Natural Edge - Maple Pedestal Bowl

[Roger Chandler]

This is 6-5/8" wide and 5.5" tall. The pic does not show it well, but there is a lot of curl in the grain of this one as well as the spalting.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Nicely done, Roger.

I suggest you try using a dark matte background for your photos and put more space between the object and the background. You high gloss finish coupled with the light background and lighting shadow makes it difficult to "read" your form. Compare the attached

 

[Bill Boehme]

I like the piece, especially the pedestal for its clean shape that gives it a light appearance without looking fragile. The natural edge works well with the overall design.

The light graduated blue background is responsible for lowering the contrast on the underside of the bowl. As Mark suggested, changing to a darker background would be a worthwhile change.

EDIT: After thinking about what constitutes a good critique, I decided that using my perception as a basis for evaluation was presumptions at best and, in addition, it did not contain the important elements that a bona fide critique ought to contain to be truly worthwhile. While my comments were made with good intentions, that isn't a suitable substitute for a knowledgeable critique. That is why I decided to remove comments that I initially thought of as "helpful".

While you didn't ask for suggestions on photographing turnings, I think that the following might be useful:

• Everything reflects light onto everything else. White reflects the greatest amount and black reflects almost none. John Lucas phrases it succinctly when he says that you "see" the reflection of one object in another. In this case, you can see the white background paper on the underside of the bowl. The result is that contrast is lost and the bottom of the bowl almost disappears. Likewise, light from the bowl reflects onto the background and imparts the color of the bowl onto the light blue background. The fix would be to use a dark neutral background. In photography, neutral means pure grayscale with no color bias. In addition move the background further away from the subject by two or three feet and keep it at a shallow angle ... roughly 45 degrees --gradually sweeping the background from flat at the front to angled at the back.
• The shadow line on the background is caused by direct lighting from a shoe mounted speedlite. There also might be some mixed lighting from room lights leading to some color shift in the shadows. Basically, the lights should be diffused a bit and placed off center to help give depth to the image with soft shadows.
• Additionally, I have found it to be good use a long focal length lens -- approximately 80 to 120 mm and shoot from 6 - 10 feet depending on size of object. To get maximum depth of field,stop down to f/11 or even smaller aperture, use lowest ISO speed, and use a tripod because the exposures will be very long -- one or two seconds.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Giving a critique

Today I serendipitously came across a quote on another forum made several years ago by someone whose opinion I greatly respect regarding critiques, "The most serious error that most commenters make is expressing opinions based upon their own style or work". This really hit home. Who am I with no formal art training to give a meaningful critique.

 

[Gretch Flo]

Today I serendipitously came across a quote on another forum made several years ago by someone whose opinion I greatly respect regarding critiques, "The most serious error that most commenters make is expressing opinions based upon their own style or work". This really hit home. Who am I with no formal art training to give a meaningful critique.

It's nice to know people's likes and dislikes/styles. It makes me look differently on " ob-jet d'art" liked by people I respect (which at first are not liked by me) . Broadening my horizons (veeerrrry slowly). Still basically not an ornate lover, just I appreciate it. Gretch

 

[Mark Mandell]

Today I serendipitously came across a quote on another forum made several years ago by someone whose opinion I greatly respect regarding critiques, "The most serious error that most commenters make is expressing opinions based upon their own style or work". This really hit home. Who am I with no formal art training to give a meaningful critique.

"Critique" is a commonly misunderstood concept. It is NOT a process to tell someone what they did wrong. Done well, it serves to inform the maker about their piece as seen through different eyes. The commenter must first be able to observe from a neutral standpoint and analyze what they see without reference to outside objects. You have to be able to get "inside" the object, put it on and wear it so to speak, and then be able to verbalize what has been seen and felt. A weak reviewer will hide behind pedestrian aspects like torn grain, sanding or tool marks, or finish application. Once the piece has been analyzed, some valuation statements can be made of course, but those should be limited to the piece's internal elements and how they work or don't work together. Done this way, the maker will gain perspective and can even be made aware of aspects of their work that they did not consciously consider, and the crit will always be a positive, and hopefully educational, experience for the maker. Telling someone their sanding technique "sucks" will go nowhere, and the maker's ego will throw up a defensive barrier to further comments making what follows a waste of time for both parties. I see many struggle to make a cogent comment and retreat into vague value judgments. This can be nice for ego-building, but it won't help the maker and may actually retard their personal development.

In the final phase, several kinds of suggestions can be made.

