What I don’t like about this “perfect” example is your use of multiple circles to complete the flow. If it was perfect, it would fit the swoop of a single oval line. IMO, the used example doesn’t support this use case application and it falls out of line at the transition to the mouth piece.
Domengo
- Thread starter jbfrady
- Start date
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 understand where you're coming from and I always appreciate your comments. However, criticism is not guidance when it is neither sought out nor helpful. If my goal wasn't to make a perfectly boring billiard, then attempting to guide me down the path of convention is precisely the opposite of guidance.
Imagine you're repainting your house and an interior designer comes in and tells you which colors should not be used, and which should. They'll offer you their suggestionsbased on their experience. And who knows? For people who want a homogeneous interior of a home that looks just like every other home in modern suburbia, listening to an interior designer is probably a great choice. But if that's not what you want, then listening to their advice would be a waste of time, money, and energy.
I know what a billiard is "supposed to" look like. But as I said in the write-up, I'm not looking to contribute yet another billiard to the fold unless it's my own design. I made the pipe that I saw in their eyes: my impression. If anything, the lesson I'm being taught here is that I should call all of my pipes billiards from here on.
Last edited:
@jbfrady
The pipe is interesting and has fun ideas going on. As an artist, I can relate to the idea of not finding the exercise of copying something appealing; I, too, fell prey to the rebelliousness of youth when I was in art school.
Did I copy a Rembrandt? Not really. I came up with a creative workaround that resulted in an inventive loophole and creative, fun way to satisfy the assignment. But, in doing so, I probably missed the more important and fundamental idea behind copying an old master—to learn the techniques and what it takes to make a painting look a particular way, through the exercise of matching process.
@georged ’s observations (with diagrams) are ones worth taking notes of, regardless of you making a Billiard or not. The junction where the stem meets the shank is not a good fit or seamless transition; it reminds me of the often seen restorations of estate pipes where a person has sanded the stem separately from the shank and rounded all of the edges, creating a valley between the stem and shank when fit together. Your design suggests graceful, pleasing lines, but as the overlays in the diagrams show, the execution is less than truly graceful or elegant; graceful curves need to be taken to the nth degree to come off visually right. Fit and finish matter a great deal if the goal is to eventually get people to part with their hard earned money.
I look forward to to seeing future pipes from you. I do wonder if your distaste for making a traditional Billiard is doing you a disservice in your pipe making journey. Like the previously mentioned egg cooking test, there’s great value in simple process and correct execution.
The pipe is interesting and has fun ideas going on. As an artist, I can relate to the idea of not finding the exercise of copying something appealing; I, too, fell prey to the rebelliousness of youth when I was in art school.
Did I copy a Rembrandt? Not really. I came up with a creative workaround that resulted in an inventive loophole and creative, fun way to satisfy the assignment. But, in doing so, I probably missed the more important and fundamental idea behind copying an old master—to learn the techniques and what it takes to make a painting look a particular way, through the exercise of matching process.
@georged ’s observations (with diagrams) are ones worth taking notes of, regardless of you making a Billiard or not. The junction where the stem meets the shank is not a good fit or seamless transition; it reminds me of the often seen restorations of estate pipes where a person has sanded the stem separately from the shank and rounded all of the edges, creating a valley between the stem and shank when fit together. Your design suggests graceful, pleasing lines, but as the overlays in the diagrams show, the execution is less than truly graceful or elegant; graceful curves need to be taken to the nth degree to come off visually right. Fit and finish matter a great deal if the goal is to eventually get people to part with their hard earned money.
I look forward to to seeing future pipes from you. I do wonder if your distaste for making a traditional Billiard is doing you a disservice in your pipe making journey. Like the previously mentioned egg cooking test, there’s great value in simple process and correct execution.
OP, you can make pipes to your heart’s content, and that’s great, but you can’t make a blob, call it a billiard, and get offended when people tell you that it’s definitely not a billiard.
Make a pipe, say “hey, I made this!”, and people will say nice things.
Arguing that you did something that you really didn’t comes off poorly.
Make a pipe, say “hey, I made this!”, and people will say nice things.
Arguing that you did something that you really didn’t comes off poorly.
What befuddles me here is the compulsion that people have to state the obvious. I know the transition isn't seamless, and that's why I'm keeping this pipe. Billiards are machine-made by design, whereas my pipes - as stated in the essay - are not. They are shaped with knives and chisels only. I made the lines I meant to make.
