Let's Talk Aesthetics

[d.huber]

Hey guys,

As I've been digging around the site I've found tons of great information about making a pipe from start to finish, but one thing that I've been surprised by is the lack of conversations about aesthetics. Everyone gives fantastic feedback about improvements that can be made to newbies' work, but I haven't really seen a serious discussion of the work of experienced artisans. Because I think that this is crucial to people developing an understanding of aesthetics, I thought I'd start up the conversation. (If this has already been done and I missed it somehow, please let me know.)

The maker that I'd like to start the conversation with is Konstantin Shekita. Reason being, his is the only work that I've seen that makes me uncomfortable by pulling, stretching, tugging, and tearing at the fabric between what I find beautiful and what I find ugly.

Note: unless otherwise stated, photos in this post are from Quality Briar.

Exhibit #1:



When I first saw this pipe I just about fell out of my chair. If we just looked at the proportions of the pipe, they appear solid and well executed. The stem looks good. The finish well done. Technically, I find nothing particularly outrageous or life changing about the piece. However, when you take into account the interlocking weaves of briar that he's done here, I can't help but go... "What?!" To me it is simultaneously beautiful and hideous, which makes me physically uncomfortable. The fact that his work can do that to me makes me respect it. After all, what is art meant to do but make us feel something profound, be it positive, negative, or just plain confused.

Exhibit #2:



When I first saw this pipe I just about fell out of my chair. *looks around* Is there an echo in here? At first glance, this pipe appeared fluid and graceful... but then I actually focused on it and somehow, through the line of the shank in relationship to the bowl, the way the shank lifts up off the table at just the right angle... this pipe makes me extremely uncomfortable. It is simultaneously stiff and graceful, ugly and beautiful. With this contrast, I again have that discomfort that makes me respect it. The line of the shank I think is what achieves this. I expect it to curve up just a little bit more than it does and by pulling down on the shank as it extends (almost as if the shank were a branch and the end is chained to the table in order to shape it), he manages to create something that isn't off enough to be truly ugly, but isn't on enough to be truly beautiful. It blows my mind.

I have no idea how to feel about these pieces of work, but I think they offer a great spring board for discussing what "beautiful," "ugly," "graceful," "stiff," etc. mean aesthetically in a pipe and may help us newbies to gain a better understanding of how to create within the realm of these definitions or, in the case of Konstantin Shekita, to bridge them.

Thoughts? Opinions? Diatribes?

[TRS]

Personally, I don't find anything ugly or uncomfortable about either of those pipes. I think they're both smashing, particularly the bottom one.

[Ocelot55]

I think you don't see many comments on aesthetics because it is so subjective. I find a lot of pipes ugly: some Catellos, some Vipratis, some of Rolando Negotia's, hell, even some of Walle's pipes (though I would drop a lot of loot on Walle's "Steam Funk" if I were a rich man). That said, just about everyone recognizes that every subtle aesthetic choice was intentional, and they all function superbly. I don't even mind owning an "ugly" pipe if it smokes well. That said, they each appeal to a different person, all of whom make up the rich and wonderful world of pipe smokers. Any decrease in diversity would truly be a detriment to the community. That is why I will never comment on aesthetics other than to say that it is or is not my cup of tea.

I probably stated the obvious here, but I am interested in everyone's take as well. When you cross the line between commenting on functionallity and engeneering to critiquing art you open a huge can 'o worms.

[d.huber]

I think you don't see many comments on aesthetics because it is so subjective. I find a lot of pipes ugly: some Catellos, some Vipratis, some of Rolando Negotia's, hell, even some of Walle's pipes (though I would drop a lot of loot on Walle's "Steam Funk" if I were a rich man). That said, just about everyone recognizes that every subtle aesthetic choice was intentional, and they all function superbly. I don't even mind owning an "ugly" pipe if it smokes well. That said, they each appeal to a different peson, all of whom make up the rich and wonderful world of pipe smokers. Any decrease in diversity would truly be a detriment to the community. That is why I will never comment on aesthetics other than to say that it is or is not my cup of tea.

I probably stated the obvious here, but I am interested in everyone's take as well. When you cross the line between commenting on functionallity and engeneering to critiquing art you open a huge can 'o worms.

You make some fantastic points. Due to the subjective nature of the topic, it makes sense that this would be difficult to discuss. I'm now wondering if this topic was appropriate to breech here.

Don't mind me... newbie comin' through... 'scuse me while I go back to trying to finish a pipe.

[bregolad]

Todd Johnson is usually pretty opinionated about aesthetics, and he has some good things to say. Something about having studied it in college...hmm...

anyway, here's a link to his blog (http://www.todd-m-johnson.blogspot.com/).

[d.huber]

Todd Johnson is usually pretty opinionated about aesthetics, and he has some good things to say. Something about having studied it in college...hmm...

anyway, here's a link to his blog (http://www.todd-m-johnson.blogspot.com/).

