Gota - this one's for me!

[hazmat]

Ben... I think all that pipe needs, as Kurt has pointed out, is an offsetting bend in the stem to get the whole thing back "on line". It's not that you didn't craft a good looking pipe, you certainly did. It's just that the abrupt right-hand turn of the pipe as a whole throws it off. It looks out of whack somehow, like a bent golf club, perhaps, or a curved pool cue. If I had photoshop handy here at work, I'd show you graphically. If no one else does by the time I get home, I may do it then.

Asymetry in pipes, IMHO, is about keeping balance along an understood(or implied) center line and then pushing parts and pieces of the pipe to one side or the other, up or down, what have you, in a way that "feels" good to the eyes. By always balancing a "push" in one direction with a "nudge" in another, the pipe may be all curly-cued about that center line and seriously out of physical symetry, but still balance out to the eye.

Just my $.02.

[bscofield]

After reading some of Kurt's post yesterday I took the stem and flipped it upside down in the pipe. Trying my darndest to ignore the "ebay stem" I was able to see what the pipe would look like with the bend going the the other direction. Now, I have to admit to having had trouble seeing the "out of balance" part of the pipe... but when I got a glimpse of the stem bent the other way, I'll be darned if I didn't have the "click" thing Kurt was talking about. I didn't feel unsettled before, that I recall, but seeing it bent the other way did produce a greatly different perspective. I think I'll rebend it tonight!

I also think kbadkar made a point that made a lot of sense. I never thought about the weight of the pipe being shifted to one side because of it being off the "axis" line.

Thanks fellas... I'll post a pic or 2 tonight if I get time.

[LatakiaLover]

Well, you have to admit, George, you came across a bit strong. (etc.)

Strong? I guess any comments not wrapped in layers of maybe's, possibly's, might have's, imo's, and on and on, are strong, then. Not very efficient to endlessly repeat what is abundantly clear by the nature of a carver's forum in the first place, though, is it? I'm equally direct when praising someone's work, but no one complains about that being "strong." (Funny how that works.) I'm just a data guy. The touchie-feelie stuff---couching things in layers of verbal padding, tuned to the sensitivities one imagines another person might or might not have---seems guesswork at best, and unnecessary between honorable men in the first place. Again, the purpose and tone of the forum itself establishes good will. As in, why else would anyone take the time to interact here?

Maybe you're getting silent backup from other carvers, maybe not - I'm not going to speculate on that. (etc)

You don't need to, Kurt. I don't lie. Never have, and never will. I was merely offering a fact for Ben's consideration. A last-ditch effort, if you will, to break though to him that "lawyerly pushback" distorts the feedback he receives. Same thing that happens to company CEO's and other powerful people throughout society---bad news gets filtered out on the way up.

Usually, the personality types that get into that situation in the first place aren't receptive to having it brought to their attention, however. Maybe Ben will, probably not. But it was worth a try, I figured, since he has shown flashes of inspired work, and clearly takes the pipe thing seriously. He's unlikely to reach the heights he aspires to by following the road he's on, though.

[bscofield]

George... I don't know what to say. You've lost me. You talk about all this reaction to your "feedback" and up until you referenced my pipe as a "horseshoe shape" we had not even been discussing it! You commented on commercial value of asymmetricals, I replied with a disagreement and then we got onto the function of the forum. We've never even discussed the damn pipe!

I'm confident on my end that I've never asked for anything but honest feedback. I know the 'fluff' of which you speak, and that's not what I'm looking for. I was under the assumption that when I guy came on here and said "I don't like the look of XYZ" or "you should change this or that" that they meant it and were being honest -- hell you were one of them! You've commented on my last few pipes since you've been a member and I've done nothing but ask you follow-up questions.

So to anyone with any remaining interest (which is fading, I'm sure) in critiquing any of my pipes - I have and will always want a open and honest review.

'nuff said.

[buster]

Nice pipe, I really like it.
Even though Ive only made two pipes that have ended up in the trash.
Maybe its because Im new to all of this but, I really dont see whats wrong with it. So what if its not classically shaped or symmetrical who cares as long as you like it and are proud of it thats all that matters. I would not even know where to begin in making something so cool.

