Blog Update: Is this pipe ugly?

[ToddJohnson]

I ask that question in my most recent post. I don't usually post updates here, but I thought the last couple of posts to my blog may be of some interest to you guys. Hope you enjoy:

Part 1: http://todd-m-johnson.blogspot.com/2010 ... -mean.html

Part 2: http://todd-m-johnson.blogspot.com/2010 ... -that.html

TJ

[Alan L]

Ugly, and for that matter pretty, has no bearing on whether or not it's a well-made piece of quality work. I do like your comments on art interpretation, though. I can't say I like the shapes for my personal use, but that's because I tend to be a clincher and not a relaxed holder of my pipe while smoking. They are, however, visually interesting (if not spectacular!) and if that's what you wanted, you succeeded.

I am nowhere near your skill level and as such can't comment on the workmanship, other than that it looks freakin' incredible. As for the "yeah, but is it art" bit, does it matter? Things are what they are, and if the maker choses to call it art that's his business. If the public chooses to interpret the hell out of it in an attempt to diagnose your underlying psychological intent, well, that says more about them than it does about you. I've always felt that Picasso's "bull" and Duchamp's "fountain" were just practical jokes on the world of art critics. But look at the volumes of interpretation of those two pieces.

I look at your pipes and think "Damn, that guy's GOOD!" I don't think I want one, but that doesn't make them less spectacular examples of pipemaking. And coming from a pretentious bastard like me, you can consider that high praise.

[Leus]

Well, most of your pipes are truly beautiful. I drooled all over myself when I saw the marvelous pictures in this post, for example. This one, on the other hand, looks ugly to me. It's not the shape; that partial blasting and black stain contrasts too much with the natural grain and the screaming yellow of the stem. And it has some bark to boot. Too much going on in there to my tastes.

(Of course, I haven't mentioned the absolutely stunning craftsmanship, since it's a moot point, and because we are talking 'bout artsy thingies here, dammit.)

This pipe, at least in my eye, wanders dangerously close to what you mention in your post: I would have thought of it as the imperfect result of what an amateur pipe maker tried to do. On the other hand, I do know you don't have that limitation, and thus this pipe is a faithful result of what you envisioned. I think you get the point, since it was part of the subject of your essay, right?

(And no, I don't consider pipes an art form... )

[KurtHuhn]

It's interesting to see that there are different opinions about things like the descriptions that people write about their creations. There's a lot of middle ground, and a couple extremes. I like to write, not so much descriptions of the pipe or what I feel the artistic merit is, but a little story about it's creation and the process that went into producing the pipe. Sometimes I get ahead of myself and inject a little of what I feel the pipe represents, but not too often.

On the other extreme there are folks that say something like "squat rhodesian, cumberland stem".

I don't think either is wrong, but I have had quite a few favorable comments on how I compose my descriptions. Folks have said that it helps them connect with the pipe, and with me as the maker - that it helps provide a context of the piece, and a basis for their relationship with it. Other folks simply find them humorous insights into the mind of a madman who spends his days in his basement. On the other hand, I'm certain there are folks that find the tales tedious, boring, or otherwise off-putting - I can't imagine it otherwise.

But, as for artistic merit? I think that one is best left to the customer or art critic, and if written by an art critic, it's best left to the landfill. Too much analysis of anything borders on simple mental masturbation. I know what I like, and sometimes I can tell you why, but I rarely feel the need to use terms that you might find in the arts section of your local paper, preferring instead to use accessible terminology that damn near everyone has a context of understanding for.

But, that's just me. I drive a bigass pickup with numerous engine tweaks, my favorite clothing is sweatpants, and I like movies with explosions in them. By all estimations I am a swamp yankee, so in artistic circles, I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't count for shit.

[Sasquatch]

By all estimations I am a swamp yankee, so in artistic circles, I'm pretty sure my opinion doesn't count for shit.

(Star Trek "Data" voice) That is correct.

And yes, ugly. Doesn't work for me at all. Amber stem and I think it's great. But the yellow is too crazy for me.

[ToddJohnson]

This has been a really great exercise and I'm enjoying all the comments. I think it's interesting that color has been the primary objection, both here and in another forum. Personally, I find the swoop of the stem (from a bird's eye view) the most challenging aspect to "get around." For the record, if I were to summarize my own view, it would be that the piece is simultaneously "ugly" and "successful." Less so with his current, and decidedly more conservative production, but I have found some of Tokutomi's work very difficult to reconcile as well.

