For me, the 'religious war'here isn't about how to finish bowl bottoms,
it is about respecting, and not insulting another turners style. As far
as some of us, but not all are concerned, my turnings are 'properly
finisned'. I am very pasionate about my work. Don't tell me that I
don't care enough. I have a great deal of pride in the qulity and
appearance of my work. If I didn't, I would have let those comments
slide.
robo hippy



















Derek Andrews wrote:
Arch wrote:
Gorgeous bowl bottoms that hide all evidence of how they were made
are
without which there is nothing. They are so admired and add so much
to
the beauty of turned wood bowls as do the backs or bottoms of a
Vermeer
painting, a Revere pitcher, A Mozart symphony, a Wallace spoon, a
Wedgewood cup, or a Rodin sculpture. Those lazy artists had no
pride of
back or bottom. Little wonder their works are worthless today.

Troll!

I bet that those items which are designed to be picked up are
finished
adequately on the their bases. Probably not to the same level of
design
or surface quality as the rest of the object, but good enough so as
not
to detract in any way from the users enjoyment of the overall work.

There is something about wooden bowls that make people pick them up
and
look, and feel, underneath. On many designs the feel of the underside
is
important to the overall enjoyment of the piece.

If I were making an exhibition piece that was to be kept in a glass
cabinet (I wish) then maybe I wouldn't worry about leaving the coarse

ugly dovetail on the bottom, because only me and the curator will
know
it is there, but every little bowl that is going to be picked up and
fondled is going to feel good all over.

People like nice bottoms. They like feeling them too.

--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/toolrest/