As far as I know, plagiarism has supplanted art versus craft as a
woodturner's version of the unexamined life. I don't have a signature
piece that's mine alone since, if I remember correctly, the original
forms and beauties designed by the Deity or evolved by nature are now in
the public domain. Sad to say, nobody has ever wanted to steal my
concepts so I'll whine about a variant instead. (for brevity, insert a
smiley icon here and explain it fully in several languages)

I refer to outsourcing or assigning work in-house by the more acclaimed
and busy luminaries among us. Of course this never actually happens in
the innocent antiseptic world of the turned wood art business as it does
in other less ethical artistic endeavors such as painting, sculpture and
little league. (insert acronym for 'tongue in cheek' with full
explanations in pidgeon English, Sanskrit and Esperanto)

Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?

Just a Crotchety old Coot's acronym free musing that's necessarily long;
a myth and a delusion. I'm sure no woodturning guru ever demeaned the
craft in this manner. (insert ethnically neutral acronym for 'in my
humble opinion' and add a racially blind, politically proper and
religiously unestablished abbreviation for the four letter word.....
'grin')


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

"Arch" wrote in message
...

Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?

Well, it's not a perfect world. This is a very common practice.
I think part of the answer hinges on who designs the piece.
If "Mr. Wonderful" designs the piece and then hands it off
to someone else to - I'm going to use the word 'manufacture'. -
then I suppose it could be deemed a "Mr. Wonderful Original."

If, however, Mr. Wonderful employs a factory full of turners
slamming out bowls, then it ceases to be "art" and becomes a
factory, and Mr. Wonderful can call them whatever he wants,
but the public will catch on soon enough when the price drops
to a Wal-Mart level.

Just my two cents....


--
Bob Becker

www.becker.org

Arch wrote:
Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?

I'm not sure that there is anything terribly wrong with that approach.
It might be argued that the craft of woodturning might benefit by the
use of more master / apprentice relationships.

As long as the master is in charge and sets the standards for design,
aesthetics and quality, I really don't see the harm in it. There maybe
some need to let it be known that this is how the work is done in his
shop so that buyers aren't misled. And it could be the start of a
slippery slope towards becoming a factory. Ultimately it is up to the
customer to decide who they want to buy from.


I'm sure no woodturning guru ever demeaned the
craft in this manner.

I'm sure they have, though I question whether it demeans the craft.


--
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

"Arch" wrote in message
...
Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?


The way things have been done for centuries in the arts and the crafts which
aspire to art-range pricing. It's the master's finishing touch that counts.
The donkeys do the rough work.

You wouldn't expect the master to hit the woods and do the logging, would
you? Just a case of where you draw the line....

OK Arch, got me interested on this one. Here's my take, FWIW:

This debate has raged off and on at WoodCentral now for months. I am
of the personal opininon that nothing is new in any kind of art. If
DaVinci paints Mona Lisa on a dark and dreary day, to whom does he give
the credit for the dark and subtle lighting reflected in his work?

I am a Native American (yup... an honest to Pete card carrying
registered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs type Indian) but yet, who
amongst the "Southwest style" gives a nod to my people when the turn a
seed pot or the ever popular water jug? Now some even put rawhide
lanyards on stoppers to make it more authentic. Never once have I seen
a mention of the tribal piece they copied. And how about the designs
on these pieces... any of them look like the stuff in the museum?

Maybe you have seen that the absolute must contemporary woodturnign
design of hollow for vases is the small lower third, the larger third
and the top that is even a bit larger, with a small hole for access.
Ever seen a Ming dynasty vase? Look familiar?
Ever see credit given as "inspired by Ming Dynasty (XXXX to XXX) artist
to the Emperor?

I am thinking about my old school pottery class. Since they
essentially have the same type of procedure, they essentially have a
lot of the same designs. They put the lump of clay (us=piece of wood)
and work it into a round design on their potter's wheel (us= grind it
to our round design on the lathe) and then make something pleasing to
the eye based on what inspires them at the moment (us=same). Then they
decorate the finished turning with color, texture, piercings,
additional pieces glued on it, and different types of gloss finish...
really shiny to dull. Since pottery has been around a few thousand
years berfore woodturning, shouldn't we all put some kind of standard
acknowledgement to the potters that came before us? I guarantee they
were piercing, texturing and coloring their medium long before today's
artist's great, great, great, great, great grandparents were even
born.

