Design

This piece of Bass has been left with its tool finish. This draws more attention to form. It was chosen for the introduction piece to the discussion on design with the intent that the reader who enjoys tests will return and critique the piece using the rules of design after reading the chapter.

Boy, this is a tough one. Why a shape or form creates certain feelings in us is very difficult to understand. And this is the important question. Design rules try to guide us on those reactions without necessarily explaining why we respond to shapes as we do. On the whole design rules can be set forth but as for why they work to express or evoke emotions is pretty much a guessing game. In a college class years ago--an introduction to literature--our wily instructor gave as our first assignment the task of writing a descriptive essay with no meaning behind the description. Just to describe a scene as well as we could. After we turned in our frightful attempts, he went on to say that the greatest descriptions in literature always have another meaning... It was a great way to introduce us to the world of meaning and the meaning behind that meaning. This oblique approach probably is the only approach because what something means is so personal to us all.

Years later as an instructor myself, I have been amazed at the way students’ personality emerges in their sculpture as they gain confidence with the techniques. The starting point of design often becomes immaterial but there does need to be a starting point...

This is usually what happens--students want to learn to carve because they love wood and they love the idea of shaping wood. It would be a great deal easier if they came to the class with a good working knowledge of design. These students would then apply what they know as they learn the techniques of carving. Now and then I do have students with this experience, however the majority must learn both design and the techniques of carving simultaneously. The area of design within sculpture is never clear cut and works in conjunction with technique. Pure design removed from the process of making sculpture would probably be too mechanical, And to tell someone interested in making wood sculpture to obtain this experience before starting in would be to lose all the spontaneity of their enthusiasm. The enthusiasm is probably more important than having an extensive knowledge of three dimensional design. It would be excellent if a new student could take a good course in 3 D design while learning carving. It would stimulate their interest, and also allow them to understand the rules even if they chose to break them. The reality is that this is often impractical for the obvious reason that there is no class on 3 D design being taught in close proximity. Also the student probably has little enough time to spend at sculpture classes without adding another class. A good book on the subject of 3 D design would be an excellent alternative. But none exists that seems to fit the bill. Most books on design are geared to other subjects beside sculpture The point of this discussion is to outline some of the concepts and rules involved in 3 D design with the idea of preparing new students to begin carving without a great deal of knowledge about what they wish to carve. Also the discussion will be aimed at explaining design for those who are interested in sculpture but don’t intend to make sculpture themselves. It is hoped that there are active disagreements because in no way does this discussion intend to change someone’s already existing plan for a sculpture project. Rather it is meant to allow them to look at what they have planned within the broader concepts of design.

The reality of teaching sculpture techniques usually is to teach design in conjunction with teaching the fundamentals of carving. Probably the emphasis should be reversed because design is much more difficult to understand than carving. However, because the two usually go hand in hand and starting students on gouge work directly in the wood is much more exciting than a lecture on design, I usually try to work design into the program. A example of this is the discussion in the chapter "Carving Three Pieces" where the techniques are the main focus but design often enters the discussion by necessity.

Books on design that can be readily obtained are not intended for direct sculpture. This discussion will be. Its scope will be narrow in that respect and of course it is not intended to be all inclusive. Also it is fully recognized that the most unusual and dynamic sculpture often breaks or at least bends the rules of design. Actually, breaking the rules is probably a incorrect term, in that usually successful sculpture understands and uses combinations of the rules. For example, there is a very good design rule not to point any particular element away from the mass of a sculpture because the eye will follow that element away from the sculpture. However, extending the rules can include the fact that if the mass is so strong and the element pointing away is not overwhelming, then the strong mass will pull the eye back--a dynamic tension is now obtained in the piece because the eye is being sent away and rapidly pulled back. This is the design concept behind all of my Whirling Dervish series.

It would be romantic to say that the rules of design were broken, but in fact design concepts lay behind the making of this piece. This is what is intended in this discussion--using rules as a tool to help a sculptor obtain his or her goals. This discussion also will try to point out that a sculptor’s ignorance of the rules of design puts him or her at a disadvantage.

In fact I dislike the word rules because it is too dogmatic. Although the term rules of design is frequently used, I think from this point in the discussion, the rules of design will be called guides. It is hoped that by doing this no rules for discussing rules of design have been broken. Another reason that I would prefer to call the rules guides is that guides sounds more positive in terms of helping one obtain one's goals. Whereas rules sound like something to watch out for. In truth, design techniques are both. I racked my brain for some type of order for the rules/guides. I decided it would just be a false attempt at order so these guides will be presented randomly.

