Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2007 2:35:54 GMT
Hi all, I've been lurking in the forum shadows for a little while now, and decided to submit a design and a partial. Let me know what you think. And another greek goddess based concept... Thanks for looking!
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 28, 2007 3:09:46 GMT
woohoo! Another designer!
If I may point out something: On the second design, the curvature of the extended blade would make wielding a bit of a pain. Maybe you could extend it farther away from the knuckles?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2007 4:03:53 GMT
Yeah, I'm just trying to decide weather or not to remove it entirely, or start the forward curve farther up the edge. Thanks for the note though, I appreciate it, second set of eyes and everything. I'm actually working on it for my wife, and once I get a good design, who knows, maybe I'll have it commissioned for her. It's definately going to show it's greek/roman side, which is entirely on purpose, as I love those little swords! One step at a time, though. Cheers!!
Cameron
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 28, 2007 4:16:01 GMT
you may like my new falcata hybrid that I'm making then. When its posted, feel free to take some ideas from it if you wish
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Mar 28, 2007 4:19:59 GMT
one more thing: In terms of designs, be careful not to foresake practicality for originality or creativity. If a sword is impractical, it's hardly a sword now, isn't it ? But bauty can be found in designs that are fully functional so keep at it! I like your idea for the greek sword by the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2007 8:11:54 GMT
If a sword is impractical, it's hardly a sword now, isn't it ? i would argue that practicality is only important if your ultimate goal is pure functionality. if you're trying to express something else with your design, don't be afraid to see where the wild side takes you. of course, this forum is dedicated to "functional" swords...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 7, 2007 18:26:41 GMT
I'm going to disagree though I see where you are coming from. Let me try to point out why I thhink this way: A sword is, first and foremost a weapon. Regardless of how (un)cool it may look, it is meant to kill as effeciently as possible. When this efficiency is compromized to the point of absurdity, it is no long as sword in my book but a swordlike object (SLO). Now, feel free to express yourself, god knows how I try to on my designs...But I'm just offering a warning that it is always better to have an ugly, functional sword than a beautiful piece of scrap metal ;D No offense intended, of course
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2007 20:12:21 GMT
I disagree. A sword is a symbol of certain ideals expressed in weaponlike form.
If pure functionality in killing someone effectively were your goal, then guns would be a far better subject of study. Or if you're in it for the history, Spears, Pikes, and other polearms, or even bows and arrows. Even the lowly quarterstaff is a more versatile weapon that is far easier to use than a sword. The reason swords hold us captivated is because of what they MEAN. A japanese sword is the soul of the samurai. A templar's sword is his cross - his way of communing with god. To a king and his knights, swords are a status symbol of power and wealth. A sword is the physical incarnation of any number of things: Honor, Chivalry, Nobility, Loyalty, Ferocity, Strength, and many others. Different swords personify any, all, or other ideals in various combinations. But all swords are symbollic.
Given that, if you want to express something in a sword that might inhibit it's functionality a bit, than by all means do so. Just be aware that like any form of art, there will be more critics than fans.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 7, 2007 20:55:47 GMT
Historical sense is what I'm referring to, not a world encompassing one ;D Swords = weapons, that's undenyable. What is a weapons purpose? If self expression was all-important then painting is a far better art (being a bit of a devils advocate of course, though I'd like to see your responses)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2007 1:03:32 GMT
Historical sense is what I'm referring to, not a world encompassing one ;D Swords = weapons, that's undenyable. What is a weapons purpose? If self expression was all-important then painting is a far better art (being a bit of a devils advocate of course, though I'd like to see your responses) Are you trying to quantify how 'good' an art is? Are you trying to say that some arts are more artful than others? What about poetry? What about dance? What about martial ARTs? Why is it that in the high end sword world, when a particular piece is well done it is considered 'a work of art'? When it comes to personal expression, or what has symbolic meaning to a person, NOTHING is better than anything else. In a historical sense swords meant just as much as they do now. Whether you want to be a badass with a cool looking weapon, or for some other, somewhat more noble reasoning, choosing a sword as your weapon has more to it than just 'this is a functional weapon that kills efficiently'. Like I said, if efficient killing is what you're into swords for, then you're vastly mistaken in how you pursue that goal. that's just the way it is. Halberds for example are far more efficient killing machines than swords are. If you say swords are just weapons and were made and preferred by some simply for their ability to kill you're wrong. Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 8, 2007 1:42:16 GMT
ay, but what about a history in reference certain time period? Admittedly, a sword probably isn't the BEST weapon compared to how easy it is to manufacture, but it is certainly a versatile and unique killing tool. I don't think machines guns were availible at this time frame....well there's the chinese chu ko nu, but that's beside the point. I still don't agree, at least not entirely, but you are bringing up some great points
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2007 1:56:13 GMT
I gotta say I really enjoy the Rammstein vs Adam arguments, they can be very enlightening. You gentlemen certainly are not men of few words
|
|
|
Post by sol on Apr 8, 2007 2:09:36 GMT
When you select a sword for battle and choose form over function be prepared to be removed from the gene pool rather abruptly.
