I continue to enjoy my two 500 bowls books. I consider them a bargain
and I'm glad I bought them, but I wonder if I really got 500 bowls in
either book. All the pieces pictured are beautiful, but are they all
bowls? I think woodturning needs a new and agreed upon category such as
'wood art' or something more appropriate.

This musing isn't another litany about art invading craft or about pipe
bowls or toilet bowls or the Rose Bowl. It's about the turned wooden
bowl; not platters, not basins, not cups, not vases, not hollow forms,
no matter how fine they can be.

To qualify as a turned wood bowl, I think the object should have at
least a hint of its wooden ancestry. It should have some evidence of a
rounded cavity of enough depth to at least appear capable of holding
liquids or solids. It can be so gorgeous or fragile as never to be
used, but its origins as a utensil ought to be, to some degree,
discernible.

I count hollow forms as vessels, not bowls and their beauty and appeal
are not in question here. I do not believe that turners necessarily
_'progress' from making bowls to making hollow forms. Or for that
matter, neither do they necessarily -'graduate' from the spindle to the
faceplate. All are just different aspects of woodturning. The open bowl
form does provide a special surface for displaying the wood, the finish
and the turner's expertise. A bowl's cavity can hold its own against the
'mystery' of a vessel with a narrow orifice.

After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name. Arch

Fortiter,


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

Arch,

I do agree with you on this. A lot of turners use the term "hollow form"
to define a multitude of shapes and many use "bowl" to define those same
shapes/forms. If I can't put Cheerios in it, it's not a bowl. If I could
put flowers in it, it's a vase; aka hollow form. There are some pieces in
the artistic turning books that make me think "I must be missing something
here" because I don't see where there's more than 2% actual turning done.
I guess if the piece is mounted on the lathe and touched with a gouge, it
must be a wood turning.

I totally agree with your believe that turners do not "progress" from bowls
to hollow forms, spindle to faceplate turning; rather they "expand" their
abilities. The word 'progress' has come to mean improving (probably thanks
to politicians of all levels!) however, if you are on the wrong path but
keep going, it's still 'progress'..........just in the wrong direction.
Starting out with bowl turning, I later developed my spindle turning
ability; did I 'regress'? : )

Ruth and The ?

--
www.torne-lignum.com
"Arch" wrote in message
...
I continue to enjoy my two 500 bowls books. I consider them a bargain
and I'm glad I bought them, but I wonder if I really got 500 bowls in
either book. All the pieces pictured are beautiful, but are they all
bowls? I think woodturning needs a new and agreed upon category such as
'wood art' or something more appropriate.

This musing isn't another litany about art invading craft or about pipe
bowls or toilet bowls or the Rose Bowl. It's about the turned wooden
bowl; not platters, not basins, not cups, not vases, not hollow forms,
no matter how fine they can be.

To qualify as a turned wood bowl, I think the object should have at
least a hint of its wooden ancestry. It should have some evidence of a
rounded cavity of enough depth to at least appear capable of holding
liquids or solids. It can be so gorgeous or fragile as never to be
used, but its origins as a utensil ought to be, to some degree,
discernible.

I count hollow forms as vessels, not bowls and their beauty and appeal
are not in question here. I do not believe that turners necessarily
_'progress' from making bowls to making hollow forms. Or for that
matter, neither do they necessarily -'graduate' from the spindle to the
faceplate. All are just different aspects of woodturning. The open bowl
form does provide a special surface for displaying the wood, the finish
and the turner's expertise. A bowl's cavity can hold its own against the
'mystery' of a vessel with a narrow orifice.

After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name. Arch

Fortiter,


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

Arch,

St. Benedict said the problem with making rules is that you then have
to figure out a way to get around them. Or somethiing like that. Some
of the pieces in the book obviously made you think about what makes a
bowl a bowl. Everyone needs to have their presumptions poked with a
stick now and then, even if they still come to the same conclusion.

And the title of the book is "500 Wood Bowls," not "500 Turned Wood
Bowls."

Clay (an interloper with no name)


After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name. Arch

Fortiter,


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

Let's not confuse "progress" with change. Not all change is progress. I
know that from my own personal experience. Trust me on this one.

Barry


"Ruth" wrote in message
...
Arch,

I do agree with you on this. A lot of turners use the term "hollow form"
to define a multitude of shapes and many use "bowl" to define those same
shapes/forms. If I can't put Cheerios in it, it's not a bowl. If I
could
put flowers in it, it's a vase; aka hollow form. There are some pieces
in
the artistic turning books that make me think "I must be missing something
here" because I don't see where there's more than 2% actual turning done.
I guess if the piece is mounted on the lathe and touched with a gouge, it
must be a wood turning.

I totally agree with your believe that turners do not "progress" from
bowls
to hollow forms, spindle to faceplate turning; rather they "expand" their
abilities. The word 'progress' has come to mean improving (probably
thanks
to politicians of all levels!) however, if you are on the wrong path but
keep going, it's still 'progress'..........just in the wrong direction.
Starting out with bowl turning, I later developed my spindle turning
ability; did I 'regress'? : )

Ruth and The ?

