​Sculpting an Icon: The Professional Risk Behind Farrah Fawcett’s Statues

---

When I first began examining the two Farrah Fawcett statues being created for Corpus Christi and Rockport, my attention was primarily on Farrah and the choices being made about her legacy. I questioned why two permanent monuments located roughly thirty miles apart would both return to Charlie’s Angels, particularly when Farrah spent so much of her later career expanding the public understanding of who she was. However, as I have looked more closely at these projects, another issue has begun to concern me. David Deming is not simply creating two statues of Farrah Fawcett. He is placing a substantial professional reputation behind two extremely difficult public likenesses of one of the most recognizable women of the twentieth century.

Deming is producing a bronze for Corpus Christi based on the familiar image of Farrah skateboarding as Jill Munroe in Charlie’s Angels. He is also creating a second bronze for Rockport based on Farrah’s recognizable praying-hands promotional pose from the series. Both sculptures are therefore closely connected to specific commercial images rather than being completely original interpretations. For this reason, viewers will not encounter these works without a visual point of comparison. The photographs already exist, many people already know them, and comparison between the original image and the finished bronze will be unavoidable.

This creates a difficult situation for any sculptor because the public usually approaches a figurative statue of a famous person with a very simple question: does it look like them? The artist may spend months considering composition, anatomy, movement, structural requirements, modeling, casting, surface treatment, and countless other technical concerns, but much of that work can become secondary if the answer to that first question is no. A sculpture can be technically accomplished and still fail publicly if viewers do not recognize the person being represented. Unfortunately, when the subject is someone as visually familiar as Farrah Fawcett, that standard becomes totally unforgiving.

Farrah was photographed extensively for decades through modeling, television, film, advertising, magazine photography, publicity sessions, and later her Playboy work. There is no shortage of reference material showing what she looked like from different periods and different angles. More importantly, many of those photographs have circulated continuously for nearly fifty years. The public is not being asked to accept a reconstruction of a poorly documented historical figure from the 18th or 19th century. Farrah’s appearance exists in an enormous visual record that can be examined immediately and forensically against any sculpture intended to represent her.

Her face also presents a more difficult artistic problem than any other typical description of a beautiful blonde. Farrah was unquestionably beautiful, but her beauty was not generic. The particular relationship of her eyes, nose, jaw, cheek structure, smile, and facial proportions is what made her face unmistakably hers. Small changes to those relationships can still produce an attractive woman while losing Farrah entirely. In other words, creating a beautiful face is not the same thing as creating Farrah Fawcett.

The hair presents another serious problem because Farrah’s hairstyle developed an identity almost entirely of its own. The volume, feathering, layering, shape, and movement became so closely associated with her that the style remains recognizable nearly fifty years later. People still refer to the “Farrah” hairstyle without needing much explanation, which demonstrates how completely it became attached to her public image. For this reason, the hair cannot simply be treated as decoration surrounding the face. It is part of the likeness itself.

This creates an unusually demanding standard for a sculptor. The overall silhouette has to feel right, but so do the relationship of the layers to the face, the volume around the crown, the direction of the feathering, and the sense of movement that made Farrah’s hair distinctive in the first place. If those relationships are noticeably wrong, even a little, viewers will sense immediately that something is off even before they can identify the specific problem. With Farrah, getting the face right while treating the hair as an approximation may still result in a likeness that does not fully read as Farrah Fawcett.

I am not a sculptor, and I would never pretend to understand the technical demands of creating a large bronze figure at Deming’s level. I have immense respect for the skill and craftsmanship involved. However, I spent four years managing what became a very large Farrah Fawcett Facebook community, and that experience gave me a different kind of knowledge that is directly relevant to these statues: I learned how people respond to Farrah’s image.

By the time I closed the page, it had almost 80,000 followers. During the final 90-day period reflected in my Facebook analytics, the page generated nearly 5.9 million views, including approximately 1.9 million three-second video views and more than 622,000 one-minute views. In May alone, the page received more than 2.2 million views. Perhaps even more important, 81 percent of the views during that 90-day period came from people who did not follow the page. In other words, I was not simply observing the reactions of a small group of dedicated Farrah collectors. I was seeing how a much broader audience received her image. 

Those numbers gave me thousands upon thousands of opportunities to watch people react to photographs of Farrah. I saw which images immediately connected with viewers, how quickly people recognized particular photographs, and how closely longtime fans examined her face, hair, clothing, body, and overall appearance. I also saw how rapidly criticism could develop when people believed something about Farrah looked wrong or had been represented inaccurately. That experience does not make me an expert in bronze sculpture, but it does give me considerable experience with the audience that will eventually judge these statues.

An artist can understand anatomy, modeling, bronze casting, proportion, and figurative sculpture exceptionally well while still underestimating the cultural scrutiny surrounding a particular subject. Deming may fully understand how difficult it is to sculpt Farrah. What he may not have experienced is what happens when thousands of people who believe they know every contour of her face begin comparing his interpretation with photographs they have been looking at for most of their lives. From the comments I have already seen surrounding these projects, that scrutiny is not theoretical. It has already started happening.

