What is a turned object?

[Mike Zip Hamilton]

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving? I turn mostly green wood. I rough my blanks with my chain saw. Would my finished piece be chain saw art? What about segmenters? Would their pieces be tablesaw art? Just asking.

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

IMHO chainsaw art uses only a chainsaw and not lathe. Turned and carved has two processes but would be called turnings with carved embellishment. Sometime it seems the most of a piece was carved with no turned elements apparent so that is a guess and strictly opinion to decide.

 

[hockenbery]

IMHO chainsaw art uses only a chainsaw and not lathe.

. I’d agree if we are talking about chainsawn bears, eagles, and such

I had the honor of meeting Mark Linquist when he had an exhibition at the Smithsonian’s RENWICK gallery last century.
The exhibition included a couple of large sculptures that were on the lathe while Mark was wielding a chainsaw.
I asked mark about his process and he said some was done with the lathe turning and a lot with the lathe off.

I’ve played around using a Lancelot ( angle grinder chain saw) with objects on the lathe.

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving?

That is up to the artist to decide. Or perhaps a show when they define requirements for entry into the show or categories within the competition.
Of course any viewer of an object is entitled to their opinion too.

 

[odie]

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving? I turn mostly green wood. I rough my blanks with my chain saw. Would my finished piece be chain saw art? What about segmenters? Would their pieces be tablesaw art? Just asking.

I've wrestled with this question on a few occasions here, and the consensus seems to be......If any part, no matter how insignificant it is to the total appeal of any art object is done while it's being fashioned in a traditional manner while spinning on on a lathe.....then it's a lathe turned object.

That does seem to leave some room for discussion and critical consideration.....in which there seems to be great disagreement.

To me, if the main appeal of the object is done off the lathe, then it's embellishment.....but, regardless of this, it still qualifies as a lathe turned object.....That is, if any aspect of it is done by using traditional lathe turning methods.

-o-

 

[stu senator]

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving? I turn mostly green wood. I rough my blanks with my chain saw. Would my finished piece be chain saw art? What about segmenters? Would their pieces be table saw art? Just asking.

It is a wood art piece and you, in theory could enter in a number of categories.

If it, and us, are still around in a few hundred years people will wonder how we made this with our primitive tools.

Stu

 

[Bob Brown]

. I’d agree if we are talking about chainsawn bears, eagles, and such

I had the honor of meeting Mark Linquist when he had an exhibition at the Smithsonian’s RENWICK gallery last century.
The exhibition included a couple of large sculptures that were on the lathe while Mark was wielding a chainsaw.
I asked mark about his process and he said some was done with the lathe turning and a lot with the lathe off.

I’ve played around using a Lancelot ( angle grinder chain saw) with objects on the lathe.



That is up to the artist to decide. Or perhaps a show when they define requirements for entry into the show or categories within the competition.
Of course any viewer of an object is entitled to their opinion too.

www.virgiltreeart.com

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving? I turn mostly green wood. I rough my blanks with my chain saw. Would my finished piece be chain saw art? What about segmenters? Would their pieces be tablesaw art? Just asking.

Mike, I like all of it. As a woodturner, there is nothing more fun and rewarding than turning a fresh cut log. Most of what I do however, is segmented, turned and carved. l look at a piece on the table as a unique work and appreciate it no matter how it got there. What is curious, I am a lot more creative when the lathe is involved.
Actually, any turned object is a carving. Whether you rotate the tool or the work, it is the same difference to the wood.
jerry

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

The AAW has an "official" definition of woodturning:
"Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation. "

Presumably the AAW would define a "turned object" as something made by the craft of woodturning.

Obviously the AAW definition is very narrow and inaccurate. My guess is something less than .001% of woodturnings worldwide fit the AAW definition.

Is it time for some new definitions?

 

[Doug Freeman]

The AAW has an "official" definition of woodturning:
"Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation. "

I’ve never seen that definition, that I recall.
Dont be quick to denounce the definition. Turned, then heavily carved pieces, that I’ve seen, are for the most part symmetric around an axis. There may be several axis involved. “Segment” works, like a lot of Jerry Bennett’s work, with separate pieces turned and joined together, have each piece turned about an axis. It’s a pretty inclusive definition.

