Ocelot55 wrote:IAs a side note, it is interesting to see influence carry through to another artisans work as well. For instance, just by looking at Nate and Micah's pipes I can see the Chheda influence. As they make more pipes their own style is becoming more dominant but you can certainly see the progression. Examples like this are everywhere: Benni and Lasse, Balleby and Erik Nielsen, Chheda and King, even Cannoy and Sandahl. We all influence each other. In many ways this is good, but it can also limit originality, but that is probably a topic for another time.
I figured this might make a good discussion. Many if not most pipemakers copy the work of other makers. Is this a positive? Should carvers be more original? What drives the copying nature of our industry? Discuss!
Well, you guys keep telling us novices to master the basic shapes, like the billiard and... and... um, well, pretty much just the billiard. It's good advice. Fortunately, every major maker has had a slightly different take on the billiard, but the form is still recognizable, so there's some room for individual variation. I'd say that's a good thing. Being able to make a copy (and there's a fine line between a copy and a forgery) is a mark of competence. I would bet there are people here who could make an excellent copy of a blowfish if they wanted.
But anyhow, yes, those of us who haunt the Gallery have a tendency to criticize pipes that depart from established forms. Most of the time the criticism is probably warranted, but maybe not always. I wonder whether, if we saw a standard shape for the first time--say a bulldog or a calabash--we wouldn't balk at it. ("A diamond shank on a round bowl? WTH were you thinking?!?" "That bowl is waaaaaaay too heavy for that small of a stem! WTH were you thinking?!?") Our eyes get used to certain shapes and forms, and that means we probably dismiss some genuinely attractive pipes--or some potentially attractive pipes--out of hand because they don't meet our expectations.
That said, there are some rules of proportion that aren't arbitrary. Often they can be expressed as simple ratios. The billiard's bowl height and stummel lenght, for example, have a 1:1 ratio. Other ratios, such as 1:2, are common on attractive pipes. The Golden Ratio (approx. 1:1.6) also shows up here and there. Pipes that incorporate some of these ratios consistently are more likely to be visually pleasing, and a lot of the classic shapes accomplish that.
Influence is a tricky beast, and very hard to nail down. If apprenticeships were the rule, then it would be easy to talk about influence--a guy learns to make pipes from a master, masters the master's forms, and eventually strikes out on his own with his own variations. But his work will probably always be similar to his master's. These days, though, one guy can learn from a dozen different pipe makers, but his work will probably show distinctive influence of two or three. Either way, you can't keep a craft alive without influence.
I'm not very far into pipe making, but I'm pretty good at making wooden spoons. Put my spoons next to the spoons of a dozen other guys who hand-carve spoons, and you'll see a lot of differences, some subtle and some obvious. But if I showed you spoons made by the guy who first inspired me to make spoons, you'd see the influence immediately. I don't replicate his work, and he does stuff I don't do, but the similarity of form is there. Now, I made some really ugly spoons early on, but after a hundred or so, I hit on some forms that worked for me, and people who use them like them a lot. Pipe making is like that, I think. If I'm going to do unique work, I'm going to have to be willing to be heavily influenced.
Guess it's time to go make a couple more billiards.
Imagine what things would look like today if every maker had had to find his own way regarding EVERYTHING. Tools, methods, processes, materials, shapes, and finishes.
It might be my Cantankerous Old Guy flaring up, but it does feel like every year it gets harder to spot a maker's work at arm's length instead of easier. (You'd think that repetition and practice would make it easier.)
Twenty years ago---Hell, even ten---most of the top guys' work could be spotted across a room.
So, given that, I'm gonna have to agree with Micah's implication/assertion that the current "shop share" carver culture, while marvelously efficient at imparting knowledge and skills, has excessive copyduplificationizing as an unintended consequence.
UFOs must be real. There's no other explanation for cats.
LatakiaLover wrote:
So, given that, I'm gonna have to agree with Micah's implication/assertion that the current "shop share" carver culture, while marvelously efficient at imparting knowledge and skills, has excessive copyduplificationizing as an unintended consequence.
I think the flip-side of this issue is that carvers who make it their goal to be original from the word "go" tend to have a bizarre and often un-attractive aesthetic.
LatakiaLover wrote:
So, given that, I'm gonna have to agree with Micah's implication/assertion that the current "shop share" carver culture, while marvelously efficient at imparting knowledge and skills, has excessive copyduplificationizing as an unintended consequence.
I think the flip-side of this issue is that carvers who make it their goal to be original from the word "go" tend to have a bizarre and often un-attractive aesthetic.
I think for a novice, trying to be original usually results in an unusually high proportion of pipe turds. I've tried hard over the past year and a half to curb my original ideas by sketching them out on paper and deciding instead to make a billiard instead of whatever whacky shape I had in mind. That's because you've got to understand what a line is doing before you know whether a modification to any particular line is a good idea or not. Originality, as I'm being told, is something that comes with time and patience.
