Carving from Belgorod

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

In the end, I think it is always an effort at interpretation, and perfection is not a reasonable end-goal - in fact, it is impossible.  If you manage to capture the spirit of the thing, while imbuing it with some sense of your own spirit, then you have achieved art.

 

Yes, you're right. Any work is an interpretation of a particular person, a particular master. 

When making this lion, I had the opportunity to take a closer look at exactly what was actually on the ship. When you make a work based on drawings, it looks very different. There, it's about 70% personal fantasy.
But here I had the opportunity to go the other way and try to make a copy. In my mind, I could follow the same path that the carvers in Stockholm once did. I couldn't miss this opportunity. 

Plus I like to share not just the result, but the process. For example, when we eat, we get more satisfaction from the process itself, not from being full at the end. I have different emotions and thoughts while carving. And it is more interesting for me to show what happened during the work. To describe the thoughts that arose at that moment. In some cases it was fear and anxiety, and in some cases it was joy or surprise at the discovery.

I think it's more interesting that way. And for me to show. And for others to watch. Maybe it will be of practical use to someone.

[dvm27]

Perhaps you always start with the head because it is the most difficult feature to carve. if you make a perfect body first but mess up the head then you would have wasted a lot of time and effort. If the head is carved first there is a lot less pressure in doing everything else below.

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

42 minutes ago, dvm27 said:

Perhaps you always start with the head because it is the most difficult feature to carve. if you make a perfect body first but mess up the head then you would have wasted a lot of time and effort. If the head is carved first there is a lot less pressure in doing everything else below.

 

Yes, you're probably right. Indeed, if the head will be spoiled, it is already necessary to take a new blank. I have not thought about it, but it is impossible to do otherwise. 

[empathry]

Another sculpture of a (dying) lion ; this one has been wounded by an arrow.  

It's written (on the sculpture's basement) : "Helvetiorum fidei ac virtuti"

I suppose this is for remembering a battle where Swiss soldats or mercenaries have mostly been killed, but not surrender.

I do not know more about it, there is no date written on.

[HAIIAPHNK]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the lion. Stylistically, it is reminiscent of the French school. You suggested it as an option for the French lion? Is that correct? 
I am indeed looking for good references for such a lion. It won't be started for a while yet, but the search should be done now. 
I think I mentioned in another thread about Fulminant that French lions are not so easy to deal with. Perhaps you decided to share after that.
To clarify a bit. I have some number of sketches where you can see what lions looked like in France in the 17th century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 That said,

not many models at all where you can see

what they looked like already as a finished figure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The French school of drawing is very progressive. And French lions are a very correct depiction of these animals. And next to the others there is a very big difference. And you want to find something more similar, so that the French version is a little... how can I put it? Scary. Or funny. 
Even at the Paris Maritime Museum, I couldn't find a perfect one. 
So if anyone has good photos of French ship models, which can be used as a guide, I would be grateful for such hints.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by HAIIAPHNK

[Hubac's Historian]

My French figurehead resources are sparse.  In the 1670s, the hippocampus figure was a popular subject, as seen below on Le Royal Therese and Le Terrible:

The following 2-decker, perhaps L’Orgieullieux, does have a lion:

A few more French 2-deckers of indeterminant provenance:

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

What gorgeous drawings! Thank you!

They are exactly the basis for seeing the very problem I have in front of me. So much of the documentation allows only a vague definition of the decor. You can see that there is a lion on the breakwater, but it is very vague. In fact, the execution according to the sketches is a complete interpretation, one's own decision, a personal variant. Which is also quite acceptable and very interesting. For this purpose, I search in other kinds of art, such as sculpture or architecture. I don't think that in this respect the ship's image of a lion will be in strong contradiction to the lions that can be found in castles or other buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The merlion image (combining lion and fish, lion mermaid) is very interesting. I will definitely have one of these lions in my collection. 

 

 

 

 

So far I have plans to make a Danish lion in this style. But it is still ahead, there is time for thinking.

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of sadistic footage is this, then? Why saw poor Gustav?
I'll tell you about it
It was an interesting moment for me. And it took me a long time to decide. What's the point, what is it about and why was there agony of choice?

