Monday, April 2, 2018

playing with tube lengths


This is a post that, more than most, is just me talking to myself to remember something, because it's about a piece I started to make, but don't like too much and plan to take apart.  I've always liked the piece pictured first.  It was made with 25mm tubes and quartz beads of around 20mm.  I recently bought some malachite beads that are a sort of pinkish tan, and wanted to use them on the outside edges, but I wanted to use 28 mm silver tubes everywhere else. This was partly to make the piece a bit bigger, and partly because I 'm low on 25mm tubes just now. But I found that that combination of lengths made a curve that was way too shallow (obviously, the tightness of the curve is just a matter of how much longer the outside edge is than the inside edge).  The outside edges consist of 3 beads in a sort of a straight line and then and then a shift to a new angle. So I went back and put a long(35mm) marble bead in the middle of each set of 3, in place of one of the pink ones.  I liked the way it made the set of 3 curve, so you get an interesting outline, as you can see in the bottom picture.  But I didn't like the 2 colors.  Too jumpy.  If I'd used all 28s on the inside I was headed toward a piece that was about 21" on the inside and 26" on the outside.  No Pythagorus here, I just laid it on top of a salad plate and the outside curve was pretty close to the outside curve of the plate.  A saucer (21") fit the inside. That seems pretty big, so I needed to shorten the inside edge some more.  I tried substituting a 20mm on the inside, but you have to do it in pairs, and 2 20mm tubes would have made the curve too tight (there's one 20 in the sample).  It looked like the curve with all 28s would have led to a piece with 9 units (maybe 8 and a clasp).  If I'd used all 25s on the inside that might have worked.  Or, to get a more oval, less round shape, 28s with 4 25s, to sort of make 4 "corners".  You could do it with gold tubes on those outside edges, and it would be pretty interesting too.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Another neckwire piece

I liked playing around with shapes on a neckwire a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd try another.  I think the rectangles with gold zigzagging down them worked well.  makes for a pretty wearable piece, as well as an attractive one.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Developing an idea

 I've been making lots of pieces like the first one here: repeats of a structure like an oct, separated by biggish stone beads.  And I've varied it by using different structures, but always a repeat of the same one.  I've wanted to do 2 things--eliminate the beads and vary the structures.  Leaving out the beads means you don't have the color limitation, i. e. you're not limited to wearing it with an outfit that goes with red. There are 2 ways to do this.  One would be to put a closed ring between the octs (or whatever structures) Or they could interlink directly with one another.  Here I interlinked them. It means that you need to build more structures, as they overlap, but it makes the design tighter. I like this one, and I think pretty soon I'll make another one with the pentagonal shapes done in gold filled beads.
   As with most of my ideas, I start out being rigidly symmetrical, and then later I play with the idea in a freer, asymmetrical way.  Picture 3 shows me doing this design in that way.  I think its my best one so far.  I also think adding the gold makes the piece more interesting, without limiting the colors you can wear it with.  Now I'd like to extend that more asymmetrical, more random approach to some of my very structural pieces.

Sunday, February 11, 2018

A new inspiration

 I was looking at the current issue of Metalsmith magazine the other day.  They had an article about Betty Cooke, who's been a well known jewelry designer for decades now.  Besides loving her work, I'm interested because my niece Kate has worked for her off and on for several years at her shop, The Store, Ltd., in Baltimore.  Anyway the piece shown here is one of her better known pieces, and I've seen pictures of it before.  But the magazine picture was bigger, and I noticed that there are silver tubes over the neckwire at the bottom to control the spacing of the oval elements.  That got me thinking, and luckily I have some tubing large enough to go over 16 ga. wire.  Of course for me the tubes would be part of structures of some sort.  After playing for a while, I came up with the piece below.  I'm pretty pleased with it, although it's not quite as clean and minimalist as the other one.Actually, thinking about a more minimalist look, I experimented with what it would look like if I had left out the 2 small diamond shaped pieces that ard between the 3 larger pieces.  What I did was to take my photo of the necklace and photoshop them out to see what It would look like.  The photoshopping was really crude, but it did give me an idea of what it would be.  I decided I liked it better the way it is, but it was an interesting experiment.  I'll be doing more with this idea.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

