Posted: 2/17/14 at 8:58am
Posted: 2/17/14 at 9:13am
Posted: 2/17/14 at 9:19am
Posted: 2/17/14 at 11:18am
Posted: 2/17/14 at 11:42am
Posted: 2/17/14 at 11:55am
Don't joke about that, Kad.
Posted: 2/17/14 at 12:02pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 12:04pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 12:12pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 12:16pm
Updated On: 2/17/14 at 12:16 PM
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:24pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:27pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:32pm
Updated On: 2/17/14 at 07:32 PM
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:37pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:42pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:45pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 7:46pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 9:31pm
Posted: 2/17/14 at 10:17pm
Would someone do me a favor and explain the fundamental attraction of wax simulacra of famous people?
I can well imagine that such a thing would have been fascinating in an era when a painter might have to spend months creating a single, non-duplicatable likeness. Even in the early days of photography--sitting for a portrait could be a protracted ordeal.
Based upon this thread, it appears there is no interest in any "interpretation" by wax artists: no opportunity for self-expression, no evolution in the art of creating these figures. The one goal is, apparently, to create something that looks JUST LIKE the actual, often-photographed, person.
If I want to see what Leonardo diCaprio looks like, I can do a search of Google Images, and see hundreds of thousands of images--from earliest days to earlier today.
So--'splain to me. What is the point?
Updated On: 2/17/14 at 10:17 PM
Posted: 2/17/14 at 10:19pm
Posted: 2/18/14 at 2:23am
Posted: 2/18/14 at 3:58pm
Posted: 2/18/14 at 4:07pm
Posted: 2/18/14 at 4:26pm
Posted: 2/18/14 at 4:42pm
Updated On: 2/18/14 at 04:42 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