Coloring techniques with shadings, bold contrasts, and polishing
techniques that are so popular now can be related directly, and I do
mean directly, to Italian and Japanese artisans from hundreds of years
ago. How about "French polishing"? Should we give those guys a nod
everytime we do some pore filling before sanding to 50,000 and then
buffing out several coats of lacquer or shellac based finish?

Ahhh... say you. That's all different. It's been around for years.
We worshipers of today's contemporary artists are talking about truly
different designs, like when the artist incorporates nature's designs
and colors into the piece. A popular turner now makes roses.... any
mention of the higher power he copied? How about the guy that is
making twisted thorn stems and mounting a rose on that? (BTW, these
are indeed treat if you haven't.) How about the famous wooden apple or
the pile of grapes?

Yet another is using bold gold, yellow, red (you know... the autumn
colors) for finishing before lacquering the thing into plastic. Ever
seen a pile of leaves on a crisp winter morning that just fell off a
maple or syacmore tree? Color combinations look vaguely familiar? And
ow many pieces with great fitting tops with finials are at least
inspired by the classic ginger jar or the English loose leaf tea jars?

I think you get the drift. A lot of this hooey has been generated by a
few folks that have just discovered how to make a shape, and have spent
their lives with their heads in the sand. And strangely, when you see
Ellsworth, Hosuluk (sp?), Nish, Key, Childs, Batty, etc., they never
whine about being copied. Never once have I heard about them in tears
over someone producing a piece similar to theirs. In fact, they will
teach you how to copy their work!

Probably one of the greatest living legends in flatwork today is Sam
Maloof. He is 82 or so, has pieces on display in the Smithsonian, has
a 5 year back log on his rockers, and sells them for the general area
of $20,000 to $35,000 a piece. Yet when you take his class, he show
you how to make them, and *encourages* you to do so. He even gives you
templates so you can get it right! I know this as I have a Maloof
student within driving distance of my house that is doing just that.
Sam saw no need to copyright, patent, or claim the design of his
rocker; after all, in his mind it is just a rocker.

The people that have invented this plagiarism baloney need to spend
some time in the museums, some time at the library, take a pottery
class, and walk around the woods sometime.

Robert

In article .com,
wrote:

A lot of this hooey has been generated by a
few folks that have just discovered how to make a shape, and have spent
their lives with their heads in the sand. And strangely, when you see
Ellsworth, Hosuluk (sp?), Nish, Key, Childs, Batty, etc., they never
whine about being copied.

I believe the Big E has publicly expressed frustration, at least, with
those who have been "inspired" by his work.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

In article ,
Derek Andrews wrote:

As long as the master is in charge and sets the standards for design,
aesthetics and quality, I really don't see the harm in it. There maybe
some need to let it be known that this is how the work is done in his
shop so that buyers aren't misled. And it could be the start of a
slippery slope towards becoming a factory. Ultimately it is up to the
customer to decide who they want to buy from.

The glasswork of Dale Chihuly (sp?) comes to mind. He's been unable to
do hands-on glass work for decades and has skilled craftspeople produce
the glass pieces under his direct instruction.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

Owen,
Why would he be frustrated if he makes videos to show how to do it?
That seems counterintuitive. This is an honest question, not a statement.
TomNie

"Owen Lowe" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
wrote:

A lot of this hooey has been generated by a
few folks that have just discovered how to make a shape, and have spent
their lives with their heads in the sand. And strangely, when you see
Ellsworth, Hosuluk (sp?), Nish, Key, Childs, Batty, etc., they never
whine about being copied.

I believe the Big E has publicly expressed frustration, at least, with
those who have been "inspired" by his work.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe,
warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called
degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your
finger. A pic for the strong of stomach:
www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for
finished smoothness.