changing necklaces

This post is essentially an addendum to my last post.  I've done a couple of art festivals in recent weeks, and I'm reacting to some problems that showed up.  Basically, I tend to size things to myself.  I have a pretty small neck, so that means that what I think of as a short necklace is actually too short for lots of people.  For starters, the necklace I just wrote about, the one with octahedra and floating pearls--as I said, it was based on a necklace of 22 octahedra, but, because I was running out of 25mm tubes, I made this one out of 20 octs. Then I made up some of the lost length by making the tets at either end longer.  Mistake.  I've now redone it with an extra oct at each end that ends with a 14mm equilateral triangle to get some taper.  That gets us back to 22 octs, and I put a 20mm tet at each end.  Even for a small neck, it's a better size.  Then, to accommodate larger people, I added a 2" extender chain.  I'm going back and adding extender chains to lots of my necklaces.
I've also had a tendency to continue a structure or pattern right up to the hook and eye at the back, without any taper or change of structure.  This one is a good example. I look at it now and say "What was I thinking?"  It makes a good picture, but when you put it on there are these big elephant ears poking out  in back.  They don't want to lie flat the way the ones in front do, and they're just awkward.  More redoing.



Sunday, November 12, 2017

octahedra and pearls



  Recently I bought some pearls with holes big enough to slide them over my tubes.  I decided I wanted to make a neckpiece that was a simple series of octs, ornamented by the pearls.  I had made a similar structure using bright silver and colored aluminum tubes a few years ago, and wanted to repeat that structure.  So I went to my handy blog, where I keep track of my structures.  Here's what I found, from August, 2014:  "It's a simple chain of octahedrons.  But a chain of octahedrons would normally form a straight line.  In order to get the curve you need for a necklace I had to make the triangle on the outside edge longer than the triangle on the inside edge.
Here's where some trig would have come in handy in figuring out just how much longer, but I managed to figure it out with "lesser" math, and it came out right."
  It would have been really handy if I had written down just what the lesser math had given me so that I could have reproduced the shape.  That, after all, is one of the main reasons I write this blog.  Since I didn't do that I started and ripped apart the new piece over and over trying to get the curve I wanted.  As you can see I didn't get the same curve as last time; it's a little pointier at the bottom and straighter across at the back but I like it OK.  It's also just a bit shorter.  That's only because I was running out of 25 mm tubes, so I did just 20 octs instead of 22.  Then I made the 2 tets at the back by the clasp longer.  Also I now make my own hooks and they're longer than the one I used in the earlier piece.  So the overall piece probably isn't that much shorter, but I do think it's a bit shorter.
  So as not to make the same mistake twice I'll put down the plan for the curve.  The outside triangles are mostly equilateral 25mm triangles.  To get more curve I used 28/28/25 mm isosceles triangles at position 1 (at the center), 3, 9 and 10.  On the inside the triangles are either 20mm equilateral or, at inits 1, 2, 3 and 6, to tighten the curve, 20/20/25 isosceles.  It actually doesn't change things all that much.  If I didn't want it to be so pointy at the bottom I could have spread them out more.  Also triangle 6 is an equilateral 25mm oct.  I CHANGED SOME OF THIS AND WROTE ABOUT IT IN THE NEXT POST.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Playing

On a recent car trip to Chicago, I spent car time building some different structures that I wanted to use as building blocks for a necklace.  I wanted just a few elements and ended up with 3 front ones and a curve around the back of the neck .  I like it, especially the spiral in the front.  But it's kind of a lot of necklace, both long and wide.  On a whim I hooked the hook to the ring that's on the spiral,  leaving out the last zigzaggy element. Here I have (badly) photoshopped out the element that would be left out.  It makes the necklace more asymmetrical, as well as shorter.  I like the asymmetry, but it's probably just a bit too short. So if I do cut off the zigzag, I think I'll add one more unit to the curve that goes around the back, so that the end of the spiral element is a bit farther from the neck.
I'm still trying to decide whether to cut off the zigzag.  If I do I think I'll turn that element into a pendant.  But
looking at the pictures, I like the top one more than I did just trying it on. For one thing I kept trying to shift it around so that the 2 wide points weren't opposite each other.  But now I think that having them at almost the same height, but  also different shapes, kind of works. It's good to be able to line up the 2 pictures together and see how it looks either way (although taking a selfie as a 68-yr-old is not for the faint of heart).I'd love to know what anyone reading this blog thinks--long version or short?