The picture concerning a design (Dervish) is introduced early in the chapter as a means of approaching obliquely the guides, especially fundamental guides of design so that they aren't presented just as 1, 2, 3….following in order.

I will try to present the design guides in a loose order from the most important (and hopefully agreed upon) to some guides and opinions that are at best debatable. It is assumed that a new student is planning an abstract design in sculpture that neither duplicates nor abstracts. If the last sentence is not clear to the reader—it shows attention to detail because in the world of sculpture unfortunately the word abstract has at least two meaning. There is abstract sculpture where the form of the sculpture is the subject itself with no attempt at duplicating or "abstracting" another subject and there is abstract sculpture that abstracts a subject’s form, usually the human body (as Henry Moore abstracts the human form in his beautiful large elm pieces). Having two meanings for a word is not good in the technical sense—the math people have got it right when they say a word should mean one and only one thing. However the reality of art is that words mean what people think they mean. If bringing up this word problem on the term "abstract" seems out of place, this is because the first guideline of design (symmetry) is affected by the intentions of the sculptor. That is, if a person has duplicated or abstracted the human form, then guides concerning symmetry are obviously affected.

Modern visual art breaks from the past by abandoning the subjects and goes directly into the use of shapes and forms to communicate directly with the viewer without a reference to a subject. This approach makes design critical since there is no subject to refer to. It is fully realized that design is simply a means to an end not the final goal. The artist has something to say and design is the means to do it. This discussion will stay close to design guides and only go behind the design for meaning when it seems necessary, but there is no denying that just as technique and design go hand in hand so does design and meaning. For me personally design, in my favorite medium of wood, is a way of expressing themes that are an alternate to the rectangular grid I grew up in on the south side of Chicago. Sculpture is a visual art and cannot translate directly into literal expressions so I don't mind talking about the meaning behind my work because no one listens to me anyway and everyone brings their own interpretation into abstract forms. But on the whole my sculpture is meant as an alternative to the restrictions of the cityscape and city grid that dulls our senses. The warmth of wood makes a perfect medium for these intentions. Design of organic and twisting shapes hopefully presents spaces that create this alternative. (If this sounds like I don't like cities, that’s only partially true. Actually human nature is so contradictory that as I get older I look back where I grew up with nostalgia and fondness.)

As said before, I have observed that people who work in abstract forms for a long enough time leave behind initial problems in carving and emerge with their own themes, so I am not too concerned where the student starts or what aspects of design interest them. I have confidence based on experience that a person’s own aesthetic will emerge. I have tried to work out some scheme of presenting design guides but I am afraid that I have failed in this so what will be presented is guides in the order of importance as I see them. Please feel free to disagree with them as you mull over them.

Most new students’ drawings and plans for their sculpture projects are symmetrical. I don’t know if we tend to think symmetrically or are trained to think that way from observing the world around us. Encouragement is usually needed to break down this habit. However, almost immediately students respond to the concept of asymmetrical design often catching fire and becoming enthusiastic. It opens possible options quickly. Here is something to try sometime when you have a spare minute—think of an abstract form you like and then draw it on the largest piece of paper you can find. Don't be concerned if you are a lousy drawer—no one could be worse than me. Now examine it as if you were a critic. Try to rearrange it with the concept of being purposely asymmetrical. Probably you’re not going to do this drawing. But I suggest it as an option because when I was in art school, a terrific drawing teacher (knowing of my preference for sculpture) made a suggestion that I buy a huge newsprint pad and make many drawings of different sculpture views with the intention to stay asymmetrical. This method meant so much to me that I would like to pass it on to other adventurous souls.

The next assignment, if you choose to take it, is to go to a museum that has modern sculpture on display. View these sculptures only for their asymmetry-- not for their total impression. Don't walk up and lay your hands on a piece (if you do you'll probably be bounced by the guards if they catch you because the oil on your hands can damage the finish) step back and look. A good rule of thumb for looking at sculpture is if the sculpture is over 10 feet in height then step back 20 feet if you can (don't knock over other sculptures). Walk with your back to the piece so when you turn to observe you take the whole sculpture into your vision fresh. If the sculpture is about human size, step back about 10 feet. If it's a small sculpture under 3 feet, then viewing it from about 5 feet back is good. Be sure to walk all around the piece. Don't just observe one view. Do your best to observe the sculpture from as many positions possible. Now make judgments on the asymmetry of the piece. How would you change the piece in terms of only symmetry? Do this for only a short while. Don't let it get stale. Now perhaps consider other aspects of design in the same limited manner. Further design guides follow in this discussion. At last critique the sculpture simply from your total point of view.

