Maxprop wrote:
snip of an informative story

.... your desire to help the turner continue to produce
is valid, and no doubt the reason some people pay more for turnings than
that which might be considered financially reasonable. But it really has
little to do with the market for turnings in general. Please set me
straight on this if I'm incorrect, but I make my preceding statement with
the assumption that fine turnings by even the best in the business don't
realize the same level of appreciation that paintings and sculptures by
renowned artists do.


Two good points.

With respect to the first. I am of the opinion that there are many
markets and it is sometimes difficult to draw conclusions from a
conceptualization that posits a homogenous market. My comments were
largely oriented with respect to primarily woodturnings as
nonfunctional-object-of-art. Exemplified by the production of
established "artists" (Ellsworth, Jordon, the Lindquists, the Moulthrops
as iconic exemplars) and those rising in stature but clearly associated
with object-of-art productions (Liestman, Wolfe, Bosche and Vesery being
some of the more prominent). If I buy a Jordan or Moulthrop piece in the
thousands, or a Piscatelli (one of potential "risings") I allow myself
to pay a premium for the reasons I expressed earlier.

Another market is the functional-object-as-also-art. This includes
primarily bowls (but also sometimes boxes and candlesticks) of exotic
wood or signature shape. This as I see it is exemplified by turners such
as Raffan, Stotts, much of Osolnik's work, and even Stocksdale (and more
recent turners like Mahoney and perhaps Drozda). In general, their
production has been much more influenced by larger market forces, and
prices went up only after a reputation was established in other areas
(non-functional objects of art, master turner status, etc.). One may
still pay a premium for such objects for the reasons expressed earlier,
but that desire is tempered by their perceived worth versus more
utilitarian renditions of similar utility. After all, just how much is
one really going to pay for a candlestick, even if it was made (by the
thousands) by Osolnik---actually not that much, particulary compared to
what Osolnick might have made for a similarly sized sculpture.

Then there is the market of utilitarian items, that may rise above
merely function based on their hand made production, or the qualities of
the materials, but which are basically being judged against a market of
items of similar utility. I put pens and basic serving/kitchen bowls,
and treen, etc. in this category. A wood bodied pen must compete against
not only the production of a multitude of local and international
woodturners turners, but also against a Mont Blanc on one end and a BIC
on the other. It is here that I think many of the earlier comments apply
most. Yah, it may take a particular turner 3 hours to create a perfectly
shaped and finished pen of Kingwood, but in most cases it is having to
compete against woods that appear not all that different produced by
turners who can produce an at least superficially similar pen in 10
minutes to 6 hours time. I think here most of your earlier comments are
spot on. In the majority of cases, the purchaser has little interest in
supporting the turner in their further production, is clearl measuring
value against other offerings, and certainly isn't apt to think there
has been great value added to their life that they have been associated
with the turner's name.

Obviously this is just one way of crudely parsing the varying markets,
and of course the distinctions blur on the edges, but I do think a
conceptualization based on multiple markets, and the varying
characteristics of the buyer as well as maker, results in useful
distinctions.

As to your second point of financial value of woodturned
nonfunctional-objects-of-art, I think the present and future are unclear
in this area. My sense of things, is that woodturnings as
nonfunctional-objects-of-art remain a fairly recent phenomeon but has
finally become almost fully accepted, and that current prices and future
appreciation are apt to begin to achieve parady with other media such as
glass and pottery, if not paintings. One thing that I think is affecting
this is that the first generation creating nonfunctional-objects-of-art
have only recently started to die off(Most of the pioneers in this area
who have died, have only done so with the last five years--e.g. the
elder Moulthrop and Lindquist, Stocksdale and Osolnik). It is only when
supply has ceased that prices of the existing items truly begin to soar.
Just try to get some of the early Stocksdale and Osolnik items away from
such folks as Martha Connell. If you can, they will come dear. In most
other media, which have a much longer history of acceptance as
nonfunctional-objects-of-art, the finite production of dead artists
begins to raise the value of what even the living produce.

The other thing here, which works against woodturnings as highly valued
nonfunctional-objects-of-art is that until recently it was difficult to
distinguish these items from functional-objects-of-art, or even
functional items. Would the unsophisticated purchaser even distinguish
between a hollow form sculture and a Drozda box, let alone between a
bowl that Raffan produced and one that was cranked out in a third world
sweat shop. There are centuries of art appreciation teaching applied to
paintings and inert sculptures, but virtually no teaching of how to
appreciate woodturned art (really, when was the last time anyone saw any
reference to wood art (studio or woodturned) in an art appreciation
textbook. Yet this is changing, and will effect the market. This last
century, particular in its latter half, saw the rise of serious
appreciation of folk or craft art. This has served as a base for others
(specifically Museums such as the Renwick and Mint, Galleries such as
the Connell and Del Mano, etc.) to begin to advance the status of
woodturned nonfunctional-objects-of-art. I've said a lot more about this
in a tentative but unfinished article called Three Facets of Woodturned
Art that exists in the archives of this group. So yes, I do think that a
market, with all the forces I refered to in the earlier post, is both
currently viable and one that I believe will enlarge in the future.

So, part of all of this is just ramblings about a perspective on
woodturning that I find interesting, but part of it is meant to
sincerely address the larger conversation that has existed in this
thread. With respect to the latter, I will reiterate that my sense of
things (for whatever that is worth) is that the conversation will be
most fruitful if it distinguishes between the differing markets and
recognizes that differing forces will come into play according to the
market niche in question. For nonfunctional-objects-of-art the forces
will be different than for the more utilitarian object, regardless of
the care and effort that went into either.


And just a final tangential comment to stir things up. Personally, I
think that most embellished woodturnings, specifically those that
largely obliterate the unique characteristics of wood, though a great
novelty to turners in the present, won't fair that well over the long
haul and may actually work against a rising appreciation and acceptance
of woodturned nonfunctional-objects-of-art. Frankly, in my view, a lot
of current embellishment is primitive and amateurish compared to the
developed standard found in other media. Crude carving (and I'm not
including the excellent work of folks like Vesery or Jordan here),
mechanical texture tooling (Oh I hate chatter tools and the Sorby
texturer), dunk and dye jobs, slapped on paint (and I'm not including
Giles Gilson here), and cutesy burned and painted on figures and
patterns (and I don't include Nittman here), on woodturnings rarely rise
to the levels of other media, and frankly would be seen as Kitsch if
not a worse embarrasment if found in another media. They are presently
novel, but at best amateurishly ape what is better done and more
consistent in other medial like pottery or glass or even metal
sculpture. What woodturning is capable of that is distinct from those
other media is the varying patterns and textures that come directly from
nature, and can be preserved in a shaped form. Novel as the work of a
Hogbin or Hosaluk is, there is nothing about it that can't be done in
another media, but it is very difficult indeed to for another media to
mimic the colors and patterns of a Stocksdale bowl in cocobolo or
Macassar ebony. So my prediction is that while turners have engaged in
embellishment to achieve distinction for themselves, it will ultimately
diminish the value and long term acceptance of woodturned
nonfunctional-objects-of-art as a distinctive media. Ya can't be
something else, and be appreciated for what you uniquely had to offer in
the first place.