I enjoy an enlightening discussion #2

[arbud]

The 1st disussion was very enlightening, perhaps the "pot" requires more "stirring?" I trust one will not "read into" the premise something that is not intended.

PREMISE In regard to juried shows, exhibits, competitions, et al: The American Association of Woodturners, being the "official" voice of woodturners only because we turners chose it to be so, had ought to set parameters for at least two, and perhaps three, juried styles of woodturnings in order that each style is juried/judged with it peers.

MY VIEW: Yes, I think this is an idea of merit.

 

[Steve Worcester]

In a pure woodturning show, I have seen it categorized, platters, carving, ornamental, segmented etc. Maybe I don't fully understand where your are headed with this?

I really only see the AAW as the voice of woodturning for the organization, and to a lesser extent, organized turners in the world.

 

[arbud]

Steve, when I posted the premise I thought to myself, "This is not as clearly stated as it could be." I was right. I'm not sure that I can clarify without creating a monster but I'll try.

There are, to my mind, at least 3 distinctive "styles" of woodturnings: 1. Conventional woodturnings: These are turnings that have minimal alterations to the lathe-turned surfaces. 2: Embellished woodturnings: Those turnings that have "significantly" altered lathe-turned surfaces. 3. Deconstructed and reconstructed turnings: Those turnings that have been deconstructed and then reconstructed so as to render a form not turnable on a lathe.These styles/catagories/whatever may be inadequate but they will provide bases for discussion.

 

[Mike Schwing]

We've a long thread on another website about this in the past week or so, too.

The problems seem to be centered around exactly what is the definition of each. Clearly, some things are de/re-constructed, some are pure turning, and some are "embellished". But where does it start and end? One or more people brought up the point that turning alone is carving, with a moving workpiece. Is applying a finish "surface enhancement"? How about color changes? Is a hollow form with a decorative collar "segmented woodturning"?

The trend definitely seems towards surface enhancement and carving, and to keep them separate is probably impossible, but in my opinion, a good goal. I have been giving it a shot - today one of my "bugs" is the photo of the day. It combines a purely turned object with a totally carved one - but the two are done separately one one piece of wood. It could be considered a whole new class for your show if you want to get really technical.

But perhaps the most revealing is the photo selections AAW has chosen to show off its new exhibit, linked on the home page - each one is either heavily enhanced or carved. It is obviously the direction in which AAW intends to push the sport, or is it the turners pushing AAW?

 

[arbud]

Mike, that's the point. I agree that the trend is toward the more elaborate works because they are both beautiful and "eye candy." However does this mean that every vase should be judged/juried/compared to every other vase?
I think not.

As an example: If one has an elaborately decorated bowl and a conventionally turned bowl, i.e., one without surface enhancement, setting side-by-side for judging which bowl do you think would get the award/whatever?

Next question: Is the elaborately altered vessel the product of the turner's skill or the carver's skill, or the pyrographer's skill, or perhaps both? Perhaps more

Next question: Why then should a vessel, which is the product of two or more endeavors, be judged with a vessel that is the product of one endeavor?

Don't think for a moment, had I the skills to do the elaborate work, that I would not be doing it. However, I don't have those skills; I'm a fellow who turns wood for the beauty of the the wood and the form to which I turn it.

 

[Mike Schwing]

I think we're of like mind. However, here are a couple more things come to consider. This might be playing devil's advocate, but carving, just to use one example of other than "turning", can be thought of as just one more skilll in the turner's bag. It can be reasonably extracted to be no more of a skill than sanding. After all - a perfectly sanded surface with no scratches, blemishes, bruises or tooling marks is at least as much an art as is a fine carving, to me anyway. So is finish application, or even buffing. They are all surface enhancements. I tend to think that since carving/burning are new entries into the turner's skillset that they are still thought of as separate. I understand that years ago bottom treatments of bowls were never even considered, but now they're judged just as harshly as any other part of the work. My guess is that years from now, as carving tools and techniques become widespread, and inexpensive, they'll be taught in 101 and not as an advanced class.

I'll also give you an answer you probably wouldn't expect - put two similar bowls together - one carved elaborately and one not, and I'll probably pick the turning over the carving, as long as the form is spectacular, and the finish is perfect. One can mask poor turning skills with elaborate carving. You can't hide an inability to turn a wonderful bowl with nothing more than Watco.

Let's move this a little further towards your conclusion - how would you propose to totally separate the categories? Suppose I use a chatter tool to help decorate the foot of a bowl - does that put it into "enhanced" categories? Does that force me to compete with Andi? Moderately enhanced? How about using inlace? Does a form that uses multiple species (or pieces) of wood go into "other" since it was not pure turning, as there was fitting and gluing involved, but it is not quite "segmented".

I believe I recall seeing an AAW "rule" for an exhibit somewhere that said a piece must be "majority turned" What the heck does that mean? Is that in terms of surface area, or time spent?

