Simplicity #2

[David DeCristoforo]

The next in what I am calling the "simplicity series". (It's all all y'all's fault. I told y'all not to encourage him!) The upper part is a birch burl cap that Phil Lebre sent me. It turned out to have very little burl figure but some strong curl and it looked just right for this. There was a small inclusion that appeared in the upper area and since I did not want any inclusions in this, I kept removing wood until it was gone. That resulted in a shape that was a bit different than I had envisioned with a much more deeply undercut rim. In hindsight, what with the heavy dye job, I should have just filled the inclusion. Dyed with a black base that fades into a dark red at the top. Hard to photograph! Tried some of the suggestions from the last one. Thicker stem… smaller base. Kinda fun but I don't think we will be winning any prizes with this one! Oh well… can't win em all… 7" at the rim X 8" tall.

231553

[Bernie Weishapl]

That is beautiful DD. I must say I do love it. Very well done "no matter who's fault it is.":D

[Nate Davey]

This one I really like David. Reminds me of a Frank Lloyd Wright column.

[charlie knighton]

great...great.....really like your series

[Sid Matheny]

Not sure I like the form or not. The fade in the dye works real well and is a plus.

Sid

[John Keeton]

David, again, I want to wait to see what others have to offer before commenting much further. But, let me plant this thought for consideration - in my observations, one can join two mathematical curves (i.e., different radii or slopes/accelerations) and achieve a pleasing result. It is very difficult to link three curves and have continuity or an aesthetically pleasing transition.

[Mike Golka]

I like it, well done

[Deane Allinson]

Less is more, and I like it. I have a little Saarinen table that I love. It's hard to do the big "naked curves", any tiny interuption stands out. Great work.
Deane

[David DeCristoforo]

"...It is very difficult to link three curves and have continuity..."

You might be right. But I think the biggest "problem" here is that the undercut below the rim is too deep which throws the upper curve off. My drawing had a much "fuller" curve which I think might have looked more graceful. But after I got done gouging out the inclusion, there was too much wood gone. I tried to thin down the area just above the thinnest area of the stem to compensate but I don't think I removed enough and the curve drops too abruptly into the stem. It might not have made much difference anyway.

[Scott Hackler]

Good or bad, it's nice to see pieces that make you stop and say "hmmmm". It is a pleasing curve, but there is just something about it that doesn't look right (or usual). I think that maybe the top half is a tad heavy looking and that might be changed it the stem was stretched more. Not for sure. In person it probably "feels" different, as the viewer can see the inside of the top. How about a photo with the camera, just barely looking over the top edge and showing the depth?

Coloring it very nice and no complaints there. You have those fades down very well.

[Rick Markham]

I think in spite of how undercut the rim is it still works. I agree without your inclusion the more graceful curve probably would have worked better. I think it's a cool piece regardless!

[David DeCristoforo]

"...How about a photo with the camera, just barely looking over the top..."

Here's a pic as you described. Don't know that it makes any dif. I think I just blew the curve trying to remove the inclusion. I was trying for a "not so tall" piece with this as I had the sense with the last one that this might work better with a "lower profile" form. So I'm just calling it "practice". They're all practice...

231570

[Steve Mawson]

After I can see into the top I like the whole piece much better, the curves are much more pleasing when you can look over the top. Displayed on my coffee table would be the perfect spot.

[Roger Chandler]

Okay David.........I am liking this one............why? Well, first I think you got the blending of the two curves spot on....... the form itself does hurt from the excess taken away..........there is not enough form for the bell.......too abrupt as you mentioned, however..........had it been me doing this and found the inclusion........I also would have removed it.......and likely had the same situation you have here.

Proportionally, as I look at the symmetry of the two trumpet bells.....actually the top bell reminds me more of the shape of a french horn [ I played one in symphony some years ago] .....I think you hit the form pretty well in that regard, and the size of the smaller one compliments the larger one..............and then the coloration is very good.........a form and color that makes ones eye scan the form top to bottom, bottom to top, and back down again..............superb flow without any competition for the form with beads, coves, etc........just a simple trumpet bell up and down and blended together nicely.

