Close to the stone

["Maureen Thompson" <maureen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all. I want to chime in as I think Laurie's remark is an interesting one.
I also think Clive's interpretation and tone is understandable. It raises
some questions that I think about a lot. Does one jeopardize the integrity
of the stone when applying chemicals? This is not an attack or meant to be
argumentative, just a question. It's a branch of the stone trade I have
never experimented with so these are friendly questions. I only use hand
tools and never need to explore chemicals to get a result for my work.
However, I have seen it done and know I might be forced to try it if and
when a quarry sends a stained slab of granite that can only be cleaned up
with acid. I solely do inscriptions in stone, mostly gravestones, sometimes
a little ornament. This is all to say, a lot of people comment that I am
close to the stone. I think I am closer to keeping the tradition of hand
carving letters alive. I am never looking into the stone to see it's soul or
anything. I appreciate the color, the movement, the energy it has but I am
not bringing anything out of it. More often than not, I am trying my best to
enhance the natural strength of the stone with an appropriately drawn
alphabet.  But in sculpture, other means are necessary for different
results. Do people introduce chemicals because it is time and cost
effective? Or are acids used because it is the only way to get a desired
effect? I'm interested in the ranging thoughts about this. I think Laurie,
and I'm speculating, my have meant that hand tooling preserves an aspect of
the stone that chemicals nullify. Do I agree? I think people that can get
their desired results with just some old fashioned elbow grease and hand
tools are different, but not better, than other craftspeople.
Maureen L. Thompson
Stonecarver