Sol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2007 4:24:36 GMT
Sol brings up a good point. This is also why on the battlefield most men used spears, pikes, and pollaxes as their preferred weapons. As much care goes into the design and perfection of things like the taper or balance of a sword, the hardness and geometry of the edge, and so forth, it still profits you nothing if you can't stick/cut the guy before he can stick/cut you.
This is why swords are fascinating. They are most definately NOT the most efficient or effective combat tools(they have their place, but it's not at the top of the warfare food chain). yet people of all ages and cultures are fascinated by them. This is because of their symbolic meaning, their spiritual and emotional significance.
Swords represent a way of life. They represent deep spiritual beliefs. I call this faith. If a samurai believed he was fighting with a weapon that was quite literally his soul, he will have fought better than if he just believed it to be a hunk of iron. Psychologically, it has been proven that if someone believes that an object grants them 'luck', they actually perform better. It's related to the 'placebo' effect. But coming from a religious standpoint I believe the effect of faith is very real. Obviously I'm not alone, considering the status that swords held in the minds of people throughout history.
Go ahead and laugh at my hokey religion. Han Solo did, and look what Luke accomplished anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2007 18:34:49 GMT
When you select a sword for battle and choose form over function be prepared to be removed from the gene pool rather abruptly. Sol for me, a sword is no longer just about battle. when's the last time any of us had to charge enemy forces with sword unsheathed or defend our honor in a duel to the death? don't get me wrong, i respect the functionality, the history, and the solidity of functional swords, but i also respect swords that aren't designed for "battle". i find it very hard to believe that any of us is a more or less likely candidate for natural selection because our swords don't have big enough handguards or are improperly balanced. i dig "functional" but i think it is, at times, over-hyped. there's no reason we can't enjoy swords that were designed with something other than dismemberment in mind. the argument may then become: "it's a sword-like-object, not a true sword" but this gets sort of sticky. as i said earlier, unless there's some wicked underground sword fight club that i don't know about, i don't know that functionality can be the foundation of our classification of swords anymore. it's not like comparing apples and oranges, just apples grown by different farmers with different tastes. i still defer to the intent of the designer. if you want function, kudos. if you want expression, kudos. i don't think either sword is necessarily "better", just better suited for different uses.
|
|
|
Post by sol on Apr 9, 2007 0:37:17 GMT
Adam made some good points that a sword in this day and age does not have to be strictly functional ( I doubt they were ever designed with only function in mind. Though that probably was the main consideration most of the time).
Sol
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 9, 2007 0:58:13 GMT
also, the genetic pool reference was about choosing a sword for battle...in which case, sol is correct. If you choose your weapon for aesthetics instead of functionality, you'll sooner wind up with YOUR head on a platter than the enemy king you've just sworn to kill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2007 1:16:23 GMT
also, the genetic pool reference was about choosing a sword for battle...in which case, sol is correct. If you choose your weapon for aesthetics instead of functionality, you'll sooner wind up with YOUR head on a platter than the enemy king you've just sworn to kill unless you can blind him with the light that glints off the cubic zirconia embedded into the hilt of your bedazzled sword...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Apr 9, 2007 1:43:27 GMT
rofl...I have to admit, that is certainly an option
|
|
|
Post by sol on Apr 9, 2007 2:02:04 GMT
also, the genetic pool reference was about choosing a sword for battle...in which case, sol is correct. If you choose your weapon for aesthetics instead of functionality, you'll sooner wind up with YOUR head on a platter than the enemy king you've just sworn to kill The genetic pool reference was about choosing a sword for battle as Rammstein said. Also I didn't mean that if you increase a swords aesthetics you necessarily decrease it's function (to a point you can have your cake and eat it too). I just meant that substituting aesthetics for functionality would likely decrease your effectiveness using the weapon and therefore increase your likelihood of being killed in battle. If those cubic zirconia don't get in the way and you blinded your enemy with them that's an increase in function and aesthetics (providing you actually like cubic zirconia on a sword ) Sol
|
|