We all understand that modeling is first of all an art. We take away the models made for technical needs, different experiments. In the vast majority of cases we create images. Imitation of what exists (or existed). And like any image, ship models can be simplified.

By way of another lyrical digression I will remember how once in my childhood I read somewhere in the newspaper an essay about an elderly modeler. I don't remember who they told about. I remember that the author of the article wrote that during his visit to the workshop, the elderly master mercilessly ripped off his model skin, which led the journalist in a state of horror. Why, it was beautiful as it was? The modeler replied that he had recently found information that the real sailing ship was built of a different wood. And the planking of his model turns out to be erroneous. It was not so (say from pine), and should be oak or bamboo (again conditionally). So everything will have to be redone. Modeler, in his opinion, must exactly repeat the historicity.

I don't know if there was actually such a dialog or if the journalist made it all up? At that moment, in my young years, I did not see anything strange in this event. In my eyes, the elderly master was a kind of hero. He was ready to make sacrifices, to remake for the sake of historical truth. Cool!

 

Now I realize how naive I was. I understand that a modeler can deviate from historical realities. To change by virtue of taste or idea material of plating, on tiny ships in a bottle instead of small yuphers to make drops of tinted glue. And that's fine. And I already look at the elderly craftsman with different eyes. Now I would probably first of all think about how good it is that Sensei chose a sailboat for the model and not a submarine or an icebreaker. Otherwise, all of a sudden he decided to make nuclear reactors with handfuls of plutonium. For the sake of credibility. 
I'd leave room for admiration, though. If a person can make a model out of oak so that in the end the fractional texture of the wood remains proportionate and does not spoil the overall appearance, then he really is a master. Isn't he?
Anyway, we all choose the degree of simplification on our models.
And now I am also faced with a choice, but what exactly do I want to show? To what degree do I want to go into detail? What exactly will my Gustav be like? After all, he could be the lion that was just carved. And the ship is due to be launched tomorrow. And I could leave it wooden, or I could paint it, making it look exactly as it did before I died. I can also make Gustav, who was pulled up from the bottom. With the wounds, the chips.
And that's when I took a closer look at the original. The beauty of it was that you could see exactly what the structure looked like. Separate handles and legs. But that's not all. Take a look at these shots:

 

 

 

This angle was already there last time.

But now I've pointed out the seams.

Here they are in the other photos:

 

 

 

 

That is, in reality the figure was not one piece. The mane, the back of the head were docked in separate pieces. And where the blue arrow is placed you can see the places of chipping when part of the overlay flew off. And it's clearly visible. Here is another angle where you can see it even better:

 

 

 

 

 

So I was wondering. What am I going to do? Would I now have to mercilessly chop down the initial figure to make it look like the historical original? 
The first shots with the hacksaw leave no room for intrigue - that's what I did. But at the same time, I didn't. What's that?

I removed the top of the head completely. I glued an implant in its place, and then brought it to the right condition. I didn't saw off the sides and the mane. Halfway through I examined everything and decided that I would do it simpler. It is not necessary to cut everything completely to simulate seams. The thickness of the cut is thin enough that it looks just like the original. If I cut it off completely and glue it on, the gap will be gone. Do I have to do that? No.

So I started looking at other angles. I looked to see if I could see the gap everywhere. Logically, it should look different. In some places, the extra pieces fit closely together and there's no gap at all. And somewhere it is already very visible. That's what I tried to repeat.

This is a story about making it. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

The lion is gradually moving toward the goal.

Now it is time to dock the paws.

 

 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

It's time to go lower. Attached the legs. And all was well. But there was a problem. The main problem was not in the legs, but between them. There lives another element that also needs to be shown. I hadn't paid attention to this place before. And now it suddenly turned out that when making the billet I didn't leave the necessary material for... what should I call it culturally? Let's call it a cockerel. And the problem is that this cockerel is poorly visible. The people at the museum were photographing the top part of the lion. What's below the waist in this figure is rarer. And the place under the belly, where the lion's cockerel lives, is in the shade, and it is difficult to see it. People avoid this sector. Everyone pays attention to the face of the beast.
One might even conclude that very few perverts visit the Vasa Museum. I never thought I'd regret it.  Well, I'm not going to complain. So I had to be satisfied with those photos, where you can at least roughly see what this mysterious detail looked like. 
So what to do now if I didn't leave any wood for the rooster? I pondered and decided that the only option left was to add some wood. Cutting off the belly would not work, the waist of the sculpture would be too thin. 

