Experts, Tyros and the great In Between:

Woodturning is my hobby and this is a woodturning ng, but is there not a
flip side to consider? Why do I feel compelled to improve on the beauty
of found naturally sculptured wood by turning some part of it on my
lathe? Isn't this often an unnecessary collaboration, even a misuse of
my hobby?

I live at the mouth of a river near an inlet, where a lot of amazing
driftwood washes ashore. Also the area is verdant with many species of
trees and bushes. Much of this flotsom, blowdown and road kill is
gnarled, twisted, folded, eroded and generally formed into wooden
objects of inherent beauty. Yet I usually think about how to improve on
nature's work by forcing it onto my lathe. This is about nature's art
not nature's bounty such as bowls, weed pots and candlesticks with some
bark left on a log. I reckon that how well I succeed is in my mind's
eye, but I suspect it's often not much if any.


A little 'bringing out and touching up' of nature's work with cleaning,
polishing and modest use of rasp, bandsaw and dremel isn't enough for
me. I must improve on nature's art. I gotta turn, that's what I do!
Although I protest that I'm independent and immune from peer pressure
and I claim to distain formulas and ratios, those design artifices with
Italian sounding names, plus assorted coves, beads, and various
unnatural geometric dimensions are always lurking nearby, at least in my
mind.

As woodturners, don't some of you find it difficult to leave well enough
alone and admit that you can't always improve on Mother Nature? How
many plain and untouched natural works of wood art do you display or
offer as gifts or for sale? You may think you don't care, but are you
really free _not to turn that gnarley branch of a dead tree or that
chunk of blanched driftwood?

As always, comment is not only welcome, but hoped for, else why burden
this ng? Why indeed!


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


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

Arch wrote:
Experts, Tyros and the great In Between:

Woodturning is my hobby and this is a woodturning ng, but is there not a
flip side to consider? Why do I feel compelled to improve on the beauty
of found naturally sculptured wood by turning some part of it on my
lathe? Isn't this often an unnecessary collaboration, even a misuse of
my hobby?

I live at the mouth of a river near an inlet, where a lot of amazing
driftwood washes ashore. Also the area is verdant with many species of
trees and bushes. Much of this flotsom, blowdown and road kill is
gnarled, twisted, folded, eroded and generally formed into wooden
objects of inherent beauty. Yet I usually think about how to improve on
nature's work by forcing it onto my lathe. This is about nature's art
not nature's bounty such as bowls, weed pots and candlesticks with some
bark left on a log. I reckon that how well I succeed is in my mind's
eye, but I suspect it's often not much if any.


snip

As woodturners, don't some of you find it difficult to leave well enough
alone and admit that you can't always improve on Mother Nature? How
many plain and untouched natural works of wood art do you display or
offer as gifts or for sale? You may think you don't care, but are you
really free _not to turn that gnarley branch of a dead tree or that
chunk of blanched driftwood?

As always, comment is not only welcome, but hoped for, else why burden
this ng? Why indeed!


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


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


This area is not blessed with much gnarly stuff. There used to be pine
knots lying around, but since the days of turpentine dipping are gone
around here there are very few. Most of my stuff would be rotting in the
land fill or burned for firewood if I didn't rescue it. How many times
have I heard "I didn't know you made bowls. I just had a big _____
(Dogwood, holly, cherry, bradford Pear or whatever) tree cut in my yard
and they just hauled it to the dump."
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

Always be sincere; even if you don't
mean it!

I think Arch, you are actually looking at two differnet positions at
the same time while looking at one situation.

#1 Are we turning "art"

or,

#2 Are we turning "stuff".

As for #1, I would not presume to improve mother nature, merely present
her creations in a different way. When I see a large crotch in a tree,
I see what is underneath the bark, the part with most of the occlusions
cut away and the curly grain exposed. While I see curly grains,
chatoyance, bird's eyes, interesting knots, and different light
catching effects and colors, my buddies see fire or bbq wood. Ink
lines in maple mean to them it is time to "burn that crap because it is
starting to rot". But we all know what those pieces mean to us.

So with that material as my starting point, my attempt is to take the
wood and show someone what the wood looks like, presented in a pleasing
manner. Long sweeping shapes make end turned pieces have long lovely
grain patterns; shorter wider pieces do a better job at showing off
burly and gnarly grains of lenghtwise turning. So to me the task at
hand is to help liberate these invisible treasures and put them out for
all to see in shapes and designs that draw the eye. And I don't feel
bad about "my failures" as they were going to be burned up anyway, you
got it, in the bbq or wood stove.

For scenario #2, I do indeed think I am making improvements. I take a
dead piece of firewood with non descript grain, no eye catching color,
and not much to commend it at all in the beauty department and make
something useful. I do indeed think it is an improvement on nature to
take a stick and make a spoon that could be used for years, or a
mallet, or rolling pin, or a writing pen. Those little pieces of wood
may have been put in the landfill, burned up or left to rot somewhere.