 

[Wilford Bickel]

I am so glad to see this discussion. I have been very unhappy with what appears to be the AAW moving towards being more involved with carving and extreme surface treatments. In the last few journals, almost all of the pictures of current work were of this carved style of work. Same as the latest exhibition.

This is a problem I think we must face quickly and it has been brought on by the new power carving tools becoming much more reasonably priced. I am not saying that these works are not eye catching and have artistic merit, but I am saying that the art of turning has become of second or third importance.

Being the purist that I am and loving turned wood for its beauty and simplicity, I would go so far as to say there is probably going to come a time when the artisans pushing this heavily carved work should form a seperate association. I believe we as turners need to make sure we preserve the art of simple, elegant turned wood items.

If you have not done so already, everyone needs to fill out the survey on the home page. I believe the leaders of AAW are trying to determine the direction they will push our association. I just hope they remember that this association in name and charter is for woodturners, not woodcarvers.

Wilford

 

[Wally Dickerman]

I find this a very interesting discussion. In my many years of turning (70) I've seen a huge change in just about every phase of turning. I can remember in the 70's, looking in Fine Woodworking at David Ellsworth's thin-walled hollow forms, and thinking "I've gotta learn how he does that". At the first AAW symposium in Lexington, Ky., in 1987, just about everything in the instant gallery was funtional. Many variations on salad bowls etc. Over the years the experimenting with new things in turning was very evident. At the third AAW symposium near Seattle, Ray Allen showed up with some segmented pieces the likes of which nobody had ever seen before. There have been sculptural pieces, carved pieces and recently the trend has been toward various ways of texturing. When viewing the many pieces in the instant gallery at AAW and at Provo, I marvel at the changes and the progress that has made in our craft. I don't necessarily like all of the pieces that I see, but I have to really admire the thoughts and ingenuity that went into almost all. of them. I think that there are still a lot more just well turned pieces than there are far-out creations on display. Who knows where we're going but I think that it's progress, like it or not.

 

[Jeff Jilg]

A side note....actually the AAW winter survey was open from Dec 1 - Jan 15. The survey is now closed.

 

[dkulze]

I'm not so sure we can really consider fully seperating carving from turning at this point as it is becoming an intricate part, even on pieces that are primarilly turned and, in all honesty, turning is a form of carving, albeit at high speeds in a circle. We also have multiaxial turnings, turning of exotic, unusual, or artificial materials (dyed dowels, epoxy, chipboard), use of dyes and paints, etc.

I love that turning is becoming increasingly complex and varried, much as woodworking, painting, sculpting have been for much longer. I think it is a tribute to the recognition of this art and crafts form. I personally find that mixed media and altered pieces are often much less attractive than a well turned simple form and, despite the level of technical skill that may go into the alterations, I find a deeper sense of artistry and beauty in revealing the unique character of an individual piece of wood. The level of attention to the specific media has to be much greater if you are not modifying it's basic nature.

If I were to categorize turnings, I'd probably do it in three categories including simple surface (including texture alterations), modified surface (including painted, segmented, dyed, and exotic materials), and sculpted (including carved, compiled, and other 3D alterations, for example such as Ellsworth does by cutting and heating to create warped and spiral forms)

But that's just me. You could just as easilly do bowls, vases, flat forms, and sculptures.

Or carved, and uncarved.

Or treated and untreated surface.

Ya know, that's the problem with art. It doesn't like to be cut into clean categories.

Dietrich

 

[Jake Debski]

Dietrich,

Isn't it the AAW's Mission to advance the Art/Craft of turning? To do so is to recognize what is going on in the studios and shops of its members. I have only had the pleasure of observing a couple of "official critiques." At both of these, although the new and groundbreaking seemed to get the most attention, items showing superior form or outstanding use of the wood's natural beauty also rated the "judges" praise.
Perhaps the utilitarian and the pure art pieces could be separated into separate catagories but there will always be items that blur the lines.

 

[dkulze]

I'm with you, Jake. I'm actually not that big a fan of judging work anyway cause each of us has our preferences and to judge a body of work is to state whether it is "good" or not in a more universal sense. I seem to recall that Van Gogh wasn't that popular in his time.

I have not presented any of my pieces in competitions and I don't really plan to. I'm happy to show them in group formats and you have to jury pieces to get into some galleries but, in those settings, the pieces are judged against themselves and the venue, with none defined as "better" or "best."

I love to discuss a piece and what I like or dislike about it (including my own). I'm even happy to compare pieces and say which ones I or others like and why. I'm even up for criticism and critique and am willing to give it if it is understood that it is opinion only. I'm not to hot on saying that any piece is intrisically better or worse.

Dietrich

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Please allow me to play devils advocate (one of my college professors favorite wordings) - If AAW's mission is to advance the Art/Craft of Turning then please give me your definition of turning!

I'll give mine later after I hear from some of you.

