Charlie,

Recognize that some people are task-oriented and others are
process-oriented. Some focus on the result (which is what I see you
doing) and others focus on the path to get the result (the people that
hundreds of hours gluing tiny pieces of wood together to make it look
like it isn't wood that is glued together). All points are valid.
Different strokes for different folks.

Let me ask in return, "why would anyone bother to paint a realistic
portrait when you could achieve a better result with a camera?" That
question had a dramatic effect on the shape of modern art, but people
still try to do it. To do it well in that manner is an impressive
acomplishment. Achieving that is what is it all about.

David


charlie b wrote:
As I get more into turning I see works that baffle me.
Not because of their complexity, or the perceived
difficulty in turning such things, but because of the
apparent waste of time and a misuse of the medium
and the method - turning.

I'm probably going to step in it big time but -

Why go to all the trouble of precisely cutting
a bunch of pieces of several different kinds of
wood, glue them together and then turn them
to look like a ceramic piece whose patterns
are created with glazes when glazed ceramic
does it so much better? The thing that makes
turned wood different is the grain and color
of the wood and the finish(es) it will take.
But most segmented turnings I've seen don't
add these characteristics of wood to the piece
because the individual pieces are so small.
[snip]