This is the second project using cylinders, spheres and cones, exploring the relationship between dominant, sub-dominant and sub-ordinate and the movements among these 3 volumes. There is independent, dependent and precarious balance.
Model 1
The dominant (D) is the sphere, the sub-dominant (SD) is the cone and the sub-ordinate (SO) is the cylinder. Making the sphere as the D causes the balance of the whole composition to be stable on the ground. Thus this did not end up as the final model. The SD is balancing precariously on top of the D and SO is sitting on top of the base of the cone. Compared to the sphere, the length of the cone is too similar. Thus, the length of the cone has to be much reduced. Similarly, the length of the cylinder is comparable to the length of the cone, thus the length should also be reduced.
Model 2
The dominant (D) is the cylinder, the SD is cone and the SO is the sphere. This is dependent balance. In this model, the sphere is too big compared to the cone. So, I thought of reducing the cone slightly and reducing the sphere much more all around.
Model 3
The D is the cone, the SD is the cylinder and the SO is the sphere. This model is the process model of the final model. The diameter of the cylinder was small compared to the diameter of the sphere. This is also the dependent balance so I thought that I should experiment with independent balance. But I also had hard time placing the cylinder, which is the SD. It was as if the cylinder is out of place wherever I put it. So, I went back to the dependent balance in the final model.
Hana you need to explore wedging, piercing & cradling that might change the overall look of the composition. The incline of your D in both models 2 & 3 is greater than 45 degrees that’s why the arrangement looks like it will topple over. Try less than 45 degrees ( independent balance) for Model 3 & you’ll see the reduced SD cylinder won’t look so odd. Also think about names / storyline for your compositions it would make it more interesting for you.