For aspiring carvers

[RadDavis]

George gives good advice, and it's not just to copy, copy, copy until your really good at copying.

If you don't have someone who knows pipes to sit with you and honestly critique your work and show you what could be improved, then, every once in a while, trying to duplicate a pipe that you can hold in your hands and you *know* is good (Dunhill LB, for example) is the next best thing, because the original is right there in front of you, and you can see the differences. If you can't see any differences, then you're either very good, or you shouldn't try to make pipes for a living.

It's great excercise and can be very frustrating. I spent about a year and a half trying, before I finally made a proper billiard. The thing is, these excercises lead to techniques, and techniques that work well will lead to excellence in the pipes that you make.

Every maker out there wants to just "do what he feels", but until he gets the basic techniques down to a rhythm and can make pipes without thinking too hard about it, what he feels will likely look pretty bad.

If you ever happen to see some of my early work for sale on eBay, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Rad

[kbadkar]

I thought the original thread of this discussion focused on the need for the apsiring pipe carver to copy first...

In the same way that learning a musical instrument relies almost completely on playing other composers' work as exercises, a carver should also start out copying the work of others.

In context with the original post, that meant copying exactly and my posts were directed directly at that point, regardless of my own insecurties with my work (the reason I haven't posted the dozen or so finished pipes given as gifts or kept for empirical smoking studies)... insecurities only in the sense that I am aware of the aesthetic failings and acutely aware of the technical improvements necessary. I have learned and moved on. I only took things personally when LL qutoed an old comment on my own work out of context and when Souljer, with whom I actually do agree with in principle, meticulously took apart my post while missing my point.

Following LLs original logic, no one on this forum should bother the masters with comments on their first pipe unless they have first gone through the rigamarole of copying someone else's work (sorry Hollywood, you rock, but don't bother them), exactly (re-read that first post and correct me if I am wrong). I would argue that although you have thinned the playing field, you have also excluded a few with real talent or at the very least, passion.

I have had great art teachers and mediocre ones. The great ones pushed your creative drive to get better and improve. The mediocre ones demanded that you stick to the routine and critiqued your ability to do so. I learned from both methods, but felt the latter was lacking something essential.

[LatakiaLover]

... etc.

This is a place to swap ideas and suggestions and mutual feedback, not a debating society. Either give it a rest, or give me a call (# is on my website). Thanks.

[JHowell]

I've read this thread with interest but haven't commented because everyone has to find his own way, and, other than helping solve technical problems, I wouldn't dare tell anyone how to do anything. However, Rad's post knocked loose an opinion: self-expression is overrated. The great oboist Marcel Tabuteau said, "I play as I think." Musical phrases and man-made shapes are both subject to the logic of proportion, color, and function. While there are successful musicians as well as pipemakers whose work does not seem to me at all logical and I do not begrudge them their success, the professionals in both fields that I hope to emulate clearly project their thoughts, and their expression of ideas has greater clarity and force due to a lack of self-indulgence.

I beg patience with this -- I think sometimes I drive my students crazy with analogies drawn from other disciplines. I remember once when I was in college, playing a passage from a Brahms symphony and my teacher became quite short. "Why did you play it that way?" he said. "I thought it sounded good," I replied. "Well, you were wrong," he snapped. "You ignored two appogiaturas, a modulation, AND the orchestration. If your only reason for playing anything a certain way is that you *like* it you're not interpreting, merely masturbating."

It seemed a harsh lesson at the time, but one that I came to appreciate very much, and that I related to when Tom Eltang handed a pipe of mine back and said, "There's a nice pipe in there somewhere. You have to have the courage to keep cutting even when the grain is good." Or Kent Rasumssen telling me that he wasn't telling me what to do, but that he liked his own pipes to look "cut to the bone."

I hope this doesn't sound too lecturing, it's just something I've learned in twenty-five years of playing for my supper, that I think translates to some degree to making pipes. Whimsy and spontaneity are ingredients best used in pinches.

[hazmat]

I'm going to post this one last(protracted) item on this topic and let it go.