(Arch) wrote:

Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?



Completely and Unequivically Unethical! (CUU)

And Beyond The Pale! (BTP)

wrote:

The people that have invented this plagiarism baloney need to spend
some time in the museums, some time at the library, take a pottery
class, and walk around the woods sometime.



But what Arch is talking about is not plagarism or copying or inspiration.
He's Talking about DaVinci outsourcing the Mona Lisa and then signing it.
Or Shakespeare outsourcing Hamlet and passing it off as his own.

Owen Lowe wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

A lot of this hooey has been generated by a
few folks that have just discovered how to make a shape, and have spent
their lives with their heads in the sand. And strangely, when you see
Ellsworth, Hosuluk (sp?), Nish, Key, Childs, Batty, etc., they never
whine about being copied.

I believe the Big E has publicly expressed frustration, at least, with
those who have been "inspired" by his work.


Didn't he, in fact, write an article bemoaning this?

Owen Lowe wrote:

In article ,
Derek Andrews wrote:

As long as the master is in charge and sets the standards for design,
aesthetics and quality, I really don't see the harm in it. There
maybe some need to let it be known that this is how the work is done
in his shop so that buyers aren't misled. And it could be the start
of a slippery slope towards becoming a factory. Ultimately it is up
to the customer to decide who they want to buy from.

The glasswork of Dale Chihuly (sp?) comes to mind. He's been unable to
do hands-on glass work for decades and has skilled craftspeople
produce the glass pieces under his direct instruction.


But, IIRC, it is no secret that his works are created by Teams.

"George" George@least wrote:


"Arch" wrote in message
...
Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames;
does it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light'
(definition: a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish)
to have work begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but
unknown journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as
a 'Mr. Wonderful' original?


The way things have been done for centuries in the arts and the crafts
which aspire to art-range pricing. It's the master's finishing touch
that counts. The donkeys do the rough work.

You wouldn't expect the master to hit the woods and do the logging,
would you? Just a case of where you draw the line....




If the 'finishing touch' is putting on the finish or signing the piece, the
line has been set back so far the signature might as well read "Made in
China".

If the 'finishing touch' is putting on the finish or signing the
piece, the
line has been set back so far the signature might as well read "Made in

China".

Probably truer words were never spoken on this subject.

As far as Ellsworth goes, you and Owen are probably right on that one,
I just had not heard it. I am wondering if Ellsworth is worried that
he will be left behind since he is not viewed as an innovative artist,
but more of a one note samba. When is the last time he revealed an all
new, never before seen totally original work?

But in my view, as Shakespeare said (see how I properly attribute
;^) ) "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much".

If he is worried about someone hijacking his designs, he needs to keep
them a secret. Even DaVinci kept his notes written backwards and
incomplete to fend off pilfering. Further, he should have no classes
teaching his methods which he knows people will surely go out and try
after spending a few hundred a day to learn them, and last, he
shouldn't have stolen his grind from the guy I can never remember his
name. I would need to go to the club's resident grind expert for that
one... he has met the guy and HE was miffed that Ellsworth takes all
the credit for the pattern.

It was the Irish grind, then the English couldn't live with that, so it
became the "Celtic" grind. Sure Ellsworth changed it a little, but I
have never heard him give proper homage to those that paved the way for
his grind.

OK, so substitute Mike Mahoney for Ellsworth. He has 3 apprenitice
grinders that help rough, shape, and finish as needed. I don't know
how much lathe time MM puts in himself on a MM bowl, but if you see how
many he turns a week, it can't be much.

And here's something funny one on me. I was trying to come up with a
grind that would allow a smoother transition from the side to the
bottom of a deeper bowl (aren't we all?). I played around with some
different designs, and then thought of actually curving the nose of the
grind to give a scooping action, and leaving the side short so I
wouldn't have the tool knock my teeth out. And finally... success!!
Wow!! The Robert grind was born. I was going to go with the Robert
grind because all the big guys only have one name; Bono, Batman,
Tarzan, you know. I was pleased.