Thanks for the link! Great reading, to be sure. Think he'll post again? Last one is from 2010.

[Sasquatch]

There's a fundamental distinction that has to be made here, and that's the difference between the basically objective things that make a pipe "right" - let's call this the craft side, and the aesthetic things that make a pipe look good, and we'll call that the "art" side.

A lot of what gets discussed here is craft stuff - how to get a tighter fit, how to apply certain tools and materials.

For the art side of things, on one hand, there's no limit, as Walle's pipes show, but on the other hand, you have to be absolutely nailing the craft side before you can approach the art side successfully. How many "Look at my awesome freehand!" threads are there on this board? A million! And they mostly look like grade 8 shop projects because the maker hasn't nailed down the craft side. Things that should be flat aren't quite, things that should be round aren't quite.

Now, whether a guy prefers Italian, Danish, or English influences is a personal thing, and how long, how fat, how whatever... it's all up in the air, all up for discussion. But any particular pipe gets judged around here based (as far as I can tell) on how near to some aesthetic ideal it comes - there's a "right way" for each pipe to be shaped and proportioned. There's all kinds of flexibility (ornamentation, finishing) still, but there's basically one final shape that makes the whole thing "work". Now, part of this just comes out of what we are used to seeing - the basic pleasing proportions of a billiard, for example. Some of it probably comes out of things like the Golden Ratio, some of it just comes out of a pipe being neat.

This stuff is much easier to discuss when a particular pipe is being viewed, than in generalities.

Both pipes displayed in this thread are masterfully built. Would I own or smoke either? No.

[PhilipMarc]

When talking about aesthetics, people often make the mistake of thinking that "anything goes," as in certain parts of the modern art community. This has never and will never be true. As a pipe maker, an architect, a painter, a musician, or anything for that matter, we have to remember that we are not the beginning of our art, skill, or trade. We are builders laying stones on the already existing foundation that was built before us. Einstein was arguably the greatest physicist in the history of our world, but without the work of Isaac Newton, Einstein would not have had a springboard from which to vault. He disproved some of Newton's theories but He did so by applying conventional theory his work, not throwing it away.
The previous poster is right in saying that mastering the craft is most important. Until you have mastered the basics, the world will not allow you the license to innovate.

With that being said, it seems that both of these pipes, while they have their deviations from the standard (the first looks like a meerschaum pipe made from briar, and the second is a long way off from typical proportions), were both made by a very talented, and SKILLED pipemaker. They aren't my favorite, but it's clear that the workmanship is good, and I think that pipes like these can be instrumental (in the grand scheme), of challenging our perception of balance and beauty. I can appreciate that.

[OregonCustom]

Ditto to everything Phillip said.

Just this evening I was having a discussion about this very topic with my wife. I often feel as though a poor understanding in the fundamentals of the medium is often hidden by the "artistic expression" in a piece.

The detail of the weave pattern, I respect the time required to create it. Visually, I find it repulsive. But with all works of art, it may do nothing for me, and hold some deep spiritual meaning for someone else.

There is a balance, unspoken, judged and weighed on every pipe created; on every piece of art. We claim to be "Pipe Makers" but we all are artists. Our medium is briar, and it can be interpreted an unlimited number of ways. For instance, voids, cracks and stones in a pipe are unacceptable. But in pens it adds character to the piece. Why is it accepted in one form but rejected in another? What emotions are tied to that pit? Does it need to be verbalized? Whether or not or even how we voice our emotions of a piece is a personnel thing.....but hey I'm game! I haven't had a good critique since I was in college.

[pereu]

Dear pipemakers,
I think, we should look at this thing rather from the position of the market.
a) People have different perception.
b) People change her perception.
c) People are bound to visual habits.

Those target groups which we can serve or not arise from the different groups of perception. The biggest part of the market is traditional, astonishingly in this branch.
Extravagant, artistic or unusually pipes aim only at a small market segment.

And in all a development takes place. Every pipemaker has his own customer circle. And finds out the market just by these customers. Thus it is difficult to recognise which options there are still. Hence, also there results the different judgement of the market.

(My English is hopefully good enough for this difficult subject)

Greetings from Graz
Peter

[taharris]

I studied karate for about 12 years. A surprising amount of those things that I learned are relevant beyond the dojo.

As I was coming up through the ranks I was drilled hard on the fundamentals; making every movement precise and deliberate. However, once I reached a certain rank the emphasis changed. I was expected to "break the mold". In other words I was expected to develop my own "style".

I think there is a parallel with the art of pipe making. It is critical early on to focus on mastering the fundamentals; making the stem/shank joint perfect, making the button beautiful and comfortable, making the proportions correct, etc. Only after these fundamentals are mastered is it time to "break the mold" and develop your own personal style.

Just my 2 cents...

Todd

[RadDavis]

It's sort of like improvisation in playing music. Until you actually know how to play, it's impossible to improvise.

Rad

[Sasquatch]

That also explains why my pipes come out better when I listen to Black Sabbath while making them.

[JonBood]

(off topic) Sabbath is great pipe making music

[Joe Hinkle Pipes]

This is why I am hesitant to make comments or critiques on a lot of pipes posted. here.
#1. i haven't mastered the craft side, as todd mentioned.
#2. anything that is posted as a response that doesn't relate to the fundamental shaping is, to me at least, just my opinion on aesthetics which doesn't help make better pipes.

[KurtHuhn]

It's sort of like improvisation in playing music. Until you actually know how to play, it's impossible to improvise.

And this, in my opinion, is the bare truth.

There are endless discussions on proportion, golden ratio, balance, symmetry, asymmetry, symmetrical asymmetry, and other stuff that amounts to absolute bullshit until you manage to actually make something that looks good on a consistent basis.

As an engineer for nearly 25 years, I have always leaned on the crutch of measurement and science. You simply cannot do that with a craft like pipe making. It's good to keep track of once you're starting out, but you can only progress once you've become comfortable and mastered the basics. Then you can let go.

Like the use of a metal lathe, this realization hits pipe makers sooner or later.

[Sasquatch]

Why would I use a metal lathe? Pipes are made of wood.

You are VERY stupid.

[Tyler]

I ponder the issue of aesthetics in pipe making all the time, and have for quite a few years now. I don't find discussing it online a pleasant task though, because I find it too challenging to write concisely about. It is an exceedingly interesting topic though.

I'll say this, I don't agree for a second that beauty and aesthetics can be casually swept into the cliche bin labeled, "eye of the beholder." Sure, preferences and taste vary, but I find it shocking that these conversations so quickly turn into shrugs and nods toward hyper-relativism.

No matter how much one might claim it to be so, one cannot make beautiful that which isn't by declaring that one finds it so. Beauty brings us pleasure, but I think where we confuse the issue is to presume that if one derives pleasure from something it is beautiful. Just because one takes pleasure, doesn't make the thing encountered beautiful.

Now, to really bring an uncomfortable angle to things, I find this conversation quickly ends up alongside the realms of truth and goodness, and as a dabbler in theology I find God behind those. And like truth and goodness I find God behind beauty, and therefore find it impossible to think my claims upon beauty make it so anymore than my claims on truth or goodness make them so.

Does that mean I think God has declared what a pipe should look like, or that there is some sort of platonic ideal for a pipe? Not at all. Rather, I mean that I think that beautiful things carry attributes which God intended for pleasure. It is the discovery, revealing, and marrying of those that is the work of making art. We are pursuing this while constrained by intersecting holes in small wooden blocks. I find the chase delightful, and take a lot of pleasure in the results of everyone else's chase as well.

Having said all of that, I think there is a lot of mystery in beauty, just as there is a lot of mystery in God. I don't think we can turn it into a science or fully comprehend it. I guess in the end that is why we tend to talk about the topic for a short time then shrug. It is, I believe, an infinite pursuit, and so we shrug because we quickly realize we don't and can't know fully (or maybe much at all) about it. But I think we occassionally get glimpses and we know: that was beautiful.

So now I'm tired of writing and haven't said much about pipe aesthetics. Maybe I'll actually get to pipes more fully in a later post. Then again, maybe not, because I'm not sure I understand anything well enough to discourse reasonably.

Tyler

[Sasquatch]

Wittgenstein seemingly anticipated us, Tyler (although I don't know if he made pipes).

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."


There is a relativism in aesthetics - it cannot be said definitively that a Dunhill billiard is more beautiful than a Castello billiard. There is not absolute relativism though, where we cannot pick between "better and worse" looking pipes, but perhaps this only means better or worse CRAFTED pipes where we have an objective set of guidelines for success. I'm still not sure where the line is drawn. Naturally, I embody the Platonic ideal on every pipe I make, so these things are of little consequence to me.

[Tyler]

Wittgenstein seemingly anticipated us, Tyler (although I don't know if he made pipes).

"My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."


There is a relativism in aesthetics - it cannot be said definitively that a Dunhill billiard is more beautiful than a Castello billiard. There is not absolute relativism though, where we cannot pick between "better and worse" looking pipes, but perhaps this only means better or worse CRAFTED pipes where we have an objective set of guidelines for success. I'm still not sure where the line is drawn. Naturally, I embody the Platonic ideal on every pipe I make, so these things are of little consequence to me.

I was hoping you might reach into to your philosophical storehouse with some thoughts! I was hoping you wouldn't pull back the curtain on me so quickly though.

I agree that we might not be able to say a Dunhill billiard is more beautiful than a Castello, but that doesn't undermine my thoughts. BOTH can be beautiful while being different. You're just confused by Plato, as evidenced by the fact that you think you are a better pipe maker than he was!