Loosing my mind?

[David DeCristoforo]

Looking at this... well, I just can't tell. I have totally lost all sight of this thing. It is turned from the least exciting piece of the rosewood burl I acquired recently. I wanted to get a feel for the stuff (it's hard as nails!) so I whacked this chunk off of the end of one of them. But for some reason, I just don't seem to be able to see this anymore. Maybe because the last week has been pretty fractured and I have had to stop and start on it a lot. I started out wanting to see how these "flower forms" I seem to be addicted to would work if scaled up. This is about 8" across. I made a tall pedestal for it but it looked ridiculous! I thought about making this a poll with choices ranging from "You are an artistic genus." to "What a total waste of time and a squandering of nice wood."

But FWIW, here it is...

176201 176199 176200

[David Warkentin]

May I be the first to say that it is uhhh.......Well I'll have to wait to see what everyone else says. David

[David Warkentin]

Actually I kinda like it. David

[Brian Kent]

David, it looks like two pieces of artistic genius.

But remember that artistic geniuses are perfectly free to lose their minds now and then. Keeps the creative edge!

Brian

[Fred Belknap]

Unique, it has a lot appeal, kind of hard to put into words. It reminds me of abstract art. I really do like it. It is just hard to say why. In my opinion the base should have been downscaled a bit to let the flower capture all the attention. Great piece.:)

[Tim Thiebaut]

Your kidding right? This piece is incredible, I just pray I can do something even remotly as good someday.

[Michelle Rich]

David: I know working with my own new process that some days things look ridiculous. A few days down the road, I see what needs changing, or how I could go about it differently. So, put it aside for a day or two and come back to it. The idea is solid, it's getting it to perfection that is hard.

[David E Keller]

It's beautiful wood, but I'm not sold on this particular flower. I think I might like it better without the base(like a water lilly). The bottom of the outer layer seems a little 'stiff' to me... I wonder what it would look like if the bottom portion of the ogee was a somewhat more relaxed curve(shallower form)?

I like the idea of a 'scaled up' flower, but I don't think this one is 'to scale' as it is shorter and broader proportionally than the ones you've posted previously.

I love your willingness to try new things especially with a chunk of burl like that. I'm looking forward to the next one.

[Roger Chandler]

I really like the pedestal! One can tell that a very gifted turner did this piece, as techniques to accomplish something of this nature is certainly not a beginners skill level! I guess I come down this way........I admire your skills and artistic creativity............not every piece we do is a home run [using baseball terminology] but it does indeed display your considerable skills and artistic creativity!

Your work is always something to behold.............you deserve kudos for this! :)

[John Keeton]

Well, it certainly was not a waste of time and good wood!! David, for me, these double flower turnings are a difficult form - aesthetically speaking, as they add so much mass and visual weight to the upper portion of a pedestal turning. I guess, for that reason alone, they do not appeal to me greatly. Notwithstanding my personal preferences, you do a fantastic job on them.

I like the elements of the pedestal - they work with this piece. And, while I agree the pedestal could be scaled down, with the mass of the top, a little heavier pedestal is in order. For the size of the top, I probably would prefer a little larger (wider) transition element where the pedestal meets the form. You did a wonderful job on the pedestal.

On the form, itself, the "belly" of the ogee appears to be a little deep for the top return curve, but a little wider transitional area on the pedestal top might lessen that appearance.

The overall scale of the piece, as a whole, I think is very good. When I do the "squint" test, aside from the double flower as mentioned - I like it.

[Jim Pavlicin]

I like it. The wood looks really nice. I think a different base

[Don Alexander]

it definitely passes the "would i want to look at it on a regular basis" test

i like it, David, so sorry you lost your mind though :D:D

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

Actually, the short pedestal and the dark flower make it a piece that I would like in my own den. It has a masculine appeal. Sorry if that might not be good sounding to you but it was meant as a compliment. I like it.
faust

[Brian Kent]

I love the base. I love the flower. There is a little incongruence in style between them. I would like to see a more polished flower or a more organic base. And I have never turned anything more than a corner.

[Rick Markham]

You know David, I have been thinking a whole lot about your flower forms, they are certainly inspirational artistic genius to me. This one may not have turned out how you had envisioned, but I really think that you are on to something spectacular (the last one most definitely so) I think sometimes looking past the initial vision of the "ideal piece" is hard looking through the artist's eyes. I have several drawings/pastel portraits/woodworking creations, that I see as "substandard" or "bother me" in ways that other people absolutely love. They turned out nothing like i had "envisioned" originally. I say don't let this piece dissuade you, chalk it up to what it is to you, and move forward. There is a series of masterpieces lurking in your idea. I don't think you are too far from them either. Sometimes stepping away from something for a time, helps me regain my focus. Sometime interruptions of the process ruin the process for me.

[Steve Schlumpf]

I hear you about losing vision/motivation when not able to complete a turning within your normal time span. It happens and when it does - I do as Michelle suggests - set the turning aside and move on to something else.

I think this is an interesting piece and I really like the detail work in the pedestal! If I were to suggest change for anything - the very bottom of the flower appears somewhat flat and John's idea of adding a small element to the top of the pedestal would address that. For me - the flower pedals seem just a tad on the thick side. If turned/sanded to more of a tapered edge, I believe it may add to the light/delicate image.

Best of luck with this!