First, if there is an issue that the commenter finds weak or inappropriate, a suggestion encompassing one or more alternative treatments can be expressed as suggestions for possible use in the future. This can deal with anything from technical fabrication weakness which detracts from the other aspects, to material selection, finish choices, etm., which can assist the maker in improving what they do. Pointing out an error, however, must be discussed with a detail on why the topic is viewed as an error and its effect on the rest of the piece.

Second, references to the work of others can be used to illustrate a point or concept by pointing to how elements have been handled by others. This kind of reference should be free of value judgments about the piece being reviewed, but rather encourages the maker to broaden their perspective and personal knowledge base which will help them analyze their own work in a more meaningful way. Reference to the commenter's own work illustrates a bias and narrowness of knowledge which results in devaluing the entire critique to a bunch of personal choice "do it my way so I'll like it more" opinions.

The primary guideline is to tell the maker what you see without making value judgments. Doing so will allow the maker to make their own judgments about their work in the context of what they were trying to do when they made the piece.

 

[Bill Boehme]

It's nice to know people's likes and dislikes/styles. It makes me look differently on " ob-jet d'art" liked by people I respect (which at first are not liked by me) . Broadening my horizons (veeerrrry slowly). Still basically not an ornate lover, just I appreciate it. Gretch

I think that most of us express likes and dislikes, but very few of use have the in depth experience and background to offer a truly meaningful critique. We shouldn't say that something would be better if it were done more like our own personal preferences. This is different than explaining to a beginner why certain shapes work better than others.

 

[Mark Mandell]

I think that most of us express likes and dislikes, but very few of use have the in depth experience and background to offer a truly meaningful critique. We shouldn't say that something would be better if it were done more like our own personal preferences. This is different than explaining to a beginner why certain shapes work better than others.

Has less to do with "experience" and more with the ability (trained, native talent, or acquired) to look at an object, dissect it to its various parts, and verbally discuss the parts and their relationship(s) to the other parts. With practice, anyone who uses their head to make stuff can do this. The old saw of "I don't know anything about Art but I know what I like" is a lazy-brains cop-out from trying to understand what is being represented in the object.

 

[Roger Chandler]

Some very thoughtful comments.............many of which I agree with. Mark, your observations on critique have merit.

One thing I think is missing from many comments is an understanding of the intent of the artist.......that being said, myself and many other "artists" fail to give the "why" of what they were creating...........some things do however, speak for themselves.

Bill's comments about the poor photo are valid........I simply took a quick pic and did not pull out and set up my photo tent and lights........for reasons known only to me. I was just showing the piece.......perhaps in retrospect, I should have made a better pic for folks to see this is its best light, but one can get a fair idea even with what is shown.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Some very thoughtful comments.............many of which I agree with. Mark, your observations on critique have merit.

One thing I think is missing from many comments is an understanding of the intent of the artist.......that being said, myself and many other "artists" fail to give the "why" of what they were creating...........some things do however, speak for themselves.

Bill's comments about the poor photo are valid........I simply took a quick pic and did not pull out and set up my photo tent and lights........for reasons known only to me. I was just showing the piece.......perhaps in retrospect, I should have made a better pic for folks to see this is its best light, but one can get a fair idea even with what is shown.

Hey,

I commented only on your photo. You really shouldn't expect much in the way of a meaningful response to forum-posted photos because the photo on the flat screen can never substitute for actual hands-on experience with the piece. Most you'll get is an "ataboy" and maybe ca comment of color curves.

Keep going. You're obviously have some fun.😉;

 

[Bill Boehme]

Has less to do with "experience" . . . .

I was thinking of experience in a broader context than the viewpoints sometimes expressed on this forum where one's worth as a turner becomes connected to the number and skillful execution of pieces turned. Experience wasn't the best word to convey meaning, but one finger typing on an iPad while away from my PC at home encourages me to be frugal with words.

Some very thoughtful comments.............many of which I agree with. Mark, your observations on critique have merit.

One thing I think is missing from many comments is an understanding of the intent of the artist.......that being said, myself and many other "artists" fail to give the "why" of what they were creating...........some things do however, speak for themselves.

Bill's comments about the poor photo are valid........I simply took a quick pic and did not pull out and set up my photo tent and lights........for reasons known only to me. I was just showing the piece.......perhaps in retrospect, I should have made a better pic for folks to see this is its best light, but one can get a fair idea even with what is shown.

Roger, first of all, I sincerely apologize for my initial remarks. At the time I didn't recognize the fact that they really amounted nothing more than saying "turn using the same style that I would use".

Regarding your photography, I feel that it is quite good. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered commenting at all.