Here's one more in my sculptural series using the tetrahedron series I've been playing with. I wanted a bigger piece. This one is about 9" across and 2.5" high. I made the zigzagging tubes on what is usually the outside quite short. This creates a negative curve and so the zigzag edge is the inside instead of the outside. I have to confess I did this so as not to use so much gold, as I buy it in much smaller quantities. On most jewelry, bracelets for instance, it's the outside where you want to put the emphasis, but with a bowl form, it's the inside.
Sunday, May 3, 2020
Friday, April 24, 2020
Since I didn't want to do repeats, I decided to do a series based on a single idea and see where it took me. I often do 3 or 4 pieces based on an idea before I get hijacked by another idea/structure, but this time I decided to stick with one for a while. It's a tetrahedron structure that I've used a lot and written about before. The earlier posts were in January, 2015 and March, 2016. But I decided to really beat the idea to death. One inspiration, for those of you who, like me, keep old copies of American Craft magazine, is a picture in the Feb/Mar 2011 issue. It shows a series of well over 100 glass vases by Dante Marioni. All are similar in overall size and made of clear glass with black accents. Within those tight limits he goes crazy. To me it's like a theme and variations in music. Even better, it's like a Chopin etude, where you take something that is basically an exercise and make it beautiful. Anyway, I really love it. I'll never do a series that big, but this is what I've done so far. Most have gold accents that don't show up well in this picture. The first 5 will be focals hanging from chains. #5 (top on right) has 1 fat tube at the back that I'll insert a handmade safety pin-type structure to make a brooch. #6 will be a pendant focal, or I'll add a fat tube (although it would cross the circular open space in the center, and I'm not sure I want to do that). The last 3 could be used separately or together, not sure which. I really like them together, but it makes a pretty big group. Time will tell.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Friday, February 14, 2020
I wanted to make a pendant of the square shape, but I wanted it to be bigger than what I had. The square I had so far was a bit over 2" on a side. But I found that if I turned it 45 degrees so it was a diamond and then added 2 right angle tetrahedrons on each edge I'd get a square that was almost 3" on a side, which was more like what I wanted. I also changed the arrangement of gold tubes, putting them on the inside star shape and on what used to be the outside edge, but was now an intermediate diamond.
Finally, I wanted to make a whole necklace using the square as the focal point, but I wanted to go still bigger. As I've worked out the tube lengths that I want as stock units, I've
found that lengths that approximate multiples of the square root of 2 are useful. So since my smallest length is 10mm, I'd ideally want one of 14.15xxx...mm, then 20mm then 28.3xxx...mm then 40 mm.
Obviously my tube cutting jig and ruler will only approximate that so I use 10, 14, 20, 28 and 40mm. In between those I have another series that's 12, 17, 24 and 34mm. Again in an ideal world the 2 series would fit together so that the relationship between each length and its neighbor would be the same, i.e. 12/10 would be the same as 14/12, 17/14 etc. If that were the case you could come up with a shape, and then you could scale it up or down and it would work at any place on the series, just the way that in music a melody stays the same as you move it up or down an octave ( or a fifth or whatever).
As I've said, my ratios are close, but not exact, particularly between the 2 series. So it took a fair amount of trial and error, but I finally found that if I scaled everything up 1size on my tubes except for one on the outside that I left the same, I could make a square that was the size I wanted, almost 3.5" across. Then there was a fair amount of trial and error to get a good curve that got gradually smaller so as to not be too bulky in the back, but I'm really happy with the result, and with all the steps along the way as well.
Monday, February 11, 2019
Above is a single warped square made into an earring, and another earring with 2 of them. I said my way of working gives me more flexibility, but on the other hand my "stock" lengths are sort of set to be able to build right triangles. For example, I cut lengths of 10, 14, 20, 28 and 40 mm. Each one is more or less the one before it times the sq root of 2. So 10/10/14 makes a right triangle ( or would except that the sq root of 2 isn't 1.4 but 1.4xxxx to infinity), as does 14/14/20 or 20/20/28 etc. I also do 17, 24 and 34mm lengths, which fill in the gap and work the same way. But to jump to 14/14/24 makes a very warped square,
(similar to what's in the earrings, which use triangles of 10/10/17) and more than I wanted. So I decided to try making squares where just one of the outer edges was 24 and the rest were 20s.Here's a double row of these squares.
I liked it, and thought it could make a good bracelet ( you can see on the left end an additional structure I added where I could put a clasp). But there was 1 problem. There are 2 versions of the square. If you arrange the "plane" so that the tube on the bottom is horizontal, the tube on top can either go from high on the left and low on the right or vice versa. Since the triangles are theoretically rigid you can't change it once it's made. In this way it's different from the peyote triangles which are inherently flexible. In the top pic I arranged the squares so that each is the mirror image of the ones beside it, which is the way it would have to be for a bracelet. But since the hyperbolic-ness ( hyperbolicity? no idea what the proper word is) is fairly minimal, if you push on one of the high points in the center of the structure you can flip it, and then it turns into pic 2. You can just as easily flip it back, but a potential customer wouldn't know that and I didn't want to get bogged down in long explanations. So I changed it, making essentially warped rectangles, where the outside edges were 2 20s and 2 24s. That made the bumpiness more extreme and hence more stable.