So "stuff" is the actual improvement on nature's remains here, not so
much the "art" part in my book.

Here's another take on this. A large block of snow white granite was
to Michaelangelo a canvas. According to him, he "found" David in the
block. On the other hand, a raw block of granite was the actual piece
of art that pleased Picasso, and he saw the block as art, not the
canvas.

The parallel would be this for the artistas - they turn wood to release
the art within. In your hypothesis, the other side of that coin would
take the piece of wood as it was (mother nature's perfection), and
declare it couldn't be improved upon. But not many could see the
hidden art inside a crusty mesquite crotch sitting on a coffee table.
But they could enjoy the exposed grain of a bowl turned in pleasing
dimensions and profiles.

I think most of the "art" we see in turning these days is not art at
all, but excercises in technique. Strange and complicated shapes,
super thin walls turned with laser guided tools, motorized buffers and
polishers to achieve mirror finishes... all that seems like great
technique, but I dunno about "art".

Robert

polishers to achieve mirror finishes... all that seems like great
technique, but I dunno about "art".

Robert

Alan Hollar speaks of Craftsmanship versus Artistry.
Some "art" requires superb craftmanship and even engineering.

An in-law is dating a very financially successful New York artist. Looks to
me like all he does is slap pieces of posters together to make another
poster. That makes me wonder how much of "art" is actually "fashion".

I never could get into Picasso but Terry Redlin's nature scenes warm my
heart mightily. One sells for millions, the other thousands. I'll give
thousands for a bookpaged crotch mahogany table but nothing for a glass
topped dining room table which is actually more functional but really bought
for its fashion design.

Arch looks at driftwood and wonders if it should be left alone. It's already
been reworked by Nature, so maybe yes. But other wood like logs becomes
striking by our reworking, same as a diamond isn't squat until polished -
and then the difference in the polisher's skills makes it more or less
valuable.

So, the criteria could be that it sells - and sells for a lot. Or that could
just mean it's popular. I've bought numbered prints and yet have never
understood why someone really thinks that makes them valuable beyond ego or
elitism or peer pressure. "Nah-nah, nah-nah - my number print's lower than
your numbered print!". I've a Carl Brenders print of a pair of Pileated
Woodpeckers that moves my soul to this day, years after the purchase. I love
the scene, the birds, and his use of color. But I haven't looked at the
numbers since I purchased it. One of my biggest treats with where I live now
is that Pileateds are around. Has anyone ever seen one come to a suet
feeder?

God gave us this gift of appreciation of natural beauty. Whether sunsets,
mountains, lakes, seashores, or wood grain and shapes. Then provided the
resources. Then gave us this thing about individuality and creating during
our journey. So, IMHO, I'd say give yourself a moment to think and feel,
then what moves you is what you should do (with the wood).

May your mind be quick and sure, and your heart measured and deep.
TomNie

Yet I usually think about how to improve on
nature's work by forcing it onto my lathe. This is about nature's art...

Arch, I never ceases to amaze me how you manage to create a difficult situation
only to then find yourself confused and perplexed by your own invention. You
bang yourself in the noggin with a mallet and then wonder about the mallet's
intention or the source of your headaches.

Here, I'll help you untangle your Gordian knot before you gag on it. Nature
doesn't make art. Only sentient beings create works of artist endeavor. Nature
does, on occasion and purely by accident, create unusual shapes, colors, and
textures that us artistic types appreciate. Go to any artist's home and you'll
find the windowsills filled with found objects. Some of them created by nature,
others by man.

Some artists use these found objects exclusively in their artwork. Others use
none at all, preferring to use raw materials delivered in bulk instead. Most
artists have incorporated found objects in their artwork at one time or another.
It's no big deal no matter how Arch spins it. (no pun intended)

Dan

Hi Gerald, Thanks for responding. I grew up on the family's piney woods
and turpentine still in N. Fla. Wild fires, Dupont's solvents and St.
Joe's paper mills finally did us in. 'Fat lighterd knots' are one case
where burning is the best use of nature's work. I wonder if anyone
here has finished a turning by dipping it in molten rosin? Remember the
fad a few years ago of cooking potatoes in a bucket of the stuff?

Hi Robert & Tom, Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative responses.
I think your posts are the stuff that helps a ng's unmoderated
narratives, Q's & A's and 'word pictures' continue as a viable forum for
anyone interested in turning wood.

Hi Dan, Thanks for your authoritative counter-response. For me, it's
the old "I don't agree, but I respect your right to disagree" thing.
I'm pleased that my poor musings perplex you enough to post your
corrective dissections. Keep em coming.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter


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