Then, the Craft Supplies catalogue came and I was perusing the pages to
see how much everything has gone up and if there was anything new. And
there was! But how could someone have stolen the Robert grind? It
hadn't been released to the general public!

But alas, the very same MM had come upon the same grind. No kiddin'.
And worse, he is now selling his signature line of tools with the same
grind. But on my end, it was too late for MM. I already showed the
club what I did and the cat was out of the bag. Some tried it and
liked it, and I think they are still using it. I will not however give
MM the nod for coming up with that grind.

Personally, like most, he probably doesn't care.

Robert
(almost a household word.... HAH!)

wrote:

If the 'finishing touch' is putting on the finish or signing the
piece, the
line has been set back so far the signature might as well read "Made in

China".

Probably truer words were never spoken on this subject.

As far as Ellsworth goes, you and Owen are probably right on that one,
I just had not heard it. I am wondering if Ellsworth is worried that
he will be left behind since he is not viewed as an innovative artist,
but more of a one note samba.

Sometimes we tend to think of of folks as 'one noters' because all we ever
see published is the 'one note'. I used to think Sam Maloof was a 'rocking
chair note' until I saw his other work. WOW!

When is the last time he revealed an all
new, never before seen totally original work?

But in my view, as Shakespeare said (see how I properly attribute
;^) ) "methinks the lady doth protesteth too much".

If he is worried about someone hijacking his designs, he needs to keep
them a secret. Even DaVinci kept his notes written backwards and
incomplete to fend off pilfering. Further, he should have no classes
teaching his methods which he knows people will surely go out and try
after spending a few hundred a day to learn them, and last, he
shouldn't have stolen his grind from the guy I can never remember his
name.

I don't think he 'stole' it. IIRC, he has publicly said that he doesn't
understand why people associate his name with it.

I would need to go to the club's resident grind expert for that
one... he has met the guy and HE was miffed that Ellsworth takes all
the credit for the pattern.

I don't think Ellsworth does this.


It was the Irish grind, then the English couldn't live with that, so it
became the "Celtic" grind. Sure Ellsworth changed it a little, but I
have never heard him give proper homage to those that paved the way for
his grind.

I do like "Celtic". )


OK, so substitute Mike Mahoney for Ellsworth. He has 3 apprenitice
grinders that help rough, shape, and finish as needed. I don't know
how much lathe time MM puts in himself on a MM bowl, but if you see how
many he turns a week, it can't be much.

How many? Some of the straight bowl guys can crank out a Lot. And fools and
their money are soon parted (Barnum?).


And here's something funny one on me. I was trying to come up with a
grind that would allow a smoother transition from the side to the
bottom of a deeper bowl (aren't we all?). I played around with some
different designs, and then thought of actually curving the nose of the
grind to give a scooping action, and leaving the side short so I
wouldn't have the tool knock my teeth out. And finally... success!!
Wow!! The Robert grind was born. I was going to go with the Robert
grind because all the big guys only have one name; Bono, Batman,
Tarzan, you know. I was pleased.

Then, the Craft Supplies catalogue came and I was perusing the pages to
see how much everything has gone up and if there was anything new. And
there was! But how could someone have stolen the Robert grind? It
hadn't been released to the general public!

) Had a few of these myself. Not with grinds, but with software. Hardware
not ready for the Big Idea. Soon as the hardware is available somebody else
comes out with My Big Idea. (


But alas, the very same MM had come upon the same grind. No kiddin'.
And worse, he is now selling his signature line of tools with the same
grind. But on my end, it was too late for MM. I already showed the
club what I did and the cat was out of the bag. Some tried it and
liked it, and I think they are still using it. I will not however give
MM the nod for coming up with that grind.

Personally, like most, he probably doesn't care.

Robert
(almost a household word.... HAH!)

Arch, this thread has elevated RCW to a new level. Thanks for starting it.

In article tljvf.20467$If.2939@trnddc05,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

I believe the Big E has publicly expressed frustration, at least, with
those who have been "inspired" by his work.


Didn't he, in fact, write an article bemoaning this?

