I would have contacted directly.

Several people have had sculptures denied recently because 'they are too realistic - not figurative.' I believe this is an error in the interpretation of the requirements for Fig Pub Sculpture. The category overall requirements read: "Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal." The last part is to exclude a statue of George Washington (a specific person), but not a revolutionary soldier.

Then extended description further explains the difference between figurative and abstract: "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." So I usually go with the concept of 'what you could see walking down the street' IS Figurative.

I submitted a Black bear and cub sculpture that was a literal interpretation of a black bear. It is no different than WM80YV or WM7V9T or WM7RF8.

Then I had another piece of life-like ravens (the birds) approved only because the reviewer liked ravens. No, that is not correct. Officers should approve per category requirements - not by what they 'like.'

I thought the purpose of Waymarks is to display the uniqueness and beauty of our world. A by definition - Figurative includes a 'life-like' representation of the topic chosen by the artist. In other words, an elk who looks like an elk is truly figurative. We should not have to 'hope to be lucky' to have one Officer approve our Waymarks who interprets in one manner and then have just 'bad luck' of getting a different Officer who interprets in a totally different manner.

Full Disclosure:  I am an Officer of Figurative Public Sculpture and Abstract Sculpture.

Take care,
Outspoken1 (Sandy)

Similar experience....as an officer you should be able to send a message to the group.  I know it's not one of the officer that thought two of my approved waymarks where re-evaluated and denied because they were too realistic and not unique because they haven't logged in for a few days. 

All of the officers of the category have realistic and not very abstract statues approved in the category.  Not being abstract was also used as a denial reason, but that's a different category that does not accept statues of people or animals. 

You should be able to send an email to all of the officers of the category to find out who might be interpreting the rules differently now....try that method to get resolution.

I would suggest that there might be some waymarkers out there hoping for a solution to re-submit waymarks in this category when the officers have this straightened out.

In my opinion this category does not need to be modified to start excluding statues that are too realistic, or not abstract enough, or not unique enough - subjective terms that are going to get a duplicate category created...I think I've seen that happen before.

I agree someone is misunderstanding what figurative means.  I had one a few months ago in the category declined because it was too abstract.  My concern at the time was that it was too human for the abstract category.  Fortunately in my case the abstract category accepted it as being abstract enough.

Sandy seeing you are in the group managing the category I would resubmit and put the waymark up for vote.  By doing this you will somewhat force these out for discussion within the group.

Dear Bruce:

I agree about putting the Waymark up for a vote - IF it was an unusual piece. This piece is just a realistic sculpture of a bear and cubs. Something that has been easily approved in the past (like a few days ago!) since this is the base definition of 'figurative.' I have received email this morning from other Waymarker's who were denied on similar Waymarks - nothing unusual - just 'too realistic.'

So I am thinking there is a simple disconnect in understanding/interpreting of 'figurative.' Not only did I have one piece denied because it was 'too realistic;' another was approved with the comment that it was too realistic, but that they like ravens (the topic of the piece), so it was approved. That is not really a good idea either. Officers should follow the criteria of the category - not 'like - dislike;' especially with art. What if someone posted 'Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ)'; a very controversial art piece (I know - it would not fit in a Waymark category - it is just an example). 'Like or dislike' could become a HUGE issue.

I have sent an email to the Leader of the  Fig Pub Scul group explaining this new issue. If Fig Pub Scul is to not allow 'too realistic' of sculptures; what is 'too realistic'? What about all of the 'realistic' sculptures I and other Officers have already approved? Where is this limitation listed in the posting criteria? When did Fig Pub Scul criteria change? Was there a vote on the change of the criteria? Yada yada yada (I know I am preaching to the choir). Again, I think there is just a disconnect on the understanding of 'figurative.'

Thanks sooo much for all of your help and guidance with Waymarking, Bruce. I enjoy Waymarking so much, I just bought a new $500 camera for this pursuit. I went to photograph a bunch of public art (figurative and abstract) to test the new camera. Really like the camera - hence all the recent posts of Waymarks into either Fig or Ab.

Take care,
Outspoken1 (sandy)

I am so confused! I have submitted many waymarks in the figurative art category, and one that was approved last week was denied this morning by someone else. What really frustrates me is that the entire message is "no sorry" with absolutely no explanation why they overturned the earlier approval or why they felt the waymark was not acceptable.
Just for reference, it's The Great EscApe sculpture at the OKC Zoo, a large and wonderful bronze sculpture of an ape family.

What do I do? I have no idea how to proceed when my waymark is denied with no reason or explanation.
Now I'm worried that this person will overturn many more sculptures I have submitted and were approved.

