![]() That's not saying that every piece will look better if it's sanded to higher grits. So that's the idea that I'm playing with by sanding to higher grits, and I think it plays out pretty well. That's good -if- the focus of the piece is the wood. If you apply the conclusions of the Pollock article, the increased detail of the grain should result in a more pleasing piece even if the viewer is not really aware of the grain patterns. The detail is patterned due to the way that wood grows, but it's not geometrically regular, so the fractal complexity metric would seem to fit. As you sand through successively higher grits, you bring out more detail. Now think of that in terms of wood grain. No one at the time the article was written knew what techniques Pollock used to get more detail - he worked behind closed doors. Their conclusion was the Pollock painting engaged the viewer's brain in more unconscious analytical pattern analysis, which translated into a more pleasing aesthetic at the conscious level (again, regardless of whether you really like Pollack to begin with). over 10x) more complex, more detailed, than the wannabees. They found that Pollock's paintings were an order of magnitude (i.e. One of the things they analyzed was the fractal complexity of the paintings. Since it seemed like the style didn't really lend itself to that kind of preference ("just" splattering paint on canvas, after all), the authors tried to analyse factors that might account for the preference. Regardless of whether liked Pollock's style or not, there was a very clear preference for Pollock over the wannabee - and this was true over a selection of Pollock and wannabee paintings. In a blind experiment, people were shown a Jackson Pollock painting and a respectable wannabee Jackson Pollock painting, and asked to choose which one they preferred. On a more philosophical note, there was an article a while back in Scientific American on the aesthetics of Jackson Pollock's paintings - the guy who splattered paint on the canvas. If I'm putting on a hard finish, I sand to 400-600 and call it a day, because wet sanding a hard finish may affect the look of the finish, but it's not doing anything to the wood. Furthermore, it's not necessarily important to see all that detail in every piece, so I don't sand to that high a grit all the time. Personally, I like to take advantage of the color variation, and I try to choose wood carefully for grain and color to get what I want. If you stop at 220, the additional roughness in the surface over a 1000-2000 grit finish is going to mask some of the color variation. If you wet sand to that fine a grit, you are going to get more color variation because the natural variations in the wood are going to show more clearly. I think it makes a huge difference in the small details - for example, cross grain flecks in quarter-sawn cherry or maple. I dry sand to 400 - 600, and then wet sand through the higher grits. I often sand to 1200 grit or more on projects with a rubbed oil finish.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |