I received the latest issue of the AAW magazine and the following thoughts
occurred to me. These are similar to Arch's Musings, but obviously can't be
done with the same savoire faire and panache. A gorgeous magazine! The first
thing I noticed was the preponderance of not-bowls (see Arch's musings on
that score). The majority represented things that were more likely to
having been obtained from StarTrek or StarGate expeditions to off-world
sites, i.e., alien artifacts. I would like to suggest a name for this
"genre" of semi-turnings, semi-carvings, semi-etcs! Hybrids! Normally, the
term is applied to plant and animal breeding, but I suggest we stretch it to
encompass those creations whose purpose clearly is not to hold objects or
liquids, i.e., not-bowls!

When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a wholly
turned item, e.g., a bowl. Rather it becomes a prepared surface, much like
a gessoed canvas on wooden stretcher bars, only three dimensional. It is
then carved, burned, painted, distressed, broken, cracked, stressed,
stitched, magnetized, electrified and in general, made most unbowl-like.
These hybrids seem to fit more readily into subcategories of sculpture,
applique, quilting, fauvism, cake decorating, landscape painting and three
dimensional Rorschach blots. Some are on par with imitations of various
Japanese bento (compartmented lunch box) displays. Don't get me wrong, I
love bento lunches and some of the objets looked good enough to eat.

In any event, this should be enough to generate catcalls, threatening emails
and the like, but we prophets are much maligned in our times, are we not,
Arch? I can hear the pack stirring! *G*

Leif
Occasional Recreational Turner and
Proud Sears Craftsman Owner

Haven't you heard? You can charge more if you call it art.

Barry


"Leif Thorvaldson" wrote in message
...
I received the latest issue of the AAW magazine and the following thoughts
occurred to me. These are similar to Arch's Musings, but obviously can't
be
done with the same savoire faire and panache. A gorgeous magazine! The
first
thing I noticed was the preponderance of not-bowls (see Arch's musings on
that score). The majority represented things that were more likely to
having been obtained from StarTrek or StarGate expeditions to off-world
sites, i.e., alien artifacts. I would like to suggest a name for this
"genre" of semi-turnings, semi-carvings, semi-etcs! Hybrids! Normally,
the
term is applied to plant and animal breeding, but I suggest we stretch it
to
encompass those creations whose purpose clearly is not to hold objects or
liquids, i.e., not-bowls!

When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a
wholly
turned item, e.g., a bowl. Rather it becomes a prepared surface, much
like
a gessoed canvas on wooden stretcher bars, only three dimensional. It is
then carved, burned, painted, distressed, broken, cracked, stressed,
stitched, magnetized, electrified and in general, made most unbowl-like.
These hybrids seem to fit more readily into subcategories of sculpture,
applique, quilting, fauvism, cake decorating, landscape painting and three
dimensional Rorschach blots. Some are on par with imitations of various
Japanese bento (compartmented lunch box) displays. Don't get me wrong, I
love bento lunches and some of the objets looked good enough to eat.

In any event, this should be enough to generate catcalls, threatening
emails
and the like, but we prophets are much maligned in our times, are we not,
Arch? I can hear the pack stirring! *G*

Leif
Occasional Recreational Turner and
Proud Sears Craftsman Owner

Haven't you heard? You can charge more if you call it art.

Barry

Yes, but you receive more if it is. Dan

And if you find the right people - the ones with the money who are willing
to part with it to prove that it is art!

Yep, some folks get a kick out of other things. I have no problem with
that, as long as I can do what I like.

But, in reality, isn't that embellishment pretty much the same as "Turned to
(X) thickness, polished to (X) grit, finished with (X) and buffed?" None
of that really counts when it comes to holding the popcorn - might even make
things worse.

"Leif Thorvaldson" wrote in message
...

When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a
wholly
turned item, e.g., a bowl. Rather it becomes a prepared surface, much
like
a gessoed canvas on wooden stretcher bars, only three dimensional. It is
then carved, burned, painted, distressed, broken, cracked, stressed,
stitched, magnetized, electrified and in general, made most unbowl-like.

