Saturday, December 10, 2016
But a while ago my favorite blog, (thebeadedmolecules.blogspot.com) showed a picture of the 8 possible convex deltahedrons ( ie convex shapes made exclusively from equilateral triangles) and one of them was essentially my 5 tet circle but without a hub tube at the center. That got me thinking, and in the new piece I left out some of the hubs where I could. Just leaving out 5 tubes made it fit together much better.
The other change I made was where the necklace curves around your neck at the back. You can take a tetrahelix and go off in a new direction that's about a 30 or 40 degree change (I've never measured it). I did 2 such jogs in the bottom piece to get to the clasp. It's fine, but I wasn't entirely happy with the sharpish corners that stick out. So in the new piece I made the tetrahelix curve by simply shortening the inside tubes, and it makes a smoother finish.
I'm really enjoying working with gold tubes. I think the contrast with the dark silver accentuates the geometry nicely. What I have to be careful about, though, is that the high cost of the gold tubing has a tendency to make me more conservative about what I make.Starting out, most of my gold pieces, like this one, are variations on designs that I already know I like. But if it works, I'm sure I'll get braver.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
This weekend I'll have the jewelry at the Gainesville Downtown Art Festival. Also I'm showing work in 2 gallery shows for the next few months. The Guildord Art Center in Guilford, CT has a show called Artistry that starts tomorrow and lasts through January; and the Ann Arbor Art Center in Ann Arbor, MI has a show called Art Off the Wall, starting in a few weeks and also lasting through January. I'll have work in both shows. Stop by if you get the chance.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Thursday, January 14, 2016
In some earlier posts, I've talked about some necklaces I've made out of octahedrons, where a long tube, often a colored aluminum one, acts as a hypotenuse to create octs that can stack in a way similar to the cubes in RAW. This works well for necklaces, where it's nice to have the structures lying somewhat flat, but it doesn't work so well in a bracelet, where you would generally want them to stand up. I needed a way to join 2 standing up octs so they'd be at an angle to each other. After some trial and error, I came up with a solution. If I made an oct so that the triangle on the top used tubes that were half as long as the tubes on the bottom, I'd get an oct that if you looked at it from the top would look like one of the pictures
below, with the little triangle in the middle being the top of the oct and the bigger outside one being the bottom. And the triangle "walls" that connected them would be perpendicular to the top and bottom ones ( actually there are are 6 triangles connecting them and every other one is perpendicular. If I used the pattern on the left to join 2 of my squarish octs, they'd be at right angles to one another; if I used the other, equilateral one they'd have a 60 degree angle. That's what I used, and started to make the bracelet shown below. I was pleased