I'm musing here about one-offs or at least about an initial pattern, not
about production runs or ethical copies.

I know there are books and computer programs to help us turn forms that
adhere to classic principles of pleasing design. I know that some
craftsmen/artists carefully study and often make drawings of their
intended designs before actually turning them. I know that some turners
have a general idea of the form they plan to turn and I know that some
turners just fasten a blank to the headstock and plan to turn a generic
vase or open bowl or whatever without a precise image of the ultimate
form in their mind. The degree of planning a design and sticking to it
vs listening to the wood's advice and going with the flow differs for
each of us.

I know some of the pluses, minuses and probable reasons for each
approach, but what I don't know is what some of you guys do and if you
consistently follow one approach. If you do, how do you stick to it and
why?


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

Arch wrote:
I know some of the pluses, minuses and probable reasons for each
approach, but what I don't know is what some of you guys do and if you
consistently follow one approach. If you do, how do you stick to it and
why?

When I turn bowls, the size and shape of the wood hopefully dictates
what the final form will be. There are some general shapes that I prefer
and my slant the result in that direction but generally I just try to
make a pleasing, to me, shape.

Ornaments and other craft items are another thing entirely. I have made
CAD drawings for most of them and am working on drawings for the rest.
Basically, I'm trying to come up with the most efficient procedure that
uses the wood economically. In some cases I can mass produce parts and
have a degree of interchangeability.

Arch wrote:
Hi Harry,
Thanks for your ideas and what you do. Just to invite opinions and not
to disagree with what you and the rest of us are often forced to do.
I've sometimes gone farther and fared worse by letting the wood's size
and form dictate what my turned object's size and form will be. I've
turned some sad abortions by trying to get the largest possible turning
out of a piece of wood.

IOW, whenever possible I think it's best to turn to our design not the
blank's. Not everyone will agree and of course, there's a big difference
between wasting the wood we bought and the wood we found.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter

I've listened but I've never heard a piece of wood say a word. I try to never, ever let figured wood dictate form at the expense of good form itself. The ultimate success of a piece depends on it's form. I always have a form in mind when starting on a blank. On occassion, flaws, a change in grain or whatever, may cause me to change that form while I'm turning but not without some planning. Beautiful figured wood is wonderful but without good form it's wasted.

When I'm teaching classes I always have the students use plain wood. I
don't want figured wood to get in the way of learning good form.

Anybody can learn to use the tools, but not everybody learns what makes
good form and can use it in his/her turnings.

Wally

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

I think for me that it depends on what I am turning. If I am turning
the oil lamps that I sell, I always try to turn a form that will
highlight an occlusion, swirly area, a knot, or maybe some ink lines
from the beginning of spalting. The feature or two that is in the wood
helps dictate the form.

However, the form is always first, even if I am making spoon. I have
looked at too many things that have I think, "too bad that thing is so
ugly.... that sure has some nice quilting in that grain" or something
similar. In those cases, the feature may be the only redeeming quality
of the piece.

But you will appreciate a well proportioned form no matter what the
wood. A well proportioned ming vase styled turning (sorry, don't know
which pro turner thinks he pioneered it) out of featureless wood looks
much better than a old fashioned looking milk jug turned out of curly
maple.

I think the hardest part about turning the wood the way I do is knowing
some cases you will eventually have to turn off the feature(s) you
liked in order to achieve a nice looking piece. Many is the time I
have put out the effort and time to fill a flaw with epoxy mixed with
something, only to come back the next day and turn it all off. Same
with the natural features; I have turned off many areas of wonderful
coloring, swirling, etc. to make the form look right. In those cases,
it is truly disappointing to think "what could have been". Those
pieces might still look OK, but nothing spectacular.

I have made so many oil lamps, spoons, ladles, and Christmas ornaments,
that I usually know what to expect. But them again, many is the time I
have started out with a nice chunk of log, and wound up with a pencil
holder at the end.

Robert

On Sat, 6 May 2006 11:54:45 -0400, (Arch) wrote:

Hi Harry,
Thanks for your ideas and what you do. Just to invite opinions and not
to disagree with what you and the rest of us are often forced to do.
I've sometimes gone farther and fared worse by letting the wood's size
and form dictate what my turned object's size and form will be. I've
turned some sad abortions by trying to get the largest possible turning
out of a piece of wood.