The source photographs create another technical difficulty because photography and sculpture operate in very different ways. A photograph records one fraction of a second from one particular viewpoint, while a sculpture has to remain convincing from every angle. A photograph may provide excellent information about the front of Farrah’s face while offering much less information about the exact projection of the nose, the depth of the jaw, or the structure of the hair behind the head. The body must also be reconstructed as actual three-dimensional volume rather than remaining shaped by the original camera's perspective.

For this reason, there is no simple process of turning a commercial photograph into an exact three-dimensional copy. Even with extensive additional reference photographs, interpretation is unavoidable. The sculptor must make decisions about information the original photograph does not contain, and each decision introduces another possibility for the finished work to move closer to or farther from the actual person. The more familiar the original image is, the easier those differences become for the audience to identify.

This is where Deming’s decision to create two Farrah statues becomes professionally significant. One permanent public likeness based on a recognizable commercial photograph would already be a demanding assignment. Two statues in neighboring communities place an unusual amount of the artist’s representational ability before the public at essentially the same time. If viewers find a problem with one likeness, they may treat it as an isolated artistic decision. If similar concerns emerge in both sculptures, the discussion can shift from criticism of an individual work to questions about the artist’s approach to likeness itself.

Deming also has a substantial career behind him. He taught sculpture and drawing at the University of Texas at Austin for 26 years, eventually serving as chair of the Department of Art and Art History and later as dean of the College of Fine Arts. In 1998, he left Texas to become president of the Cleveland Institute of Art, a position he held until 2010. He has also produced an extensive body of figurative and portrait sculpture. These two Farrah statues are therefore not early experiments by an inexperienced sculptor. However, a long professional record does not prevent one highly visible public work from becoming disproportionately associated with an artist’s name.

The most obvious example is the Lucille Ball statue in Celoron, New York, created by sculptor Dave Poulin. The statue eventually became internationally known as “Scary Lucy” after members of the public rejected the likeness. Poulin apologized for the work, expressed his own disappointment with the result, and offered to create a replacement. The town ultimately commissioned another sculptor to make a new Lucille Ball statue, while Poulin also reported receiving death threats over the controversy. Those threats were indefensible and had nothing to do with legitimate criticism of art, but the larger episode demonstrates how quickly a disputed likeness can become the entire story surrounding a public monument.

It would be inaccurate to claim that “Scary Lucy” erased Poulin’s entire career, and that is not the point I am making. He had produced many commissioned bronzes before the controversy, and his larger body of work did not suddenly disappear. What changed was the public association. One disputed likeness acquired a name of its own and became so widely known that it followed both the sculpture and its creator long after the original unveiling.

Other celebrity sculptures have produced similar reactions. Emanuel Santos’ bronze bust of Cristiano Ronaldo became an international subject of ridicule when viewers believed the face did not resemble Ronaldo, and the original bust was eventually replaced. Dwyane Wade’s statue in Miami generated immediate criticism over its facial likeness despite the experience of the sculptors involved and the amount of preparation behind the project. The lesson in these examples is not that a controversial statue automatically destroys an artist’s career. The lesson is that once the public decides a famous face has been rendered incorrectly, discussions about craftsmanship, process, intention, and previous accomplishments can quickly become secondary.

Farrah adds another unusual element to Deming’s assignment because she was herself a sculptor. She studied art and sculpture at the University of Texas under Charles Umlauf and continued making art throughout her life. The UMLAUF Sculpture Garden + Museum has documented her sculpture practice and has deliberately presented exhibitions intended to move public understanding beyond the familiar celebrity image. In this case, one sculptor is not simply representing an actress in bronze. He is representing another artist through a medium she understood and practiced herself.

That fact does not automatically dictate what the statues should look like, but I believe it increases the responsibility attached to them. Farrah knew what it meant to create sculpture, to work with physical form, and to make decisions about how a figure occupies space. She also understood better than most people how a commercial image could take on a life of its own. Her career was shaped by the enormous power of the Charlie’s Angels image and by her later effort to demonstrate that the image did not represent the whole person.

I continue to question the decision to base both statues on Charlie’s Angels imagery. Farrah spent decades proving that Jill Munroe represented only one part of her professional life, and more recent museum exhibitions have deliberately attempted to recover the artist and serious actress behind the commercial image. Two permanent statues located roughly thirty miles apart that return to the same brief period raise legitimate questions about what is being preserved. However, my disagreement with the concepts should not be confused with a desire to see the sculptures fail.

In fact, the more I have considered the professional risk involved, the more strongly I want Deming to get them right. If these statues are going to become permanent parts of the Texas landscape, I want people to look at them and immediately see Farrah Fawcett. I want the face to capture the specific relationship among her features, the proportions to feel correct, and the hair to carry the movement and identity people associate with her. That is an extremely demanding standard, but Farrah is an extremely demanding subject.

