Barry: Let's not forget that wood, with its beautiful figure, burls, etc.,
is God's work.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Dan: Uh, daring to start a flaming, crusading war, let's stick to
woodturning instead of religion.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Leo: I'm not religious, but when I read a statement like Barry's, I
substitute "nature's" for God's," and if it still makes sense, I deal with
it on that level. No need to fight a war on something we can agree on.

On the other hand, Barry, I think you are setting an arbitrary boundary
between acceptable modifications of natural beauty, and what is *going too
far.* I see beauty in a naturally formed piece of driftwood, or an eroded
stone, so how can I give myself permission to modify a piece of wood on the
lathe. And then, after I have altered its shape and texture, where do I get
permission to dope it up with oils, or varnishes, or other finishes? If I
stain it, to enhance the grain, is that OK? And then, if I add some color,
because I think that adds to the beauty of the finished object, how is that
different from the steps that preceded it?

All of these processes must be done in good taste, with artistry and
restraint. But, what is accepable, what we consider beautifuy, changes with
the times. Styles go in and out, and then come back. How different the
Victorian styles are from the arts and crafts. Yet both are valid--both can
be done well or badly, and neither can be justified by reference to any
*absolute*.