[KurtHuhn]

Well, you have to admit, George, you came across a bit strong. (etc.)

Strong? I guess any comments not wrapped in layers of maybe's, possibly's, might have's, imo's, and on and on, are strong, then. Not very efficient to endlessly repeat what is abundantly clear by the nature of a carver's forum in the first place, though, is it? I'm equally direct when praising someone's work, but no one complains about that being "strong." (Funny how that works.) I'm just a data guy. The touchie-feelie stuff---couching things in layers of verbal padding, tuned to the sensitivities one imagines another person might or might not have---seems guesswork at best, and unnecessary between honorable men in the first place. Again, the purpose and tone of the forum itself establishes good will. As in, why else would anyone take the time to interact here?

Honestly, George. It's not that hard to see the difference between what I posted and what you posted. I identified what I saw wrong, offered suggestions on how to notice it in the future, and provided a possible solution. You're response was the rough equivalent of "You don't know what you're doing. Leave this type of thing to the masters."

THAT, is not why we have this forum. THAT is not helpful.

You're claiming that there is resistance to open discourse, and yet you didn't really offer any. If you think that your post was "open discourse", you are mistaken. Your post was polarizing and unhelpful. It's fairly easy to see why it would get someone's hackles up. And here I thought *I* was coming on too strong.

You can't say "that's wrong" without offering a reason why or a possible solution. That's not part of reasonable discourse, among honorable men or otherwise. And you can't use such a tone and expect everyone to react favorably.

You can't claim ignorance to touchy-feely either. It's not about touchy-feely, it's about conversational manners. If you criticize, be damn sure you have a reason. If you don't like the way somebody did something, offer an alternative. Use language here that can be interpreted as helpful, not polarizing.

As you can see, I didn't raise Ben's hackles at all, but you did. That might provide a clue as to the way the original reply you posted was taken by the recipient.

Maybe you're getting silent backup from other carvers, maybe not - I'm not going to speculate on that. (etc)

You don't need to, Kurt. I don't lie. Never have, and never will. I was merely offering a fact for Ben's consideration. A last-ditch effort, if you will, to break though to him that "lawyerly pushback" distorts the feedback he receives. Same thing that happens to company CEO's and other powerful people throughout society---bad news gets filtered out on the way up.

As I said, it's the oldest trick in the online forum world, going back to the days of dial-up BBSs and MUDD servers. True or not, it's often seen in an unfavorable light. It's a last ditch effort, yes, usually followed right up by an ad-hominem attack....

Usually, the personality types that get into that situation in the first place aren't receptive to having it brought to their attention, however. Maybe Ben will, probably not. But it was worth a try, I figured, since he has shown flashes of inspired work, and clearly takes the pipe thing seriously. He's unlikely to reach the heights he aspires to by following the road he's on, though.

... and here's the ad-hominem attack.

Your tone is laced with negativity, and your wording seems designed to incite a reaction. That may pass muster on other forums or online communities but not here.

[kkendall]

As a rookie student trying to learn what I can, where I can, I would like to inquire....

Ben, what was it that prompted you to rusticate this piece? In my own peanut sized mind, one of the (if not THE) reason to produce a shape like this is to maximize the grain of the wood. You can see it in Kurts. From front to back, the grain is what drove this shape to be what it is.

Just strikes me as unusual to go through all that, then wipe it out.

-Kim

[LatakiaLover]

You're right, Kurt.

Never mind.

Anyone who cares to email or call can reach me though my site.

[bscofield]

Hey Kim... that's a good question.

This was primarily an attempt to do SF/DS... I wanted to attempt a complex shape so that I could then attempt a complex drilling. As such I expected nothing but failure and picked out a pretty pitiful ebechaun! The shape originally followed the grain but then I ran into the pitiful part, the grain moved and bent, etc... So I concentrated on the shape and rusticated the ugly wood hoping that the contraste in the rustication and the smooth part would be more attractive than the ugly wood. I think it is.

[souljer]

Hi,

Regarding the "why rusticate this shape" question.

There are many reasons for rusticating a shape and many reasons for making a certain shape. Obviously Ben has stated his reasons here, but sometimes you really just want that shape and if the grain is not that great, just a very dark stain, rustication or sometimes sandblasting can highlight the shape's silhouette which can be very nice.