By using the word "right," you've highlighted my whole point here. There is no right or wrong. Were Rembrandt to find out that people would one day imitate him as a symbol of painting the right way, he would've balked. In Rembrandt's mind, he was contributing something new. By copying his paintings long after he's dead, the studying artist does the exact opposite of what Rembrandt did when he originally painted them.
My goal isn't to sell. It's to make the art I want to make. I tend to give pipes away or keep them and I may sell a few, but it's not about making a pipe to please a buyer.
In conclusion, you’re maybe the 1456th “artist” who demands to be right when he’s wrong concerning making pipes.
If what you made makes you happy and the pipe is how you wanted it to be, that’s great and I’m glad for you. Just about everything in life is subjective, so all of these exchanges only matter if one makes them matter. My comment about looking “right” are based on my view—my subjective view—which people are free to disagree with, of what makes for a graceful line—smooth, uninterrupted curves in this instance. The curves on your pipe suggest a grace, but to my eye, fall short of what it could be, not achieving the potential of what the pipe hints at what it could be. If your intention was to only achieve what you did, that’s awesome. But, I see a missed opportunity for something that could’ve been more graceful (subjectively). You seem to only want to please yourself, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But, if we’re going to exchange ideas and not just have a strokefest of praise, different opinions matter.
The exercise the teacher gave me of copying the Rembrandt was not to paint the “right” way, it was to see what it took to arrive at that end product through trying to figure out through the act of doing and emulating what we saw. I think you might agree that the eighteen-year-old I was at the time was trying to do something other than just copying Rembrandt. But, I might’ve gained more in terms of painting execution and technique if I had been less “original.”
I’d have to search this forum for quite a while to find another such example of pretension blended with complacent bragadaccio. Luckily I have better uses for my time.
You’re clearly not interested in feedback. So why did you post here at all; to solicit praise? You made a pipe. Whoopee. I know lots of professional pipe carvers and few are given to boasting and none would try to pass off a non-billiard as a billiard and then backpedal with specious statements about intent.
I’ll also add this: in our hobby most people who commission artisan pipes do so not only because they like his or her work, but because they like them as people too. I wouldn’t own an artisan pipe made by someone I didn’t like; most of my friends are the same way. If this is advertising it’s ill-advised. If it’s not advertising, and not an appeal for feedback from a highly knowledgeable population, what is it? Public masturbation?
We ain't tellin ya how to be an artist, we tellin ya what it takes to make a billiard. and perhaps, suggesting that you're mistaken in calling Domengo (cough) a billiard.
I dunno how many pipes you've made or what else you've stamped with your own vision and capabilities, but, this one shows promise. It must have been fun to make.
Please excuse any crust crumbs.
I dunno how many pipes you've made or what else you've stamped with your own vision and capabilities, but, this one shows promise. It must have been fun to make.
Please excuse any crust crumbs.
OP, I’m not sure how much of this you’re comprehending.
Your pipe and your self important philosophy will catch a few guys wanting to debate, but the rest of us have seen this tired old story a thousand times.
You’re not original, you’re not great, and you can’t make a billiard.
Hope this helps.
Your pipe and your self important philosophy will catch a few guys wanting to debate, but the rest of us have seen this tired old story a thousand times.
You’re not original, you’re not great, and you can’t make a billiard.
Hope this helps.
Nice touch. I may add that as a signature line.
Ah man, you’re a boar. Yes we all have heard you calling out loud once at the beginning of the thread, that it’s not a billiard, and you’re right it isn’t. But once again you behave like the one and only pipe pope. Is the cow holy? Is the pipe holy? That’s how I became to know you. Come on man calm down, relax.
No. George is correct, the “artist” is incorrect.
No one has to calm down. It’s a matter of a billiard.
There’s been way too much discussion over something that is really easy to understand.
Actually I think George was not only entirely right on the facts but temperate in his comments. What you’re selectively leaving out is the OP’s attitude. Smug pretension combined with willful denial and an appetite for argument will always draw adverse remarks.
In the heat of debate moderation is difficult. Even now, for example, I’m resisting the urge to make Allen Ginsberg jokes in response to your repetition of the word holy.
Hope this helps™
Last edited:
- Status