How to critique is a whole discussion in itself. But since discussing design implies judging design, a few words on critique are probably necessary. On the whole, there are two types of critique. For a critique in progress for a piece being still being worked on, you try to understand what the artist is attempting and make suggestions about how to obtain that goal. The second type of critique is a critique of a finished work of art from your own perspective. When you view a finished work of art, you are free to critique from any point of view. This sounds negative. But it is not. If you like something you should say so, you should say what you feel (after due consideration). It is a mistake to understand a piece too quickly. Analysis is the pleasure of modern art. Take your time and enjoy. It is highly unlikely that training will change your point of view radically. However, training does help in discussing your point of view.

Let’s look at an example:

My bronze Moebius is too symmetrical in my opinion. (What, you say, does a bronze have to do with wood sculpture design?) The piece was actually carved in mahogany and a mold was taken from the wood then turned into bronze by a lost wax process.

The front view, shown in this picture, has some good thick to thin design. The twisting plane does a nice job of moving the eye, but the back view would be almost the same as the front--not what is desired in the best of asymmetrical design. Because the Moebius Strip means so many different things to me, the symmetry problem was ignored. However, while trying to keep the best of the design, over the years I have returned to this form with mixed results in limiting views that are similar.

This piece of willow is fundamentally still a Moebius strip form. Its asymmetry is much more interesting in that there are no views that are the same. It is even hard to speak of a front view--from where? Still, like the bronze Moebius, a twisting plane makes a complete loop . The negative spaces are neither the same size nor the same shape. Their position is not in the middle. These comparisons are not meant to imply that one piece is better than another, but simply to look at them in regards to their symmetry. Someone else may enjoy the bronze more and to them the problem of symmetry is immaterial. In fact, why a design appeals to us as opposed to another design is a tricky proposition. However, if there is agreement that asymmetrical design is more interesting than symmetrical, I believe it comes from our need for exploration and adventure.

Most things around us are symmetrical. Especially in the cities. Houses, cars, streets--the general layout all of our world. When we are confronted with a work of art—in particular an asymmetrical work of art—it opens a whole new world. Something out of the ordinary. We enter a new world. Not everyone agrees. Many times viewing modern sculpture angers people—especially when they first confront it. This is becoming much less so as modern art becomes a little more commonplace. At least it is not boring, and the viewers may enjoy being challenged even if they basically disagree with the piece and what they feel it has to say. Most people feel that art can evoke an instantaneous response (no training is required). They are both right and wrong. Observing people’s first reaction to abstract sculpture usually is to watch an attempt to find human or animal forms within that work. To relate to the work of art directly without a subject is unusual at first. It is always difficult to enter something new. It is also exciting and that excitement begins to replace the desire to relate to familiar forms, but instead to see the abstract sculpture as an intellectual adventure.

Unfortunately, in order to explain the meaning behind design, it is necessary to generalize and simplify at the risk of destroying. But it does seem correct that meaningful design breaks down into two categories. Pure design appeals to the intellect, opening new worlds. Psychological design refers to existing feelings. My preference is for abstraction, but I often do works that attempt to create a psychological feeling or emotion like in a mother and child form.

At the beginning of this book, I said that one of the biggest problems was what to put in and what to leave out. Because a person who wants to create direct sculpture must spend more time practicing the techniques rather than reading about them, I tried to keep a tight lid on the what to put in Part I. In many ways this was difficult because techniques are connected with design. So in this discussion of design, I will just put forth the statements. I encourage disagreement. There seems to be a loose order in abstract sculpture.

Techniques and their use are controlled by design.

Design in turn is affected by the intent of the sculptor. The intent is usually either intellectual or psychological.

Behind the intellectual or psychological meaning of a piece is basically a cultural background. These feelings about the culture we live in are so personal and complicated that art’s oblique approach explains these feelings better than a direct approach.

These statements about symmetry may seem way out of left field, or they may seem so obvious that they should have been left out. Either way, I believe that good abstract sculpture comes from asymmetrical design. It is the most important consideration, opening a new world, yet with its roots within our common cultural experience.

Okay then. If symmetry is boring--with a whole lot of exceptions--and the overall concept of a piece of sculpture should be asymmetrical even if it has small elements of symmetry in it, how about repeating forms?

Don't.

It’s usually boring.