 

 

 

 

There were some problems with the legs too. As I mentioned, people take more pictures of the top half. There are fewer photos with the legs. There is a wonderful figure of a lion in the museum, which stands alone. And there is not just one of these figures, but two! One is an exact copy of the lion on the breakwater, in the sense that it copies the current state of the sculpture. The same chips, cracks and so on. And the second free-standing figure was painted so that visitors could understand how the sculpture looked like on a "live" ship. What colors were used to paint it. And these replicas were a huge help to me. However, even in this great gift I found disadvantages. The thing is that both copies stand the same side to the viewer. And you can see the same side on both sculptures. And the same leg. You can't get a good look at the other leg. I found some photos where one of the visitors got into the gap between the sculpture and the wall and took some photos of the back side of the lion. For which I was about ready to put a monument to him. An equestrian one! However, this person photographed the top part of the lion. He forgot about the legs. So one back leg was still a mystery.

 

 

 

 

And I was left with the only way out: I had to look at the other side from afar, in the shots with the ship. There's less light, and more questions about the shape of the muscles.

 

 

 

I noticed an interesting detail. The legs were different from the rest of the figure. They were more embossed. You could make out the muscles and veins on them. And the rest of the lion's body, compared to the legs, looked more like a huge sack of potatoes.

The reasons for this difference could be different. Perhaps the feet were more mired in the sea silt and therefore better preserved. Or maybe it was the other way around. Maybe the feet were never found at all and modern carvers carved them like this in our time. I don't know how true that is. I won't insist. But on all photos of the sixties, where you can see the rise of the lion and the work on its restoration sculpture without legs. The front paws are in place but the back paws are gone. Whether they were lying separately and just didn't get into the frame or whether the divers never found them remains unknown to me.

 

 

 

 

I ended up cutting them out.

And the back paws of my lion are also different from the rest of the figure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Was the original the work of more than one carver, showing different styles?

 

You are doing a lovely job of re-creating the Vasa lion.

[HAIIAPHNK]

23 minutes ago, druxey said:

Был ли оригинал работой более чем одного резчика, демонстрирующего разные стили?

 

That's a very interesting question. Collective work on a big project is the norm among artists. You can remember how in the painters' art gallery the pupils passed through different stages of their development. And the teacher first trusted them to mix paints, then some separate sections of the painting. For example, the background or hands. And then the pupil gradually grew up to paint more important things. 
I am sure that such practice was everywhere, and with carvers too. But I don't have exact information about the lion from Vasa and who exactly participated in its carving. The rest we can only speculate. 
Let's take the logical path. What parts of this figure can be called especially important, and what parts are less important? Logically, the head is a more important part of this sculpture than the paws. Can we assume that the paws were carved by a more professional carver, while the face was entrusted to a novice apprentice? It doesn't seem plausible. Then why do different parts of the figure look different? I think that the answer here should be sought in the question of preservation. 
I was planning to touch upon the topic of working style on the example of this lion, but a little later. It is a very interesting topic for reflection. 

 

23 minutes ago, druxey said:

Вы проделываете прекрасную работу по воссозданию льва Васа.

 

Thank you so much for that assessment. I'm glad you like it. I had a lot of fun doing this project. And I would like to show not only the result, but also tell you how the work was done. What questions were asked, what thoughts appeared during the work. What new things I discovered for myself.  I am very glad if this version of publishing the work is interesting to others.

[HAIIAPHNK]

I was planning to touch on this topic a little later. But since now there is a question very close to this topic, why not continue the conversation. I will warn you at once that I will step aside from the topic of Vasa's lion and reflect on various aspects. But we will start with what has already been said.
Namely about the fact that the lion's legs are made in more detail than other parts of the sculpture. And even earlier I mentioned that the lion's face is made with a very noticeable asymmetry: the eyes are located at a different level, cheekbones have a different shape. Why is this so? And can any conclusions or assumptions be drawn?
For example, are these traces of time or was the sculpture not very professionally done from the very beginning? 