With an unusual shape like this or other asymmetricals it can give a whole new insight to the design as this essentially flattens the piece.

Sort of like how your hand can look a certain way as you hold it up in front of the light, but on the wall is a nice image of a ... BUNNY!
or whatever.

Regarding "getting" the asymmetrical thing, I like Kurt's explaination; the balance of an asymmetrical piece. Asymmetry is not just more on one side than the other. It's about why do that, and the only good answer is because of a good reason. That's a balanced equation. "Just because" is not. Sort of like:

1+1=2
1+2=3
3+5=8

While the equations are not symmetrical visually with two numbers on one side of the = and one on the other, they are balanced (true).

In my eyes, that little block of numbers is also an asymmetrical form in and of itself. Sort of square shaped and mathimatically correct, it's balanced, yet I see it as weighted on the lower right side (larger, heavier numbers) while lighter on the upper left (smaller and thinner numbers). I don't know, I tried to explain it different but Kurt is probably easier to understand.

What do you think?

[hlp808]

nice pipe Ben




Jaden

[KurtHuhn]

1+1=2
1+2=3
3+5=8

While the equations are not symmetrical visually with two numbers on one side of the = and one on the other, they are balanced (true).

In my eyes, that little block of numbers is also an asymmetrical form in and of itself. Sort of square shaped and mathimatically correct, it's balanced, yet I see it as weighted on the lower right side (larger, heavier numbers) while lighter on the upper left (smaller and thinner numbers). I don't know, I tried to explain it different but Kurt is probably easier to understand.

What do you think?

I think I like your explanation.

If you see

Code: Select all

  1 + 1 = 2  

To me it appears to be imbalanced, heavier on the left. That's because the mind uses the "=" as the fulcrum, which we're trained to do from an early age. If you use the second "1" as the fulcrum, it appears imbalanced towards the right - the "2" is a much heavier symbol, visually, than the 1 - and so is the equals sign to the addition operator. Strictly visually speaking, of course.

Now, you could do this:

Code: Select all

  5 + 3 = 2 + 6  

And if you ignore the fact the equation actually is balanced and use it as a visual reference only, it's a little more harmonious. Change the position of the numbers on one side, however:

Code: Select all

 5 + 3 = 6 + 2  

And suddenly it looks like it wants to tip over to the left. It's visually imbalanced.

Complicating matters, take this:

Code: Select all

  6 + 1 + 2 = 7 + 1 + 8  

Despite the fact that the equation makes absolutely no sense mathematically, it appears to be in balance. The trick is the fact that the 8 and 6 are similar rounded shapes with closed bottoms. The 7 and 2 are also similar, with the 2 having a little extra "tail" at the bottom. Since the 2 has a tail, and the 8 has a closed upper loop, these offset each other and help bring everything into balance.

Crazy, eh?!

(your mileage may vary, there's no accounting for taste, no numerals were harmed in the typing of this message, Kurt is a self-describe oddball)

[souljer]

Hi Kurt,

Yes that's all true. If you are going for symmetry of shapes only then anything can be used though. If anything can be used, why not chose the simpler and easier answers:

1=1
8=8
0=0

And I would not give up on 1+1=2 Kurt. You need to start thinking on multiple and metaphorical levels here. While visually you might feel it's not balanced, it is a true statement, which cares a lot of weight in my mind -and the hand feel is incredible (always important when doing pipe-math).

You might also note that the numbers I used were taken from the Fibonacci sequence. That can be followed to the golden ratio, etc. and another great non-symmetrical idea to explore, learn and understand.

Then there's the beginning of peeking outside the box:

1+1=two

Does that feel more balanced to you? How about:

1 plus 1 equals 3 minus 1

Once you start thinking like this, the combinations are endless... to infinity and beyond!

In this context and relating to pipes I would look at the numbers as smooth and the words as non-smooth or rusticated in some way.

Now look back at Ben's pipe and there is some nice placement of smooth parts basically book-ending the rusticated parts. Although they are not of equal size it's a balancing element.

