Sign in to follow this  
Joaquín Fonollosa

Geometría fabrorum

Recommended Posts

I think you would sense it differently were you to play with a stack of outlines. It's not the same as using photos, and very different from throwing a computer at it, as that joke of a site trying to write certs based on pictures a decade or so ago was attempting. It's a little like looking at dogs: it's hard to decide what makes a dog if you have never seen any other animal. Certainly at first glance they have nothing in common and scaling them the same and comparing pix doesn't really get to it, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joaquín Fonollosa said:

The rectangle has to be necessarily golden to be able to trace the spiral. Phi appears in the relationship between its sides. Nothing else.

IMG_20191014_004214.jpg

IMG_20190801_140333-01-01-02.jpeg

IMG_20191014_004724.jpg

IMG_20191014_004841.jpg

IMG_20191014_005231.jpg

IMG_20191014_004922.jpg

IMG_20191014_005404.jpg

IMG_20191003_145834.jpg

IMG_20191003_152934.jpg

IMG_20191003_145146.jpg

IMG_20191001_104107-01.jpeg

Those illustrations aren't a continous sequence.  The first does not build to the last.  Also, in the 9th image you supper impose some other mold shape and then adjust to it.

I ask again. How to you actually create a specific violin or mold shape with these tools.   You appear to be using the spirals to create sort of loose under sketch of something with upper and lower bouts and waist.  Then you seem to just freely adjust that to be a little more violin like.  Then you just slap a premade violin shape over that.

Am I wrong?  How does your systen actually generate violin shapes?  I'd like to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Michael Darnton said:

I think you would sense it differently were you to play with a stack of outlines. It's not the same as using photos, and very different from throwing a computer at it, as that joke of a site trying to write certs based on pictures a decade or so ago was attempting. It's a little like looking at dogs: it's hard to decide what makes a dog if you have never seen any other animal. Certainly at first glance they have nothing in common and scaling them the same and comparing pix doesn't really get to it, either.

I do also have a stack of to scale cut out outlines.  And do understand the commonality you point to.  But, they also show considerable subtle variety.  As you well known.

My stack is only about 40 6instruments. And made from scaled photos.

It is a very interesting exercise to compare instruments on this way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your picture looks pretty as always.

But it also still seems to be mere tracing.

Can you redo that same EXACT shape again on a blank paper, without further reference to the Del Gesu.  If you are working a 'system' that should be easy.

Can you talk another person through creating that EXACT shape again, without using the Del Gesu for further reference?

If you're really working a system, that also should be easy.

I don't believe you are actually working any system.  I beleieve you are merely tracing.  I believe you have absolutely no chance of producing a classical Cremona shape except by tracing.

You are using your spirals merely as 'french curves'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Delabo said:

OK, so its more about knowing a method like yours ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KwaoCLqXa0

Yes for example, but I am not the only one, the proposals of David and Kevin require only simple measures too (and some others before us, as well). As far as I am concerned, I consider myself more as a historian of the concept of measurement. I read and sometimes studied closely all that I could on the subject. 
The violin is for me only one example among hundreds of others, the organ buffets interested me, viola da gamba etc ... and since the beginning of this discussion I studied 4 guitars and I am gathering documentation to study 4 others.

I reacted to your post because you were saying a common untruth - If someone uses (presumably without knowing it) complex maths it's us,  much more than a fifteenth century craftsmen whose methods of measurement are not not so mysterious as that.

Above all, I try to defend in this thread the importance of the research method to appreciate the quality of a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

Yes for example, but I am not the only one, the proposals of David and Kevin require only simple measures too (and some others before us, as well). As far as I am concerned, I consider myself more as a historian of the concept of measurement. I read and sometimes studied closely all that I could on the subject. 
The violin is for me only one example among hundreds of others, the organ buffets interested me, viola da gamba etc ... and since the beginning of this discussion I studied 4 guitars and I am gathering documentation to study 4 others.

I reacted to your post because you were saying a common untruth - If someone uses (presumably without knowing it) complex maths it's us,  much more than a fifteenth century craftsmen whose methods of measurement are not not so mysterious as that.

Above all, I try to defend in this thread the importance of the research method to appreciate the quality of a result.