Ah...the dreaded 'no sorry'...you have it too.  I also received a 'sorry'.

Four officers logged in yesterday and could have declined the waymarks.  One started this thread, Silverquill is pretty consistent and builds an arguement when things need to change (I'm not sure that he has changed his thinking on this category but I've asked. 

That leaves Math Teacher and Caverspencer (who created the category).  Haven't got a response from either of the two of them on this.

this afternoon's message as they continue to decline these is that:

"what this means is  you can tell it's a human/animal form, however it's not like any human/animal you'd see strutting down the street.     this just looks like a donkey".  Does that mean that these waymarks which look like people should have been declined or not submitted by them?

Caverspencer's

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1HE6_Wills_Barrow

One of Math Teacher's

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6YJ0_The_Lone_Soldier_the_New_Jersey_World_War_II_Memorial_Trenton_NJ

granted you wouldn't see a soldier walking down the street like this everyday in the U.S. but might in other countries where they waymark.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6H8G_Dolphins_3_Postiano_Hollywood_Florida

 

Bottomline on this category is "What's Changed?"

KE

 

It get's better, after gathering as much information as I could on one of the two waymarks that keep be declined, increasing the long description information on the artist....the reviewer has locked me from editing further....incredible.

When I go home tonight I am going to submit this one again.

KE

Got a response from one of them:

"I have no idea what u r talking about but i will investigate later and contact you.  I am late for work again."

And if I recall the name of one of the waymarkers ....then I'm not sure what's happening here.

 

I commend you all on your patience!

With 900+ categories to post waymarks in.. I wouldn't be bothering with this one!

fathrtime:

I commend you all on your patience!

With 900+ categories to post waymarks in.. I wouldn't be bothering with this one!

For many of us it is one of our favorites.  Just have a problem that needs to get sorted out within the group.  Happens sometimes

Food for thought:

• Figurative art, sometimes written as figurativism, describes artwork - particularly paintings and sculptures - which are clearly derived from real ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figurative_art
• Art which portrays, in however altered or distorted a form, things perceived in the visible world.
  www.latinart.com/glossary.cfm
• Art in which recognizable figures or objects are portrayed.
  www.fineartregistry.com/faqs/art_glossary.php
• Art that is inspired by the natural or visible world and uses tangible forms and objects to convey the artist's message. ...
  www.saffronart.com/sitepages/glossary.aspx
• A term used particularly in the modern period to indicate representational art, that is, art in which the artist's primary concern is still ...
  www.itinerart.ca/en/understand/glossary.jsp

Hello everyone. This is Eric, aka Math Teacher. I have just been brought up to speed about the Figurative category issues. I remember having editing powers one time and rewriting some of the submission guidelines to make them more clear. I do not have editing powers anymore.

I investigated the declines and I am absolutely baffled. I would have approved most if not all of them, as they are figurative but do not represent a specific person or animal. There seems to be a new "uniqueness" factor which I am not familiar with at all. Basically, I am shocked at these declines. I also see the category leader (caverspencer) is involved A LOT more now than he had been in the past and it is he who is making these decisions. I have no control over them.

To sum up, I a powerless to go against the category leader. This is his category and I respect his decisions, despite whether I agree with them or not. Clearly the submission guidelines have RADICALLY changed and this category has taken a 180° turn and is now something completely different. There are some options we can as a collective discuss:

1. We take caverspencer's lead and ask him to update the submission guidelines, to which we would follow.

2. We can start a new category which would accept all non-unique statues that are figurative.

I look forward to constructive discourse.

Thank you Math Teacher for responding to the forum. We appreciate it.

It would be very helpful to know WHY the waymarks are being denied. Getting an email saying "no. sorry" doesn't explain anything and makes it hard to correct whatever is wrong, especially on a waymark that was already approved previously. Was my sculpture too realistic? Did he think I was missing a photo?  What requirement did I miss?

Hi everyone.

When I started this category I did it with the intention of having a place to put unique figures. I did not want it to be a place where every bear, elk, dear, donkey or human figure was posted.

People get to carried away with numbers. I remember when the category started it had a limit of 9 per person in the category just so people would choose more carefully. This was short lived and we removed that rule.

For waymarks in this category to fit what I had intended they needed to fit in the "figure of speech" type of mentality.

I don't know how else to describe this other than post links to some of my favorites in this category. I will post again in a bit with some links.

caverspencer:

Hi everyone. When I started this category I did it with the intention of having a place to put unique figures. I did not want it to be a place where every bear, elk, dear, donkey or human figure was posted. People get to carried away with numbers. I remember when the category started it had a limit of 9 per person in the category just so people would choose more carefully. This was short lived and we removed that rule. For waymarks in this category to fit what I had intended they needed to fit in the "figure of speech" type of mentality. I don't know how else to describe this other than post links to some of my favorites in this category. I will post again in a bit with some links.