 

[Brian Gustin]

Obviously the AAW definition is very narrow and inaccurate. My guess is something less than .001% of woodturnings worldwide fit the AAW definition.

Huh?? How so? Color me Mystified, I don't see how you come up with your .001% figure

 

[Russ Braun]

I've wrestled with this question on a few occasions here, and the consensus seems to be......If any part, no matter how insignificant it is to the total appeal of any art object is done while it's being fashioned in a traditional manner while spinning on on a lathe.....then it's a lathe turned object.

That does seem to leave some room for discussion and critical consideration.....in which there seems to be great disagreement.

To me, if the main appeal of the object is done off the lathe, then it's embellishment.....but, regardless of this, it still qualifies as a lathe turned object.....That is, if any aspect of it is done by using traditional lathe turning methods.

-o-

I’m equally fascinated and entertained at the explosion of creativity that has started with the lathe as the epicenter.

I had a dear friend who was a really talented woodworker…..bandsaw boxes of any kind were one of his favorite fortes. His ideas of lathe work were stifled by the thought that “the lathe is an old man’s tool”; he received a segmented bowl from a neighbor in the early 70s who happened to be like many of us, elderly. He only saw:

"Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation. "

That thought excluded him from this explosion of creativity which he would have truly loved. He just couldn’t see it and shut the lathe out; he blinded himself!

I wish I could have shown him a Malcolm Tibbetts tangle or a Jerry Bennett “Purple Slurple” and his brain would have exploded, lol!!

I note this because it’s easy to become one of the “self-excluded” by restraining your mind with conditions instead of fascination. Be careful with your choice as you will definitely miss out on what is to come!!

 

[hockenbery]

Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation

I read that definition as defining the mechanics of woodturning.

Obviously the AAW definition is very narrow and inaccurate. My guess is something less than .001% of woodturnings worldwide fit the AAW definition.

How the mechanics of woodturning used on an object apply to its classification can be broad or narrow.
1. in the narrow sense nothing qualifies as woodturning as all objects have things done to them before going to the lathe and most have something done to them after the turning.
2. In the broad sense anything with one or more lathe cuts is a turning.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

Woodturning is just an excuse to get together with “woodie” friends and share life. Everyone brings their own take on all of it. It is a lot like adding a little peanut butter to a big bowl of dutch chocolate ice cream. it makes it a lot better. So thank you “peanut butter”, you have added considerably to my ice cream.
jerry

 

[R Henrickson]

Like all discussions of definitions, everyone has a slightly (or really) different personal definition.

Perhaps it's a result of two weeklong classes with Derek Weidman, but I like to see if I can do things on the lathe rather than using other tools. Part of the interest is working out how to actually turn an idea into reality while using only a lathe. Embellishment can yield beautiful results, but I've found that my real enjoyment is in the actual process of turning. I turn for enjoyment.

 

[Perry Hilbert]

Enhancements are one thing, but when does an object become a carving? I turn mostly green wood. I rough my blanks with my chain saw. Would my finished piece be chain saw art? What about segmenters? Would their pieces be tablesaw art? Just asking.

One of the wood carving groups I belong to, accepts turning as a type of power carving.

I have seen videos of people using a router on a tool stand to shape a slowly rotating piece of wood. into a bowl. And frankly, I still consider using a router to shave the high spots off of hand turned wildly unbalanced pieces until they are balanced enough to turn on the electric power to the lathe..

 

[Marc Banka]

What is it that you’re showing? What is/was the main focus of the work to create the piece? How would the viewer describe your work, ie a sculpture, a carving, or a turned bowl.

The sculptures that start as a turned cone, are cut up into pieces, reassembled, carved and painted can hardly be called turnings any more than called tablesaw art or bandsaw art if that’s what the artist used to cut it up.
Less clear, I suppose is to made a bowl as a canvass for carving/painting/blow torching or airbrushed dyes to create a sunset effect. In this instance the turning is not required to be skillful. Poor cuts don’t show, no finish work required. It’s not about one’s turning skill.