I think the video is great, the only thing that would make better would be either a written or verbal explanation of each step, yet it is rather self explanatory once you see it. That being said, I think it's a good is idea to include it in your discussions at the start of the conversation as it visually shows what you're trying to explain, which is helpful to people who are try to grasp and or visualize what you are saying,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

I reacted to your post because you were saying a common untruth - If someone uses (presumably without knowing it) complex maths it's us,  much more than a fifteenth century craftsmen whose methods of measurement are not not so mysterious as that.

My original post was a reaction to the previous page of the thread which was becoming very technical.

More specifically the poster before me suggested googling  -  "The polar coordinate system" -  which I did, and was met with a page of highly complex algebraic calculations ...........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Delabo said:

My original post was a reaction to the previous page of the thread which was becoming very technical.

More specifically the poster before me suggested googling  -  "The polar coordinate system" -  which I did, and was met with a page of highly complex algebraic calculations ...........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system

 

Are you suggesting that the explanations given here are ridiculously over complicated?

Why write 100 words, when you can write 100,000?

This thread could go on ad infinitum or ad nauseum, depending on your ability to focus on the locus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the best path for a maker is to "get an eye" for things, along with "getting an ear" for various sorts of sounds. Yes, it's not easy, and can't be learned in a day from reading a a paper, or a 27-page thread. Based on my interactions with many makers, I do happen to think that this delivers better and more reliable outcomes than over-analysis. At least so far. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

I still think the best path for a maker is to "get an eye" for things, along with "getting an ear" for various sorts of sounds. Yes, it's not easy, and can't be learned in a day from reading a a paper, or a 27-page thread. Based on my interactions with many makers, I do happen to think that this delivers better and more reliable outcomes than over-analysis. At least so far. ;)

Yes, I suppose it's nice to ponder this subject, but fortunately for all you copyist's the work has already been done, and reconstructing the design details aren't really necessary. 

I would think then, at this point, as David says, developing a keen eye and ear related to either "hard" copies, or your interpretation within those parameters would be the best place to focus energy.

Really I feel these types of threads are most beneficial for people such as myself who generally design my own shapes as it gives one some interesting tools to use in that endeavor, using these formulas/ideas as guides for proportion and scale, but admittedly I am one who will most likely be condemned to using eyes to tell me what looks right, and then that sometimes gets tweaked based on what my ears tell me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jezzupe said:

Yes, I suppose it's nice to ponder this subject, but fortunately for all you copyist's...

I wouldn't really be considered a "copyist", and will freely acknowledge that some copies are amazing!

I kind of do my own stuff, while also acknowledging that my "personal style" has a heavy foundation on visual and sonic tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

I wouldn't really be considered a "copyist", and will freely acknowledge that some copies are amazing!

I kind of do my own stuff, while also acknowledging that my "personal style" has a heavy foundation on visual and sonic tradition.

sorry "all you" doesn't include you :D, you're one of those "my interpretation within the boundaries" kinda guy to me, as I suppose many are to a certain extent.

Copyist is not meant to be a put down to you or anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Delabo said:

My original post was a reaction to the previous page of the thread which was becoming very technical.

More specifically the poster before me suggested googling  -  "The polar coordinate system" -  which I did, and was met with a page of highly complex algebraic calculations ...........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system

 

indeed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the research I'm doing is to benefit two basic audiences. 

The first audience is people who are simply interested in understanding what was done historically.   Usefulness and ease aren't much relevant for this purpose, nor speculations of what might have been better methods.  The point is to see what we can see.  What is actually observable in historical examples if you take the trouble?

This historically motivated group is probably small.  But I'm one of them, so I don't mind making the effort.

The second audience is even smaller, almost noone in fact. But again, I'm one of this small number, so I don't mind the effort.

The second audience is the people who would like to make by the principle of 'do as they did'.   The possibility of doing so is limited by our understanding of what they did and how they did.  I'm trying to contribute to this understanding as best I can.

*******

None of this need be relevant or impactful for modern makers who are already working in their own highly successful and established methods.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

still think the best path for a maker is to "get an eye" for things, along with "getting an ear" for various sorts of sounds. Yes, it's not easy, and can't be learned in a day from reading a a paper, or a 27-page thread. Based on my interactions with many makers, I do happen to think that this delivers better and more reliable outcomes than over-analysis. At least so far. ;)

One may also consider (perhaps in a more constructive and realistic way) that it is not one or the other but the one and the other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, David Beard said:

Your picture looks pretty as always.