Your memory is not correct on the the limit of 9.  This was something you tried to arbitrarily impose long after the category was in place and some of us already had several in the category and yes it was short lived because that type of limitation is not in the culture of waymarking.  (category started 4/30/2007, limitation attempted 6/30/2008) It is not that people get carried away with numbers at all, there are just many sculptures which are figurative just as there are many abstract sculptures.  Trying now to limit a category to some arbitrary  "figure of speech" mentality will mean your category will become some type of subjective category which no one will understand and that is not what your peers voted for in peer review.

WOW!!! I am actually really disapointed. This category is nothing like it was intended to be. Nearly half of the waymarks are probably of ordinary realistic looking animals with no meaning behind them. Someone should start an animal sculptures category if there is not one already.
Fortunately the majority of sculptures of peaple actaully have meaning behind them.

I guess its my own falut for going out of touch for so long and absolutley no activity.

ok these are not the best examples but I am short on time.

http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=b05c6552-b665-42f5-ab98-fb5a837801db
ham and eggs

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM
7QT2_Just_Like_Dad_Pebble_Beach_CA
this one is a little boy fishing. its not just a boy or an elk it actually has some meaning to it. not the best example but...

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7RF1_Leap_Frog_Edmond_OK
play on words, figure of speech, whatever you want to call it.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7NGE_The_Traveling_Man_Walking_Tall

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6Q2D_Wild_Anchorage_Alaska


http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6M4P_Cow_Up_A_Tree_Docklands_Melbourne_Vic_Australia

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7GWF_Adventure_Mountain_Conyers_GA

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7RWG_Settling_In_Edmond_OK
"figurative" of two birds landing and "settling in"

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7QYY_The_Boxing_Match_Kenner_LA

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7RPP_The_Thinker_Paris_FR


I really like this one:
http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=63e082be-1014-4867-a87a-055e6d4ed261

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6Y1Y_Puffed_Up_Prince_Edmond_OK

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6VQW_Speedy_Billings_Montana

not a good example but I like the humor behind it http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7TCH_Canadiana_Begging_Bear_Guelph_Ontario_Canada

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7JM6_School_Days_Largo_FL

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6R85_Jackuv_Altradz_Billings_Montana

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6VJW_Working_Together_Building_Together_Billings_Montana

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6VK7_The_Executive_Billings_Montana

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7Q05_Tin_Man_Demopolis_Alabama

caverspencer:

WOW!!! I am actually really disapointed. This category is nothing like it was intended to be. Nearly half of the waymarks are probably of ordinary realistic looking animals with no meaning behind them. Someone should start an animal sculptures category if there is not one already.

There is no need for an animal sculpture category because we have one that is called Figurative Public Sculptures with a description approved in peer review with the following description "Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal."  Thus an animal sculpture category would be a duplicate of an already existing category.

reading the links posted above by outspoken as well some other definitions I found I am going to clip some parts that seem to be along the same lines as my thoughts regarding this category. I welcome any feedback to this. My biggest gripe right now is with all the plan animals that have no meaning to them. By my definitions these are representational and not figurative. I could certainly use some help defining this. Here are some of definitions I found:

representing by a figure or resemblance : emblematic b : of or relating to representation of form or figure in art


" Figurative art and total abstraction are almost mutually exclusive. But figurative and representational (or realistic) art often contains partial abstraction"

the key word here for me is partial abstraction. In the category description I said something along the lines of the waymark should be recognizable as human or animal but not like that of any animal or person you would see.




"Figurative Art: Art which portrays, in however altered or distorted a form, things perceived in the visible world. "

key words for me here are altered or distorted


"does not necessarily represent an object as we see it even though it is based on an actual individual, emotion or object"

"does not represent reality as we see it, though it may be based on an actual individual, emotion or object"


of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression

1.representing by means of a figure, symbol, or likeness


3.not in its original, usual, literal, or exact sense; representing one concept in terms of another that may be thought of as analogous with it;


Hopefully you ge the idea.

Please! no more normal animals. I just need to see some creativity and meaning behind it. Plopping a bear statue down in a park does not do it for me.

Sorry for those I have offended. If you are not following me here then the other officers can always vote to have me removed. I realize it is my own fault that things got this way because I have been gone for so long. I will say though I am saddened to see the creativity of this category has declined.

BruceS:

caverspencer:

WOW!!! I am actually really disapointed. This category is nothing like it was intended to be. Nearly half of the waymarks are probably of ordinary realistic looking animals with no meaning behind them. Someone should start an animal sculptures category if there is not one already.