I also tried a structure where the warped squares didn't go back and forth between the 2 versions, but were all the same version. That made the warping spiral. That's the last picture, but you can't see what's happening very well. In order to make it work, I'd need to replace 1 tube in each square with a gold or colored one so that you could see it spiral around.
There's another way to make a hyperbolic plane. Instead of adding length to the tubes that make the perimeter of the structure you can add an extra triangle, i.e, where 4 right triangles would make a flat square, 5 of them would make a hyperbolic pentagon. That's the sort of structure that will get progressively more wavy in the way of a lettuce leaf. But doing it with 5 right triangles was too extreme. Each pentagon was very non-flat. And if the first row had n structures the next would have 2n, and then 4n etc. Again too extreme and fast a progression. I did it several years ago (you can see it in a post on hyperbolic planes from that time) using equilateral triangles, and where 6 would make a flat hexagon, 7 makes a hyperbolic heptagon. And each row will have 4 units for every 3 units in the one before, so the progression is still fast, but not so very fast. I really liked the one I did in colored glass beads back then, but had some trouble with the glass cutting the thread. I'd like to try one in silver tubes, possibly bright silver, but haven't gotten it done yet.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
I decided to think back over the last 4 or 5 months, pick my favorite piece from that period, and post a picture of it.This is it. It's done mostly in RAW ( I guess it's technically CRAW, but since that's the only kind of RAW I ever do I don't usually specify it). But I wanted to break it up, make it less regular than I usually do in my RAW pieces, and I was quite pleased with the way it came out. I hope you like it. As I get more pictures "gimped" I'll try to post some. It feels good to get back to normal in one more way.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Up until recently, I have sort of avoided bracelets for several reasons. One is that I don't wear them myself. Like most everyone else, I start out by making something for myself, and I've just never been a bracelet wearer. The second was the lack of a good clasp.I've written about this before, but I've finally found 2 clasps that work for me and don't use up too much of the bracelet length.
It still left the major problem with bracelets--they have a very narrow range of usable lengths. The difference between a 7" bracelet and an 8" one is pretty big. When you are making modular structures, as I usually am, if you come out too short, you can't just add another module, or you'll be much too big. Over time I've found out that 10 modules using 20mm lengths or 6 modules using 28mm lengths make a workable length when a short clasp is added.
Now about the bracelets shown here--it started with the idea of a common Brancusi structure which is column with a square cross section that alternates small and bigger waists. He did that a often and I wanted to reproduce in in a RAW structure. My first attempt failed, because since my structures aren't rigid the way a wooden column is, they tend to straighten out on one side or another unless you exaggerate the in-and-out-ness quite a bit. As you can see, the top bracelet is more exaggerated than the bottom one, but both of them work pretty well. What I discovered, though, and thought was pretty cool, was that because of the zigzaging in and out on the inside of the bracelet, which is there when not stressed, but can go away if you push on it, the bracelet fits comfortably on a small wrist, but will also accommodate a larger wrist by straightening out the zigzag. The outside distorts to allow that, but it looks fine either way. Pretty cool.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
The other thing I've been working on this summer is getting my work into galleries. I traveled around and talked to places, and I've gotten a few new ones, so if you're in any of these areas, I hope you'll stop by and take a look:
Albuquerque--Mariposa Gallery, 3500 Central Ave, mariposa-gallery.com
New Orleans--Ariodante Gallery, 535 Julia St, ariodantegallery.com
Chicago--Pistachios, 55 E Grand Ave, pistachiosonline.com
Saturday, June 2, 2018
By the way, after writing the earlier blog post about this structure, I forgot to read it before making this piece, and so had to redo it after getting around 1/3 of the way around. In the post the dark tubes were 28mm and the stone tubes on the outside edges were 20-35-20. In this one I started out using all 28s except for the long 35mm ones on the outside, so no 20s on the outside. That made the outside too long relative to the inside, so it curved was too tightly to fit your neck into it. So I changed the inside tubes to 31mm. It's still a pretty tight circle. If I wanted it a bit longer, instead of round, I'd make2 of the inside tubes in each side 35s instead of 31s. That would add a bit more length, but mostly it would make the curve shallower at that point. There are 12 inside tubes, so I'd change 3,4, 9 and 10. Actually I might just change 3 and 10 (talking to myself here) because you really want to do it when the line of the necklace is 90 degrees from the center point, so you're making it just longer, not wider.
Monday, April 2, 2018
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.