And now we will step back a little bit and ask another question. What did the sculptors want to show? What emotions was the figure of the lion supposed to inspire?
The answer is quite predictable. The lion is a symbol of strength, power and predatory beauty. This animal was supposed to show greatness.
Now tell me honestly, can you say that this lion inspires awe? Can you say that the lion has opened its predatory mouth and is roaring? What is the figure itself like? Is it a predator in a leap? Logically this is what the carvers wanted to show. But for me (IMO) the lion looks more like a wrinkled alcoholic, and the pose looks more like a lazy pull-up, not a jump.
And what is the right attitude to what we see on historical models?

I had a case once a long time ago. I was commissioned to carve a lion figure for a French ship. This model was built according to one of Ancre's monographs, and all the drawings were from that source. Specifically in this book, the lion was drawn by the authors of the book in a stylization that could not be called predatory and scary. Rather even comical. 

 

And I tried to repeat the book interpretation, since the customer gave me the source materials, I should stick to them. However, to my surprise, when the customer saw the figure, he did not like it. He said he wanted to see a beast of prey. And this is a funny poodle. And he sent me different photos of modern sculptures where lions were made in a realistic manner and looked predatory. I will put aside the question of how the preparatory conversations should have been conducted, who was right in that matter. Then I redid the figure and made it the way the customer wanted it. Now I remember this case as an example of the fact that nowadays modern people understand by the term "predatory grin of a wild beast" not the same thing that people used to understand by the same name. Why does this happen?

We've grown up on a different level of the concept of "scary." We're used to horrible monsters from various horror movies. And we think that a predator should have a very creepy appearance, and yet it will show aggression always and for any reason. If it's a shark, it should chew through everything in its path, not stopping in front of metal cages and harpoons. If it's a bear or a lion, they will find a scent hundreds of kilometers away and will tear the victim until there is no wet spot left of it. And alien monsters can't be killed by anything. They're not afraid of anything, they're resourceful and they're always looking for prey. 

 

 

 

We are used to exaggeration and believe that a frightening and dangerous appearance must have huge fangs, red glowing eyes and dripping saliva. Yet we still remember that during our childhood and adolescence, we needed much less to make us scared. If we revisit the movies that scared us in the 50s and 60s, they make us smile now. And I remember very well how many times I looked through my father's art albums and books and I was scared to look at the illustrations of Bosch's paintings. It was just a horror that could not be conveyed. Or one of the scariest paintings from my childhood - Apotheosis of War. 

 

 

 

(originals modified for obvious reasons)

I even tried to flip through similar pages of the book as soon as possible, so that I wouldn't even accidentally see those paintings again.
This shows that the sense of fear varies. And people are frightened by different images at different times.
to be continued....

[HAIIAPHNK]

I'll tell another story. February 13, 1885 in St. Petersburg
opened the 13th Exhibition of Peredvizhniki artists. At this exhibition participated all the most famous and talented artists of Russia in the 19th century: Polenov, Shishkin, Makovsky, Pryanichnikov, Kramskoy, Vasnetsov and many others. What was so remarkable about this exhibition? Here is what you can read from the remaining documents:
... In order to restore order, they had to call the mounted police. That is, the public simply poured into the exhibition building and if not regulated the flow of people, it could lead to a crush and injuries. The data on the number of tickets sold has been preserved: 44600. A figure that is impressive even by modern concepts. What was the reason for such a frenzy? The fact that one of the artists who exhibited his new painting was Ilya Repin. And the painting was called "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan". Maybe you've ever seen this canvas.

 

I will not now go into a discussion of the plot, whether it actually happened or not. There is still no consensus on whether the murder actually happened or whether it was made up. Speaking of which, it is thanks to this very picture and began to say that this king was a murderer. Before this painting, no one had ever talked about it. There are no documents confirming this fact. But our goal is different. I will cite the words of the author of the painting and what he himself writes about the exhibition:
"...The lamps illuminated the picture well and its effect on my audience exceeded all my expectations. The stunned people were silent for a long time, as if enchanted. Then they whispered for a long time, as in front of a dead man. I finally covered the painting with a blanket, but even then the mood did not dissipate. Especially the painter Kramskoi spread his hands and shook his head. I felt alienated from my painting. I was not noticed at all or looked at me in passing with pity".

