5 Greatest Sculptors of All Time



Playing in two dimensions is easy enough, but what truly separates the men from the boys? Maybe it’s when you give up your easel for a tool belt and get to work with a hammer and chisel. These amazing sculptors took their talents 3-D.

1. Donatello (1386? - 1466)


David in bronze (Photo Credit: italiangerry [Flickr])

St. George (bronze copy of the marble original) (Photo Credit: Jastrow [wiki])

Unquestionably the greatest sculptor of the early Renaissance, Donatello [wiki] was born in Florence, though he traveled widely and was famous throughout Italy. Donatello had complete mastery of bronze, stone, wood, and terra cotta, and nothing escaped his extraordinary capabilities: relief sculpture, nudes, equestrian statues, groups of figures, and single figures seated or standing. In fact, he reinvented the art of sculpture just as other contemporaries were reinventing the art of painting, and his innovations and discoveries were profoundly influential. Above all, Donatello seemed to be able to bring sculpture to life by his ability to tell a story, combine realism and powerful emotion, and create the impression that his figures were more than mere objects of beauty for passive contemplation, but creations filled with energy and thought, ready to spring into action.

2. Michelangelo (1475 - 1564)


Michelangelo’s David


Michelangelo’s Pietà

Clearly an outstanding genius, Michelangelo’s [wiki] influence dominated European art until Picasso changed the rules. A sculptor first, painter and architect second, Michelangelo was a workaholic - a melancholic, temperamental, and lonely figure. He had a profound belief in the human form (especially the male nude) as the ultimate expression of human spirituality, sensibility, and beauty. In fact, Michelangelo’s early work shows the human being as the measure of all things: idealized, muscular, confident, and quasi-divine. Gradually that image becomes more expressive, more human, less perfect, fallible, and flawed. He loved turning and twisting poses full of latent energy, and faces that expressed the full range of human emotion. Endlessly inventive, he never repeated a pose, although being a true Renaissance man, he was proud to borrow from Greek and Roman precedents.

3. Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598 - 1680)


Bernini’s Apollo and Daphne


Bernini’s Rape of Proserpina


Bernini’s David

Bernini [wiki] set sculpture free from its previous occupation with earthly gravity and intellectual emotion, allowing it to discover a new freedom that permitted it to move, soar, and have a visionary and theatrical quality. A child prodigy, Bernini had a sparkling personality and brilliant wit (he wrote comedies) - qualities that shine through his sculptures. He was also a true visionary technically, able to carve marble so as to make it seem to move or have the delicacy of the finest lace. At his best he blends sculpture, architecture, and painting into an extravagant theatrical ensemble, especially in his fountains, where the play of water and light over his larger-than-life human figures and animals creates a vision that is literally out of this world.

4. Auguste Rodin (1840 - 1917)


Rodin’s The Thinker, original bronze cast at the Musée Rodin in Paris (Image credit: a.muse.d [Flickr])


Rodin’s Gates of Hell, at the Rodin Museum in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


Rodin’s The Walking Man (Photo credit: David. Monniaux [wiki])

Rodin [wiki] is the glorious, triumphant finale to the sculptural tradition that starts with Donatello. He is rightly spoken of in the same breath as Michelangelo, although they’re very different: Michelangelo carved into marble whereas Rodin molded with clay. A shy workaholic, untidy, and physically enormous, Rodin emerged from impoverished beginnings. He became an international celebrity and was deeply attractive to smart women. Rodin was also well known for loving the fluidity of clay and plaster, and was able to retain this quality even when his work was cast in bronze, thereby magically releasing in his figures an extraordinary range of human feelings and a sense of the unknown forces of nature.

