MODELLING, THEORY As sculpture is the art of form, modelling is that part of the art of sculpture concerned with the treatment and manipulation of the surface of form; also, in a secondary meaning of the word, the building up and shaping of a work of sculpture in a plastic material preparatory to casting in plaster of Paris, bronze or terra cotta, or cutting in wood or stone.
With the Greeks one of the tests of a work of sculpture lay in the animation, vibration and life of its surfaces. This is due to the modelling and in this special sense modelling may be called the art of the surface of form.
Modelling as a method of building sculpture dates from the time when men hunted the wild horse, the hairy mammoth, the reindeer and the bison in western Europe. There is proof of this to be seen to-day in the caves of France and Spain in the group of bison and the torso of a woman found there. The originals of the Greek terra cottas were undoubtedly first modelled in clay, followed by a mould from which many copies could be repro duced. The earliest bronzes were either modelled solid in wax, as was done in the half life-size figure of Gudea from Sumeria, 13th century, B.C., now in the Louvre, and the earliest Egyptian and Greek bronzes, or over a core, composed of materials similar to those used in this for casting in bronze, thereby allowing the metal to be made very thin and the statue hollow.
Modelling, considered as the art of surfaces as distinguished from the building up of a statue or other piece of sculpture, is well illustrated by the works of Michelangelo and Rodin. Michel angelo's bronzes have perished, but his works in marble show almost perfectly this special quality of modelling, as the art of surfaces; they rely, almost wholly, for their effect, power and charm on what has been done with their surfaces. The Greeks, instead of relying primarily on the surfaces, which were only part of their conception of sculpture, paid particular attention to the development of clear profiles and significant silhouettes. As a result of this practice, Greek sculpture always appears to good advantage in the open air, while Michelangelo's, with the possible exception of the "David," is confused when placed out of doors. Basing his theory and practice of sculpture on the de velopment of beautiful surfaces and significant modelling, he paid little attention, comparatively, to the clearness of the sil houettes. As seen from a distance, his silhouettes are rather ob scure, his statues more or less shapeless. To get the maximum enjoyment out of Michelangelo's masterpieces, the observer should be near enough to see and feel the projections and depressions— the convex and concave surfaces. (See MICHELANGELO.)
In the case of Rodin, these qualities of modelling are developed to excess, with the consequent neglect of qualities just as vital. No group of his is as fine as the figures composing it, and no figure is as good as the individual parts. We have only to recall such figures as have been placed in the squares and gardens of Paris to be aware of the difference in the effect of the same figures when seen in a museum, where all the advancing and receding planes, with their projections and depressions, become a source of keen enjoyment and result in a surface of great richness. Thus it was that Rodin instinctively created so many fragments, justi fying his use of sensual and highly modelled planes against areas deliberately left rough and unfinished. A Rodin is best when it is small enough to be handled and the surface felt with the fingers, thereby getting the utmost possible enjoyment out of it. This conception of sculpture leads naturally to the "morceau" (the part or detail) and is the result of too much occupation with modelling. It is also one of the causes of the modern cult of the fragment.
In the actual manipulation of the materials used in modelling, many methods are employed, resulting in various textures of the surface. Some sculptors apply the clay, plasticine or wax in small, round pellets, called in French "modele a la boulette." This method has been very popular since the middle of the 19th century. It allows a gradual building up of the form, producing a surface that is granular and vibrating in the light, and somewhat like the effect of an Impressionistic painting. (See PAINTING; IMPRESSIONISM.) It developed at about the same time as the Impressionist school, and must be looked upon as an outgrowth of ideas current at that time. Other sculptors apply the clay in great hunks and masses, working it slowly into shape by putting on and cutting off until the desired form and surface are achieved. For tools, some sculptors rely almost wholly upon the hands and fingers, especially the thumb, while others use tools of different shapes and of various materials, such as wire, wood, sheets of steel, etc. (see section above, MODELLING, PRACTICE). With such a variety of tools, the sculptor is capable of producing surfaces varying from one as smooth as glass to one as rough and cor rugated as concrete. As a general rule, sculpture of the earlier periods, and even down to the middle of the i9th century, has a smooth surface, while work done since that time runs the whole gamut from the highest polish to extreme roughness, according to the character of the subject.