Kbadkar... about a month or so ago, I asked very seriously how one goes about getting criticism on their work beyond posting pics on this forum or asking your smoking buddies what they think. This forum is great for feedback, but the folks feeding back to you aren't holding your pipe, looking closely at this aspect or that joint or the other angle. They're seeing the pics you post from whatever angles. Sure, you're going to get a good bit of solid feedback, but some stuff will be missed by the critic because they just can't see the thing up close and personal.

Your smoking buddies, the folks you(and me) are gifting pipes to aren't going to necessarily give you a brutally honest critique because it's something they can't do(or have never tried) and it impresses them deeply, especially if they have a fondness for both the maker and pipes in general. You won't get what you're after regarding technical/aesthetic criticism from your friends. Your experience may be different, but to my buddies, I'm a pipe making God which is extremely far from the true measure of it.

That leaves some options that may or may not be out of reach. You can go to as many shows as possible and show your work to pros. They may or may not give you honest feedback. Maybe you can strike up an arrangement with another maker on this board wherein you send your pipes for critique. It's already been noted, however, that the guys doing this for a living are really too busy making pipes to do this for aspiring carvers and I completely understand why.

So now what?

LL saw my post and realized I was serious about getting honest feedback. He suggested we have a little palaver regarding the issue and I gave him a call. What we discussed has already been presented in the first post of this thread and it was mentioned not as the de facto method ALL aspiring pipe makers should follow but as a way for ANY aspiring pipe maker to benchmark their own methods, techniques and ultimately quality of finished work. It has NOTHING at all to do with making a career/hobby out of "forging" pipes. It's simply a method of building the skills upon which one can stack their own artistic vision. Perhaps it sounds different when presented through friendly conversation as opposed to reading it in plain text, dunno. I'll admit that it was initially ego-deflating when LL put the suggestion to me... it wasn't what I was expecting in the least.... but as we continued to rap, I got what he was saying and my ego reinflated very directly.

It's a to each their own proposition, not a "thou shalt" commandment. Apparently it's worked out quite well for one professional pipemaker we all know and respect. That's not to point a finger in your direction and holler "SEE!!!! You're wrong!!" or in LL's direction and shout "HE DA MAN!!!". That was never the intention that started this thread and certainly isn't the nature of this forum. It's all just suggestions, whether you agree, disagree or remain completely neutral. Take the tidbits you want, leave those you don't.

I'm not trying to heap on or anything and I hope you understand that. I don't even know if LL decided to post this based on our conversation with the thought that it may help other folks in the same position I find myself. No clue. The way it got personal suddenly is a bit unsettling because, to a person, everyone here are great folks and I'd hate to see it go any further behind a simple suggestion that may or may not have been taken out of conext.

Matt

[Nick]

I have to admit, this has been one of the better threads in a while. Great discussions!

[kbadkar]

I am confused how things get so confused.

I have a simple question:

How many first pipes (or even first ten or twenty for that matter) of the carvers and artists on this board were attempts at exact copies of someone else's work?

It takes at least ten 'practice' pipes to even have a rudimentary relationship with the tools and materials of the trade. The issue of aesthetic refinement comes well after that, I imagine.

I absolutely agree 100% with JHowell and Hazmat's recent comments. When the carver discovers less is more, and after stripping everything down, then starts to re-incorporate deliberate and well-executed details, I would argue they are no longer aspiring.

The essential ingredient missing in this thread is passion, creative passion, if you will. This is the impetus to walk the long hard road of disciplined and structured growth. Whether the first pipes are blowfish or traditional billiards or copies of a traditional billiard is irrelevant.

[souljer]

I only took things personally when LL qutoed an old comment on my own work out of context and when Souljer, with whom I actually do agree with in principle, meticulously took apart my post while missing my point.

OH!! So that's where that came from. I was wondering. I thought is was from a PM you sent him or something like that. Yeah, that must have been weird suddenly having your old post from another thread used like that. Very Perry Mason. What's next time? Grades from high school? Your Birth Record???

LL, since you're not all touchy-feelly maybe you didn't realize that the way you did that was weird and kind of manipulative and a little intrusive. If you don't want to turn this into a debating society, knock that crap off. If you don't care, keep doing it.