At least do not us repeating forms of the same size in a symmetrical way. However, by repeating the forms, in slightly different shapes and for sure in different sizes, can produce some wonderful themes running through the piece. This is especially true for negative spaces within the sculpture form.

.

 

In this mahogany piece "Waiting in Winter," the positive columns are definitely similar but of enough difference in size and shape so the form is not just repeated. Also the negative spaces go in opposite directions to contrast the positive forms that go in the same direction. It is intended to give a message of yearning while still holding back. This piece was done from a model and changed only a little in its making. However, this is a good time to discuss some techniques about changing views which will be helpful when exploring a sculpture during the carving process.

Often when a artist is struggling with a piece there is a tendency to attack. Usually just the opposite approach is needed.

Stand the piece in its best orientation in space. Stand Back and look at the piece. This is best on a base or work table that brings the major focus of the piece to your eye height. Move all around the piece—think about what you like—and think about what you dislike. The guides of design can help here immensely, however they are not a crunch or a silver bullet. The piece must have its own interest. If there is a view or even part of a view that you enjoy, this can be the starting place. Take the element that you like and begin to bring the rest of the piece into either compatible or contrasting forms. Don’t be obvious. Don’t repeat verbatim. Don’t repeat in the same size or direction. Don’t forget the negative spaces and in fact make new openings after strong consideration with the new themes in mind. As you do this proportionately to existing themes, don’t forget to stand and observe all during the process. It is easy to wipe out a good view while improving a weak view. Think ahead—try to visualize what the change will do to existing views. Often it is possible to hold up a piece of paper the same size as the planned removal to observe approximately what will happen. Many years ago, on the program Nova on P.B.S., when computers were very new to ordinary people, I saw a computer simulation of an airplane fuselage in space. This was what I would love to do—especially while the sculpture is in progress. I personally have never been able to take a digital picture and place it in a program and then slowly spin it, removing elements and putting on new elements as the piece rotates to observe the changes for all views. Perhaps this will be possible soon if it isn’t already for personal computers.

However, after seeing the demonstration, I tried to visualize the piece as best I could and then rotate it in my minds eye—this took lots of practice. And for me was best accomplished while swimming and training myself to see the piece on the bottom of the pool. It took time, but for many years it was an important visual tool for planning my larger pieces. It was less successful for the smaller pieces. It is difficult, but my memory is poor, so I think almost anyone could learn to do this somewhat successfully. Start by looking at the piece from different views, then look away and then back. This method may be inappropriate for many students. Another way is to learn to be quick with water-based clay mock ups and make design changes as desired. The changes can then be incorporated into the wood sculpture. This is, of course, a method for those with a ceramic background. I only employ this method occasionally and usually on pieces that are mostly mass. For columns moving in space an armature is needed and that is usually as much work for me as carving a piece directly. Still it is an excellent plan for some pieces and some people.

Do.

As much as possible have no elements the same size. Be very conscious of the relationship of thick to thin. Make your mistakes on the side of boldness in this area, but do be concerned that the whole piece will become thinner with refinements. Always look to keep your piece of sculpture a little thicker than looks good. A sculpture in progress that has a bit of a blocky appearance is usually proceeding on track. If it looks good for size, it is probably going to be a little thin upon completion.

In the piece above, the difficulties of carving interfered with my attention to thick to thin guidelines. It's not that I don't like the piece. It's just that if I do a similar piece I will try to make the columns have more size variance as they twist in and out.

In the piece above, which is in the style of the forms explored in "Carving 3 Pieces," the thick to thin relationship in the columns is good and adds to the lyrical beauty of the form. Another thing to consider while observing thick to thin guidelines is to be sure the columns don't move directly up and down or side to side. Twisting columns of different thicknesses create asymmetrical design. Or perhaps asymmetrical design creates twisting forms of different sizes and shapes. Whichever way you look at it, thick to thin is a definite corollary of asymmetrical design.

Of course the rules of thick to thin apply to negative spaces. Normally a person new to design will think in terms of positive spaces. This is only normal, but it is quite interesting to completely examine the negative spaces with both attention to making them asymmetrical and making them different sizes. Again, hint at repeating themes within this examination. In the discussion of techniques of carving in "Carving 3 Pieces," a conscious attempt was made to encourage creating the design while focusing on twisting negative spaces.