For the society of the time, this was an unprecedented phenomenon. People went to see a picture that caused not aesthetic pleasure, but fear and disgust.
Cinematography was not yet widespread. At that time, filming was just emerging and was more of a documentary, showing ordinary reality. The only available way to convey emotions to the audience was theater. But even he could not compare with the effect that gave this still image.
Figuratively speaking, that case can be compared by the strength of excitement with the premiere of some "Avatar" or other modern blockbuster.
Now, looking at this picture, we are unlikely to experience the same horror as 19th century viewers. For us, we already need more action. Time goes on, and with it the human imagination.

This story shows that in the past people could be horrified and awe-struck by images that we would now call strange or funny. And it's important to remember that there is a big difference in our perception. And if we want to convey a work of past centuries, it would not be quite right to paint it with our modern perception in mind.

That's one side of the question. And we will not stop there.
To be continued...

[HAIIAPHNK]

Now let's go back to our Gustav and ask ourselves: did this frumpy image really look that scary? Not to us, was he impressive to his contemporaries? Let's compare this sculpture to the rest of the images on this same ship. After all, this is not the only image of a lion. There are others. Let's look at the impressive duo of bas-reliefs at the stern.

 

 

 

Agree, these lions look much more ferocious and scary. And next to them, the lion from the breakwater looks even more like an alcoholic. So, it was made by other masters and they were not professional? After all, that is the conclusion that follows. It's obvious, the difference is enormous. But not everything is so simple. Let's think logically again. This is the most important sculpture on the ship. It's hard to assume that it could have been entrusted to a bad team of carvers. I'm sure that the main artist responsible for all the decoration on the ship would not allow such a thing, because he would be punished first of all. Sounds logical. But! We can see with our own eyes that the lions on the stern look much better. Why is Gustav so different? Is there an explanation? Yes. Let's have a look at these lions.

 

 

 

 

Do you like them? I like them very much. These heads look better than Gustave's, too. Look how expressive the eyes are. The open mouth really comes across as the threat of an angry predator, not a yawn. And look at the fine creases in the eyebrows, the folds of skin near the nose and on the cheeks. The lion is very believable and yet stylized to a kind of generalization that highlights the main elements. The ones that even from a distance will be noticeable.

But wait! Let's take another look at Gustav. 

 

 

 

He, too, has very similar tear-drop eyes. The same bulldog-like corners of his mouth. The folds at the nose. There is a feeling that the sculpture of Gustav reminds a child's lollipop in the form of some figure. As if the child has already managed to suck it for some time and now some features are completely erased, some are still visible, but not so expressive as they were originally. This is purely my opinion, but it seems to me that originally the figure of this lion looked more expressive and clear. What we can now see of the sea and the silt has been sucked up for many decades. I don't know why this lion suffered more than the others, even though they were all on equal footing. And if I were to decide to try to restore the original look, to do my interpretation of Vasa before the demise, I would pay more attention to the other lions and transfer their features to this figure. That's my opinion.

I can't say that there is nothing else to talk about in this thread. Yes, nature has modified the appearance of this sculpture. That said, there were flaws here from the beginning that were definitely the result of crooked hands. There was improper symmetry and curvature. There were other flaws as well. And I will talk more about them in the next parts.

[druxey]

Part of the problem of ships' draughts is that the people that drew them were not artists. Usually the carved work (if shown) was rather crudely drawn. Even Boudriot (who was an excellent draughtsman) was not a particularly talented artist.

[HAIIAPHNK]

18 hours ago, druxey said:

Частично проблема с чертежами кораблей заключается в том, что люди, которые их рисовали, не были художниками. Обычно резная работа (если она была показана) была нарисована довольно грубо. Даже Будрио (который был прекрасным рисовальщиком) не был особенно талантливым художником.

