Back when I was doing lost wax casting, designing and
making one of a kind jewelry, there was a relatively
famous jewelry maker who also traveled around the
country teaching lost wax casting and jewelry making.
He even had a book on the subject and had developed
a very distinct style, using the same elements in
various combinations for all his pieces. He had quite
a following, in both the “art world” as well as the
One Of jewelry makers.

As a professional jewelry designer and maker, he was
very successful. As a teacher, not so much. Rather
than teach the techniques of lost wax casting and
design considerations, he taught his students how to
make pieces like his stuff. I suspect that It was
a good marketing move on his part because any of
his students’ pieces that people liked always was
accompanied by “Bob Winston taught me how to
make jewelry.”. He was so influential that, if I could
see three pieces any jeweler made, I could tell if he
or she had ever taken a class from Bob Winston.

I bring up this example because of an article I read
in the Oct. 2005 issue of Fine Woodworking, entitled
Sam Maloof on Design. In the article he warns against
domineering instructors. “Some instructors demand
that you work the way they work, and so there
becomes just many little followers of this person
or that person.” This was certainly the case with
this one jewelry instructor.

And that brought to mind James Krenov, as well
as Monty Python’s The Life of Bryan. With both,
the message got lost by “the followers”. Instead
of emulating the approach to things, what they
make/do are emulated - often to the letter.
Technique is always easier to learn and do than
to understand and use a philospy/ an approach
to the doing/making. I’m guessing Frank Lloyd Wright
had this problem as well.

I don’t think Mr. Krenov or Mr. Wright meant to
have people make stuff that looked like their
stuff. And poor Brian, he was just in the wrong
place at the wrong time. But that can happen when
you have followers instead of students. Probably
most of the fault lies with the followers.

Just something to think about - or not.

charlie b

(hmmm - if and when Christ or Mohamed or
whomever “comes back”, is the first thing
he says going to be
“You missed the point, so I’m back to try again.”?)

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
.. "Some instructors demand
that you work the way they work, and so there
becomes just many little followers of this person
or that person."

OTOH, try and make people aware of the principles upon which their
particular method is based, especially in groups like this, and you'd think
you'd violated their mothers.

Trial and accidental success is effective, though it's still accidental.
Seems once some know how to do something they're less willing to risk doing
it another way. If they understood that both ways were based on the same
operating principle, they might take the chance.

Lost wax is about vents and centrifuges, isn't it? Did some back in HS.

I can't say you're wrong but what do you base that statement on? Granted you
get some ranting and raving about which technique may be good/better/best
but saying everyone here has an accidental success is akin to calling
everyone here a lucky idiot.

Take a look at some of the web sites a lot of the contributors (past and
present) have that show their work and I think you'll find that
individualism prevails. I have nothing against the masters such as Mr.
Kresnov but I also don't think they have the all-knowing wisdom to speak for
everyone that works with wood - or any material. His words during the
interview were aimed at students he had over the years - not a general
statement about everyone.

I also think more people "take chances" than you may think - hence the
newsgroup format of mentors, and contributors of varying levels of expertise
and the student seeking advice and maybe even a thought provoking idea or
two. If you read about some of the masters and how they learned, it was by
imitating what others had done prior to them and then eventually gaining
enough experience to add their own style to the work. But first, they had
to learn what worked and more importantly - why, so the envelope could be
pushed - so to speak.

While you may think that the feedback from others is bad when you try to
make them aware of certain principals, I think of it as questioning the
value of the advice. If someone makes a statement about how to do
something - which may seem dubious to others - it's going to be questioned,
as it should be. If it can't be explained - then it may have little value.
Better it be questioned than followed blindly.

Accidental success certainly is not the way I would express a person's way
of working and not expect to hear about it.....

Bob S.

"George" George@least wrote in message
...

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
. "Some instructors demand
that you work the way they work, and so there
becomes just many little followers of this person
or that person."

OTOH, try and make people aware of the principles upon which their
particular method is based, especially in groups like this, and you'd
think you'd violated their mothers.

Trial and accidental success is effective, though it's still accidental.
Seems once some know how to do something they're less willing to risk
doing it another way. If they understood that both ways were based on
the same operating principle, they might take the chance.

Lost wax is about vents and centrifuges, isn't it? Did some back in HS.

"BobS" wrote in message
...


Accidental success certainly is not the way I would express a person's way
of working and not expect to hear about it.....

Even if it were?

Oh well, you prove my point. Thanks.


Bob S.

"George" George@least wrote in message
...

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
. "Some instructors demand
that you work the way they work, and so there
becomes just many little followers of this person
or that person."

OTOH, try and make people aware of the principles upon which their
particular method is based, especially in groups like this, and you'd
think you'd violated their mothers.