--
www.torne-lignum.com
"Arch" wrote in message
...
I continue to enjoy my two 500 bowls books. I consider them a bargain
and I'm glad I bought them, but I wonder if I really got 500 bowls in
either book. All the pieces pictured are beautiful, but are they all
bowls? I think woodturning needs a new and agreed upon category such as
'wood art' or something more appropriate.

This musing isn't another litany about art invading craft or about pipe
bowls or toilet bowls or the Rose Bowl. It's about the turned wooden
bowl; not platters, not basins, not cups, not vases, not hollow forms,
no matter how fine they can be.

To qualify as a turned wood bowl, I think the object should have at
least a hint of its wooden ancestry. It should have some evidence of a
rounded cavity of enough depth to at least appear capable of holding
liquids or solids. It can be so gorgeous or fragile as never to be
used, but its origins as a utensil ought to be, to some degree,
discernible.

I count hollow forms as vessels, not bowls and their beauty and appeal
are not in question here. I do not believe that turners necessarily
_'progress' from making bowls to making hollow forms. Or for that
matter, neither do they necessarily -'graduate' from the spindle to the
faceplate. All are just different aspects of woodturning. The open bowl
form does provide a special surface for displaying the wood, the finish
and the turner's expertise. A bowl's cavity can hold its own against the
'mystery' of a vessel with a narrow orifice.

After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name. Arch

Fortiter,


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

Ruth & Clay, Your posts are always thoughtful and much appreciated. My
musings are meant to stimulate courteous debate and opinion and not
meant to be
'ex cathedra' nor as mean and divisive trolls. I always hope my posts
will pry up lots of lively give and take re woodturning. Sometimes that
doesn't happen and I'm left to wonder if I missed the mark or if this ng
needs or even wants these sorts of threads. There I go, musing again!

Clay, you are no interloper. You have a name and it's a good one. I
meant that the work, not the turners, might fly under false colors and
deserve a flag of their own. I was musing about the _turned wood bowl
and should have taken more care not to appear critical of the book's
editors or the artisans. Didn't St. Benedict say that fine wood bowls
can be made off the lathe without recourse to turning at all?
Anyway, I'm too myopic about my hobby,

Regards to the both of you, Arch

Fortiter,


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

(Arch) wrote in news:15175-4132233B-46@storefull-
3177.bay.webtv.net:

I always hope my posts
will pry up lots of lively give and take re woodturning. Sometimes that
doesn't happen and I'm left to wonder if I missed the mark or if this ng
needs or even wants these sorts of threads.

Here's one vote for "keep 'em coming"!

LD

Arch, I love to read your posts. They get you thinking.

Jim

Arch,

Your musings are the posts I'm most likely to read. I know they are
always offered with the best of intentions. You are a gentle person
who has devoted his life to healing rahter than hurting, even though
sometimes the two are inextricably linked.

Let me tell you why I responded.

It has been a long time since I was invloved in the AAW, but when I
was on the board of directors, there was a sizeable portion of the
general membership who were quite vocal in their belief that if it
wasn't round and brown then it wasn't woodturning and it shouldn't be
in the symposium instant gallery, it shouldn't be in the American
Woodturner, it shouldn't be in the books. Fortunately their formulas
for determining what was woodturning and what wasn't always excluded
someone's work they liked, so no rules were ever instituted. The work
of people like Ray Allen, Ron Fleming, and Max Krimmel are good
examples of who would have been excluded under "percentages" or
materials definitions.

We do need definitions for the purposes of facile communication, and
maybe that's more what you meant in your post. It just makes me
nervous when I see people fishing near the shoals of secterianism. In
the long run, the excluders are the ones who get cheated out of the
most.

And in the words of St. Arnold, "I think I'll have another beer."

Clay


(Arch) wrote in message ...
Ruth & Clay, Your posts are always thoughtful and much appreciated. My
musings are meant to stimulate courteous debate and opinion and not
meant to be
'ex cathedra' nor as mean and divisive trolls. I always hope my posts
will pry up lots of lively give and take re woodturning. Sometimes that
doesn't happen and I'm left to wonder if I missed the mark or if this ng
needs or even wants these sorts of threads. There I go, musing again!

Clay, you are no interloper. You have a name and it's a good one. I
meant that the work, not the turners, might fly under false colors and
deserve a flag of their own. I was musing about the _turned wood bowl
and should have taken more care not to appear critical of the book's
editors or the artisans. Didn't St. Benedict say that fine wood bowls
can be made off the lathe without recourse to turning at all?
Anyway, I'm too myopic about my hobby,

Regards to the both of you, Arch

Fortiter,


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

Arch wrote:

..... and agreed upon category ....

Good luck mate.


To qualify as a turned wood bowl, I think the object should have at
least a hint of its wooden ancestry.

There's some evil ideology creeping in here

After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name.

