It's easy, when you can copy ...
Just a few short days later, I have placed all of the non-standard-shaped pieces in this monotonous middle ground of 'Creation of Adam'. Now I understand how others completed the 32,256-piece "Double Retrospect" so quickly. It's a breeze, when all you have to do is complete one section, and then build the others over it.
(Even the above section to the puzzle, which is the middle 1/3rd and 4,032 pieces, could be further broken down into 4 identical 1,008-piece sections. Thus, in this puzzle, there are 12 duplicates of each piece, for a grand total of 12,096.)
As I've said before, I don't think this approach is really the 'essence' of puzzling. (Whether or not it's 'cheating' is another question.) With an identical pattern, it's just a matching exercise, focusing on piece shape, which is limited to about 7 or 8 generalities. Sure, it might be more difficult and costly for puzzle manufacturers to make a 12,000 piece puzzle, or a 32,000 piece puzzle, with completely unique pieces (or at least no repeating pattern) throughout. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to!
Indeed, it seems that large-puzzle companies, especially Ravensburger, are attempting to turn their 'cookie-cutter' manufacturing limitations into an asset. Those in the know can enjoy huge time savings by figuring out the "key" and, once a 1,008 piece section is completed, reinforce this method of building puzzles by piece shape, one section on top of the other. Ravensburger's choice of Keith Haring's 'Double Retrospect,' a series of 32 panels, made up of solid-color areas only, leaves one little choice but to go primarily by shape, once the primary colors are sorted. Each panel neatly fits on top of the other.
To me, the essence of making a puzzle - whether 50 or 500 or 50,000 pieces - is about separating out different color areas. One has to get 'in the zone,' developing a keen eyesight for differences in hue, graininess/smoothness, proportion, etc. in order to solve the puzzle.
In my opinion, the rising dominance of "making a puzzle by piece shape and pattern" diminishes the accomplishments of the people who make them. To a casual observer, unaware that a 32,000 piece puzzle is actually comprised of 32 identical 1000 piece puzzles, finishing such a behemoth must seem nearly super-human. But ultimately it's the puzzler who is being cheated.
Bigger isn't always better. In the race to produce the hugest puzzle, the quality and uniqueness/variety of cutting - once a cornerstone of puzzles - is being ignored.
What do you other puzzlers out there think?
It's easy, when you can copy ...
Just a few short days later, I have placed all of the non-standard-shaped pieces in this monotonous middle ground of 'Creation of Adam'. Now I understand how others completed the 32,256-piece "Double Retrospect" so quickly. It's a breeze, when all you have to do is complete one section, and then build the others over it.
(Even the above section to the puzzle, which is the middle 1/3rd and 4,032 pieces, could be further broken down into 4 identical 1,008-piece sections. Thus, in this puzzle, there are 12 duplicates of each piece, for a grand total of 12,096.)
As I've said before, I don't think this approach is really the 'essence' of puzzling. (Whether or not it's 'cheating' is another question.) With an identical pattern, it's just a matching exercise, focusing on piece shape, which is limited to about 7 or 8 generalities. Sure, it might be more difficult and costly for puzzle manufacturers to make a 12,000 piece puzzle, or a 32,000 piece puzzle, with completely unique pieces (or at least no repeating pattern) throughout. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to!
Indeed, it seems that large-puzzle companies, especially Ravensburger, are attempting to turn their 'cookie-cutter' manufacturing limitations into an asset. Those in the know can enjoy huge time savings by figuring out the "key" and, once a 1,008 piece section is completed, reinforce this method of building puzzles by piece shape, one section on top of the other. Ravensburger's choice of Keith Haring's 'Double Retrospect,' a series of 32 panels, made up of solid-color areas only, leaves one little choice but to go primarily by shape, once the primary colors are sorted. Each panel neatly fits on top of the other.
To me, the essence of making a puzzle - whether 50 or 500 or 50,000 pieces - is about separating out different color areas. One has to get 'in the zone,' developing a keen eyesight for differences in hue, graininess/smoothness, proportion, etc. in order to solve the puzzle.
In my opinion, the rising dominance of "making a puzzle by piece shape and pattern" diminishes the accomplishments of the people who make them. To a casual observer, unaware that a 32,000 piece puzzle is actually comprised of 32 identical 1000 piece puzzles, finishing such a behemoth must seem nearly super-human. But ultimately it's the puzzler who is being cheated.
Bigger isn't always better. In the race to produce the hugest puzzle, the quality and uniqueness/variety of cutting - once a cornerstone of puzzles - is being ignored.
What do you other puzzlers out there think?