Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

... 2. Comparative Analysis (concluded)

Additional notes on lines and forms

Kent's pipe holds its own attractions.  Beautifully finished and intelligently designed, what the composition may gives up in dynamic movement it gains in quiet dignity and beautiful refinement.  Its shapes are sensitively judged and skillfully rendered.  Many small details reflect the care and precision of Kent's work.  The bottom of the pipe and the shank contain a number of soft, undulating curves; the ferrule has a slight twist to it that suggests a nice plasticity of form.  Is the birch wood itself  just a tad thicker and heavier than it needs to be, in relationship to the size of the bowl?  My eye wonders about this.  On the other hand, these proportions are characteristic of Kent's aesthetic and the attractive band of birch does provide a solid anchor, a point of rest and balance as our eyes travel across the pipe.  My quibble probably says more about my own tastes than about Kent's composition.  This is a minor point.  Kent's design remains lithe, supple, and satisfying.  If not quite as propulsive as Teddy's more dramatic piece, Kent's volcano celebrates a venerable Danish shape with a distinctive and expressive voice.

A Small Digression ...

By the way, the last photo above reminds me of one delicious irony in this comparison:  Teddy's rather uncharacteristic stem work,  in which he breaks up the base line so that part of it curls back to the top of the shank.  This sort of "post-modern saddle bit"  emulates something that Kent himself does in some of his most innovative compositions!  Consider the Kent's famous Marini pipe - one of the first of Kent's modern sculptural designs:

Kent's Marini bit, above, Teddy's volcano, below.

(I've only seen this kind of bit on a couple of Teddy's pipes, this volcano being the first.)

Returning to the discussion of overall lines and forms:

As the previous pictures have shown, there's no denying the attractiveness of the bottom curve along the shank and bowl of Kent's pipe.  Indeed, one of the fascinating features of this comparison is that Teddy and Kent use similar lines for the base both pipes.  What's different - and most telling - is what they construct on top of this foundation.

The shank-tops of both pipes are quite different, Kent's being rounded and Teddy's almost coming to a point.  The construction allows Kent to display nice birds-eye and produces a feeling of poise and balance.  For Teddy, the more pointed ridge adds characteristic tension and energy.  Note also that his rim is not perfectly round but "breathes" backwards slightly, picking up some of the movement that flows up the back of the bowl from the top of the shank.

Note also that his rim is not perfectly round but "breathes" backwards slightly (the rear is thicker than the front) picking up some of the movement that flows up the back of the bowl from the top of the shank.

3. Photos for further study

Details of volcanoes by Kent and Teddy

I'll end with a sequence of similarly-angled shots on both pipes and leave commentary to readers.  Be aware that Teddy's unusual and un-centered ridge along the bottom of his sandblasted base means that the pipe doesn't sit as centered on the table as the Kent, so the photographs cannot be exactly matches of each other.

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3