Dirt in my alabaster

[Julianna]

Hi.

I've encountered dirt in my alabaster before, but this vein of dirt seems to be much deeper than any of the others. I can probably remove the entire section of stone around it, but I'm already concerned about the gravitational balance and the fragility of the sculpture (when it's finished)...and don't want to remove so much stone just yet.

Does anyone know how I can determine how deep the dirt goes without removing it/the stone around it?

[StevenW]

Short of a cat scan it's up to your intuition. It looks to me about as deep as the first digit of your little finger. I'm sure it can be taken out, but you'll have to adapt to it afterwards. The real question is can you live with a little dirt or does it have to go? I would take it out because it doesn't hide well in this kind of rock, in the alabaster I dig up myself it doesn't matter so much because it's very earthy anyway and does well with a simple matte finish, 400or so.

Take a chance, it'll work out. :)

P.S. I'd take that whole right side out and follow the natural concave cavity, you'll end up with another little mini-piece and have a nice natural curve to follow vertically.

[tonofelephant]

Julianna,

No matter what you gotta dig out that dirt. I tried working around this same thing last Monday. The alabaster I was working on had what looked like a thin streak of dirt. After getting the design roughed in the front 1/4 of the stone peeled off right at the dirt line. The dirt line went all the way through the stone. This design veering has made for a decididly better piece.

This time I managed to keep my attitude and laugh about it instead of worrying about the new design development. Keeping my attitude was infintely better than getting angry. Might have to try that approach again.

Good luck to you on the new direction that your stone takes.

Carl

[Will]

Julianna,

I have this problem with some of my alabaster. I have used a stone enhancer and sealer to stabilize the stone once I get to the wet-sanding stage. Once it's applied, it stabilizes the surface and the stone can be wet-sanded to a very high grit without losing the integrity of the surface.

Will

[Cantab]

I may be stating the obvious, but a strong light behind the alabaster often shows up the depth of veining.

Personally I'd finish the piece as if the veining was not there, and only then consider my position. It's sometimes better to recognise the stone for what it is.

[StevenW]

Well there's an idea. :rolleyes:

Ida thunka that myself if I was thinking at all, the rock looks a tad thick maybe, but if it's translucent enough it should fly. I guess there's merit to trying to work it into the piece as well, but I'd just skip all that if I could, looks like it's just waiting to come off right there. One thing to maybe look ahead at is if that part does come off and the form remains unchanged it will be quite phallic. Not sure whether or not that's the intention, but I just thought I'd point it out.


Bright light, translucent, doh, taking notes, quiz at the end of the class.. :)

[dondougan]

Hi Julianna,

Re: the dirt in the alabaster . . .

I carve marble and limestone more often than alabaster, but similar things (flaws for the carver) occur in those stones too.

My approach is a bit different than the others suggested -- not because I disagree with them (I don't), but because after a few years of dealing with them in those very ways I decided there had to be an alternative. Now I still use those methods when appropriate, but more often I allow myself to consider other options.

When I found an approach that allowed other options, it changed my work and my whole approach to making sculpture. I have probably alluded to the approach in other posts about unexpected breaks, flaws, etc. in the stone -- but I'll go ahead and run the risk of repeating myself. (who doesn't like to hear themselves talk?) <grin>

Now -- when something occurs in a carving that is due to a 'flaw' in the stone -- I try to figure out what (design outcome) I'd be attempting if I had deliberately created it. Sometimes I can make that approach work for me, other times the solution eludes me in that fairly simplistic manner.
However, when the simplistic manner's solution eludes me I often resort to adding an inlay of another type of stone or another material to 'fill' the flawed area. I write the word 'resort,' but I feel I must clarify that I do NOT do this simply as a 'patch' -- as I have seen in many antique works -- but as a completely new design element. I don't want to conserve or restore, instead I want to make it BETTER. Often 'better' means that the new element is a contrasting color or has textural/visual properties that the matrix stone does not have -- so the qualities of each material (and their relationships) are emphasized. 'Better' also means discarding original concepts -- and I realize that for some this is quite a difficult requirement to overcome.
Only you can decide whether it will be worth it to discard your original idea . . .

After learning how to do this (i.e., - practice, practice, practice) I discovered than it greatly expanded my "carver's vocabulary" and allowed me to evoke and express things that were simply not possible using a monolithic block of material. Adding other types or other colors of stone were my first experiments, but then the addition of other (non-stone) materials soon followed.

Now, even though I still think of myself as a 'stone-carver,' perhaps 80% of my output would be more honestly termed 'mixed-media constructions' even though 90% of the individual pieces are one kind of stone or another. And most of this stems from trying to resolve issues of natural 'flaws' in the material (stone) I most often choose to work.