[souljer]

I have a simple question:

How many first pipes (or even first ten or twenty for that matter) of the carvers and artists on this board were attempts at exact copies of someone else's work?

It takes at least ten 'practice' pipes to even have a rudimentary relationship with the tools and materials of the trade. The issue of aesthetic refinement comes well after that, I imagine.

I absolutely agree 100% with JHowell and Hazmat's recent comments. When the carver discovers less is more, and after stripping everything down, then starts to re-incorporate deliberate and well-executed details, I would argue they are no longer aspiring.

I've worked as an artist for about 25 years and when working on projects that require a high degree of precision, like a 20 x 40 foot area, mistakes are expensive and time consuming to correct. The error could be 3 feet tall. That's a lot of cleaning, patching and repainting. Or when working with a crew a misalignment means that some part needs to be completely removed and then painted again, maybe 9 inches higher or not crooked this time. Ugh, I don't even want to think about it. This almost never happens though. Rather than try to remember all the details of the font or image, it is common to have an example to work from. A precise master made to scale just for the purpose of reference. So I guess this idea is something I'm used to and I see it more as basic preparation, rather than that big an issue.

Of my first few pipes I know one was a close attempt at a Paul Perri poker that I have. It still was not an exact-copy attempt. That one did not survive the creation process, but I still have the Perri pipe.

Of my first 20 pipes I've made several pokers, horns, a few bulldogs and some billiards. On these more conventional shapes I followed my experience and studied examples I have in hand and access to. My pipes do not look like copies however. I modified the designs to suit what I was going for, but having a base example was very helpful in seeing why the original shapes worked and gave me a standard to shoot for. I was more on my own when attempting other shapes but I had already learned a lot from, and could even still reference back to, those pipes when applicable.

I said before, I don't think the idea is to COPY. I just re-read LL's original post and I see were you are getting that. My suggestion is to let that go and interpret it in a way that serves you.

As I and a few others have said, duplicating a shape as an exercise in studying it and learning it is a valuable experience. I think this is the core idea LL is at least speaking from if not directly meaning. Maybe yours is not the exact same size, maybe not the same finish, because your grain was not so pretty; so you rusticated for example. Fine, but you can study how the comfortable bit was shaped, how the parts come together, the contour of the shapes line, etc.

I don't think he meant to go out and start making exact copies of a few Downie fire-something shapes, and then proceed to Rolando whale-somethings, followed by some exact copies of Dunhill billiards. I don't think anyone is really suggesting that. I can only speak for myself of course.

[kbadkar]

Souljer, my friend, I knew we were on the same page the whole time.

[KurtHuhn]

This has got to be the most interesting incidence of "violent agreement" that I've ever seen.

[Frank]

This has got to be the most interesting incidence of "violent agreement" that I've ever seen.

Wait! Wait! Let me run and fetch Random. He won't want to miss this.

[LexKY_Pipe]

Yeah. Where is Random when you need him.

[hazmat]

That's hilarious you brought up Random. When I looked at this thread this morning he was the first cat that came to mind. Unreal!!!

[LatakiaLover]

LL, since you're not all touchy-feelly maybe you didn't realize that the way you did that was weird and kind of manipulative and a little intrusive. If you don't want to turn this into a debating society, knock that crap off. If you don't care, keep doing it.

Souljer, we're clearly from different universes. kbadkar's quote was used because of how representative it was, and how well it summarized the frustration that radiates from this forum like a steady, gentle heat: people trying to figure out how to make pipes on their own, clearly wanting feedback and some sort of a method or path to follow.

That kbadkar said it was incidental. Sort of funny/ironic because of how different it was from what he'd said in THIS thread, but that didn't lessen its eloquence. Re-read it. It's damn near poetry. It perfectly expresses what made me want to make an unsolicited contribution to "the cause" in the first place.

I'm afraid I don't see how trying to be understood better by someone I was having a conversation with, by using his own words to illustrate the concept I was trying to get across, constitutes being weird, manipulative, and intrusive. On the contrary. It's like showing someone a snapshot found in a shoebox. A, "remember how you felt at this point in time?" sort of thing. Seemed like an inspired shortcut, to me. We weren't connecting at the time, if you remember.