That's kinda what I was getting at, LD, but didn't want to categorically
state it.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

In article msjvf.26798$Uf7.10997@trnddc01,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

The glasswork of Dale Chihuly (sp?) comes to mind. He's been unable to
do hands-on glass work for decades and has skilled craftspeople
produce the glass pieces under his direct instruction.


But, IIRC, it is no secret that his works are created by Teams.

'Tis true. I guess for woodturners, we oughta lop off an arm or
something and then have a good excuse for having our own Team. (Reminds
me of the Pythons and Life of Brian... or was it Jabberwocky?)

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

In article , "Tom Nie"
wrote:

Why would he be frustrated if he makes videos to show how to do it?
That seems counterintuitive.

Ya think?

One way of dealing with this is a comment made by Christian Burchard, I
believe. He said he doesn't show how to do his turnings in a class until
he's ready to move on and has developed a new direction - specifically
addressing the "basket" series using madrone burl. That way he can
explore a turning style and grow it without the distractions of others
producing his work. At the point when he's teaching how to do it, the
form/design/technique has been out there for a few years, he's tired of
it, galleries know it as his, and it's not something that holds his
interest any longer.

http://www.burchardstudio.com

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

Owen Lowe wrote:

In article msjvf.26798$Uf7.10997@trnddc01,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

The glasswork of Dale Chihuly (sp?) comes to mind. He's been unable
to do hands-on glass work for decades and has skilled craftspeople
produce the glass pieces under his direct instruction.


But, IIRC, it is no secret that his works are created by Teams.

'Tis true. I guess for woodturners, we oughta lop off an arm or
something and then have a good excuse for having our own Team.
(Reminds me of the Pythons and Life of Brian... or was it
Jabberwocky?)


Only Python arm lopping I remember was 'Monty Python and the Holy
Grail'. Went looking to make sure the title was correct and found the
Official site where the shopping link told me to "buy something or ****
off".

Chihuly is minus an eye, right?

"Lobby Dosser" wrote in message
news:gujvf.26799$Uf7.5874@trnddc01...
The way things have been done for centuries in the arts and the crafts
which aspire to art-range pricing. It's the master's finishing touch
that counts. The donkeys do the rough work.

You wouldn't expect the master to hit the woods and do the logging,
would you? Just a case of where you draw the line....




If the 'finishing touch' is putting on the finish or signing the piece,
the
line has been set back so far the signature might as well read "Made in
China".

Except to the chump who's willing to pay for that signature. That's what
the "art" buyer's after. Sure could get a Dorito bowl somewhere else a lot
cheaper.

It has been years since I spoke with David Ellsworth and I doubt if he
remembers my name or could pick me out of a crowd unless his memory is a lot
better than mine. I found him to be certain of his abilities and still
humble enough to learn. In my experience this is a remarkable combination.
He has also done a lot to make turning the growing hobby that it is today as
well as a growing niche in the art world. The grind is an "Ellsworth grind"
because people made it so in their thinking. In his tape on hollow turning
he states that he first saw it with Liam O'Neil. If Liam had been either the
first to market a jig or thefirst to show it on a video, it would likely be
the "O'Neil" grind. So what? That and a buck buys a cheap cup of coffee.
Both of them like to turn, like to see others turn, like to teach others to
turn, and are sure enough of their own abilities so that the rest of us
making mountains out of mole hills really does not matter.

Back to the topic of the thread:
Arch, for a long time some if not all forms of art have been made by one
person or by teams. Some pieces are so huge that it takes more than one
person to produce them, but under the guidance of one artist who gets the
credit because it was his or her idea that sparked the work and his or her
ideas that governed the work and his or her decisions that decided when the
work was done. Besides this, some works call for a selection of methods and
talents that the artist may understand but not do. The works of Henry Moore
come to mind. Some of his large sculpture required teams to move rock and to
remove a great deal of the bulk before he finished the work that he had
begun from inspiration taken from works of nature and then produced models
of in clay or wood before going to the larger rock. Others required casting
in various metals, a work he did not do, no owning a foundry himself. No one
would question whether he was the artist of note.
The question of art seems to me to come from inovation and beauty (I am not
into "ugly art). A new form is difficult to come up with but some seem to
achieve it. It may be art. Some find gorgeous grain in a piece of wood and
produce a lovely bowl. Unless the bowl is artistic in its own right from
its form, I would say the artist is God and the turner is a craftsman.
However there is still room in the craft for that little extra that makes
the craftsman an artist. Just as there was something that made a good Ming
vase art and an average Ming vase a flower holder, there is something that
makes some forms art and others just weed pots.

