You are not logged in.
I am so sorry if this is a dumb question, but can someone please explain the difference between paper casting and papier-mache to me?
I had never heard of paper casting until I came across it in the forums here. I was just wondering what it was and what separates it from papier-mache.
Offline
HA! The million-dollar question! And it may simply be a philosophical question.
A friend and I have discussed exactly this question. Both crafts are made from paper pulp. Some people in paper casting use a binder (glue) in their pulp mix, and some don't. Those two groups alone will argue which is 'true' paper casting.
People in papier mache will cast their paper pulp, some using straight pulp and water, and some use a binder (glue). Both will argue which is best.
Starting to get the picture? As far as my friend and I have decided, they are really both the same thing. The one difference (which neither side may hold to) is that paper casting often (not always) uses virgin fiber that was never paper before, and papier mache casting uses paper pulp that was sheet paper of some kind in a previous 'life'.
My friend and I, both being somewhat cynical and not above being somewhat catty, have come up with these cynical observations:
"Paper casting" is an art produced by an artist who can afford to use virgin materials because he is charging an exhorbitant price for his work. And HIS definition of "papier mache casting" is that it is an inferior product produced by a crafter of minimal talent with recycled materials, that could not POSSIBLY approach his own talent (and high prices).
Does this make sense to you?
To my friend and myself, we think paper pulp, cast into a mold, including or not including a binder (glue), and arriving at a pleasing creation is PAPER CASTING. And that is using virgin fibers or fibers that formed sheet paper at one time, may or may not have a binder (glue) mixed in with it, and is pressed into a mold and then released.
It may be the pure color of the virgin fiber.
It may include colored fibers such as silk or cotton.
It may contain inclusions of organic or inorganic materials as decoration.
It may be tinted or painted.
And this is the opinion we have, with which we hope to eliminate (read: beat down) the unnecessary biotry between artists who are so insecure that they have to tear down another artist's work to (hopefully) elevate their own.
How's that for an opinion?
Sue
Offline
Being the friend Sue is referring to, I'll jump in and add a couple of observations.
Paper casting used to be the way hand papermakers refered to 3-d paper; in order to form its shape, it was (mostly, but not always) cast in a mold.
Many paper casters who sell their work tend to act as if it were a material. I think it's more accurate to refer to it as a technique.
I'll be even more cynical than Sue: if a piece is being sold as a paper cast, it's almost always much more expensive than if it's sold as papier mache.
Offline
And I might add, talent is used in making the mold.
Molds are reusable. That's a plus for the caster, not the buyer!
Paper mache isn't just chewed paper. You can craft all kinds of objects. You can make round objects from pulp or layers, then with the right paper, create wings, no layering required! You can even wet the thicker papers, then mold these without turning them into pulp, and press while it dries, creating waves in the paper, or perhaps creases, and even texture.
Use different papers on the final layers. For example, make a sports coat for a man, or a flared skirt for a lady, using just a sheet of the right thickness of paper.
We're talking about methods here, not the final product. Don't let methods limit you. There's a big world of opportunity. Methodology is not important. Craftmanship and artistic talent is!
Personally, I won't pay more just because something is 'cast'. That makes no difference to me. The result is what counts. If I'm told it's cast, I'm gonna ask how many more exist, or will exist. And it's a limitied quanity, what's the number I bought out of X many.
Offline
No wonder I was confused! The difference between papier-mache and paper casting is supposed to look confusing I guess. *grins*
In case you are wondering what made me start thinking about this subject today - I am thinking about making a table and while planning it out in my head how to go about it, I remembered reading in a papier mache book a long time ago about making legs by taking newspaper sheets, coating them with glue, rolling them up into a log and continuing to add sheets until you had a sold table leg like object.
Because it wasn't papier-mache as I know it (torn pieces of paper stuck together with glue) I wondered if it was paper casting, which made me wonder what the heck paper casting was. *laughs*
It really makes me sad that papier-mache has such a bad stigma in the art world and is looked down about as stuff that 'only kindergarten children' do.