I think this thread's getting off the track I was
trying to lay.

The point was that a teacher shouldn't try to
make a bunch of clones of him, nor should
the student try to be a clone of the teacher

Using James Krenov as an example, I think
he wanted to teach his values of woodworking
- do a few things, but do them extremely well
- when designing, make the wood an
important design factor and an integral
one as well
- if you're blessed and know early on
what your passion is, then follow your
passion. If you haven't found your
passion yet, keep looking. But don't
follow the money at the expense of
your passion

What I often recognize in work by his
students is small cabinets in unusual
woods held up off the floor by somewhat
spindley legs.

I almost got to take a class from him,
but it was canceled So I've never
met the man and know only one
person who knows him - but Dave's
a boatbuilder and not a furniture
maker so he never had Krenov as
a teacher

Anyone out there have James Krenov
as a teacher? If so, did he try to
make you make things that looked
like his stuff?

charlie b

George wrote:

snip

Lost wax is about vents and centrifuges, isn't it? Did some back in HS.

No vents required for jewelry and small sculpture
invsestment casting - the investment is pretty
porous to air under pressure. As for centrfuges,
that sounds like a big, sophisticated machine, like
The Vomit Comet they used to get pilots and
astronauts accustomed to high Gs.

For small casting a spring wound, "break arm"
device works just fine. The "break arm" had
a pitvot point between the mold and crucible
full of molten metal (up to 6 troy ounces worth)
and the rotation center's axis. The molten metal
was kept traveling towards the mold rather
than being slung out the side of the crucible
(actually, the metal wanted to stay still and
the crucible would move out from under it

With good technique you could cast finger
prints and I once cast a dragon fly and
had the compound eyes come out in metal,

George,

I think you give yourself to much credit. I gave an opinion about your
baseless statements and you proved your own point. You are one that can't
take criticism - well intentioned or otherwise. Calling someone's method of
work accidental when you haven't seen their work or know the individual, is
a bit of a guess on your part - wouldn't you agree?

No need to respond - your point has been made and noted.

Bob S.


"George" George@least wrote in message
...
"BobS" wrote in message
...


Accidental success certainly is not the way I would express a person's
way of working and not expect to hear about it.....

Even if it were?

Oh well, you prove my point. Thanks.

charlie b wrote:

What I often recognize in work by his
students is small cabinets in unusual
woods held up off the floor by somewhat
spindley legs.

Not to mention the Krenov "flared trouser" look.

Why shouldn't a student's work look like their teacher's? They're only
students - if you see a piece by someone who is described as "a student
of Krenov" then chances are that they're actually a _recent_ student of
Krenov. Of course their stuff at that period is highly influenced by
Krenov, because they've just spent a year in his workshop. That's not
to say that anyone who once studies with him is forever doomed to a
lifetime of spindly cabinets and nothing else! Once they decide that
what they're actually about personally is chainsaw carving, then we've
got to the point of describing them as "Fred, who carves all those
giant badgers you see around" rather than "Fred who's a student of
Krenov".

Influence is pervasive and often unnoticed. I made this over the
Summer, and as usual I'd flicked through a huge stack of books and
photos first to get inspiration. I was rather disppointed afterwards to
realise that I'd made a damn near copy of a piece by one of Krenov's
students (I think it's in "With Wakened Hands", if you have a copy to
compare).
http://codesmiths.com/shed/things/boxes/wedding/

"charlie b" wrote in message
...
George wrote:

snip

Lost wax is about vents and centrifuges, isn't it? Did some back in HS.

No vents required for jewelry and small sculpture
invsestment casting - the investment is pretty
porous to air under pressure. As for centrfuges,
that sounds like a big, sophisticated machine, like
The Vomit Comet they used to get pilots and
astronauts accustomed to high Gs.

Don't think the one we had ran more than 50 rpm, got the metal down while
very fluid. Some designs required air venting, probably because of the
centrifugal help holding the stuff down inside.

The Vomit Comet is a 707 (C135) AFAIK. Climbs and dives in precise
maneuvers to get you used to 0 G, though most throw up as well. Sort of
like the "dollar ride" you got in pilot training. Scheduled for a full
1.2, in case the student had a good set of ears, but it was better to puke
quick, let your IP laugh at you, and then get some worthwhile instruction on
the same maneuvers, with slower rates of change. You could pay attention
rather than serial swallowing.

They also made a special point to pull a few G's and at least gray you out.

If you search for messiah complexes, you will find many among the fighter
pilot/instructor set. Of course pilots and surgeons are people you want to
be confident to the point of a messiah complex. Both call for timely and
appropriate decisions, not vacillation.