[Stephen Saar]

I don't think anyone would ever accuse me of having a good artistic eye, but I personally love this. This is the kind of thing I would love to have in my house, or to do myself one day, but then again I've never really enjoyed the more traditional shapes. So take that for what you will.

In any case you have a thumbs up from me, and if you dislike it to the point of feeling the need to throw it away feel free to contact me, I'd be glad to have it.

-Stephen

[Cathy Schaewe]

I .... don't know. I love your double flower turnings. Of course, I'm a very serious gardener.

But even putting the base aside (I don't think it works with the top), the flower itself is just too ... chunky. I think there's something - some serious potential - there, though. My only constructive suggestion, for all that criticism, is to go look at a peony. That's what it reminds me of.

[Scott Hackler]

David, "YOUR" form is really something else. It was / is a neat concept and I eagerly await each new version.

I think the problem with this one is two fold. First you are trying to elevate a form (wider than the others) that shouldn't be. I would make a simple beaded base of no more than 1/4" and let it sit at a small bowl / vessel. I would like to see you try and thin the walls down in future versions, as well. Expecially in the tall stemmed versions. Sure wish I had all the burl you fellas keep accumulating!

[Bernie Weishapl]

David I like form and idea. I agree that thinned down it would look better and the base is a little big for my taste.

[dan carter]

Maybe a shorter base. Thinner petals probably work better because I remember your other one; but all in all, after you think about it, something will turn up.

[Baxter Smith]

Very interesting piece to look at and think about. It doesn't have the same appeal to me that a lot of your other flowers have. Maybe its the "heft" of the base and the petals. Then again it might be the differing angle of the flower petals inside to the outer. Then again it might be the colors. I had better look at something else in case that "mind thing" is catching.:)

[joel nucifore]

I agree with Dan on the shorter base, but feel over all it's thick and as your other flowers were thin. I think with a shorter base and a beter transition to the pc would give it the WoW factor... should be thiner like a flower. but as far as the series is going have them copyed and on my wall as insperation and look foward to the next. And like you would take it to the next step by going bigger... just need to find the right look/feeling!!!!!

[John Keeton]

David, I came back to this a couple of times, and I have finally concluded why these double flower forms don't click for me. I think it is largely the mass and visual weight as stated, but also because there are two petals - not three. I don't mean to complicate things - doing three would be very tricky as it would also create more visual weight. But, seems that "groupings" always work better in odd numbers, whether it is planting flowers (always 3, 5 or 7 of a variety) or pictures on a wall - a grouping of 3 or 5 seems to always look better than an even number.

You would need to really thin down the petals, and perhaps even space them apart a little further. Perhaps you could have the outer petal roll out with the ogee shape (with less belly) - that would establish the form. Then the next petal could be more of a simple shallow upward curve, and the center one roll in a little. It might even be possible to use something as a stamen down in the center as a surprise.

I disagree on the need for a short, stubby base. With some changes, this form needs to be elevated to showcase the flower.

Just thinkin' here!!

[Stephen Walker]

David,
This is the first time that I've replied to a post as a critic, so take this for what it's worth. My feeling is that the flower needs to be the focal point of this piece. For the pedestal I think the upper portion should be wider and a smooth transition to the flower; the lower portion, maybe just a smooth single radius with detailing at the base,and possibly wider; and fairly simple and actually a bit taller in between.

[Dale Bright]

David,

I like this one. This flower series is very nice. The pedestal on this one may be a bit large.

Dale

[Dennis Simmons]

Looks like Chocolate Encliar, chocolate and graham crackers. Needs to be on a pedestal. You be doin GOOD.
The flowering Chocolate Encliar

[David DeCristoforo]

Thanx to everyone for all the great feedback. Based on current public opinion, I have decided not to throw this in the garbage. I have run into a mental block many times on various projects. Sometimes, I set them aside as several have suggested and sometimes I just try to power through them. Setting them aside has it's risks. Sometimes, if I just "turn it over", I will get an inspiration, often in the middle of the night, a "hallelujah moment" that makes one want to jump out of bed and go right out to the shop. But just as often, the set aside object remains set aside until one day it gets heaved out into the driveway. I once had a neighbor who darn near furnished his house by keeping one eye on my driveway and bopping up at the opportune moments. On the other hand, powering through a difficult project can produce result whose only satisfaction is in the fact that you got it done. It's hard to know, sometimes, which is the best option.

God has intervened in this in that the bowl did not stay attached to the pedestal. Too heavy for the small contact area or too cold for the epoxy to set right… who knows. But the fact remains… I have two pieces again. I am pretty sure this needs the pedestal but I am also sure, at this point that it also needs a better transition between the pedestal and the bowl. I will work on that today.

I have already been contemplating a triple rim form. This is only the third double rim one I have attempted. As JK, mentioned, this is not an easy bit to turn. But I am getting the "hang" of it and a triple rim form is not far off. One problem is that it takes a piece of wood with enough "dome" on the NE side but not too much diameter so it's not east to find just the right piece.

As to the thickness of the walls, I purposely left these thicker than I might have "normally" done, thinking that the overall size would require more mass. Maybe not the best choice but it does not necessarily defeat the concept. My wife likes the fact that it felt "substantial" and someone suggested that it gave the piece a more "masculine" quality. Again, hard to make a precise call.

Again, thanx to everyone for the support and input. This is one of those endeavors in which the getting there is half (or more) of the fun.

[John Keeton]

This is one of those endeavors in which the getting there is half (or more) of the fun.And, may that always be the case for you!! It is for me.