Wilford

 

[dkulze]

Personally, if it was mounted on the lathe at some point and some part of the turned surface still remains, it's a turning. If you mounted it, turned away some material, then proceeded to carve it to a degree that no original surface or lines remain, then the turning was just a wood removal techinque equivalent to drilling it out, and we don't call those "drillings".

This is my personal opinion to set some limits on the craft but, technically, if it was mounted on the lathe and any material was cut off at any stage, it can be called a turning. It just doesn't appear to make much sense to do so in some cases.

IMHO,
Dietrich

 

[Mike Schwing]

These are such good points. I am working on something now that was mounted on the lathe simply because it would take less time to shape than it would have with carving tools. Only the basic shape will remain when done, and only half of that. Even I won't consider this a turning, but it'll meet the criteria for one.

 

[arbud]

Steve, when I posted the premise I thought to myself, "This is not as clearly stated as it could be." I was right. I'm not sure that I can clarify without creating a monster but I'll try.

There are, to my mind, at least 3 distinctive "styles" of woodturnings: 1. Conventional woodturnings: These are turnings that have minimal alterations to the lathe-turned surfaces. 2: Embellished woodturnings: Those turnings that have "significantly" altered lathe-turned surfaces. 3. Deconstructed and reconstructed turnings: Those turnings that have been deconstructed and then reconstructed so as to render a form not turnable on a lathe.These styles/catagories/whatever may be inadequate but they will provide bases for discussion.

I have been enlightened by this thread but perhaps it's drifting a bit.

The premise is not concerned with what is a wood turning and what is not. It's only concern is: Should all styles of wood turnings be compared to all turnings within the established divisions, i.e., vases, bowls, platters, etc.?

My position is that at least three "styles" of wood turnings had ought to be established and that all bowls, platters, vases, etc. of that "style" constitute a "class." Ergo, apples are compared to apples, so to speak.

 

[Wilford Bickel]

OK, now I'll throw out my definition. It includes definition from American Heritage Dictionary and my own thoughts.

Wood turning - (Amer. Heritage) to produce a rounded shape in wood by applying a cutting tool. To operate a lathe. To be formed on a lathe.

To me wood turning means the item is formed by turning the wood and holding the cutting tool still against the rest. Normally wood workers will hold wood still and turn the cutting tool - ie. carving burrs, saw blades, drill bits in drills, etc. Only in wood turning is the wood piece actually the item being turned mechanically while the tool presented is held still (I know we move it along the rest but I think you get my meaning.). Once we stop the wood from moving and start modifying it with moving tools we are no longer turning.

Wilford

 

[dkulze]

I think that the wandering of the thread is the answer to the original querry, Bud. It's hard to consider clear cut categories of comparison for woodturnings at this point because it has become such a varried and fluid art/craft form. It seems that we can even have legitimate disputes as to what is actually a woodturning. Without being able to define that, how can we set style categories for fair comparison?

I vote that we simply give up on competitions other than those where the initial entry criteria are tightly defined (for example, it has to be egg shaped and fit in a breadbox, or it has to be made out of glued together blueberry twigs and weight between 7 and 9lbs).

I love instant galleries. Never cared for art competitions, though.

dietrich

 

[arbud]

Dietrich, I'm with you. However, it seems that many of us human beings can not put aside our competativeness in lieu of "just showing off." Until and unless the competativeness is foregone I believe that parameters will require adjusting in intrest of equity.

I've toured the "new" gallery many times and I can't recall any piece that really turned me off. I like some pieces better than others but I don't really dislike any piece.

I like all the finished pieces I've made. I might add that if a piece doesn't get finished it's fire fodder.

 

[dkulze]

I'm pretty competative too, Bud (just ask my wife as she's got me by the neck and is giving me shaken husband syndrome). My preference, though, tends towards the relatively defined competitions. This eliminates much of the wiggle room and ambiguity.

I remember watching the Winter Olympics, I think it was in 80 or 84. An Eastern Europeon pair skated a routine that was so exciting, so groundbreaking, so unconventional (jungle costumes, rock music, sexuality) that the judges scored it pitifully and they weren't even in the running for a medal. You now see similar features in most routines. The competition aspect and the need to judge based on what was familiar was what cost them.

I think we're always going to have a hard time keeping the categories tight and that there will always be folks that push the boundries and get slapped down or censured. Our efforts to decide categories are, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, punative. But, if you enter a competition, you get to decide if you're going to go with what is expected or try and redefine the rules. Equity is a nice concept but it all really boils down to, ya plays, ya pays.

By the way, the crowd went wild and the skaters were in tears of happiness.

Dietrich

 

[arbud]

My thanks to all of you that have either read or read and replied. I have been enlightened but not to the point of drawing a consensus. However, I will go "out on a limb" and say that it appears that turnings utilizing the lathe and one or more non-lathe techniques are the wave of the future. It also appears that POWT (plain, old, wood turning) is still alive and well.

I would have liked to have had either a board member or advisory board member respond. On the other hand, it was probably wise that none did.