There is also the unavoidable fact that once both sculptures are publicly visible, they will be compared with each other. Viewers will be able to see how the same sculptor interpreted Farrah’s face, hair, body, and physical presence in two separate works. Few artists are given two highly visible opportunities to demonstrate their ability to capture the same iconic subject at essentially the same time. Unfortunately, that also means there are two opportunities for criticism if the public believes something has gone wrong.

The preliminary comments I have already seen make me take that possibility seriously. Those reactions cannot fairly be treated as a final judgment on completed sculptures, and I would not use them that way. However, they do demonstrate how closely people are already looking at the likeness. Once the bronzes are fully unveiled, that scrutiny will only increase because the source photographs are familiar and the audience already knows what to expect.

For this reason, my concern about these projects has expanded considerably since I first began researching them. At first I was primarily thinking about Farrah’s legacy and whether two nearby Charlie’s Angels statues represented the full complexity of her life. I am now also thinking about the artist whose name will remain permanently attached to the finished works. A successful likeness can become an important addition to an artist’s body of work, but a failed public likeness of a beloved celebrity can develop an identity and reputation entirely of its own.

David Deming has accepted the responsibility of rendering one of the most recognizable women of the twentieth century in bronze, using commercial photographs that have been studied for nearly fifty years, before an audience that knows its subject extraordinarily well. He has also chosen to take that responsibility on twice. If he succeeds, he deserves full credit for accomplishing something genuinely difficult. If he does not, the history of public celebrity sculpture suggests that the public reaction can be far less forgiving.
​
Bronze is intended to endure, and unfortunately for the artist, public reactions can endure as well. For David Deming, these two Farrah Fawcett statues are more than commissions. They represent a considerable professional gamble.

Editor’s Note: Social Media, AI, and a Very Different Kind of Scrutiny

There is another issue surrounding these statues that I believe deserves consideration. The environment in which a public celebrity likeness is judged today is completely different from the one that existed when the original Lucille Ball statue was installed in 2009. Social media has dramatically increased the speed and size of public reaction, and the recent development of artificial intelligence has given ordinary viewers tools that did not exist even a few years ago. For this reason, I believe the scrutiny surrounding these Farrah statues will be considerably more intense than anything an artist working on a similar project would have faced fifteen or twenty years ago.

In 2009, someone who believed a statue did not resemble its subject could complain about it, take a photograph, post it online, or contact the local media. Today, that same photograph can be placed beside the original source image, enlarged, cropped, shared across multiple social media platforms, and viewed by thousands of people within minutes. Once a comparison begins circulating, the discussion is no longer limited to the people standing in front of the statue. Anyone familiar with Farrah can participate, and anyone unfamiliar with her can immediately see the photograph being used as the standard of comparison.

Artificial intelligence adds another layer to this process. A person does not need to be a sculptor, illustrator, or professional graphic designer to examine a disputed likeness anymore. AI can assist an ordinary viewer in identifying differences in the face, hair, clothing, body proportions, and overall structure of a figure. It can also be used to create alternative interpretations from several reference photographs. This does not mean an AI-generated image establishes what a sculpture should look like, nor does it prove that one artistic interpretation is objectively correct. However, it does give the public an extremely easy way to demonstrate visually why they believe something is wrong.

I experienced this myself while examining the Farrah statues. By comparing several photographs of Farrah rather than relying on one image, it was possible to identify characteristics that remained consistent across the photographs and then see where the sculpted figures differed. More importantly, an alternative visual interpretation could be produced very quickly. The result was not an exact reproduction of any single photograph, yet the difference in likeness was dramatic. In other words, the technology did not simply allow someone to say that a statue looked wrong. It allowed the criticism to be demonstrated.

This creates a serious professional problem for any artist working on a public likeness of someone as visually familiar as Farrah Fawcett. Her photographs have circulated for nearly fifty years. Her face, hair, clothing, body, and overall appearance are not unfamiliar to the audience that will eventually judge these works. If viewers believe a finished statue does not resemble her, they will not have to rely solely on written criticism. They can place the statue beside the original photographs and create their own comparisons almost immediately.

The reality is that social media supplies an enormous audience while AI increasingly supplies the tools for that audience to examine the work. Whether every comparison is fair is another question, and certainly not every AI-generated interpretation should be treated seriously. However, the artist has no control over that once the work becomes public. A disputed likeness can be photographed, analyzed, altered, compared, mocked, and redistributed long before the sponsoring organization has time to issue a statement explaining the project.
​
For this reason, I believe the professional risk surrounding these Farrah statues is substantially greater than the risk associated with a controversial public sculpture in 2009. The public has always judged celebrity likenesses, sometimes harshly. What has changed is the speed, scale, and technology available to make that judgment visible. A public statue is no longer unveiled only before the people standing at the ceremony. Today, it is essentially unveiled before the entire internet.​