--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
www.aroundthewoods.com

wrote:

It was the Irish grind, then the English couldn't live with that, so it
became the "Celtic" grind.

Implying what? That it came from somewhere in Europe? Ireland doesn't
have the monopoly on Celtic heritage you know.

As an Englishman I would prefer they used the term Irish. That would at
least put things in context both geographically and historically. I for
one have nothing against the vast majority of Irish people, and I am
sure that is true of most English people. So please don't go propagating
that divisive myth.


--
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

"Derek Andrews" wrote in message
...
wrote:

It was the Irish grind, then the English couldn't live with that, so it
became the "Celtic" grind.

Implying what? That it came from somewhere in Europe? Ireland doesn't have
the monopoly on Celtic heritage you know.

As an Englishman I would prefer they used the term Irish. That would at
least put things in context both geographically and historically. I for
one have nothing against the vast majority of Irish people, and I am sure
that is true of most English people. So please don't go propagating that
divisive myth.


Oh well, what the heck.

Liam O'Neill is the individual I first saw identified with the practice of
grinding back the ears of the "new" ground-flute gouges. Lots of folks
were trying to make this new cheap substitute for the long and strong gouge
more useful. See the interview at
http://www.turningwood.com/ellsworth2.htm Not surprisingly, they began
with the same technique employed with its predecessor to make it less grabby
inside an opening - they took the edges off. I suppose we can excuse the
puffery of the salesman who claims he discovered the way to take the thrust
of turning on the rest versus the turner, and note he is absolutely right
that smaller diameter cylindrical gouges work better with steeper edges. My
four bowl gouges follow that principle, though I must admit, until today I'd
never seen it articulated by anyone else. I have been chided, mocked and
even insulted by a bunch of folks for saying so, however.

Messenger versus message attitude. Same one that makes an issue over
whether a rose would really smell as sweet if it were called a turnip.

This discussion, as the famous "Robert" noted, has been raging on
WoodCentral for way too long.

I really love the way Robert laid it all out in his first response, it
was perfect.

To Robert, why don't you post your first response on WC? I think a
lot of people over there would like to read it; and if you already did
post it and I missed it, I do apologize. I really don't read every
post on every thread.

There have been some great comments here and I really can't disagree
with any of them. My suggestion to those famous turners who are
complaining about plagiarism is to demo their "technique" only. For
instance (and I'm only using these people as examples, they are all my
friends) Andi Wolfe should demo coloring cats and dogs on boxes. J.
Paul Fennell should demo thin walls and pierce geese on platters or
Cindy Drazda could demo really tall, thin finials on bottle stoppers
(on stainless steel ones of course!).

Another great observation here was that the famous who are complaining
the most are not really "all-around turners" but rather just have a
signature piece or technique. A number of years ago Bob Rosand told
me "Don't ever become famous for one thing". You'll all notice I took
his advice!

In Ohio a group of us had this whole discussion (over a few beers),
there was Richard Raffan, Ray Key, Chris Stott, Jimmy Clewes, John
Jordan, J. Paul Fennell and us common folk. It was very interesting
(possibly the beers helped loosen a few of us up!) and the biggies all
admitted they still have to do more or less ordinary turning, teaching
and demos to pay the bills. These particular turners were not in the
least concerned with any of us stealing anything from them because, as
Raffan said, "we need all the turners to help us make a living and if
we stop teaching them how to do what we do, we're done." One of the
others (I think it was Ray Key; what a sense of humor that guy has!)
made the observation that (I'm paraphasing here) "we belong to a very,
very tiny community and we notice any and all attempts at copying" and
"there are more Avon ladies in the world than woodturners". I loved
that last statement and it is probably true. Outside of shows or
internet forums see how many people you say "I'm a woodturner" to who
will NOT just give you a blank stare!

