Larry,

This is a hard question for an organization like the AAW. I don't
consider the work that moves toward traditional boundaries as "fringe"
work. I consider it mainstream and relevant. If the publication is
mostly "how to turn a bowl", "how to turn a box" and "how to turn a
pen", then its a publication that will stagnate quickly. I like to
see what else there is and where we can go.

At some point as the AAW matures (remember, we are only about 20 years
old), it is possible that our needs may become broad enough to warrant
more than one publication. Look at the woodworking publications for
example. I used to read American Woodworker, but quit as it became
more cookie cutter woodworking. I now read Fine Woodworking cover to
cover.

For the record, I turn mostly simple hollow forms, bowls and platters
right now with an occasional "artsy" piece.

Joe Fleming - San Diego

(Larry) wrote in message . com...
snipI think it is OK for our practitioners to stretch out and for
our publications to follow that stretch. Should we occasionally
return to the basic forms that define our craft? Sure.snip

Sorry to disagree (slightly). My problem is that of publications
completely moving emphasis to the fringe, with the relative exclusion
of the base ("occasionally return"). I, for one, am not enraptured by
the "over the top" and "ultra neo-rococco". Yes, I like to
occasionally see what the fringe is up to, however I don't want my
diet shifted to that aspect only. My real interest lies with the
basics of form, function, technique, etc. - the mainstream. Shifting
focus entirely to the fringe artificially forces the craft in that
direction, and, imho, not for the better.