5. Constantin Brancusi (1876 - 1957)


Brancusi’s The Kiss


Brancusi’s The Endless Column

Brancusi [wiki] is one of the seminal figures of 20th-century art with a profound influence on sculpture and design. Born into a Romanian peasant family, he settled in Paris in 1904, becoming a student of Rodin. Amazingly, Brancusi remained indifferent to honor and fame. At the heart of his work is a tireless refinement and search for purity. Never abstract, his work always references something recognizable in nature. Brancusi believed in the maxim "Truth to materials," and he always brought out the inherent quality of each material that he used. The purity and simplicity of his form touch something very basic in the human psyche, just as does, for example, the sound of the waves of the sea.

From mental_floss’ book Condensed Knowledge: A deliciously Irreverent Guide to Feeling Smart Again, published in Neatorama with permission.

Original article written by Robert Cumming, an art critic and writer. Cumming was also a curator in the Tate Gallery Education Department, and founder and chairman of the Christies Education programs.

Be sure to visit mental_floss‘ extremely entertaining website and blog!

Previous Post
Get Neatorama by RSS or email
 Next Post
Posted on May 15, 2007 at 2:33 am by Alex
Category: Art & Craft, Mentalfloss



40 Comments to "5 Greatest Sculptors of All Time"

  • Sid Morrison
    May 15th, 2007 at 7:54 am

    Wow, the Brancusi work really looks like krap when compared to the others!

  • maps
    May 15th, 2007 at 9:52 am

    Wow, how incredibly uninformed and simplistic, Sid. NIce to have you pipe in and add positively nothing to the discussion with your wonderful aesthetic observation!

    Anyway, this list is more like the 5 greatest classical sculptors. This 20th century art link at wikipedia is a good link for a springboard to discover modern sculptors and their related movements:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century_art

    It includes links to the main art movements that encompass modern sculpture. Historical events that dictated a move away from classical realism and into abstraction are essential to understand why Brancusi appears as ‘krap’ to some (hi Sid!).

  • Sid Morrison
    May 15th, 2007 at 10:07 am

    You don’t think the shift from realism to abstraction could have just a little to do with abstraction being available to much broader numbers of artists?

    Realism took a high level of technical skill. Any community college sculpting class could provide me with a dozen “sculptors” capable of reproducing “The Kiss”. Granted, they might not have the artistic inspiration that Brancusi had to make it in the first place, but the level of technical skill in the piece is very low.

    Great art should require BOTH artistic inspiration and a high level of technical skill. Donatello had both. At most, Brancusi had the former alone. It’s as laughable as comparing Warhol & Banksy to Vermeer & Botticelli.

  • maps
    May 15th, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Actually I think the inspiration to shift from realism to abstraction is a lot more complex than just the wider availability of education and materials (Including massive 20th shifts such as industrialization, economics and the meat-grinder world wars). The list of historical triggers is long and diverse — including the accessibility to art by the public that made it more vernacular. Which I don’t think is a bad thing. Art was no longer a domain for wealthy institution such as the church.

    I would argue that technical skill is not an absolute requirement for great art. By saying that, you discount most of our modern culture, including other mediums such as music (rock and roll & blues for example, which I think are forms of GREAT art. As great as anything Botticelli ever produced).

    And to make a further point about technical skill, abstraction doesn’t mean easy or necessarily technically simple. What you see Brancusi or Wharhol doing is a damn spot harder to pull off than you are saying. The statement that any community college student could reproduce “The Kiss” is disingenuous (besides reproducing is not the same as creating).

    I would compare Warhol to Vermeer for any day of the week. I would go as far as saying Warhol is a more important influence on art and culture at this point in history.

  • Becki
    May 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am

    Bernini’s David is so much more dynamic and descriptive of the David and Goliath story than Michelangelo’s rather one dimensional, albeit very beautiful homo-erotic portrait. Once you realize this I think it opens the door to appreciate the genius in so many other Bernini pieces. Bernini captures the precise moment of the drama of the fable, as he does with Apollo and Daphne, which you can’t see clearly in that top picture, but can be seen more clearly here:
    http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/b/bernini/gianlore/sculptur/1620  /apollo_d.html
    where the nymph Daphne is metamorphizing into a tree.
    A wonderful site for viewing Bernini sculpture is the Italian Thais site:
    http://www.thais.it/scultura/bernini.htm

  • Tina
    May 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    How did DONATELLO trump MICHELANGELO? Impossible. I studied art history for 3 years and saw the works of both sculptors up close and personal, and MICHELANGELO was by far the greatest of them all.