Personally, I find it amusing and sometimes embarrassing (instance one
"hat man" to another) the way supposedly professional people behave and
react. Again a Ray Key quote, "I get a thrill if after a class a
turner shows me a rather splendid repo of my work and says 'Look what I
did!' "

This was just going to be one comment about how much I enjoyed Robert's
post and look how I've run on. Sorry

Ruth
www.torne-lignum.com

"Darrell Feltmate" wrote:

Just as there was something that made a good Ming
vase art and an average Ming vase a flower holder, there is something
that makes some forms art and others just weed pots.



And one man's ming vase is another man's weed pot. Or VV.

Thanks to each of you for your thoughtful points and counterpoints to my
can opener. I enjoy a good narrative thread as much as looking at
another picture of another bowl. I do enjoy looking at other's turnings,
but "mine eyes" instead of "seeing the glory" sometimes just get glazed
over.

As Lobby pointed out, this topic is _not about plagiary and I hadn't
seen it discussed in any depth elsewhere, but I don't 'forum hop' much
anymore and could have missed the discussions.

I should have been more specific about scale, art form and time frame.
I meant small, limited to turned wood in our time. I wasn't considering
the work that is _necessarily done by hired workmen for artists such as
Wright's Prairie houses, Calder's huge Mobiles, or the transient
Whatever of Christo and his wife. Nor was I thinking about the long ago
when old Adam plagiarized the shape of an apple.

p.s. Thanks Leo for choosing: "elevate" instead of "diminsh". (icon
intended)


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:46:27 -0800, Owen Lowe
wrote:


The glasswork of Dale Chihuly (sp?) comes to mind. He's been unable to
do hands-on glass work for decades and has skilled craftspeople produce
the glass pieces under his direct instruction.

This is the point at which an "arteest" becomes a "house," on his way
to a "style," and perhaps the oft-dreamed-of-seldom-achieved "genre."




--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article aIqvf.18148$Gu6.9663@trnddc06,
Lobby Dosser wrote:

Only Python arm lopping I remember was 'Monty Python and the Holy
Grail'. Went looking to make sure the title was correct and found the
Official site where the shopping link told me to "buy something or ****
off".

Seems it was a mid-evil scene in which a guy was begging for money and
kept lopping off body parts to generate more sympathy. I've not seen
Holy Grail through and through so that's why I was thinking it was
Jabberwocky.

Chihuly is minus an eye, right?

Yes, I believe that's right.

--
Owen Lowe

Northwest Woodturners
Pacific Northwest Woodturning Guild
___
Tips fer Turnin': Place a sign, easily seen as you switch on your lathe, warning you to remove any and all rings from your fingers. Called degloving, extended hardware can grab your ring and rip it off your finger. A pic for the strong of stomach: www.itim.nsw.gov.au/go/objectid/2A3AC703-1321-1C29-70B067DC88E16BFC/index.cfm

Besides, rings can easily mar the surface of a turning as you check for finished smoothness.

How do you distinguish between that and someone who produces limited
edition etchings or lithographs? They involve others in the process.
Are Barye bronze sculptures all worthless because they were cast from
Barye's models under his authorization, but not by his own hand?
The art world considers those to be works "by" the original artist.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

But what Arch is talking about is not plagarism or copying or inspiration.
He's Talking about DaVinci outsourcing the Mona Lisa and then signing it.
Or Shakespeare outsourcing Hamlet and passing it off as his own.

Mike Berger wrote:

How do you distinguish between that and someone who produces limited
edition etchings or lithographs? They involve others in the process.
Are Barye bronze sculptures all worthless because they were cast from
Barye's models under his authorization, but not by his own hand?
The art world considers those to be works "by" the original artist.

In those cases everyone knows that the artist did not produce the copy.


