It's probably merciful that our debates re art vs craft seem to have
evolved into considerations about design. No, not the Intelligent Kind,
just simple woodturners agreeing to disagree about what is good and what
is bad woodturning design and why it might be important to learn and
understand what makes the difference.

Are today's well designed turned forms universally beautiful, the golden
mean between extremes or are they just in style and currently
fashionable? Remember the plaintive lyrics to the ballad "Mona Lisa"?
Do those ornate Victorian turnings, acclaimed and considered good design
in their time, remain so today? Are there timeless ratios that will
always please or just some fixed rules of esthetics that apply for
today, but can retard innovation?
Sorta sounds like the same ole, same ole philosophy 101 midnight
arguments tailored to fit woodturning: 'empirical vs rational',
'thinking with the mind vs measuring with the senses', 'random
observations vs deliberately devised experiments'. I ask you, where
will it all end? Probably with a beer and a hangover. Musings don't
have to make sense, but wottenhell is the COC musing about now? As
usual, he hasn't a clue.

Happy New Year, everyone. May all your
'06 turning designs and ratios be golden.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch,

I believe there are timeless forms and lines. While I never strive to
make a golden mean piece, I simply go for what looks good to me. I
find that some the shapes I made several years ago still hold up.
Other are no good to me. When I analyze why, it comes down to the
classic curves.

I've been turning some vessels the last few days. I have a very nice
set of three, except the third one is a slightly different shape. They
are really not a set. More striking, however, is that I distinctly
like the third one less than the other two and I've already figured out
why.

I guess there are two ways to attempt to achieve the great shapes. One
is to measure and meticulously copy them using French curves, rulers,
graph paper, etc. The other is to keep turning over and over while
studying shapes that you like and don't like. I do the latter. My
shapes evolve to better shapes as I study, observe and practice more.

Joe Fleming - All the best in 2006

"Arch" wrote in message
...
Are there timeless ratios that will
always please or just some fixed rules of esthetics that apply for
today, but can retard innovation?

There are forms which always please because of the way we are wired. For
example, the Venus USA Swim 2006 catalog arrived here yesterday. I began
studying those pleasing, classic forms almost immediately. Apparently they
appeal to all, because Susan took it from me, and is apparently reading (and
storing) it in a private place....

Joe,
Many thanks for your thoughtful response to my 'pry bar'. Any chance of
your posting pics of the three vessels so the NG can pontificate on
which one they prefer and why? You might be surprised.


George,
My Swimsuit catalog also disappeared. Today's classy lassies with
their streamlined chassis seem to have different curves from those even
more fully endowed ones I sneaked in to ogle at the old Trocodero(sp.?)
burlesque in Philly. Can't remember if it was on Arch, Race or Vine,
but Susan and Lorraine still enforce the same 'blue laws'. Surely
that gal Venus, had a timeless classic form... or is it all in the age
of the beholder?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

My Swimsuit catalog also disappeared. Today's classy lassies with
their streamlined chassis seem to have different curves from those even
more fully endowed ones I sneaked in to ogle at the old Trocodero(sp.?)
burlesque in Philly. Can't remember if it was on Arch, Race or Vine,
but Susan and Lorraine still enforce the same 'blue laws'.

Arch,

Since you are a ponderer, (one who ponders) I'll help you out with that
burlesque house you mentioned. We always called it the Troc and was
located at 10th and Arch Streets. Occasionally, to be obscure, we would
refer to it as the "Trenton Royal Opera Company."

Harry (one who is just a tad younger than you.)

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:17:13 -0500, (Arch) wrote:

Arch... i think that it gets into the visual/touchy-feely area.... some shapes
just naturally appeal to us and maybe therefor become classic?

Ever notice that certain shapes (usually a bowl with a rounded, semi-closed
profile), always get picked up and admired?

As Bill Grumbine points out in his bowl turning DVD, the most common shapes for
turnings copy fruit and other things from nature...

It's probably merciful that our debates re art vs craft seem to have
evolved into considerations about design. No, not the Intelligent Kind,
just simple woodturners agreeing to disagree about what is good and what
is bad woodturning design and why it might be important to learn and
understand what makes the difference.

Are today's well designed turned forms universally beautiful, the golden
mean between extremes or are they just in style and currently
fashionable? Remember the plaintive lyrics to the ballad "Mona Lisa"?
Do those ornate Victorian turnings, acclaimed and considered good design
in their time, remain so today? Are there timeless ratios that will
always please or just some fixed rules of esthetics that apply for
today, but can retard innovation?
Sorta sounds like the same ole, same ole philosophy 101 midnight
arguments tailored to fit woodturning: 'empirical vs rational',
'thinking with the mind vs measuring with the senses', 'random
observations vs deliberately devised experiments'. I ask you, where
will it all end? Probably with a beer and a hangover. Musings don't
have to make sense, but wottenhell is the COC musing about now? As
usual, he hasn't a clue.

Happy New Year, everyone. May all your
'06 turning designs and ratios be golden.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Harry,
Thanks for the help and for using an "O" instead of an "A" in ponderer,
IIRC, there was a Whitman's Candy Co. in the neighborhood and if not
obscured as we headed for the Troc, we claimed we were out to buy a box
of chocolates.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Arch,

I post prefinish photos as soon as the third piece is finished with the
bleaching.

Joe

(Arch) wrote:

I ask you, where
will it all end? Probably with a beer and a hangover.

If A beer will give you a hangover, maybe you ought to pass! )

(Arch) wrote:

My Swimsuit catalog also disappeared. Today's classy lassies with
their streamlined chassis seem to have different curves from those even
more fully endowed ones I sneaked in to ogle at the old Trocodero(sp.?)
burlesque in Philly. Can't remember if it was on Arch, Race or Vine,
but Susan and Lorraine still enforce the same 'blue laws'. Surely
that gal Venus, had a timeless classic form... or is it all in the age
of the beholder?



Oh my! The Burly Cue! That do take me back.

"George" George@least wrote:


"Arch" wrote in message
...
Are there timeless ratios that will
always please or just some fixed rules of esthetics that apply for
today, but can retard innovation?

There are forms which always please because of the way we are wired.
For example, the Venus USA Swim 2006 catalog arrived here yesterday.
I began studying those pleasing, classic forms almost immediately.
Apparently they appeal to all, because Susan took it from me, and is
apparently reading (and storing) it in a private place....



IOW, you will not get it back. But the recycler will pick it off the line!

mac davis wrote:

Arch... i think that it gets into the visual/touchy-feely area....
some shapes just naturally appeal to us and maybe therefor become
classic?



Saw something on this recently, but can't recall where. Apparently we ARE
all wired for the same - or very similar - shapes which appeal.

I find it interesting that the Golden Mean (a ratio of 1.618 to 1) is
the same as the aspect ratio of our field of vision without parallax. I
guess that means that we like certain things because we can see them
clearly.

Russ Fairfield wrote:
I find it interesting that the Golden Mean (a ratio of 1.618 to 1) is
the same as the aspect ratio of our field of vision without parallax. I
guess that means that we like certain things because we can see them
clearly.

Is that in portrait or landscape orietation?

Do I have to tip my head to one side to appreciate a vase?


--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
http://chipshop.blogspot.com - a blog for my customers
http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com/TheToolrest/ - a blog for woodturners