 

You're absolutely right. Decor drawings are a separate topic. There is a lot to talk about and different aspects to remember. I don't know what sources Budrio was working with in this case. Therefore, I can't speak unequivocally about poor drawing skills. French lions could have been very different. On the one hand, a French lion could be very correct, almost photographically accurate. And at the same time, it could be not very correct. I don't know what the lion was like on this particular model. 
In this story I had to find out more precisely the wishes of the customer before I started the work. And I missed this point. So it was my mistake. So when everything turned out I removed the first attempt of carving and made a new lion. 

And in general I like the design of Ankre's books. And the artist's hand drawing the illustrations is very impressive. The four-volume book on the 74-gun ship is the pinnacle for me. So detailed, simple and clear are the illustrations and how they are all supported by explanations. Drawing decorations is not an easy thing to do.

[HAIIAPHNK]

 

The next step in the work.

The work has long since crossed the equator. The rough work is turning into refinements and finer treatments. And now it is time for the sculpture to be customized. 
The original figure in the museum shows well how exactly the overall volume was assembled from the individual components. You can see the seams and traces of fasteners. It is time to show them.
And at the same time to pay attention to another feature of the figure, which tells about how the construction was carried out.
We are well aware that wood is a living material. It cracks, breaks. And we have to take that into account. And if we are talking about a warship, we can add to this the breakdowns that occur during the voyage. These can be accidents or damage that occurs during combat. 
And such damages are solved with the help of repairs. If it is possible to do without a complete replacement, plugs and implants are inserted in the damaged place. And this applies to the decor as well. 

 

 

 

The movie about Captain Aubrey and how the crew repaired the broken figure immediately comes to mind.

 

 

There are also places on Gustav's figure where inserts and implants are visible.
Only here it is of particular interest. After all, the ship wasn't involved in any battles. It hasn't even sailed. And the condition that we can look at today can be called perfect. Brand new. Fresh off the assembly line. And then all of a sudden we see these marks on the lion.
Can you imagine a situation where you buy a new car. You pick it up from the dealer. It's brand-new. Smells like fresh plastics and leather. Parts and seats have protective film and covers on them. The whole car is shiny with new paint. But then you open the trunk and see traces of putty that was thrown over the dented area. We can't imagine such a thing. And if today discovers a defect on a new purchase, we immediately return the low-quality thing back.
And here, on the ship, no one began to change the spoiled and remake again. They just put in the inserts, nailed them in and painted over the top. Interesting detail, isn't it? You can take these little touches in many different ways. You can be surprised and say: Wait a minute, the front paw is quite small, it could easily have been replaced in its entirety to make the figure perfect. Or you may say: Why do unnecessary work? Look, it's just a small part. It doesn't bear any load. Nothing will be weakened by her having an implant on the ship. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. We're not going to redo anything. 
In reality, it could have gone either way. And the chief sculptor could have made both of those decisions. Or he might not have known about the breakage at all. For example, some ordinary carver was attaching this paw and a nail caused the part to burst. And he quietly and inconspicuously inserted a plug and painted over the damaged place so that no one would know about the problem. That could have happened, too.
Today we cannot say exactly how it happened. However, today we can see that our ancestors were not maximalists. They could calmly accept the fact that their work had faults and defects.
And now I try diligently to replicate these implants and make artificial chipping so that my figurine becomes similar to the historical original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

I'm fascinated by the replication of all the imperfections and joints on your carving! I've never seen this done elsewhere.

[HAIIAPHNK]

2 hours ago, druxey said:

I'm fascinated by the replication of all the imperfections and joints on your carving! I've never seen this done elsewhere.

 

Thank you so much for the high praise.
I myself find it interesting to look at the sculptures and think about how they were made back in the day. Why not repeat the same way or at least do an imitation of it. Also, the scale I chose is so large that I would be remiss not to show such detail on this lion. More often it happens that you make a model in 1:100 scale and think that you will have to agree to conventions, the figure is too small to show everything on it. But here there can be no excuses.

