And on this I agree. However, it appears that the disagreement is on how one learns to see. Some, myself included, learn by example and explanation. Others may learn by solitary examination. Still others learn by reading about theory and esoteric subjects. That doesn't mean that, if someone can't see it now, they won't ever.ToddJohnson wrote: I'm not suggesting that someone who cannot "see" will never be able to create, just that someone will never be able to create until they can see. This little board is a drastically flawed medium for teaching anything, especially teaching how to pick up the detail and subtlety that separates an average pipe from an excellent pipe. If you or anyone else are expecting me or any of the other professional carvers here to do that, it's just not feasible.
Now, I will allow for the possibility that the first seven or eight times I read that thread, I may have misread the messages. I'm not sure. But reading the messages today, I certainly understand, and agree with, most of your assertions regarding being able to "see" and being able to create.
I hold that, even if one can't see today, he can learn to. And because of that, can create great pipes. Maybe not everyone will be able to create unique, individualistic, and superlative works of fine art. But the reason will most likely be for lack of trying than simply because they cannot. The only difference is likely to be in the way that they were able to arrive those various serendipitous moments where they learned how certain things work and interacted.
Also, I'm not advocating the use of engineering principles as a replacement for design criteria. That would be incredibly foolish of me to do. Rather, what I'm suggesting, is that for some people, design criteria are best learned by applying the fundamentals of what they know (angles, measurements, tangental intersections, etc) into what a pleasing shape is. Then, if they are willing and studiously apply their observation skills and get the right help, they can take the leap to incorporating those elements into their own work. Sooner or later they'll be able to work in this fashion automatically, and put down the calipers and rulers, and just make a pipe. For some this will happen more slowly, and those people need to be especially careful not to use "the rules" as stringent guidelines and rely on them like a crutch.
I think we'd both be surprised to find that we agree with each other more often than we disagree - in principle as well as execution. I know we've both commented within earshot of each other about cringing when certain of our older creations come up for resale somewhere, and contemplating buying it back just to get it off the market and out of public view. I actually have a box of older pipes hidden away in a closet that have met that exact fate. Trust me, they will never the light of day again, and get smoked only on the darkest of midwinter nights when I'm certain that nobody will catch me doing it.I'm trying to offer as much as I can here, but as you know, what one often gets is an assertion that A) design is subjective, B) this or that was intentional (and therefore justifiable), and C) amateur pipemaker X thinks such and such looks just fine. Someone that does that gets written off, as well they should. Navel gazing is not a noble endeavor, and it's a wast of time to engage with folks that are doing it. Ask the other professionals here, and I think they'll pretty much tell you the same thing. For those that really want to, there's much to be learned here. I'm happy to contribute, but I don't want to argue over "teaching methods." Nobody's paying for advice, so I view it as something of a "take it or leave it" thing. Most people choose to leave it, but that's okay.
As far as teaching methods, you're right. Nobody is paying for advice here.