Is it important for the objects we make to be categorised? The idea
certainly has its merits: for competitions, for communication, for
marketing, to name a few. But will it not stifle creativity if we can
only make things that fit in a well defined category? Getting back to
Arch's books, presumably you bought them to garner inspiration and get
new ideas for that absolutely awesome bowl you always wanted to make? So
why not challenge your narrow view of what it is to be 'bowl'?

We all have our personal opinions and what it is that attracts us to
turned wood. My pet dislike is painted turnings, since for me
woodturning is largely about the material and its inherent beauty. I see
no point in working with what is not always the easiest of materials to
work with, then covering it with paint. Surely there are other more
appropriate materials to use? But that is my personal preference and
viewpoint, and if someone else wants to take that route it is fine by
me. If I ever buy a woodturning book and find pictures of painted pieces
in there will I be disappointed? Well, maybe, but on the other hand it
might inspire me to do something with that grotty looking lump of
blue-stained red maple thats been getting closer to the firewood pile
for the past year or so.

--
Derek Andrews, woodturner

http://www.seafoamwoodturning.com
Wedding Favors ~ Artisan Crafted Gifts ~ One-of-a-Kind Woodturning

Arch
This is a cool question/topic. When is abowl not a bowl? My kids have
learned the old saw "if it does not hold water it's art." Is a burled bowl
with negative space, i.e. holes, still a bowl. I think so. It has a bowl
like shape.
How about a vessel wit incurving sides but a large opening in the top? It
will still hold the potatoe chips but it might seem more like a hollow form
or vase. How elingated must a piece be before it changes in name from a
hollow form to a vase? As I look at what I turn from the faceplate I
categorize the shapes generally as platters, bowls, vases, hollow forms, and
other. I know I have a criterion but I am not always sure of what it is.

--
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS Canada
www.aroundthewoods.com

Hello there Arch, and all, this is another one off those "musings" that
I read and grin about, yes I think we all have that question sometimes,
what is this? a bowl or what? and when someone else does not go by our
criteria then we might think BS that's a bowl, or that's not a bowl.
And like Darrell says where do you draw the line.
Last time our local turners chapter had a contest, the challenge was to
make a bowl with no dimension to exceed 4" (it must go through a 4"
hole), some members brought what I would call a box but then it's a bowl
with a lid for others, so you see we do not all go by the same criteria.
But if a customer asks me for a bowl I will not give him a platter (G) I
know the difference!!

Have fun and take care
Leo Van Der Loo

Darrell Feltmate wrote:

Arch
This is a cool question/topic. When is abowl not a bowl? My kids have
learned the old saw "if it does not hold water it's art." Is a burled bowl
with negative space, i.e. holes, still a bowl. I think so. It has a bowl
like shape.
How about a vessel wit incurving sides but a large opening in the top? It
will still hold the potatoe chips but it might seem more like a hollow form
or vase. How elingated must a piece be before it changes in name from a
hollow form to a vase? As I look at what I turn from the faceplate I
categorize the shapes generally as platters, bowls, vases, hollow forms, and
other. I know I have a criterion but I am not always sure of what it is.

I would say that turned objects must be turned and not have an "entirely
carved" finish. If you take a vessel and carve and sand a conch shell out
of it and no part of the outside is turned, I would call it a carving and
not a turning. The lathe was merely a tool used to preshape a blank for
carving.

Arch

When I reflect upon my personal work, I see those pieces that have a deep
recess with an upper lip wider than the base as a bowl. If there is a
reverse of the main curve, or an upper lip that is smaller than the base, I
call that a vase or jar. If someone like Frank Sudol wants to call his
"Ribbons Series" a series of bowls, then who am I to disagree - I call them
vases, but alas, my vocabulary is rather limited.

Ray






"Arch" wrote in message
...
I continue to enjoy my two 500 bowls books. I consider them a bargain
and I'm glad I bought them, but I wonder if I really got 500 bowls in
either book. All the pieces pictured are beautiful, but are they all
bowls? I think woodturning needs a new and agreed upon category such as
'wood art' or something more appropriate.

This musing isn't another litany about art invading craft or about pipe
bowls or toilet bowls or the Rose Bowl. It's about the turned wooden
bowl; not platters, not basins, not cups, not vases, not hollow forms,
no matter how fine they can be.

To qualify as a turned wood bowl, I think the object should have at
least a hint of its wooden ancestry. It should have some evidence of a
rounded cavity of enough depth to at least appear capable of holding
liquids or solids. It can be so gorgeous or fragile as never to be
used, but its origins as a utensil ought to be, to some degree,
discernible.

I count hollow forms as vessels, not bowls and their beauty and appeal
are not in question here. I do not believe that turners necessarily
_'progress' from making bowls to making hollow forms. Or for that
matter, neither do they necessarily -'graduate' from the spindle to the
faceplate. All are just different aspects of woodturning. The open bowl
form does provide a special surface for displaying the wood, the finish
and the turner's expertise. A bowl's cavity can hold its own against the
'mystery' of a vessel with a narrow orifice.

After all, a turned wood bowl by any other name is still a bowl, but I
think it's time for interlopers to have their own name. Arch

Fortiter,


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