When I finished this piece, which is really just a play on the Fugu blowfish, I e-mailed a few customers seeking feedback. I was honest in saying that I wasn't sure whether I thought it was a failed experiment or a revelation. Toku-san, when I showed it to him, smiled broadly, and with a series of grunts and gestures seemed to indicate the latter. Perhaps he was drunk, I don't know. The majority opinion certainly seems to be that it's not "pretty," and again, I agree. Where it fits into the larger body of work--and I don't just mean my own--is a different question. To say that most people haven't "gotten it," would imply that there's an "it" to "get," and I just don't think that's the case with created things--painting, sculpture, music, etc. I would love to say that you've all missed its inherent brilliance, but I don't believe that either. It is what it is. One thing I'm really questioning is whether or not the form actually works as a pipe. Thanks for the comments.

TJ

[Sasquatch]

It's very diffictult to get a feel for the lines on that pipe from the pics. In some pics, the stem looks totally crooked, like it is still in need of significant shaping. In others, it looks perfect. So a guy gets shocked by the yellow and can't even make a judgment about some of the shaping aspects!

It's a weird shape, but the craftsmanship is there. So it's not something I would ever look at and say "I gotta have that", but the number of ugly green sitters I've been asked to make lately indicates to me that not everyone shares the same tastes.

The "form" is no more or less practical than a banjo, eskimo, volcano, or any other of the larger, flattened pipes, is it?

[Tano]

In my opinion there is too much happening for something that can be held in the palm of a hand.
Comment is offered in relation to your previous work.

[KurtHuhn]

My opinion of that pipe, such as it is, is thus:

I find the craftsmanship excellent, but that should come as no surprise. You know I find your ability to execute a usable instrument of tobacco consumption nothing short of brilliant. The shape, however, I don't like. But I do like it. But mostly I don't. The problem, at least to me, is that some angles of photo seem perfectly balanced, while others are disjointed and lacking focus. Being a pipe maker, I know that some forms are inherently difficult to photograph and convey form of a three dimensional object well. Knowing you, however, this seems perfectly reasonable. I expect you to challenge the norm, and stretch the establishment of pipe form, while the some of us merely make to what will sell.

So while I applaud the pipe, I would never buy such a thing.

I hope you take this in the spirit it was written. I am, after all, a confessed "common man". Like all pipe makers, I find bits of your work that inspire. Just as I'm inspired by all the pipe makers here.

[RadDavis]

Todd,

I think it would look a lot better if it was more symmetrical.

Did you make it all wavy on purpose?

Seriously though, I think it's not pretty. But I once made a pipe that someone told me was so ugly, it was cute. Yours isn't cute either though.

It is cool, so I think it's a success.

I agree with most all you say about describing pipes. I myself don't feel comfortable "romancing" my pipes. No amount of glamorizing will sell a badly executed pipe, and a pretty pipe will sell itself.

That thing you made will probably even sell itself. It's the yellow stem that'll do it.

Rad

[eder]

In my view, there are no such things as ugly pipes.
There are bad finished pipes, with craftsmanship careless/mistakes.
For instance, those pipes are pretty nice.

To make a pipe having the Berimbau as inspiration was a pretty good idea too.
Maybe, I'll make my own version of it.

Cheers,
eder.

• • •
Eder Mathias
http://mrhydepipes.com

[T3pipes]

The rustication is what sticks out to me. The rustication follows the lines and flow of the pipe (except were it meets the stem), but the very nature of the rustication blurs those same lines and interrupts the flow, and seems in places to be independent of the overall flow. Or maybe, the precise lines of the rest of the pipe interrupt the rustication.

[TimGeorge]

For what it is worth, from someone who has been making pipes for six months, I love the shape and immediately recognize it as coming from an "artistic" perspective with which I will never be familiar personally (being way too left brain dominant) but can at least appreciate. On the other hand, it is the first unfinished picture which really stands out to me, including both the shape and the stem color. Not a big fan of the rustication or finish on the top.

All the best,
Tim

[FredS]

Although I could do without the extra appendage on the stem, I like the pipe Todd. I like the asymmetric shapes atop/astride each other as well as the three competing colors. It’s like a little naval battle you can hold in your palm.

As for the blog posts, I found them to be rather ironic (to borrow Kurts term) mental masturbation. You expended a lot of verbiage explaining why you prefer not to do a lot of explaining about your art. You wrote “I realize some might consider this discussion a bit overwrought for something as simple as a pipe.” Count me in that camp.

