The AAW, Detroit, and the Future

[john lucas]

I agree Kurt we are hashing over the same things and I apologize and will go on to more peacefull things.

 

[MichaelMouse]

First, your premise is a bit faulty in comparing the IG to the balance of a Symposium's activities.

You query as to Kama Sutra does raise some interesting possibilities which I may just keep in mind for a future show 😉, especially since the book's illustrations have been hailed as high art. However, I've been to several Symposium IGs and have viewed photo albums of many more. There have been any number of them with either phallic or vulvic representations (or both) on display in varying degrees of disguise that would not require Mssrs. Freud or Fellini to figure out. No hew and cry was raised at any of them. Is this perhaps like the difference between the Boy Scouts' 3-finger salute and the "Bird" where all you have to do is "read between the lines?"

peace

No, if they felt it possible to regulate anything else, they could regulate the information on a card. Consistency. Don't throw the "free speech" buzzword out there as a justification.

Your "representations" confirm the words of the old song which says "...filth, (I'm glad to say) is in the mind of the beholder."

"When correctly viewed, anything is lewd."

Tom Lehrer, who had his own particular views as well, but expressed them in a way that seldom drew fire. Even "The Vatican Rag" didn't ring any bells, close any books, or extinguish any candles.

 

[John Van Domelen]

A prediction

Next years IG is gonna be interesting. :cool2:

Wanna bet this bru ha ha increases the number of 'statement' pieces on display next year?

Any takers. 😀

Yep, it's gonna likely be the most diverse, interesting IG yet.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

Next years IG is gonna be interesting. :cool2:

Wanna bet this bru ha ha increases the number of 'statement' pieces on display next year?

Any takers. 😀

Yep, it's gonna likely be the most diverse, interesting IG yet.

John - I'm already in "Artiste" mode and I've never felt more alive or intellectually liberated. I've assembled almost all my embellishing tools (chainsaw, claw hammer, various cans of spray paint, my old pump blow torch, various animal by-products and lima beans). I'm still checking with all my friends to find someone with a really high caliber (preferably fully automatic) gun to add those distinctive finishing touches.

I thought it would be easier to find a copy of Mao's little red book, but that has proved to be somewhat of a problem for me. I'll keep working on it.

Ed

 

[George Guadiane]

the "Free Speech" excuse for their inability to stand up and do what was right.

the "free speech" buzzword out there as a justification.

I get the impression that some of us are just against "Free Speech" or the idea of it when it conflicts with our own standards, beliefs, ideology.
Not an excuse, not a buzzword, not a justification...

(for instance) If I never see another religious symbol on a piece of art (outside of a place of worship) it will be fine with me, political stuff could and should have a place, but not in this site, not at the symposiums, IMO, but it's not my place (or yours) alone to decide, and taking away anyone's rights is taking away EVERYONE'S. At my house, I can take action - this ain't my house.

Free Speech is a fact of life. In this particular set of circumstances, had this possibility been considered and "prepared for," it might have been possible to prevent this "offensive" artistic rendering from being seen.

Is it possible that you guys are just on the "wrong side" of this argument? Is it POSSIBLE that being allowed to comment on the piece and go on about the interpretation of each other's statements and intent in this thread is about equal to having shown the piece and the offending paper?

 

[George Guadiane]

John - I'm already in "Artiste" mode and I've never felt more alive or intellectually liberated. I've assembled almost all my embellishing tools (chainsaw, claw hammer, various cans of spray paint, my old pump blow torch, various animal by-products and lima beans). I'm still checking with all my friends to find someone with a really high caliber (preferably fully automatic) gun to add those distinctive finishing touches.

I thought it would be easier to find a copy of Mao's little red book, but that has proved to be somewhat of a problem for me. I'll keep working on it.

Ed

You could try a book store or a Public Library 😱

 

[C Edward Moore]

Mark,

Your derisive tone and efforts to distort what I said crossed the line.

So, I stopped reading your post.

 

[C Edward Moore]

George,

With Freedom comes Responsibility. I was simply asking for the responsibility to be invoked.

You have conveniently overlooked that I said that people could post whatever they want on the walls outside the IG, thereby exercising their free speech rights.

Why is it that those who holler "Free Speech!" the loudest often mean "Free speech for me, but not for you"?

To me, the religious nuts who demonstrate at the funerals of service men or women cross the line of Free Speech in the most egregious manner possible.

 

[john lucas]

To me, the religious nuts who demonstrate at the funerals of service men or women cross the line of Free Speech in the most egregious manner possible.[/QUOTE]


Ditto on that one, and if they ever do it near me they are going to learn the consequences of free speech.

 

[George Guadiane]

George,

With Freedom comes Responsibility. I was simply asking for the responsibility to be invoked.

You have conveniently overlooked that I said that people could post whatever they want on the walls outside the IG, thereby exercising their free speech rights.

The thing I think you are missing here (for me) is the seeming authority your statements have - that they are "responsible," that you have the gravitas to direct where people can or can't use their "freedoms" (doesn't sound too free to me).
It's not that I disagree with you on the substance of your statements, it's that what you are saying is being said in an authoritarian way, and without any real authority beyond your opinion (IMO). I have read your posts, I understand that you were "trying to help." I don't think you are a bad person or anything like that... What I'm getting (and from the responses you are getting from others, I'm not alone), you are coming off as a leader, maybe THE leader in your mind.

Why is it that those who holler "Free Speech!" the loudest often mean "Free speech for me, but not for you"?