  • Denita TwoDragons
    May 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    Bernini’s David could beat the snot out of Donatello’s poncy little git. Just look at the expression on his face! I’ve never seen a marble figure convey such motion and in tensity before!

    –TwoDragons

  • Denita TwoDragons
    May 15th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Ack, I meant “intensity”… :-/

    –TwoDragons

  • kate
    May 15th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    I fully agree that the “Top 4″ are gifted classical sculptors. However, the innovations achieved by 20/21st century artists are truly remarkable. Further, how could you ever hope to compare them?

    Here’s a bit about an upcoming retrospective of one of my favorite 20th century sculptors, Antony Gormley: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/304344/Entertainment?c_id=kc
    His work is amazing, but does it compare apples-to-apples with Bernini? Of course not!

    There’s no “better”, no “worse”, no “more”, no “less”. There’s only art and opinion, the two most subjective things I can think of.

  • Sid Morrison
    May 15th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    How long do you think Brancusi devoted to this “masterpiece” of his:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brancusi-Torso.jpg
    Compare that to anything Bernini created.

    I’ll give the excuse makers a little latitude when they say “art can’t be compared” and “it is all subjective”. That’s true to a point, but eventually krap is krap. There are krappy books, krappy movies, krappy TV shows, krappy car designs, krappy architecture, and YES, krappy art. Don’t be afraid to call a spade a spade.

    Here’s another winner: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art/20th/painting/malevich1.jpg
    To be fair, much of Malevich’s stuff isn’t quite so awful. But it is a good example of “you just don’t understand it” trash that litters the MoMA and another such museums, gifts of the wealthy and gullible. Lots of people are afraid to say the emperor is naked, but I am not.

    Sorry, but there is krap and this is krap.

  • Becki
    May 15th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    Nicely put, Sid.
    Nail-head, meet hammer.

  • maps
    May 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    Hey Sid, I’ll bite (once more) because you obviously have little inkling into the process of how those are pieces are created.

    No, it’s not “krap” or “trash” (that kind of dismissive language disqualifies your argument from any serious consideration — which boils down to ‘I know what I understand, and I don’t understand this, so it isn’t art’). Based on your posts, you simply relate to pieces you can see representations of yourself in (obvious human figure; your interest in certain type of methodology). There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion of what you like or dislike. What is wrong is the hubris you demonstrate in thinking that you’ve figured out that “the emperor is naked” and you can conclusively dismiss a product of hundreds (if not thousands) of years of art history and tradition as “krap”. You are just really showing how little you actually know.

    If you had bothered to try to educate yourself on the pieces you linked you, you’d realize they are part of a great tradition of pushing the methods, concepts and materials ahead and away from their traditional origins. That they are part of a tradition and not removed from it. The methods that went into the examples you point out would require many of the same processes that the past masters’ would have utilized. The Malevich painting was meant to be seen up close. The subtly of the white shifts and intricate, delicate building of the pigments was a continuation of what medieval monks were creating with their painstaking illuminated gospels — Malevich was getting closer to God through the details. I wouldn’t want to wager how long he spent hunched over that piece, methodically building it.

    Look at this way: Bernini would never have conceived of creating anything like that Brancusi piece. His time and place wouldn’t have allowed it. He would never have known it could be done. That’s the point: modernism happened as a reaction to it’s time.

    Picasso was a child prodigy who could paint as well as many of the great masters. But he kicked that direction to the curb because he was bored and adventurous. He was a man of his time. He was influenced by moving pictures and photography. He had a massive visual vocabulary of the art past to build on. Producing another historical or biblical based rendering of the human body is done and done to death even by his time. Why bother beating that horse when there fresher avenues to explore?