Simplicity series...........this series will work, and I look forward to your next bit of inspiration!

[Kathy Marshall]

I like it David and I agree with Steve that the 2nd pic with a bit of the inside, shows it to better advantage. I also turned my laptop upside down and I think the form would make a pretty cool pedestal and base with the right form perched on top.

[Steven Green]

Plus 2 for the second pic. I really like the work a lot. The base is wonderful and you did a stellar job blending those curves.

[Michelle Rich]

your curves are always done gosh darn well..I looked at this upside down too..looks good that way also..so it must be a-ok.. put some small flutes into the narrow & out the other side (very subtle) and you might have some terrific art nouveau starter piece :-)

[Bob Rotche]

David, I first would like to say that I love your simplicity series. I also think that 99% of us would be thrilled to have ever turned something this nice. Knowing your abilities, however, I think your next one will be better. To my eye, the curve is off. Reading John K's teaser post, I think he will be able to verbalize what I am thinking. This style is one that leaves very little room for error but when you nail it (which you will) it will be out of the park. Your turning skills are top notch and your designs are creative and inspirational. I always look forward to your next post.

[Faust M. Ruggiero]

It is difficult to please your #1 critic every time you make a piece. This one doesn't have the drama and interest of some of your tall burl pieces but you can't expect every turning to top the previous. "Simplicity" is what it is, a study in pleasing curves and you have accomplished that.
I would also comment that Kathy and Michelle are way smarter than I. I too wanted to view the shape from a reverse angle I never thought of turning the computer upside down. I kept falling off my desk chair trying to stand on my head.
Another fine turning DD.
faust

[Alan Trout]

David,

I think I agree with John K's assessment of the curve and your reasoning that through it off. However I often say " It is what it is and I still like it. The next one may be better in your mind but in reality is its just different". Overall a very nice effort with beautiful results.

Alan

[Scott Hackler]

That photo confirmed what I thought. It definitely looks better at the "real worl" angle, where you can see inside. The profile shot, while good to show the curves, didn't really show the piece that well. I like it better after seeing the second view.

[Prashun Patel]

I say this with humility. A LOT of humility:

The form doesn't work for me. The two curves are perfect decoupled. But my eye wants the narrowest portions of each to be the start. Each curve launches up and out from that point. To join the straight parts of the respective curves makes the form seem flat in the middle, which therefore makes the curves not flow to my eye. My opinions tend to be in the minority, though, but FWIW.

Put another way, I'm seeing the negative space as the form. Had that been the positive space, I believe the form would have been received as to middle heavy (at least by me).

[Mike Cruz]

David, you know my opinion of forms like this is based stricktly on what my eye sees, and not from an educated critique...as I don't do forms like this. But I did notice the extreme undercut of the rim immediately...and it threw the curve off for me. I really like the idea and the finish. But the curve of the rim doesn't do it for me...and as you said, not for you, either...

I'd really like to see you do another one of these with your intended curve. I think it would be stunning!

[David DeCristoforo]

Thanx every1 for looking and commenting. I have a feeling about this form working despite the difficulty in gracefully merging curves that JK mentioned. The fact is, it really should have been only two arcs with just a small flair at the rim. So I am taking another shot at it. Maybe I'll flip this one over and use as a pedestal like Kathy suggested.

[francesco dibari]

beautiful work ... great elegance .. :)

[Baxter Smith]

The normal view looks great David, even though the profile pic (IMO) does reveal a sweeter curve on the lower portion than the top. Looking forward to seeing your improved version!

[Ed Morgano]

I like it David and I agree with Steve that the 2nd pic with a bit of the inside, shows it to better advantage. I also turned my laptop upside down and I think the form would make a pretty cool pedestal and base with the right form perched on top.
Kathy,
It's going to have to be a "BIG" form to fit that pedestal. :)

[John Beaver]

David,

I think the discussion on form has been covered. That aside, I really like the simple elegance and hope you work with it until it's perfect.

JB