IOW, whenever possible I think it's best to turn to our design not the
blank's. Not everyone will agree and of course, there's a big difference
between wasting the wood we bought and the wood we found.

I guess my theory is that I should get as much as I can out of the
blank- but I like to basically finish the outside to a pleasing shape,
and then worry about the inside. As Robert said, there have been
times where a 12" dia X 6" tall hunk of wood ended up as a 4"
mini-bowl.

As far as the design goes, it's like jazz- I just turn away until
something nice develops. Maybe if I get into something a bit more
complex than making smooth bowls out of salvaged wood it'll take a bit
more planning, but so far it's working fine to play around with it.

I know some of the pluses, minuses and probable reasons for each
approach, but what I don't know is what some of you guys do and if you
consistently follow one approach. If you do, how do you stick to it and
why?

People use a variety of methods to solve problems. We learn most of our problem
solving skills as children. We alter these as we learn what works and doesn't
work. It is not uncommon for a person to have only one or two problem solving
methods. Some of the methods a

Play until the outcome is pleasing to us or someone else
Use published plans
Copy other work
Think what someone else would like
Ask someone else to design the shape
Apply aesthetic principles (i.e. form, texture, negative space, color, golden
mean, balance, contrast, etc.)
Use design shortcuts (i.e. always use catenary curves)
Create a problem statement, "A 16" bowl suitable for a corporate gift that can
be used to hold dried flower arrangements on the boardroom table."
Use craft methods (i.e. I have a beading tool, therefore all my bowls will have
beads)
Be superstitious (i.e. 'listen to the wood')

My training is industrial design, which is taught in art and design school, so I
lean toward applying aesthetic principles, looking at the grain, visualizing the
grain pattern in the finished piece. I often sketch the form, sometimes dozens
of sketches for a single bowl, sometimes none. (hint: never erase!) Sometimes
I'll create a metaphor for the piece, as in "I want it to look canoe-like, but
with a pagoda feel." Other times I'll take the last bowl and modify it
slightly. Perhaps because the next blank has different dimensions, or perhaps
to remove what I didn't like about the previous bowl, or to add some new
element. I don't stick to one method, I'll use one or more of my design tools.
To me, it is valuable to have more than one problem solving tool in my tool box.

Remember, "If it doesn't add, it WILL detract."

Dan

Good post Dan, Thanks for helping us to think about what we want to
turn.

This might be a good place to interject a quote by my friend and fellow
turner, Dinyar Chavda, of a Japanese quotation that's worth thinking
about.

"Beauty must never be held hostage to perfection".


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



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

Interesting topic. I am sure there are many different methods and
everyone has their favourite ways to plan (or not plan) their work.
Usually most of the turnings I have done have limits pre-set. I
consider these first. Things like the size of the block, and properties
of the wood. The limits of my lathe, tools and skills.
I then like to review some similar objects made by others more
talented then I. These works can trigger ideas of what maybe possible.
From these ideas I concieve a plan, putting my own preferences and
vision into the concept. Sometimes the plan is sketched on paper,
sometimes in my mind only, depends on the complexity of the idea and
how soon I can start turning.
Next turn the lathe on and start, adapting the plan based on what
happens, what is uncovered under the surface and any new ideas that
emerge as the work progresses.
Brad

Arch,

For myself, it depends. Everyone, I'm sure has an approach that works
for them. Here's what seems to work for me.

If I'm rough turning green blanks the size of the chunk and the figure
(especially the figure) strongly influence the result. But I do make
sure I have the general shape in mind before I start. I've found that
I end up with something "far less satisfying" if I don't have at least
some idea where I'm trying to go.

For (semi?) segmented new designs I usually make a drawing to make sure
the piece is going to look good (at least on paper). I don't get
obsessive about matching the paper dimensions exactly - smooth curves &
form are too important to do that.

Finally, on something I need to work out the production
sequence/technique for or on something that I have multiple (slightly
different) options for, I make one or more prototypes out of cheap wood
or scraps. Usually one (or one of each option) is enough to tell me
what needs modification, both in shape and production sequence. On one
particulary difficult piece I made 5 "trial" pieces before I worked out
all the production problems.

Cheers,
Larry