>

>

I don't believe you are actually working any system.  I beleieve you are merely tracing.  I believe you have absolutely no chance of producing a classical Cremona shape except by tracing.

You are using your spirals merely as 'french curves'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

 

I wouldn't dismiss 'French curves' as "merely".  I found this on a a  French curve internet search:

"French curves are actually Euler spirals which produce a straight line as the limit approaches zero and the circle as a limit approaches infinity.  In other words it creates a curve that will smoothly link a straight line to a circle which is exactly what draftsmen use a french curve to do."

This seems like the nearly straight line transition between the upper and lower bouts of a guitar with its middle bout and a  photo of an Euler spiral is attached. So an Euler spirals are better than circles for drawing guitars and violins.

The German Ludwig Burnester is credited with the invention of "French curves" and it is interesting that he was studying the motions of machine linkages.  

The human body's arm-wrist-hand-fingers is also a system of several linked moveable parts and this allows a complete freedom of motion and which gives us some survival benefits.  An artist uses this movement freedom to draw smoothly flowing curves like spirals. 

If you've ever had the misfortune of having a broken hand or wrist in a cast you know how hard it is to do cursive writing or draw smoothly. If everything down from the shoulder is in a cast you are pretty much limited to just drawing big circles.  Sort of like using only a compass.

Euler spiral.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not like circles.  Circles have clear radii and centers.  They are under the generative control of a person holding dividers.

The compositional design of a french curve in contrast is generally unknown to the user of a physical french curve. 

They generate nothing.  Which part of the french curve do you make tangent?!?

But, they are excellent tracing curves.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

This seems like the nearly straight line transition between the upper and lower bouts of a guitar with its middle bout and a  photo of an Euler spiral is attached. So an Euler spirals are better than circles for drawing guitars and violins.

No.  Those are actual straight lines tangent to circle arcs.  Same thing is common between the cicles under the pegbox and the circles under the volute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

"French curves are actually Euler spirals which produce a straight line as the limit approaches zero and the circle as a limit approaches infinity.  

That matchs our empirical experience , perfect circles and perfect straight lines are an abstraction (all of us have had this experience trying to glue our first cello joint...) . So you have this gap between the reality and the ideal - which is an old philosophical issue.

circle and straight line are an ideal conception of a reality which, at the end, is more the euler spiral. 

you will find the same kind of issue with the way the Ancient dealed with integers and irrationals - 
The beauty is a reality close to the ideal.  It is this way that Ancient Ideals were made - the perfection was only the gods domains

David you are on the god side and Marty, on the weak humain side :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Marty, this business of the final reality smoothed out from the ideal, the renaisance Artisan and workman's concept of this smooth or 'faired' curve was NOT french curves or Euler spirals or Bezel curves.  It was your bent splines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, David Beard said:

No.  Those are actual straight lines tangent to circle arcs.  Same thing is common between the cicles under the pegbox and the circles under the volute.

Strad's pochette has  examples of long, not quite straight, gradual and smooth inflections between the tighter curves of the bouts and corner points. 

I don't think it is practical to generate these kind of shapes with circles and straight lines.  How did Strado draw his pochette?

Strad pochette. small, jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Strad's pochette has  examples of long, not quite straight, gradual and smooth inflections between the tighter curves of the bouts and corner points. 

I don't think it is practical to generate these kind of shapes with circles and straight lines.  How did Strado draw his pochette?

Strad pochette. small, jpg 64.71 kB · 0 downloads

What is the length of this instrument, do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Strad's pochette has  examples of long, not quite straight, gradual and smooth inflections between the tighter curves of the bouts and corner points. 

I don't think it is practical to generate these kind of shapes with circles and straight lines.  How did Strado draw his pochette?

Strad pochette. small, jpg 64.71 kB · 7 downloads

No. This is a bit different geometry pattern then most violins, but still circle geometry.   This is also the same riser geometry as Giovanni Maria used in a 1525 Lira d'braccio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.