There is no need for an animal sculpture category because we have one that is called Figurative Public Sculptures with a description approved in peer review with the following description "Figurative sculpture is sculpture that is based on
the human or animal figure, but NOT that of any one particular human or animal."  Thus an animal sculpture category would be a duplicate of an already existing category.

Bruce: like you said it says "but NOT that of any one particular human or animal"

A bear is a bear, a donkey is a donkey, a deer is a deer. Where is the creativity of that?

Fred Flinstone is still Fred flinstone ( I cant believe that one got approved)

And there are a couple of hundred sculptures in this category that are human figures that are quite realistic and decent art.

If this category is no longer what you have intended by being absent - move on. Create a new category that better defines what you are looking for and pass the lead on to other members of your group.

Backtracking and deleting waymarks that have been accepted and meet the requirements of the category is not appropriate. Other categories that have modified the requirements grandfather those in.

If you do this you will see a category that will become stagnant and others will move on to something else for their statues.

You should take pride in a well received category that is very popular. If it is an email issue pass the lead. If it is an intent of the category issue create another. Some of use have 10, 20 or more categories that we are officers of and are open to wide participation by everyone.

My suggestion, try a new category and good luck defining the criteria - unique. It subjective and is something of opinion.

caverspencer:

Please! no more normal animals. I just need to see some creativity and meaning behind it. Plopping a bear statue down in a park does not do it for me.

Well I am sure that the artists that created those statues and the people that placed them would be happy to know that you don't consider them to be creative. Or have meaning.

By the way, what is the meaning or creativity or uniqueness of the statue that you posted of a boy pushing a wheelbarrow??

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1HE6_Wills_Barrow

Bruce,

I am not sure what you are complaigning about. I just glanced through many of the waymarks you have posted and they fit the category nicely. Ironically several of the links I posted a few messages up are of your waymarks.
I noticed a few plain old animals in there, but not many.

WildWooke,

What was the name of that waymark again? Is that not figurative? "figure of speech" Granted its not the best example but atleast it has some creativity.

I am off to bed. I've said my thoughts. Sorry you dont agree. I thought this was a fun category. It is jsut starting to get some less creative stuff mixed in now and I was hoping to correct that.

ok one more post.


Bruce I really like this one http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2QPD_Fishing_Bear_Two_Harbors_Minnesota

I hope the fact thats its carved still qualifies it as a scultpure though. I fits the exact type of things I was looking for.


and this one http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1Z8Y_Soulful_Expression_by_Martin_Jackson_St_Louis_Missouri

and this one is interesting http://www.waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=a2bb1409-1ca2-4fed-b577-5be33039714b

and of course this one http://www.waymarking.com/error/error.aspx?404;http://www.waymarking.com:80/waymarks/WM1VH2_Nijinski_Hare_by_Barry_Flanagan_St_Louis_Missouri

Seriously Bruce, if someone wants to know what this category is about they just need to browse through the waymarks you have posted in it, short of 10 or so animals that seem pretty ordinary you are posting exactly the types of things I had hoped to see in this category.

caverspencer:

 Bruce: like you said it says "but NOT that of any one particular human or animal"

A bear is a bear, a donkey is a donkey, a deer is a deer. Where is the creativity of that?

Fred Flinstone is still Fred flinstone ( I cant believe that one got approved)

A bear is a bear... does the bear have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture

A donkey is a donkey  .. does the donkey have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture

A deer is a deer... does the deer have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture.

I would agree Fred probably should not have been approved.

Trying to judge creativity of a sculpture will put your group in a no win situation.  When I look at many pieces of art I don't think much of it however I know I could not create it and when I look at the price tag they sell for I figure someone must value them.

BruceS:

caverspencer:

 Bruce: like you said it says "but NOT that of any one particular human or animal"



A bear is a bear, a donkey is a donkey, a deer is a deer. Where is the creativity of that?



Fred Flinstone is still Fred flinstone ( I cant believe that one got approved)

A bear is a bear... does the bear have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture

A donkey is a donkey  .. does the donkey have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture

A deer is a deer... does the deer have a name?  No then it is not a particular animal  thus it is figurative sculpture.

I would agree Fred probably should not have been approved.

Trying to judge creativity of a sculpture will put your group in a no win situation.  When I look at many pieces of art I don't think much of it however I know I could not create it and when I look at the price tag they sell for I figure someone must value them.

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

Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. ( a plain sculpture of a cow is literal)

Figurative refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. Figurative language may involve analogy to similar concepts or other contexts, and may involve exaggerations. ( a ninja rabbit is figurative)


http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/literallygloss.htm