    I wonder what Bernini would have produced if born in the 20th century. Probably not “Apollo and Daphne”.

    Becki: Nail-head? Because a half-baked post utilizing the word ‘krap’ repeatedly is the final word. Gimme a break.

  • patrick
    May 15th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    I really enjoyed seeing the Bernini pieces in person. I have actually seen most of these in person, and his stand out as the best. I am not as.. scholarly.. as some of the people throwing their weight in here, but the soft stone and realism were just absolutely remarkable.

  • Becki
    May 15th, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Keep drinking the modernist Kool-Aid maps. Bernini’s work has been loved and treasured for 500 years, and will be for millennia to come. The only sculptor of the last 100 years or so who even comes within a planetary orbit of the craftsmanship, artistry and transcendent beauty of his work is Rodin. The modernists and abstractionists might have dominated the art world for the last century or so, but only because the art world has been stuck in a “hipper than thou” mode for all that time, with everyone falling over themselves to come up with something more outrageous than the next guy. E.g Gilbert and George’s “turd” art, and Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ”.

    Why are places like the NY Met Museum filled to bursting all year long, whereas most regular commercial art galleries are populated only by otherwise useless art history grads? (Where else would get our unreadable art criticism?) As the brilliant David Hockney says - people like pretty pictures. I don’t want modern art to go away - I just don’t want it to be the only item on the menu.

  • Eric
    May 15th, 2007 at 9:11 pm

    Utterly ridiculous. This list should be called “The Greatest Sculptors of the last 600 Years”. There are many sculptors in antiquity that at least equal (if not eclipse) the work of these artists.

    THE greatest sculptor of all time, as recognized by many scholars (I trust you won’t take their word for it, as this is art and noone’s opinion is absolute) was Phidias of Athens. He was responsible for the Elgin marbles, the seated Zeus of Olympia, and most importantly, the chrys-elephantine state of Athena in the Parthenon.

    P.S. Sid is a moron.

  • bluebonics
    May 15th, 2007 at 9:15 pm

    Modern art is more about pushing the definition of art to the extremes and to represent the abstractions of modern society. Sid has all the right in the world to say that Brancusi looks like crap. Does this mean that Brancusi’s sculptures are crap? They are to some. Personally, I entirely see the point and need of modern art. I don’t, however, think it can in any way stand on the same grounds as Renaissance period art in any way. The majority of modern art has a minuscule amount of technical artistic merit in comparison. Sid was right on the money when he said the inspiration is there, but the technical ability is not (or rather, not applied).

  • Adaminc
    May 15th, 2007 at 9:57 pm

    I saw a documentary on 3 brothers travelling through india, they stopped in at this clay sculptor along the way, and his sculptures of indian dieties blow away all of these in detail, and altogether magnificense (if thats a word), too bad at the end of the festival they were created for, they are pushed into the river, lol, but this is just my opinion.

  • Conor
    May 15th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    After 3000 Years of Sculpture, Brancusi was the first one to try something different. Check out bird in space, it lead to a court case on what is art, a customs official labeled it a Medical Device. Eeeek, that would hurt.

  • Rog
    May 15th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Those are atrocious examples of what a true sculptor is capable of producing. Frankly these “great” pieces of art by Rodin, Michelangelo, Bernini, etc. are just mere glorified modifications of the greatest sculptors in history. There is no doubt that the Venus of Willendorf presents the only true example of originality and creativity. The capacity of the mind that created such a magnanimous creation must have been absolutely limitless in comparison to the drivel pushed on us by these so-called greats Donatello and Brancusi.

    I know fans of abstract art will characterize the phenomenal attention to detail as a throwback to the patriarchal tribal society rife with violent inequality while the purveyors of classical art will cry foul at the blatantly sheer simplicity of such a pornographic creation. But you’re both wrong. It was, is, and will be the best ever. I fart in your general direction.