If you are refering to me, rave on... So long as I have the right to respond, clarify, counter claim, etc, I will continue to agree with you where I can and disagree where I must.

To me, the religious nuts who demonstrate at the funerals of service men or women cross the line of Free Speech in the most egregious manner possible.

To me, the religious nuts who demonstrate at the funerals of service men or women cross the line of Free Speech in the most egregious manner possible.

Ditto on that one, and if they ever do it near me they are going to learn the consequences of free speech.

See, to ME, those "people" look like target practice. Their "religious/ideological" statements strike me as anti-American, anti-human, terrorist death threats. (how's THAT for a point of view?)😀

 

[KEW]

'By supporting the AAW...' I'm not, exactly - I'm supporting me. And I'm supporting a vision of woodturning shared or supported, hopefully, by the membership. At the point that our views diverge, supporting the AAW is shooting myself in the foot. As long as there is a healthy amount of real turning knowledge here there isn't a problem. But I've read through a number of issues where I really had to look to figure out how turning had anything to do with it. Why would I want to support that trend? My biggest influence here is my membership, I need to vote with that. It's been a long time since I've seen an article in the Journal about turning thin walled vessels, or avoiding tear-out, or... Well, you get my drift.

Last, you describe a procession of skill building and posit it as good. And that's hardly the only possible path. I could make pens, bowls, and vessels happily for the rest of my life. I may choose many ways of ornamenting the turning, but it would never become the whole purpose of the work. Let's face it, cabinetry is also woodcarving. Except if you wander over to a woodcarver's forum. The reason for organizations around specific disciplines is to focus on the health of those disciplines, not to morph into the next hot thing. I do other forms of woodwork and I belong to those organizations as well.

Well said!

I am a younger and relatively new turner (4 years). I do not remember "the good old days" nor am I bitter about the loss thereof.
I am disappointed to find such an emphasis on carving, etc when I get the magazine or look at the photos here. That is not my thing and not why I would join a woodturning club or association.

Many of the "turnings" which are being entered and winning AAW competitions are the equivalent of entering a turned piece into a chainsaw art contest. However, the chainsaw art groups stay true to their medium and would not allow turned works in their competitions.
I find many of the carved/decorated pieces beautiful and exciting; however, the fact that a piece was on the lathe for 1 hour of the 30 hours it took to create it doesn't make it a turning in any practical sense. I do admire these works of art and the artists who make them, but do not understand why they are being adopted by an association which is supposed to be dedicated to woodturning. Isn't woodturning a full and rich enough endeavor to stand on its own?

Simply put, I believe the AAW needs to update their mission statement and change their name to reflect the inclusion of mixed media or return to true woodturning as the medium of their emphasis.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Apology to Ed Moore

Following my post on page 12 of this thread, there is a need for both apology and explanation.

First, my reference to Ed Moore as “Perfessor” carried nothing more than an acknowledgment of Ed’s status as an actual “Professor Emeritus” at the Naval Academy. It did not, nor was it intended to, denigrate either his position, his opinions, or his accomplishments that earned him that honorific, and was not, in any way, shape or form, a comment on his expressed positions in this or any other thread on this forum.

Second, in the 3rd paragraph of my post concerning “notice”, I picked up on Ed’s chiding me for not “knowing better” since I am an attorney. Contrary to what some people (and not a few attorneys) may think, a law degree does not also confer the gift of prescience nor membership in Menza. I read Ed’s chiding me as a personal slap to the effect that if I knew better I’d agree with him. On third review, I appear to have fallen into the same trap as I have noted others have done, by reading more into Ed’s post than was there. I then responded in a typical adversarial fashion that was unnecessary. I apologize to Ed for the tone of my response which could and should have been drafted in a far less edgy fashion.

Third, in the 4th paragraph of my post I was positing a hypothetical to illustrate a point based upon our core freedoms of expression and assembly, and their application to the issues in this thread. Unfortunately, I chose the word “you” in my construction which would, on reflection, be rather hard not to interpret as pertaining to Ed, himself. It was, however, not my intent to do so. I really hate when that happens. I know Ed to be a person very much immersed in turning (TBK probably more than I), and I know his comments to have, at their core, the intent to benefit the hobby in general and the AAW in particular. In fact, I believe Ed’s opinions and feelings expressed on this board to be honest and well intentioned in the very broadest sense. Ed Moore is not a mere “malcontent”, and my poorly drawn hypothetical improperly tended to paint him as such as well as “dis” him for his attempt to raise a point of view for discussion, which was, I'm sure, another of his efforts in support of the AAW, not the first of which was his organizing of the box turners’ session at the last Symposium. None of that was my intention.

I apologize here to you, Ed. I usually structure my comments much better than I did in that post, and I should have taken much more time to put those thoughts together in a way that preserved the dignity of your position.

I could, of course, go back and delete my page 12 post, but instead I will edit it to contain a link to this message. An apology without the original offending post is not very effective.

 

[Ron Sardo]

... a law degree does not also confer the gift of prescience nor membership in Menza.

I love that line

😀 I may need to borrow it one day 😀

 

[C Edward Moore]

Apology accepted

Mark,

Thank you for your well-written and well-explained apology. I accept it in the open manner in which it was written and appreciate the kind words which accompanied it. Having accepted the apology, it is incumbent upon me to say that the matter is closed, you are forgiven, and we need not look back upon this matter as a block to future friendship nor discussion.

To those who would regard my last sentence as sounding high-handed, please understand that it comes from my personal beliefs and it is as much a part of what is necessary here as was Mark's statement.

This matter is closed.

Thank you, Mark 🙂