[Cob] Re: cob website... (and movie!)

[Mark Piepkorn]

At 02:10 AM 11/18/2003, michael wrote:
>I have been working on a cob
>website that is now up to stay: http://cob.spirallic.net - projects, links
>etc.


         Beautifully-presented site, Michael.

         And particular congratulations to you on the video at 
http://spirallic.net/blaha/video/nature2.html - perhaps the most visually 
appealing video introduction to cob I've seen (including the CCC tape from 
the early days). It deserves a wide audience. The only questionable bit was 
the short section about SB, which (besides seeming out of place with the 
rest of the material) has some inaccuracies and incomplete information that 
I'm afraid may diminish the value of the overall work. I think simply 
editing it out would improve the piece.

         I assume that the SB footage was included principally to show that 
cob has a place in SB, which is fine and good and totally laudable. I wish 
it showed cob as having a far, far larger place in SB, personally. 
Hybridization, cross-pollination between disciplines and their disciples, 
recognition of the strengths (and weaknesses!) equally and fairly among 
materials and methods... that's so important. While the rest of the film 
celebrates all sorts of good stuff - natural building, locally-sourced 
materials, personal empowerment, and in particular, cob - the short section 
about SB is the only place that gets into anything negative about any of 
the materials. While I'm a huge proponent of putting pitfalls and 
shortcomings and hard truths right out front, I'm more of a proponent of 
balance when it comes to this sort of presentation. Even the hint of a SB 
person dissing cob in order to make SB look good (or vice versa), or a 
papercreter dissing stonemasonry in order to make papercrete look good (or 
vice versa), etc, makes me - and other analytical people, I think - 
immediately suspicious of everything the source says. (Note that I'm not 
accusing you of trying to sabotage SB or make any willfully snooty 
statements; it's a terrific piece of work, with this one fuzzy part which 
was included to illustrate a point - but which I think has some unintended 
consequences which may outweigh the value of including it.) The two primary 
objections I'd raise to the SB footage: 1. whether or not the cracks 
between bales are stuffed with cob or anything else, plastered SB walls 
don't allow airflow and aren't drafty - although convective currents within 
the wall system can be established given the opportunity; and 2. using a 
cement finish over an earthen render is not only not common, it's not a 
good idea. There are also other, more minor, points that I won't get into.

         Cob is a fabulous material. So is SB. Both are powerful, and can 
be equally transformative on so many levels. They can be used 
independently. There are ways to use them together to tremendous effect. 
There are ways to do both wrong. There are distinct differences between 
them, but one isn't better than the other. Sometimes one is more 
appropriate than another, but that doesn't make the other any worse.

         Again, congratulations on putting together such a lovely and 
impressive presentation. Please accept my thoughts in the manner in which 
they were intended: with the desire to praise where praise is due, and to 
be helpful if I think I'm able to be.


Mark