  • Justin Simoni
    May 16th, 2007 at 12:09 am

    Many of these sculptors didn’t use a hammer and chisel primarily. Donatello’s sculptures are casts from wax. Rodin as well - or he used clay. Other people made the actual, iron versions. The men from the boys comment is slighty silly.

  • DIROTTERMAN
    May 16th, 2007 at 12:22 am

    The Classical sculptors superiority when crafting the human form is indisputable, but there will be a lot of controversy when it comes to the Modern sculptor. I think Pablo Picasso’s pieces derived from “found objects,” has to be at the top of the list for creativity, ever see his “Baboon and child?” Wow! And as for the modern concept of the human form, how about Albert Giacometti.

  • Hans
    May 16th, 2007 at 4:49 am

    To me Michelangelo’s David is number 1. Many ancient greek statues/sculptors are missing from the list, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laocoön_and_his_Sons, attributed to 3 sculptors.

  • AoOs
    May 16th, 2007 at 5:33 am

    How … could .. you .. leave out Thorvaldsen ?!

  • Anil
    May 16th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    No American in that list?

  • Bren
    May 16th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    It amuses me that Sid is being so denigrated here. When observing that the technical skill in modern pieces is so lacking he is told to “shut up” because he doesn’t understand (by art afficionados no less). The defense being that the cultural perspective is more important than the technical ability to create great art.
    I disagree.
    Truthfully can anyone say that in 500 years we will remember “Rock n Blues” as great art vs classical orchestration? Seriously, does anyone rock out to medieval drinking songs?
    I would say there is a gigantic gulf in the energy and thought put into classical pieces across the board, that increases their lasting value as “art”

  • Dave LaMorte
    May 16th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    Maybe I this would be better if you called it the top 5 figurative sculptors. What about guys like Caulder, DiSurevo, Doh-Ho Suh, IM Pei, Pheobe Washburn, etc. I would either narrow your scope or don’t do posts like this at all. Otherwise I love the site.

  • Nikos
    May 16th, 2007 at 5:14 pm

    Dudes you ‘ve left out the TOP one
    PRAXITELES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • xia
    May 17th, 2007 at 12:21 am

    how can this be the top five all time sculpters if there are no representations of Rodins work??

  • xia
    May 17th, 2007 at 12:29 am

    well okay so there are some rodin works here, but where is the fallen caryatid??

  • Storm
    May 17th, 2007 at 5:40 am

    Great. Why don’t we narrow all of art histoty into these Lettermanesque lists and then just haul all the rest of the old junk to the rubbish tip.

    While I fully agree with the krap is krap statement, art appreciation is still too subjective to be rateable into a list like this.

    I get a little depressed when everyone argues (albeit eloquently) over who is number one and numner two when in fact IT IS NOT A #*@$# SPORT!

  • ted
    May 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Excellent debate.
    Poor Sid. You are suffering for art’s sake.
    I, too, don’t think of the “krap” that gets put out today as equal to the classics.

    I think of Picasso and Dali, who were capable of realistic work but chose another style, or the Impressionists before they invented Impressionism. They still used their technical skills, just in a different way. These days, you don’t need a lot of skill, just “inspiration”.

    Michelangelo took years to paint the Sistine Chapel, years to create David. And Donatello’s David looks a lot more homo-erotic to me, by the way. It’s the helmet that accentuates his nakedness. Or maybe the way he’s holding that sword.

    A lot of sculpture was only designed by these greats, and completed by their apprentices. Sometimes, they can actually tell who sculpted what part.

    An artist would starve today taking the attention and care required to create a piece on the scale of a Michelangelo.

    And Brancusi sucks.

