After looking at his piece, I thought I would give it a try. But there are several caveats. Yaakov had a nice piece of Osage orange. I had a small piece of cottonwood. Yaakov was working with the confluence of ideas from three great artists of the trade. I had the inspiration of Yaakov’s piece. Plus I have never known an idea of mine to stay static. So I knew my interpretation would not look like the original. Caveat Emptor.
I wanted to turn the profile of a face into the corners. The forehead and the nose worked. The lips and the chin broke the integrity of the piece. I hollowed it out so it could be cut off just below the end of the nose. The profile no longer suggests a face, but it works well.Tiki 1 has a series of holes piercing the side. My piece did not want piercing, so the sides are intact.
Yaakov said the black design on the sides of Tiki 1 suggest a Polynesian origin. My pyrographed design suggests something also, but I don’t know what.
Since Yaakov named his work Tiki 1. I should name mine Con Tiki. (Not to be thought of as Kon Tiki.) To avoid confusion, I could just call it Con, but you might think me some kind of artist I don’t wish to be. (A Kon artist?)
Discuss the Pros and the Cons of these two works and tell me what you think.
Ellis Hein, author of The Woodturner’s Project Book