Right on. When no original turned surface is still present, or especially
when the original turned shape is absent, the item becomes a carving, a
sanding or whatever.

When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a
wholly
turned item...,

................said the guy who just sold a very expensive tree stump! (I
think!)

Barry



"Ray Sandusky" wrote in message
news
And if you find the right people - the ones with the money who are willing
to part with it to prove that it is art!

I will agree that the lines between our process and others are
becoming blurred. I don't think this is a bad thing though. Purely
turned forms have been explored since the ancient Egyptians and
Greeks. They hve been done in clay, glass and wood. With the
explosion of our craft within the last 30 years, I think it is OK for
our practitioners to stretch out and for our publications to follow
that stretch. Should we occasionally return to the basic forms that
define our craft? Sure. But we should also explore the boundaries
too.

We have to remember that our organization has to feed the accomplished
turners among us as well as those of us that are less so.

Joe Fleming - San Diego
==================================

"Derek Hartzell" wrote in message ...
Right on. When no original turned surface is still present, or especially
when the original turned shape is absent, the item becomes a carving, a
sanding or whatever.

When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a
wholly
turned item...,

"Leif Thorvaldson" wrote in message
"When the purpose of turning wood is relegated to a minor portion of the
process, then I think the object assumes an identity beyond that of a wholly
turned item, e.g., a bowl."

Thank you Leif! I have felt this way for quite some time. I don't
fault the artists for their creations as alot of them are beautiful!
But since the lathe work is a means to an end rather than the end
itself, can we really call it "Woodturning"? As much as I would like
to be able to do some of the things that they do, I just don't have
the artistic hand for it. I prefer to take mother nature's artwork
and showcase it with a turned item. There is nothing more striking
than a simple shape made with a beautiful piece of wood. Truly I am a
wood geek at heart and I use turning to show off the wood. As long as
the design is good, there is nothing wrong with turned item being an
end to itself.

My .02

Alex

snipI think it is OK for our practitioners to stretch out and for
our publications to follow that stretch. Should we occasionally
return to the basic forms that define our craft? Sure.snip

Sorry to disagree (slightly). My problem is that of publications
completely moving emphasis to the fringe, with the relative exclusion
of the base ("occasionally return"). I, for one, am not enraptured by
the "over the top" and "ultra neo-rococco". Yes, I like to
occasionally see what the fringe is up to, however I don't want my
diet shifted to that aspect only. My real interest lies with the
basics of form, function, technique, etc. - the mainstream. Shifting
focus entirely to the fringe artificially forces the craft in that
direction, and, imho, not for the better.

Larry,

This is a hard question for an organization like the AAW. I don't
consider the work that moves toward traditional boundaries as "fringe"
work. I consider it mainstream and relevant. If the publication is
mostly "how to turn a bowl", "how to turn a box" and "how to turn a
pen", then its a publication that will stagnate quickly. I like to
see what else there is and where we can go.

At some point as the AAW matures (remember, we are only about 20 years
old), it is possible that our needs may become broad enough to warrant
more than one publication. Look at the woodworking publications for
example. I used to read American Woodworker, but quit as it became
more cookie cutter woodworking. I now read Fine Woodworking cover to
cover.

For the record, I turn mostly simple hollow forms, bowls and platters
right now with an occasional "artsy" piece.

Joe Fleming - San Diego

(Larry) wrote in message . com...
snipI think it is OK for our practitioners to stretch out and for
our publications to follow that stretch. Should we occasionally
return to the basic forms that define our craft? Sure.snip

Sorry to disagree (slightly). My problem is that of publications
completely moving emphasis to the fringe, with the relative exclusion
of the base ("occasionally return"). I, for one, am not enraptured by
the "over the top" and "ultra neo-rococco". Yes, I like to
occasionally see what the fringe is up to, however I don't want my
diet shifted to that aspect only. My real interest lies with the
basics of form, function, technique, etc. - the mainstream. Shifting
focus entirely to the fringe artificially forces the craft in that
direction, and, imho, not for the better.