Sunday, October 9, 2016
This was not a case of not liking the original piece; I actually liked it a lot. My intent when I made it was to use it as a jury shot, as it was rather big and dramatic. But I absolutely could not get it to photograph well (and I took a million pics). The top pic is the best I got, and the gold doesn't stand out against the black well at all. Also, photographing it straight on like that you don't get a good sense of the 3D-ness and it's hard to judge the size. So even though I liked the piece a lot, it wasn't doing what I wanted it to do.
That wouldn't have caused me to redo it, except for one thing. I realized after looking at it for a
So I redid it, and was quite pleased with the results.But that still left the photography problem. I took lots of pics, basically redoing all the mistakes I had made with the original necklace. Photographing it on the black form was the best way to get a sense of the size and dimensionality. But for some reason that I fail to understand, whenever I did that, even in the same room and under the same light conditions as the other shots, I got a picture that waymore washed out. Finally, I turned out all the lights, so I only had indirect light from the window, and dialed back the exposure to make it even darker--and it worked. I think it shows off the piece quite well. No idea why.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Monday, May 16, 2016
A while ago American Craft magazine had an article about the artist Wendell Castle, and it included a list of his artist rules to live by. One that struck me particularly was " If you're hitting bullseyes every time, the target's too close."Recently, I've been trying to produce some pieces with some more drama and impact to them. One way to do that is with size. I did a post about that not too long ago, comparing 2 oxidized silver and stone pieces with a sawtoothed edge. There I felt that by making the sawtooths considerably bigger I had produced a more interesting necklace. I've been trying to do that with another concept. Back when I was working mostly with seed beads I did a series of pieces I called "links". Each necklace was composed of a series of open trapezoid shapes with a stem and toggle on one end, so that each could be joined to the next. First I did plain links, and then I started to embellish them.
You could add or subtract links to change a necklace. I really liked that series, and I've wondered about making links out of oxidized silver tubes. They would necessarily be a lot bigger. I've worked on that idea for past few weeks, but haven't been able to make it work. Here's my final version.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Saturday, April 2, 2016
That is both one of the upsides and one of the downsides of beadweaving versus the rug weaving that I used to do. When rug came off the loom it was done. Nothing more to think about, because you couldn't change anything. Now I find myself tinkering with pieces. Mostly I like that, although sometimes it's nice to just say it is what it is.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
This is a continuation of an idea I talked about over a year ago ( Jan, 2015 to be exact). I've made several pieces that are chains of tetrahedrons. What I've learned is that instead of making 1 tet, adding the next and then the next, I can plan it better if I first make a chain of all the bases of the tets (far left in the first picture), then turn each base triangle into a tet (middle) then join the tets at the tops. The length of the tube that joins the tops will determine the curve of the structure. Here I thought of not using a tube to join the tops, but rather a string of beads. The length of the bead string determines the maximum curve, but within that limit the necklace can take the curve it wants. And the curving bead string gives the piece a ruffly look that I sort of like. The tighter the curve the piece takes, the less ruffly it will look. I assumed it would want to take a tighter curve at the bottom of the necklace than along the sides, so I added 1 bead to each chain for the links at the bottom to preserve the ruffliness.
As a side note, I have to say that this blog has turned out to be a help to me in keeping track of what I do. I've now had several occasions where I've had to reproduce something I've done before, or a variaton on it. I've never been too good at keeping records of what I do, but looking back at what I've blogger about has been a help. When I come up with a new idea, it seems interesting enough that I won't forget it, but 6 months down the road, I'm trying to remember what the actual lengths and arrangements of things were, and it's gone. Ah...age.