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

Actually there is another reason why I try to make the lion from the ship with Vasa closer to a museum piece. Why I started doing this whole lion collection. And how this scale was chosen. It's a whole story. At first I wanted to write about it, but I decided that again I would go far away and did not publish anything from this story. But there was a reason for the artificial chipping and implants. 

[HAIIAPHNK]

 

Estelle: -Joe, have you seen me in ecstasy?
Joe: -No.
Estelle: -Well, look!

 

Now I'll show you myself in ecstasy.

 

 

 

 

It's true. And even though you can't see anything special on the outside, inside at this moment I felt soooooooooooooooooooo much pleasure.

The whole thing is that not more than half an hour before this moment I found the most unique shots. Maybe even the only one in the world. I found what Vaska's back looks like. It's a truly mysterious place, impossible to find anywhere else. But I did. So at this very moment, a rumba is playing in my head!

[HAIIAPHNK]

This isn't even the final straight. It's the last meters before the ribbon.

The final stage of work on Gustav. Making it authentic. The original sculpture looks different from the others, the structure of the wood is loose. An abundance of microscratches, dents. Plus the shapes themselves have a flushness to them.
In normal carving it has always been important for me to leave tool marks, I don't like it when everything is sanded down. It looks like a pillow.
Here it's the opposite, we needed the effect of "eating" the shape with water. But sandpaper will not work here, it will be too smooth, I don't need it. And if you take a coarse one, you'll scratch off all the threads in no time. That's not it either.
So the last stage was also another challenge. How to make licks, but still have roughness? This is what I ended up with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Looks terrific, Aleksandr. The texturing really adds character and life to your replica.

[HAIIAPHNK]

26 minutes ago, druxey said:

Looks terrific, Aleksandr. The texturing really adds character and life to your replica.

 

Thank you. I like how it turned out, too. 

[mtaylor]

Wow... that looks like a real figurehead and not a model.

[Hubac's Historian]

Yes, agreed - the final result is quite evocative! 

[HAIIAPHNK]

14 hours ago, mtaylor said:

Wow... that looks like a real figurehead and not a model.

 

12 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Yes, agreed - the final result is quite evocative!

 

Thank you for your appreciation. I tried.

[HAIIAPHNK]

It's not long to the finish line. In the meantime, a photo of the general view.

 

 

 

 

[HAIIAPHNK]

The main sculpture from Vasa is almost to the finish line. Only a small detail remains. The lion is holding a shield with a coat of arms. And that's the shield that needs to be carved. There's not much to tell. 
The only thing to note once again is the issue of irregular shapes on the sculpture. Which again raises the question of how to evaluate the work of master carvers. How normal it was to do a work with such strong errors. And as I said, the shield stands apart in this regard. It is a piece that fits quietly on the table. The person who carved it had all the conditions to achieve a perfect result.

 

 

In addition, we can say that a living organism may well have asymmetry in the structure of the body. But here with a coat of arms it can no longer be said in any way. The form should have symmetry, correct curves and if there are repeating elements of decoration, they should be the same with the correct gaps between them. And other rules of ornamentation.
And the shield by all parameters and by all possible evaluations has only minuses. Everything that could have symmetry is made crookedly. There is a feeling that it was done by someone in a drunken state or for the first time in his life took tools in his hands. It is especially surprising that the decor looks much better elsewhere. Even if you compare the crest on the transom and on the breakwater you can see a strong difference. Why there could be so many mistakes on the flagship is the question.

 

 

With this in mind, my task in this phase of the work was turned 180 degrees. Usually you have to try to do everything perfectly. Everything should be even and correct. Now it was necessary to make such errors on purpose, which would be similar to the original.
When I first started this project and worked on the facial features (or more correctly the face) of the lion, I already had a very similar situation. I wrote that the lion had crooked eyes, different cheekbones. And then I was wondering if I should do the same. Wouldn't it get the feeling that the wrong parts of the face would look weird. Like the author likes to work with a shot glass in his hands? Then I decided I wouldn't correct the mistakes, I'd leave them the same as on the original. Now, when I look at the finished version of the lion I am pleased to note that in general everything looks harmonious. Asymmetry can be noticed, but it doesn't look too noticeable. So now I was no longer questioning whether to make corrections at the shield? And this is what I got.