[ToddJohnson]

You wrote “I realize some might consider this discussion a bit overwrought for something as simple as a pipe.” Count me in that camp.

There are a lot of people in that camp, Fred, but I wouldn't call it "mental masturbation." The fact that you (or Kurt) don't really care to engage in such discussions doesn't mean they are unimportant, it just means they're not on your radar screen, which is fine. Can you imagine how inane and silly most people would consider any serious discussion about pipes? The circles I move in are different than the circles you move in. Within my circle, a discussion of artistic "intention" and the public interpretation of one's own work is very relevant. I don't expect for everyone to participate or even care, but for those who do--my friends and customers, for instance--it's sort of a window into my world. If you don't want to look in, that's cool, but I've spent a lot of years doing serious study in these fields, and sometimes I have thoughts that I consider compelling enough to put down on (electronic) paper. That's why people write, isn't it?

TJ

[FredS]

It's important to note that Kurt did not use the MM term in relation to your blog exercise. I am the one who co-opted it. It also important for you to know that I do indeed understand about our different circles and your intended audience. I was simply shouting out from my circle to yours.

. . .Can you imagine how inane and silly most people would consider any serious discussion about pipes? . . .

Imagine it? I live it every time my wife looks over my shoulder at the websites I frequent.

[KurtHuhn]

Yeah, let's be careful about which words get put in Kurt's mouth. He gets indigestion easily.

In all seriousness, I do enjoy a good natured discussion about artistic intent. However, my interest wanes the moment I detect an ounce of arrogance. At that point it becomes nothing short of tedious, and the conversation usually devolves in one person talking and me grunting in vague acknowledgement of noises falling out the other person's mouth. I love art, and love to discuss it, but I'm not prepared to bear witness to someone stroking their own ego in such a fashion.

[e Markle]

"It is the task of the artist to create--paint, sing, write, sculpt, what have you--not to ascribe "meaning." This, in the end, must be left to an interpretive community, and ultimately to history."
(Todd's Part 1 entry)

I wish I could pin-point the reason, but I tend to reject this out of hand. I subscribe to a more teleological approach which emphasizes the artist's intent. It seems to me that we, the audience, could view the atomic bomb as an inspiring work of art (such sublimely stunning lines!), but I think the purpose is much more important than those sleek lines. Maybe I'm playing too casual with your words, so forgive me if I'm taking that too far, but my point is that most, if not all, things are created for a purpose. That purpose gives us a starting point, a context, from which any and every interpretation flows. Without understanding the seminal inspiration (cut me a bit of slack on that) couldn't we find ourselves seeing beauty in something that was created not only to kill, maim and destroy but even in something designed to be kitsch? I know that under the right circumstances, you're most likely fine with that, but it rubs me the wrong way. It smacks of Relativism, and I. can't. stand. Relativism.

From several posts here and entries on your blog, I've learned you're more or less a postmodernist (I believe you once referred to yourself as a "good postmodernist" ). I am not. Although I may not call myself a modernist, I tend to identify with that side of the spectrum. I believe in absolute truth and even correct interpretations. I think that intent is paramount in both creation and interpretation.

My analysis: I think it's an interesting piece. Why? Because you set out to create a pipe that melded two distinct shapes, and you succeeded (in melding those shapes). I wouldn't call the pipe beautiful, but I think a primary reason for that is that it seems to me (can a modernist even say that???) that your primary goal was to meld these two shapes, not create a beautiful pipe. I say this because I don't think this would have been your primary choice in shapes had you set out with beauty as your primary goal. Is it cool? Sure. Would I buy it? Probably not, and certainly not based on a standard of beauty. If I were a collector looking to round out my collection with some pieces of interest, then, sure I'd pick it up.

You've dredged up all that curiosity from my philosophy classes, and although this is getting lengthy, I do want to ask, where is our point of divergence? Are you crazy enough to believe that monstrosity is beautiful? But seriously, do you believe in absolute truth?

[T3pipes]

I have a very simple view on art interpretation--If the audience it was created for understands it without needing an explanation, it's good. If they do not understand without an explanation, it isn't. If someone outside the target audience doesn't get it, it doesn't matter. This is true for sculpture, literature, painting, music, dance, etc. When creating for a target audience, you have to build your work based upon what they know, and add your knowledge to it.

[Sasquatch]

So my target audience of Chinese lesbian carpenters with advanced aeronautics degrees is the problem. No wonder no one understands my pipes.