Or you could consider the numbers on either side of the = to be considered as weight to be balanced. That's why I like thinking in terms of true statements (I feel it gives the work some meaning and a foundation to start at). And why having the bit swing back, as in your pipe, may create the right tension to give the pipe more balance in-spite of the bit being smaller and thinner than the bowl and the pipe asymmetrical overall.

I believe success in this kind of thing is a balance of not just mass, but tension and visual weight (multiple levels again, mass, color, textures). Color wise you may consider that a large green square will be balanced with a small bright yellow triangle placed on top. It's relative size and where it's placed can create tension visually -probably relating to the edges- which can help the piece achieve both balance and a dynamic quality even though the shapes are simple. Color is a whole other world to explore.

In the end I believe the "masters" are doing this sort of thing automatically and according to their own eye for balance.

Hey! Why the hell are am I writing this??? Who cares what I think? We should get Crosby on here; he's the design teacher for crying out loud. Have any of you read the Passion for Pipes post on one of John's pipes? A study in design and options. Interesting and informative to say the least.

[KurtHuhn]

Hi Kurt,

Yes that's all true. If you are going for symmetry of shapes only then anything can be used though. If anything can be used, why not chose the simpler and easier answers:

1=1
8=8
0=0

Well, I was attempting to show the amount of complexity that you can get when you really start playing with it. More elements, more complication, clearly imbalanced in terms of "weight" (numerical value) but seemingly harmonious.

1+1=two

Does that feel more balanced to you? How about:

Actually, no. It still feels left-heavy - but that might change if you used a mono-space font like this:

Code: Select all

  1+1=two  

Hmm.. not really.

Color is a whole other world to explore.

Now you're just needlessly complicating things.

One of the few art classes I took in college was color theory. I think it was a requirement of the architecture program. I can't recall. Anyway, it's very interesting, and you can do some very, very cool stuff with color.

[souljer]

1+1=two

Does that feel more balanced to you? How about:

Actually, no. It still feels left-heavy - but that might change if you used a mono-space font like this:

Code: Select all

  1+1=two  

Hmm.. not really.

If you are only interested in the left-right balance the equation could work for you if the letters had a space or half space between them or one or more characters where in bold or a larger font, etc., etc. It's not to be taken literally, just a sketch to illustrate a theory. I was also trying to show that there are many ways to interpret balance. From here the detail work starts (sort of what we're batting back and forth) to make the specific thing work.

Now you're just needlessly complicating things.

Sounds like something my ex-girlfriend might have said. I had no idea she was into pipe-making too...

Anyway, thinking though some of this is why it's called artWORK. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes not so fun, but you usually end up smarter so it's all good as they say.

[KurtHuhn]

Anyway, thinking though some of this is why it's called artWORK. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes not so fun, but you usually end up smarter so it's all good as they say.

Exactly! If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. And I would never have had to post that ugly pipe a couple weeks ago.

[ScoJo]

Wow - I haven't been around here a lot recently, but this thread is very interesting!

Ben - I like the pipe. I think the most important thing I've learned from reading this thread is that there is a key difference between asymmetry (mind you, I have not attempted an asymmetric war club yet) and imbalance. From the discussion I am sensing that the desire to bend the stem back in the other direction comes from wanting to have the weight of the stummel centered on your face when you clench the pipe in your teeth. Interesting and something for me to keep in mind should I ever stop traveling from work (I'm not home this week or next) and want to attempt something a bit more daring.

You've left me in the dust whilst I have done nearly nothing in the last year. Good for you!

By the way, I'm an engineer by trade, but even I stopped reading when these guys started posting equations here.

[Frank]

By the way, I'm an engineer by trade, but even I stopped reading when these guys started posting equations here.

This is the equation for asymmetrical smoke flow through Ben's pipe smoking Butternut Burley (Hey! Cut me some slack, it's the only baccy I have on hand atm).

½(Δβμ + μ )u - ½(μ + 2μ + μωβ)u + ½(μ + μξβ)u + қ+ Δrμ

However, the equation descends into infinite chaos when attempting to smoke Latakia!

[KurtHuhn]

Okay, buddy! You asked for it - Penzance is in the mail!

[bscofield]

nice pipe Ben




Jaden

Thanks Jaden!!