  • thomas
    May 24th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Lists like this are great. They inspire conversation and thats a good thing. Here are my two cents. Prior to the invention of the camera, artists were pursuing realism in an effort to render their subjects as realistically as possible resulting in more commissions for the artist. I think it was Picasso who said the camera has finally liberated the painter. As a result of photographic technology sculpture changed from the likes of Rodin to Brancusi (I believe Brancusi worked as an apprentice for Rodin briefly) then changed again with Duchamps readymades and again and again over the years with Warhols Brillo boxes and Duane Hansons hyper-realistic work featuring security guards and tourists. I think there are alot of great 20th Century sculptors missing from your list, but lists like this are highly subjective as it deals with individuals tastes . Maybe a list of the 5 greatest sculptors of the 20th century would be in order.

  • Luck
    July 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    Man, Brancusi is one of the most talented sculptors of all time. I know because I saw a big part of his masterpieces. You should try google “brancusi” and see more of his art, and after that, if you still consider his work crap you’re hopeless….

    Anyway, great post, i stumble upon it today.

  • lepi
    July 27th, 2007 at 1:26 am

    “Man, Brancusi is one of the most talented sculptors of all time. I know because I saw a big part of his masterpieces. You should try google “brancusi” and see more of his art, and after that, if you still consider his work crap you’re hopeless….”

    indeed!

  • Robert Mileham
    July 31st, 2007 at 3:31 am

    I am so glad to have found your blog. Great stuff, kindred spirit, wish more people would offer their lists, we do after all get a lot of this “pecking order” stuff on musicians and music.

    Your choice is based on “Sculptors” not “Sculptures” i.e. a person who has consistently produced best sculpture? I don’t feel from the small number of examples you have shown us you have been able to convince me. Could you throw in a few more to help!
    Are you going to have a second best 5?

    I have found that I like a very wide range of sculpture and find 5 to be an impossibly low limit! Hence my top 100+ which will be in excess of 300 at present reckoning. I will be doing a separate list to include Brancusi and his Ilk.

    Keep up the good work Alex.

  • Alex
    July 31st, 2007 at 4:50 am

    Thanks Robert Mileham!

  • Al
    August 22nd, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    I guess DaVinci doesn’t rate. I would imagine once a movie is made to besmirch an artist, his accomplishments throughout history are meaningless.

  • phil rubin
    September 26th, 2007 at 1:27 am

    One of the greatest sculptors of all time? This is happening quietly right now- this would be M.L. Snowden - I discovered at http://www.mlsnowden.com
    Saw this sculpture in person at the LA Cathedral.Mere Words aren’t adequate.

  • jane
    September 29th, 2007 at 1:53 am

    Thanks for posting. Good to see this kind of sculpture but what about Michelangelo? Did he not ever think to make a sculpture in bronze as did other sculptors of his time? Maybe some metal works of Michelangelo’s are out there? … Michelangelo’s work looks best made in light colored marble, but surprisingly, he’s not listed #1 on this particular list!

  • Vishal
    December 16th, 2007 at 11:56 am

    I was in Italy 2 mths back and saw Michelangelo’s David, Pieta and Moses. Michelangelo was a expert in the human anatomy. If you see the Pieta personally, you will notice all the veins and muscular structure of the dead Jesus Christ. The veins and muscular structure of a living and dead person are completely different and Michelangelo was able to capture that. The Pieta also reflects the pain of a Mother who lost her child. David is the Perfect Man because if you look at him, you will once again see the muscular structures and human anatomy. No other sculptors were able to depict the human anatomy like Michelangelo. That’s the difference between a normal sculptor and The Divine One-Michelangelo. When you look at his famous Moses sculpture, you once again see how veins and muscular structures on a very angry person will look like, in this case Moses. The position of Moses was just when he was about to stand up. Everything described so elaborately. Go and personally see his works. Donatello looks pale in front of him. Michelangelo is the greatest ever… only a reincarnation can equal him.

Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!


Neatorama Comment Policy
You don't have to register or login to comment, but it's easier if you do so. We don't censor comment based on your point of view but comments that are abusive, use excessive profanity, or contain off-topic links may get edited or deleted. On some posts, it may take up several minutes for you comment to show up.


Stay updated on the comments in this post with Comment RSS