It is twice as confusing for me because Gemma Taccogna did so much to move the medium into the fine art world and yet still every time people ask me what medium I work in, when I say papier-mache they raise an eyebrow at me as if you can't be a 'real' artist if that is the medium you choose to work in.
Opps, sorry! This reply somehow got off the original topic and somehow got turned into a rant about papier-mache and its place in the fine art world.
Offline
No reason to be sorry. Discussion doesn't follow rules like stayh on the topic. Only debate does, and that's not discussion either. :shock:
Paper is a great medium to work in! Only the ignorant think it's kidz stuff! Full steam ahead!
Offline
[WARNING: Rant turned on]
You're not responsible for other people's opinions about art.
Peer pressure is the big bugaboo* in the lives of many people. They care more about what other people think of things more than they value their own opinion. Some people don't even realize that they have their own opinions.
When you're a kid, you wear what the other kids are wearing, talk like the other kids talk, start smoking, drink yourself into oblivion, etc to impress other people. Some people do realize what they're doing at some point and make the decision to change, but most don't seem to realize that they are puppets being manipulated by other people.
Lots of people want a BMW or Mercedes or Bentley because other people want them. They're cars. They take you from Point A to Point B. That's it. Bought new, they lose about 25% of their value 50 ft from the dealership. People will pay $40,000 or more for a vehicle to impress people they don't care about. How much sense does that make?
Art is the same way. Art galleries and museums are full of oil paintings by White guys. Some of them had or have talent, some don't. Many of them got into the galleries because of whom they knew, and because they used a medium that is seen as prestigious (oils, metal sculpture, etc). The fact that it's as ugly as a chunk of roadkill doesn't matter to many people. It's 'A Painting by Arnold Buttwiper', and promoted by the galleries. The promotion is salesmanship, not Truth. Politicians buy their way into office. Art is no different, in many cases.
You pick your medium because you like it, like what you can do with it, and like the effects you can produce. You don't pick your medium because someone told you that you can make more money with oils than you can with paper.
World-renowned artists with real talent are famous because what they were doing was important to them. You should do what is important to you. You keep learning and experimenting, and you pay absolutely no attention to the people who have no clue about anything, anyway.
In the end, you do what pleases you, and no one else.
* Bugaboo: An object of obsessive, usually exaggerated, fear or anxiety.
[Okay, rant over]
Sue
Offline
http://www.iinet.com/~lengoforth/cheer2.wav
You said it, Catperson!
I can only add two words: Stuffed shirts!
Offline
CatPerson: What would I do without you? I always value your opinion. Thanks for setting me straight! I really was confused.
Offline
Please come and join me on my soapbox, I couldn't have put it better myself.
Offline
Wow, Sue, you could have been channeling Gemma as you wrote that.
She showed her work in fine art museums and her collectors included Jacqueline Kennedy-onassis, Peggy Guggenheim and fashion designer Anna Sui.
Check out Anna Sui's website. You can see Gemma's influence everywhere.
BTW, Paris Hilton was wearing Anna Sui the last day she appeared in public (the short black lacy dress). Despite that I love her designs!
Paperartist
Offline
...It really makes me sad that papier-mache has such a bad stigma in the art world and is looked down about as stuff that 'only kindergarten children' do...
I can't remember where I've read it but there was a lady when she was an art student discovered that she really liked making sculptures with paper mache.
If i remember correctly some tutors or outside invigilators didn't appreciate her choice of material (it was fairly obvious that her scupltures were made of paper mache). Apparently she made some more sculptures and somehow treating it so that the medium wasn't obvious, then the same said people absolutely lauded over those sculptures saying how wonderful they were but when she revealed that the sculptures were again made of paper mache one of them said "He didn't like being cheated"
Offline
When I think of molded papier mache I think of those inexpensive mass produced toys we could buy many years ago.
It was used a lot for holiday ornaments. looked like brown cardboard. Remember those?
PaperArtist
Offline