The Making of Wood Carved Rattlesnake Walking Cane has been added as a related post - related requested by Payback on that post.

Leave your wood-carving materials at home, berti!

>> ^berticus:

oh for christs sake. i'm meant to be going to seattle later this year.... fffffuuuuck.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill Reid, Haida, goldsmithing, wood carving, man of many talents' to 'Bill Reid, Haida, goldsmithing, wood carving, man of many talents, haida gwaii' - edited by therealblankman

"What's more "procedural" about this carving than a wood carving of a flower? Or a painting of a flower? Do you think Monet didn't have a procedure established when he painted his lilies?"

This is procedural in the same sence as those space spray painted images.
you could probably teach manny people how to do this in a very short peroid of time and get them to replicate it without themselfs having to aply anny real thought to the process.

not that i have a problem with unless sumone was falsly claiming that they invented the process not that that is that important as well.

I never said that this is more or less valid than another thing on a universal level .

I made it very clear that ultimetly if the artist gets enjoyment from it and sumone else dose then it dosent realy matter.

I think you can easily say that the technical ablity / knowlage required for this is less than say carving a convincing face out of wood or stone.
just because something is technically easy to do dosent make it invalid , but it dose make it technicalyt easy to do and there for often times far less impressive to manny people that might have an intrest in technical intrecasy in things , or the merging of technical exicutoin and origonal presentation.

my saying it is naff is my personal subjective view of it from my exsperance of seeing things having looked at ,cakes ,glasss work ,bits of art and abstract work i would think that people that have seen allot of art or maby work in art related fiealds would allso percive it as naff , but maby not.

>> ^westy:
I dont understand what you are saying.
and intemrs of the artistic merits of this its a very procedural method to produce this , i dont have an issue with it but i dobt evan the artist rates it realy highely probably just enjoys making roses with water mellons nothing wrong with that .
Interms of complexty and origonalty this dose not rate very highely , but then again thats not to say that sumone might realy enjoy this and the guy making it might realy enjoy it.
I was simply voicing my personal prefrences in that if i was going to do this id probably want to do something more origonal and something that to me would make it more apealing to eat , but if this was intended for a buffet then i can emgin it would go down realy well so its fine for that and again if it makes the guy happy thats making it happy then thats fine as well.


What's more "procedural" about this carving than a wood carving of a flower? Or a painting of a flower? Do you think Monet didn't have a procedure established when he painted his lilies?

Would you consider a wood carving or sculpture of a flower art? What's the difference, one is edible and the other is not?

This displays a masterful use of the watermelon's natural structure and colors to create a work of art. How many things like this do you see everyday for you to call this unoriginal?

And you say you're making a "piont that is logically sound", except your original post contains no logic, only personal bias that this is "naff" and "tacky".

1. This is a form of the argument that accuses atheists of replacing religious belief with scientific belief. But science is driven by evidence and rationalism whereas religion is driven by revelations and dogma. Science isn't perfect, but it is the best tool we have for understanding the universe. Also, evolution is not about chance. Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance.

2. Wow. Three well trodden fallacies all wrapped up into one. This guy reads way too much Ray Comfort. To answer his primary question, Why is ther something rather than nothing? Well, we don't really know. To suppose that the universe was created by some powerful, divine being doesn't answer the question of First Cause because now you have the presence of a God to explain.

3. Morality is generated by culture. Culture is a set of baseline assumptions that people in a community take for granted. It enables us to communicate efficiently. Having a conversation where you had to define each and every term would be tedious and extremely time consuming. Morality, or the division of actions between Right and Wrong, is woven into the fabric of our culture. So, of course, religion influences morality, as does every cultural institution, but it is not the originator of morality. We create morality. And we are decidedly not Gods or divine.

4. This is more or less the same question as question 3. Morality evolves because of culture. Language allowed us to pass information and knowledge from generation to generation. Culturally speaking, a new generation does not start from scratch. It builds upon culture that has already been established. Also, his caveman example is ridiculous because it is entirely fictitious.

5. Yay! The argument from design rears its ugly, battered head! Why the fuck won't this one go away? When life first started here on Earth it was exceedingly simple. The diversity and complexity we see today is the product of 4 billion years of evolution. FOUR BILLION MOTHER FUCKING YEARS. That is a lot of years. I'm seriously. Although I give him credit for using a wood carving as an example instead of a pocket watch. I haven't heard that one before.