Leo.............I agree with you. I think. I wasn't trying to set new
boundaries..........just tell how my personal boundaries tend to run.

No one needs my permission or anyone else's to color, stain or do whatever
else they would like to a piece of wood (or to one's anatomy). Maybe I was
pleading for a little restraint and good taste in both arenas.

I was only offering my opinion. You and everyone else is certainly free
.........to take it or leave it. As for starting a war...........I think we
already have enough conflict in the world.

Barry




"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

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*.