Can this structure stand without internal support?

Please allow me to settle this issue permanently. Did a Google search of the picture and found the artist's website. He says this:

"The Gift" incorporates the outstretched offering slab on the right which was intended to add gesture as well as relieve the symmetry of the oval. Probably the most challenging piece technically so far, it is assembled from eighty nine irregular stones which had to be cut and drilled to fit together with grace and continuity.

Also this:
My technique is simple. Stones are arranged in balance with minimal alteration to a point of resolve, then fixed permanently by invisibly drilling and anchoring with steel.

http://www.carlpeverall.com/Stone-Sculpture.html
rpenner made exactly this point, with the same reference, in this thread, in January.

I wonder if your repetition of it will bring this to a stop now. Any bets? :D

If it does, perhaps I should wait 6 months and post again, asserting hotly that there is just no way that the thing can stand up without internal fixings.....and see what happens....
 
rpenner made exactly this point, with the same reference, in this thread, in January.

I wonder if your repetition of it will bring this to a stop now. Any bets? :D

If it does, perhaps I should wait 6 months and post again, asserting hotly that there is just no way that the thing can stand up without internal fixings.....and see what happens....
Oh shit! Sorry rpenner, I totally missed that!
 
I saw this on a geology forum and everyone there seems to think this is free-standing, balanced rocks.

I say no way. This collection of rocks cannot stand without either being cemented/glued or some sort of metal rod/bar inserted thru each piece. The upper arch has no lateral supports to keep it from collapsing.

What say you?


16298874_238401606613698_8292100222074743109_n.jpg
Easily. The distributed weight, friction of the surfaces, irregularities of the surfaces, angular placements of the material, material composition density at key stacking points, and probably an equal number of unmentioned attributes would 'support' the structure. The arch is simply a shape that supports the combination of those attributes. You could probably do something similar with an inverted cone shape or two. BTW I can't see the original img. I'm going off the rock and arch in #10.
 
Easily. The distributed weight, friction of the surfaces, irregularities of the surfaces, angular placements of the material, material composition density at key stacking points, and probably an equal number of unmentioned attributes would 'support' the structure. The arch is simply a shape that supports the combination of those attributes. You could probably do something similar with an inverted cone shape or two. BTW I can't see the original img.
It would not - and does not stand on its own , as the artist himself attests to (in an article you can no longer see):
On the page the artist - several times in several ways - describes the cutting, drilling and fixation he employs in an effort to make the works permanent.
Specifically for that work, he says: "Probably the most challenging piece technically so far, it is assembled from eighty nine irregular stones which had to be cut and drilled to fit together".

I'm going off the rock and arch in #10.
Don't. If you read the thread, you'll that the one in #10 is a counter example.

Here is work in question:

https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/302374562471697696/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top