I think there's a lot in this one: the challenge of pipe making is to bend form to function, not the other way around.
Unpopular opinions are often the best ones
- Thread starter deathmetal
- Start date
.gif)
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I like the factory made pipes more. I acknowledge the skill it takes to create from a block of briar. However I see some pipes and think "that would be a pain in the ass to clean"
Now that's a reasonably presented opinion. No derogatory and aggressive challenging verbiage. It can be done without antagonizing others. Just a simple, "I do not like it." Some people, I am one when it comes to pipe preferences, just do not appreciate whimsy. I can still appreciate the time, workmanship and thought which goes into such without denigrating the carvers.
Well now, speaking as a professional artist, I have to say that I do enjoy some of the wilder expressions of the carvers' art. Doesn't mean that I'm going to purchase it, but I can certainly be entertained by it. And in the case of a carver like Paul Tatum, I'm both entertained and a collector.
Like 99% of the art that I see in galleries, ideas are being tried out, mostly with unsuccessful results, but at least someone is making an attempt at something new. Most of the Danish shapes that smokers pay thousands of $$$ for, as well as the warmed over Danish affected by American carvers, would have looked pretty outlandish to British and French carvers of an earlier generation. Expression evolves, sometimes it devolves, but it is changing.
I used to think that the billiard was the single most boring shape ever devised. Now I really appreciate the subtlety involved in carving one correctly.
Like 99% of the art that I see in galleries, ideas are being tried out, mostly with unsuccessful results, but at least someone is making an attempt at something new. Most of the Danish shapes that smokers pay thousands of $$$ for, as well as the warmed over Danish affected by American carvers, would have looked pretty outlandish to British and French carvers of an earlier generation. Expression evolves, sometimes it devolves, but it is changing.
I used to think that the billiard was the single most boring shape ever devised. Now I really appreciate the subtlety involved in carving one correctly.
Art is tar spelled sideways. It is also rat spelled sideways. After nearly 50 years making a living from making art, rat seems the most appropriate.
As long as there exists the mundane, there shall be a race of aesthetic elves that will magically cover it all in exquisite glitter; function be damned. ... And, truth be told, I find nothing wrong with a bit of shimmer in the world.
Rat: one of nature's most persistent creatures!
It seems to me the best art is both aesthetically appealing and functional, meaning that it expresses something that helps us "re-connect" to a sentiment that life offers pleasurable possibilities.
Too many "edgy" artists forget the first part, and as a result, translate the second into ranting propaganda. And then, some combine ranting propaganda with aesthetics very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh2j33wD8pA
Others forget the second, and make art that is not really relevant to anything. Then again, sometimes pure aesthetic noodling works out well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5-yy-jopA
It's like all things a complex balancing act, as I'm sure you are well experienced navigating, Sable, having done this for so long.
It seems to me the best art is both aesthetically appealing and functional, meaning that it expresses something that helps us "re-connect" to a sentiment that life offers pleasurable possibilities.
Too many "edgy" artists forget the first part, and as a result, translate the second into ranting propaganda. And then, some combine ranting propaganda with aesthetics very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh2j33wD8pA
Others forget the second, and make art that is not really relevant to anything. Then again, sometimes pure aesthetic noodling works out well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF5-yy-jopA
It's like all things a complex balancing act, as I'm sure you are well experienced navigating, Sable, having done this for so long.
Someone's got to push the boundaries, right? I'm sure at some point in time the asymetrical blowfish seemed like heresy, if not avant-garde. Now that formal language has worked its way down in to several factory mades. That may be a bit reductive and I'm not sure the pipes pictured above will ever find that sort of mass appeal, but I'm glad to see people testing the perceived boundaries of pipe carving. Furthermore, if carvers are using the pipe solely as a canvas for their artistic expression, forgoing any utility, I'm happy to see it as well.
Would I ever buy it? Thankfully I'm not in a financial position that warrants even entertaining that question :wink:
Would I ever buy it? Thankfully I'm not in a financial position that warrants even entertaining that question :wink:
I'm on a tight deadline to get a painting out so I can't spend much time right now.
Deathmetal, both of your points are right on target. Those with nothing to say will not suddenly become eloquent.
In some cases people develop some form of shtick to mask the essential emptiness of their work. That accounts for the vast majority of crap art in the marketplace. A few have something to say, but lack the skills to express it effectively. But even there, they are far more interesting than the empty technicians, or one track polemicists.
Taking this back to pipes for a moment, I like both Paul Tatum and Lee Von Erck because they both developed personal styles while producing excellent smoking instruments. They didn't do warmed over Danish like so many "artisan" carvers.
People say that art is anything they say is art. It is. But that doesn't mean that it's either any good, or worth spit.
Back to the salt mines.
Deathmetal, both of your points are right on target. Those with nothing to say will not suddenly become eloquent.
In some cases people develop some form of shtick to mask the essential emptiness of their work. That accounts for the vast majority of crap art in the marketplace. A few have something to say, but lack the skills to express it effectively. But even there, they are far more interesting than the empty technicians, or one track polemicists.
Taking this back to pipes for a moment, I like both Paul Tatum and Lee Von Erck because they both developed personal styles while producing excellent smoking instruments. They didn't do warmed over Danish like so many "artisan" carvers.
People say that art is anything they say is art. It is. But that doesn't mean that it's either any good, or worth spit.
Back to the salt mines.
Are they really pushing boundaries, or merely being contrarian?
The point is to unite form and function. Making one dominate over the other seems an error. You either get a boring pipe, or some objet d' arte which doesn't work any better, is awkward, and exists mainly as a conversation piece.
I pretty much agree with this and I don't think anyone could fault anyone for thinking this way.
Appreciating someone's artistic abilities and creations is one thing; choosing to spend money on owning them is another.
Maybe some of these should have been sculptures instead of pipes. Makes you wonder why the makers did not simply choose to be sculptors. Then again, there are a lot of similar designs in contemporary sculpture.
I don't really have a problem with this, though, and if it furthers the discourse of pipe carving I would say it was a worth-while endeavor. Several of the most notable artists of the last century could be argued to have been contrarians (Duchamp, Warhol possibly, though anyone with a better understanding of art history, please correct me at any time).
I suppose it depends on the individual and how they ascribe value to the pipe; whether their rubric mandates that it must be a useful smoking device or not.
I'm largely playing devil's advocate here because I happen to agree with you when it comes to my personal tastes - that a pipe should unite form and function.
Similarly, when it comes to buildings, I could list several highly acclaimed whimsical structures designed by 'starchitects' that hardly function. Many of them have advanced the architectural discourse, however, influencing the actions taken by others (for better or worse), and therefore have value.
So to your original post
, I would argue the challenge of pipe making is to test the boundaries of form while preserving function.
All that said -- I'm not a pipe maker :lol: I'd be interested to hear from some of the carvers on this forum!
One wonders what "advanced" means -- so often, it means concealing the trivial beneath a veneer of the New.
- Status