Before discussing size, it is probably a good idea to discuss the orientation of a piece. In many ways I would prefer to say "position in space" rather than orientation. I would prefer to use common words over jargon, but position is a word with too many meanings. Also orientation stays close to the fact that a sculptor is really working with orthogonal projection which is usually known as the three views--front--side--top. Not to be familiar with these terms for the techniques you are using is probably a mistake.

A wood sculpture is usually long rather than wide. First because the wood comes from a log, which naturally leads to that shape. This is not only true to the natural perimeter but makes for dynamic forms. Because the tree stands in a vertical manner, normally orientation in this direction is best. However many of the most successful pieces in modern sculpture have a side to side orientation, with the log laying down. It is surely something to consider while you are exploring a form. Here is an example.

This walnut piece has beautiful end grain burl, so it was important for the piece to have the maximum exposure that this rectilinear position shows. It looks much closer to my visualization this way than standing upright as the majority of my sculptures do.

Practical considerations for carving a piece, especially a small piece, dictate that you must make this choice fairly early, so a steel rod can be placed into a sculpture in progress to allow for containment while carving. If during the process you wish to change your mind, there is still an option for a small piece. It can be mounted in a sideways position, cantilevered from its base of support. Here are some examples of cantilever bases.

The first two pictures are of the piece "Cantilever Wave." It’s about 30 inches tall. Normally these wave forms are mounted upright. This particular piece had such a playful sense, that I mounted it on its side with a flat steel bar bent to the shape. Then I mounted that steel bar to a fairly heavy piece of granite so it couldn't fall over if bumped. Because the flat steel bar is so thin, it is unstable yet strong (the advantage of steel) so the piece tends to move all the time just from vibrations or air currents in the room. This accentuates the already playful feeling of the piece. The third picture shows a piece which is larger and has a floor mount. Notice the flat steel bar had to be reinforced with a structural element. The larger walnut piece has a serious feel. This seriousness came mostly from the larger size and more massive scale. Size does affect the sculpture, so a little discussion about the size of a piece is probably in order.

Start simple.

Of course busy is easier than simple, but no one who is just starting to make sculpture will believe that and everyone with experience will. I admit that these terms are relative and I don't want this discussion to become "do this and don't do that," so let’s have some pictures to examine what is meant by simple and busy.

In this gorgeous piece of mulberry (which is a difficult wood to carve), a reasonably simple model of a Moebius strip has been carved. Changing the form some by adding waves in the wood that are opposed in space produces a different although similar piece as shown below left. The piece on the left also has a different the orientation.

The form on the right has another wave added to it. I don't think the double wave makes the piece too busy but it's coming close. If I added another wave, then it would become almost a craft object--like the turnings on a bed post. Of course I have other feelings about these wave pieces. There is also the practical fact that the mahogany is about the only wood I would trust (because of its dimensional stability) to make these thin waves in wood. I would never attempt to use mulberry for this type of piece, so the choice of material goes hand in hand with the design. The following photo shows a similar form enlarged to about 10 feet high, carved from white ash.

This is one of my favorite pieces, however I believe that I made a mistake in putting so many twists on the thin element. My fun with the technical elements got the better of design. In direct carving it is always difficult to bring elements of a piece through the piece itself. The reason for this is that the usual practice of zeroing in on a piece by coming down slowly, doesn't work because a space must be left between the outer and inner elements. So you must carve down and then turn the corner while you are pretty much in no man’s land at the beginning of carving the log. This explanation of creating openings for an opening between the elements probably doesn't explain it. In is necessary to actually observe or do the process. Most openings aren't as difficult as the ones that create an element going through a doughnut-like positive shape. Probably……..this is as good a time as any to discuss openings.

Around the advent of modern sculpture, from1900 to 1920, sculptors began to pierce the form--making negative spaces or windows in the sculpture. This had of course been done before, but now played a more important role. The picture above shows a single window in the whole piece. The placement of the window is only fair in terms of asymmetrical design. Top to bottom, it is nicely placed at the top. But from side to side it is a bit in the middle. This is somewhat offset by the twisting forms that bring the eye into the window on one side and do just the opposite on the other side. But for discussion of negative spaces, this is a good example of a window. However if the window is larger and dragged off center for design reasons, at some point the nature of the sculpture begins to change from a mass with a window to columns moving in space. Imagine opening the negative space more while following the form. This would begin to suggest columns as opposed to a window--as in the opposing wave forms shown previously in this discussion. Here is a piece that has both.

In this model of two moebius strips that share one back, clearly on the right the negative space is a window through the piece, on the left the window is giving way to form a moving negative space which develops columns in the positive space.