Perhaps you are one who would argue for the 'integrity' of the block of material.
OK.
I can appreciate that.
Setting up rules for oneself to work-by is an essential prerogative of the artist. I grant you that there is something extremely satisfying about seeing a work done 100% in a single, monolithic chunk of material with no patches or additions.
And sometimes I seek this quality in my work.
However, I want to be the one setting my own rules -- and for me that means it (the sculpture) simply has to 'work' -- monolithic or not.
No other rules.
A painter friend of mine (Larry A.) tells his painting students that there are two rules for being a painter: The first rule is that painters PAINT. The second rule is that there IS no other rule.
Ask yourself 'Is sculpture or carving any different?' and you may find YOUR solution to the 'dirt.'

Good 'digging' to you,
Don

www.dondougan.com

[Cantab]

Good post, Don. By the way, is there anywhere that you discuss the techniques of marrying stone to stone?

Steven - yep, the stone may be a tad thick...

[GlennT]

Julianna:

I'm wondering if you can scrape out the dirt that is visible, and then lay the stone horizontally and pour warm soapy water or olive oil, or some such liquid or combination of them that can soak, break down, and dissolve more of the hidden dirt so it can wash out without needing to do more investigative carving.

[dondougan]

Cantab,
RE: ". . . marrying stone to stone . . ."

The link below is an old page that I used to describe the inlay and fitting process. It was done back in 1998 or 1999 when I first learning how to put my web-site on the net, so the photographic quality leaves a bit to be desired. The piece was actually done out of some small scrap for the specific purpose of photographing the steps with my then-new 3½ megapixel camera, and I must admit it is not one of my best pieces. However, the step-by-step images and text boxes describe marrying white Carrara, Spanish black, and Italian yellow marbles to each other (along with a 'hidden' welded-steel framework for structural integrity) for a completely and permanently-joined piece of sculpture with three visual elements (the marbles).

http://www.dondougan.homestead.com/theprocess2.html

Sooner or later I will replace it with a better example and with photos that have more clarity.

The first piece of stone where I fitted and inlaid marbles together (as opposed to simply pinning them as separate elements) was done in 1982. Over the years I have learned lots of little improvements to the process, but perhaps the best pieces of advice I can provide for doing it successfully is to keep your chisels razor sharp (seriously, you should be able shave the hair on your arm with the edge), be precise in scribing measurements, take your time in fitting (most fittings require a minimum of twenty or thirty test-tries with slight amounts of 'dust' removed each time), and that tapered Roman joints ( both for the 'mortise' and the 'tenon' elements) are much easier to fit than right-angled perpendicular-sided forms.
Usually I allow the fitted/inlaid form to be proud of the surface of the matrix because I prefer the visual dimensionality that provides the design. However, when appropriate in the specific design I make the inlaid form flush with the surface of the matrix. The former (proud surface) allows for a little bit more wiggle-room in the fitting for an acceptable appearance, while the latter (flush surfaces) requires near-perfection (more than twice as long to fit) to look satisfactory. Straight-sided matching-tapered edges to the inlay are easier to achieve than curved matching-tapered edges, though the 'corners' of the straight-edged mortise are perhaps the single most tedious aspect of the fitting.
If you have a Foredom or Dremel type mini-grinder, the little 20mm or 1-inch diameter diamond saw blades make the initial cutting of straight edges to the tapered mortise easier, but the corners and finishing work is by necessity done with chisels, files, and small rubbing stones. Doing curved mortise inlay work can be done with a Foredom/Dremel type mini-grinder employing tungsten-carbide or diamond electroplated cylinders better than with chisels. For the final shaping of the 'tenon' inlay I use fine-grit silicon-carbide wet-sanding paper on polished marble slabs to rub the straight or curved tapered sides to fit.

Good fitting to you,
Don

www.dondougan.com

[Will]

Great information Don. Thank you for sharing your wisdom on the subject. It's great to not have to reinvent the wheel. It's much betting when you have a blueprint instead. :)

Will

[Cantab]

Don - many thanks.

Glenn - I wouldn't use any oily liquid on alabaster, it will change the translucency permanently, in this case from inside.

[GlennT]

Glenn - I wouldn't use any oily liquid on alabaster, it will change the translucency permanently, in this case from inside.

Good point Cantab. I thought of olive oil because it is sometimes used to help remove dirt encrustations from ancient coins due to its acidic nature. I had not considered the translucent issue, although I wonder if that would matter in the case of a work that is given an oiled finish when completed.

[Julianna]

Wow. Thanks for all the responses!

I ended up using a spray-bottle with some water to get some of the dirt out. It looks like Steven was right about it being about as deep as the first digit on a pinkie finger.

I'm planning to carve it out. I have thought of filling it, but it would be too obviously patched (at least to me).