Now I see what Frank's follow-up "Zing" post was referring to, though. Like in a political debate, scoring points, right?

That's disappointing. I said it before, but I'll say it again: since the board's stated purpose---its reason for existence---is mutual assistance, why aren't things that get said assumed to be in that spirit? Everyone knows that the written word is tough to decode because of the lack of vocal tone and body language, but I figured the narrowness and specificity of the board's charter eliminated such things. Apparently not.

Different universes, indeed.

[Frank]

Now I see what Frank's follow-up "Zing" post was referring to, though. Like in a political debate, scoring points, right?

Whether you meant it that way or not, it obviously came across as a "zing", as evidenced by the strong response(s). I merely underlined it. Just helping to stir the pot, so to speak.

......, but I figured the narrowness and specificity of the board's charter eliminated such things. Apparently not.

Kurt is not a whip toting administrator. As long as it's a valid discussion, it doesn't matter if it gets a bit heated from the various personal opinions. If you've read some of the old posts, you'll understand the reference to Random and similar debates on pipe making procedure, etc. Most folks just let him have the last word, since he wasn't going to budge anyway.

[souljer]

LL, since you're not all touchy-feelly maybe you didn't realize that the way you did that was weird and kind of manipulative and a little intrusive. If you don't want to turn this into a debating society, knock that crap off. If you don't care, keep doing it.

Souljer, we're clearly from different universes.

LOL, maybe, but I think that's a bit of an extreme position. I think of it more like we have different perspectives. You can say the sun rises on the left and over here it might appear to rise on the right. I'm saying it doesn't matter. The truth is: The sun rises.

That kbadkar said it was incidental. Sort of funny/ironic because of how different it was from what he'd said in THIS thread, but that didn't lessen its eloquence. Re-read it. It's damn near poetry. It perfectly expresses what made me want to make an unsolicited contribution to "the cause" in the first place.

I agree. He's damn near a poet.
And I'm glad you started the thread. A lot of great advice for those here now, and who may someday follow, from some talented pipe-makers to those of us who do most of our work alone and independently. Which is most of us I think.

I'm afraid I don't see how trying to be understood better by someone I was having a conversation with, by using his own words to illustrate the concept I was trying to get across, constitutes being weird, manipulative, and intrusive.

I know you don't. That's okay. There are a lot of things people don't see or understand that are still true. I don't think it's so much what you did as "the way", to quote myself, and how it came across. Someday maybe you will. Just chalk it up to experience. Use caution when dealing with passionate, touchy-feelly artisan types. They may see something you don't. Probably a good reason to keep them around too.

Like I said it's still a good and useful thread and I don't really see too much here to get upset about.

[souljer]

I merely underlined it. Just helping to stir the pot, so to speak.

LOL

As long as it's a valid discussion, it doesn't matter if it gets a bit heated from the various personal opinions. If you've read some of the old posts, you'll understand the reference to Random and similar debates on pipe making procedure, etc. Most folks just let him have the last word, since he wasn't going to budge anyway.

Yeah I remember some of those. In perspective I think this thread is tepid at best, but no less interesting. To my fellow cooks in this kitchen; Cheers!

I'm not sure he can see any of those old posts though. Weren't they all lost during the hacking of November 2006?
If you'll notice some of us who have been members since before that, all appear to have joined the same day in November when Kurt got things back up. Does that mean that anything before that day is lost information?

I really don't know.

A shame if that's the case. There was some good stuff there. Remember someone named Alexander? He is from Switzerland or Belgium or something (apologies for getting it wrong, I'm sure). He had some great input as a graphic designer as well as offering a European perspective.

Ah, memories.

Damn! It is POURING rain AGAIN-!! Geez, forget about pipes, might be time to start looking at examples of boats...

[hazmat]

There's still a good bit of Random-er-ness on the board. A couple of very heated exchanges between him and Todd Johnson that still drop my jaw when I happen upon them searching for info. He was most certainly a unique individual.

[LexKY_Pipe]

Maybe Kurt should consider posting a section entitiled, "The Best Of"