It's the above factor which is an unseen barrier for most novices trying to be original. Besides learning how to work with the tools and machines needed to make pipes, you need to develop the most important prerequisite for making high grades: an eye for shapes. You can learn tools and machines quickly. You can even learn proper finishing techniques quickly. But there's no substitute for time and patience when developing your eyes (or eye...sorry Steve!).
There are rules for what looks good and what looks bad, but they're not hard, scientific laws like gravity. They're rules that differ (slightly) from person to person. We will all know (and tell you, hopefully) if your pipe looks bad. Some of us can tell you how to modify the lines to make them work better. But until you see it and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can make a nice pipe, you're not going to have what it takes. At least not to make an original shape that also looks good.
---
Fail early, fail often. Your success depends on it.
You have to know what's inside the box before you can think outside the box. I'm sure there are people out there who *could* circumvent the usual process, but I haven't seen it happen. Lots have tried, but I'm still waiting to see it.
I was talking with a friend the other day about the idea of a group of pipe makers getting together in a single shop and making pipes together. He said, and I agree, "The problem with that is that all of their work starts to look the same. They tend to be influenced by each other and the work reflects that".
e Markle wrote:You have to know what's inside the box before you can think outside the box. I'm sure there are people out there who *could* circumvent the usual process, but I haven't seen it happen. Lots have tried, but I'm still waiting to see it.
I think some have come close. Wallenstein & Knets maybe.
RadDavis wrote:I was talking with a friend the other day about the idea of a group of pipe makers getting together in a single shop and making pipes together. He said, and I agree, "The problem with that is that all of their work starts to look the same. They tend to be influenced by each other and the work reflects that".
Rad
It can also have the effect of broadening the range of shapes/styles that the makers make.
RadDavis wrote:I was talking with a friend the other day about the idea of a group of pipe makers getting together in a single shop and making pipes together. He said, and I agree, "The problem with that is that all of their work starts to look the same. They tend to be influenced by each other and the work reflects that".
Rad
It can also have the effect of broadening the range of shapes/styles that the makers make.
I think a prime example are the collaborations Grechukhin does with other makers. Inevitably those pipes push what either one of the makers would normally produce.
RadDavis wrote:I was talking with a friend the other day about the idea of a group of pipe makers getting together in a single shop and making pipes together. He said, and I agree, "The problem with that is that all of their work starts to look the same. They tend to be influenced by each other and the work reflects that".
Rad
It can also have the effect of broadening the range of shapes/styles that the makers make.
I think a prime example are the collaborations Grechukhin does with other makers. Inevitably those pipes push what either one of the makers would normally produce.
I believe short spats with a peer can be very beneficial in design and technical qualities without risking originality.
I have been way too influenced by all the pipes that have come through my shop to really make original work, however, I have greatly benefited by time spent with the makers that I have visited or that have visited me. My example is not a good example to judge by because of the plethora of influences I have had, but I can say that the more I get to work with peers/students/mentors the more diverse my work becomes.
I think that copying is important, both as an exercise for those doing the copying and as a way of spreading good ideas. Originality and innovation tend to come in singular events instead of in an entire body of work for anyone. We tend to copy great original ideas because they work to move the conversation forward in a universal way. Those ideas are influential and become a part of the artistic discourse for a while. Sometimes permanently.
Sixten only came up with one incredible, conversation altering idea (but lots of littler ones) and by the sheer number of people who've copied him, he revolutionized pipe making. If that idea hadn't been compelling or an improvement to the conversation in some way, I doubt it would've taken off. Nearly all of us are still exploring and searching for meaning in the idea that he pioneered, that a pipe could be shaped according to the grain and not according to a shape chart.
I think that we're in an era when we've taken that idea a step further. A lot of people are now exploring the idea that a pipe can be whatever you can imagine it to be. Walt made a pipe that looks like a penny farthing bicycle. Gotoh made a pipe that looks like a speared fish. Some Eastern Europeans are making pipes that look like something straight out of HR Geiger's art work. The list goes on. Some of these works are moving the conversation forward. Some of them aren't. Regardless if the work is good or bad, successful or not, there are a lot of people copying it.
I think the copying is good and the conversation is good. We're all influencing each other by copying, borrowing, stealing, or innovating but it's all done on the back of the person who, somewhere in the distant past, decided it was a good idea to put some grass in a tube and light it on fire.
e Markle wrote:You have to know what's inside the box before you can think outside the box. I'm sure there are people out there who *could* circumvent the usual process, but I haven't seen it happen. Lots have tried, but I'm still waiting to see it.