In the piece below called "Triple Crossover," the negative spaces are definitely set up as columns moving in space in this adaptation of the Dervish form.

The twisting of the columns in the piece above helps to bring about a piece of sculpture with a three dimensional aspect—the eye follows the twisting piece as it goes around the sculpture making it more alive than if columns and planes stayed to the front.

In this adaptation of the Dervish form, three elements leave the mass. On the whole a good rule of thumb is not to have a skinny element leave the mass as say a broom handle coming out of a sphere shape. This is not an attractive form. However, it can be made into a humorous form. Not all sculpture has to be serious.

In this piece, "Don Quixote," the skinny element leaving the bottom of the mass creates a humorous feel that is appropriate to the theme. The intention here is almost the opposite of what is intended in the Dervish series. The use of columns moving in space is extremely effective in creating different impressions because of the extreme amount of variables that are going on. Changing just one element can create a totally different impression. The down side of different sized columns and planes is that it is easy to become too busy. This leads to a rule that basically says that busy is a lot easier than simple. On the whole this is true mostly because it is easy to make changes that affect a busy piece. This is not so easy in a simple piece--especially a very simple piece that has no negative spaces.

Notice that the mulberry piece is far from extremely simple. It has a negative space like a window and its curving plane creates moving perimeter. Definitely sculpture can be simpler—a sphere is probably the simplest object you can conceive—but unless you love basketball it's a fairly uninteresting shape. So here's a story about a design problem that has perplexed me for some years.

More years ago than I would care to admit, I was asked by a fellow sculptor, (who I had spent many happy hours with in discussions of defining space) to look at a student’s project. He had a student who wished to make an interesting form with some very specific guidelines. The form being attempted had proportions of about 2 X 2 X 3 feet--not far from a cube. There were to be no openings all the way through as in the mulberry piece. The problem had been well thought out by the student—who had a good grasp of the difficulties. The class was in indirect sculpture and the piece was being worked on in clay so the student would have many attempts at getting the desired form. It was a disaster. The student should have been given a refund and the teachers fired. It's hard to say why this project was so difficult even with the tough design guidelines—partly I think that our ability to make so many attempts was working against us. In figure modeling, clay makes the project so much easier with a model in front of you as a guide to duplication. But this was exploring a form… And I believe we were throwing out the baby with the bath water. We never could consolidate small design gains because of the temptation to make major changes. In direct sculpture one is very conscious of not ruining a view by improving a view from another angle. But there is no sense making excuses. We all failed miserably.

Over the years I have returned to the problem with very little luck. Since failures often teach more than successes, I would like to say I did learn a good amount. But that is only partially true—most of what I learned was in reaction to this problem. If you look at "Carving 3 Pieces," which is my standard approach for students who don't have a well planned project, the inside of the piece is removed, in almost the opposite approach as that taken in the "simple problem."

Last summer I began carving a small piece of walnut as an addition to an existing outdoor piece—it seemed to need another element. The proportions of this beautiful piece of walnut were similar to the proportions of the simple problem. I don't remember consciously approaching this as the problem I had been struggling with for so many years. To describe its form is beyond my descriptive powers except to say that it has five twisting sides with one side as large as all the rest. Here's the model, carved from walnut.

I was happy enough with the result that I mounted the piece on a small granite base. And copied the piece by carving another small piece of walnut for the outdoor sculpture. Then I expanded the piece with a large section of a Chinese elm log.

The elm piece is shown from a view opposite that of the walnut piece. It has fairly deep fluting on this side and none of the four sides that make up the opposite side from the large flat twisting plane are the same size or depth. If the problem has been successfully addressed, it is with the use of asymmetrical design.

This piece, "Mississippi Mermaid," has a combination of tool marks and smooth finish. The tool marks vary from very rough on the bottom to much smaller gouge marks approaching the top. The piece has beautiful burl which makes a wonderful contrast to the tool marks.

The part I have been dreading.... There's no good way to sum up this discussion. Perhaps that is fitting because the visual language of sculpture doesn't translate literally. At best you are guessing. When it comes to the basic techniques of carving--like gouge work--you can put at least a loose order from A to Z-- as in the first four chapters in Part 1. In design there is no order except that asymmetrical design should be at the start whatever your theme is, then it's pretty much trying to build on the other design guides outlined in this discussion. As for intent it is even less organizational than design except to say that if you begin to explore sculpture you will find a sculpture form that fits your aesthetic. Since I don't want to end a discussion on design for visual arts with words, here's a picture to of a piece in mahogany called "Busy"