Lobby Dosser wrote:

But what Arch is talking about is not plagarism or copying or
inspiration. He's Talking about DaVinci outsourcing the Mona Lisa and
then signing it. Or Shakespeare outsourcing Hamlet and passing it off
as his own.

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:14:47 -0500, (Arch) wrote:

snip

Anyway just to suggest a hypothetical argument to fan the flames; does
it somehow seem not quite right for a busy 'Leading Light' (definition:
a turner who publishes excessively so as not to perish) to have work
begun and mostly turned or finished by a talented but unknown
journeyman; barely touched by himself, yet signed and sold as a 'Mr.
Wonderful' original?

snip out of context from other rambling

Well, one collection of rambling thoughts deserve another...

Does the journeyman count as an apprentice? Could that journeyman end
up being so talented that he/she starts a studio and becomes
well-known? Does that affect our appraisal of this situation?

Does creating jobs for others where there might be none count as a
good thing? Would this journeyman otherwise be employed as a turner,
doing something he loves and earning money, or would he instead be an
accountant or burger flipper? Is his life enhanced by his employment
as a journeyman turner?

Does Martha Stewart make all the products that bear her name? Does she
let the child labor that does the manufacturing in other countries
sign the work too? Did she sign the license plates she made in jail,
despite the fact that she didn't smelt her own ore?

Is the buying public for such works of art the
gourmet-coffee-quaffing, Lexus-driving, ultra-fashinable set of our
country? Do they deserve to pay through the nose for this kind of art?
Would it be ethical to use dried turds in a layer of a bowl and call
it "biologically prepared vegetable fiber" and then sell it to these
people for an extra $2000?

Given the choice, would you rather be A) An impoverished and fairly
unknown turner who produces nice works of art which sell for a modest
price and are wholly self-produced, or B) A well-off turner who uses a
few people to produce like-quality works of art which you only do
about 10% of the work on? Which one puts better food on the table?
Would you be able to afford that nice Powermatic/Vicmarc? Better
tools? A bigger, nicer, and safer workshop? A better spouse?

We live in a world where star power is worth an awful lot, and name
dropping is a big deal. "Oh yes, that is an actual so-and-so turning."

I write and record music, and burn my own cds of the albums I make.
I'm sure that your favorite cd by your favorite artist was not
actually manufactured by that artist. Does that make my cd better?
Does that makeyou want to give me lots of money? Please?

All in fun and contemplation, no insult or slight intended.

Mark Pollock
Amatuer woodturner, musician, and fencer.

"Mr. Moose" raises a lot of very interesting questions, to which I will
provide a simple but profound answer:

Things are the way they are because that's the way they are.

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed your questionnaire and
certainly wasn't insulted. Well maybe a little slighted. I do like good
coffee, my 'other car' is an old BMW (small series), I'm ultra
fashionable in the years that my wide ties and belted suit jackets are
in style, and I haven't found a better spouse in the 56+ years I've
loved this one. Priceless!

Furthermore, I once turned an imitation moose stool from biologically
correct vegetable fibre, if walnut counts, but I couldn't sell it for
$2.00 much less an extra 2000.

I may have to dig up my old epee and meet you at dawn! In the meantime,
I'm sorry about my ramblings, guess that's sorta what musing is all
about.

Hey, I Don't know about Martha's foreign child labor, but I wonder how
many Campbell Soup workers in Camden, N.J. were lifted above the poverty
line because of Andy Warhol's art?

All in fun,


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:30:11 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Mr. Moose" raises a lot of very interesting questions, to which I will
provide a simple but profound answer:

Things are the way they are because that's the way they are.

yeah, but WHY?

(That would be my 5 year-old other personality.)

Mark

wrote in message
oups.com...

............. SNIP
Another great observation here was that the famous who are complaining
the most are not really "all-around turners" but rather just have a
signature piece or technique. A number of years ago Bob Rosand told
me "Don't ever become famous for one thing". You'll all notice I took
his advice!
.................. SNIP
-------------------------

Right!
You're famous for newels AND roosters. {:-)

Ken Moon
Webberville, TX.