For some, and for some work, the lathe is just a means to an end much the same as how most of us use a bandsaw. I needed it cut for my piece, or I needed it round. No more no less.

For others (me), the lathe IS the reason. I mount a block of wood to the lathe. Use cutting tools and sandpaper to create a work of art. Most any viewer would call what I make “turned art”.

 

[Michael Anderson]

In this instance the turning is not required to be skillful. Poor cuts don’t show, no finish work required. It’s not about one’s turning skill.

Let me preface this by stating I understand what you’re saying, but I want to be a bit argumentative. Having done a lot of experimentation with a lot of different embellishments, I will say that surface quality almost always shows through to the final product. Even with heavy blowtorching and wirebrushing, tearout/non-continuous curves/etc… is evident/obvious is you know what to look for. Heavily carving away the surface completely can certain mask poor turning skills, but in a lot of cases the overall quality and effect a post-turning embellished piece has is somewhat dependent on skillful turning. Finishing is also still something to be approached with skill.

That said, the general public might not be able to pick up on the difference between an embellished piece that began with a skillful turning and one that didn’t. However, this is probably also true of signs of mounting, for example. Likewise, a piece of exclusively turned artwork might also look fantastic but not require much turning skill. 60g gouge and whatnot… In some cases over-sanding comes through, in others cases not.

I think that every step of the process should be approached with need/want to be high quality. And Marc, I know you do as well. I just felt like arguing.

 

[Doug Freeman]

I will say that surface quality almost always shows through to the final product. Even with heavy blowtorching and wirebrushing, tearout/non-continuous curves/etc… is evident/obvious is you know what to look for. Heavily carving away the surface completely can certain mask poor turning skills, but in a lot of cases the overall quality and effect a post-turning embellished piece has is somewhat dependent on skillful turning.

This is a debate, right? . I am diametrically opposed to this position. When the turned surface is obliterated with fire, carving, heavy paints, whatever the method, its pretty easy to cover up tear out, lumps, and bad form. 60gr “gouges” will correct a lot of problems (I know from experience ), and the deep scratches get covered up with the “embellishment”.

It does depend on the particular piece design. Some require high turning skill, many do not. That’s part of my evaluation of such work - what kind of turning skill was required. With an enclosed hf (unable to see wall t) the piece could have been whittled into submission with 60 gr to get a form and then carved up. It doesnt affect the visual impact of the art, but rather the turning skill evaluation.

Finishing is also still something to be approached with skill.

Agreed. The finish is 1/2 the project, flat or turned work. Finishing is a separate skill set. I’ve seen many good pieces with substandard finishes. If the surface is smooth (just a regular bowl for example) the finish better be smooth - no dust nibs etc from a sprayed finish, no visible scratches in raking light, etc.

 

[Michael Anderson]

This is a debate, right? . I am diametrically opposed to this position. When the turned surface is obliterated with fire, carving, heavy paints, whatever the method, its pretty easy to cover up tear out, lumps, and bad form. 60gr “gouges” will correct a lot of problems (I know from experience ), and the deep scratches get covered up with the “embellishment”.

It does depend on the particular piece design. Some require high turning skill, many do not. That’s part of my evaluation of such work - what kind of turning skill was required. With an enclosed hf (unable to see wall t) the piece could have been whittled into submission with 60 gr to get a form and then carved up. It doesnt affect the visual impact of the art, but rather the turning skill evaluation.

Always a debate, haha. You're right when you say ultimately it depends on the piece design. As well as the amount of time spent and heavy handiness of burning/paint/whatever.

But, all things being equal, tear out and lumps definitely show through, no question. For example, when you burn the surface of a piece, it should burn uniformly. Tear out effectively results in fibers that sort of wick the fire further down the surface than the non-torn surroundings. Of course, if you charr the piece so heavily that the entire 2-3 mm of surface can be removed with a wirebrush that's a different case. Likewise with paint. To mask tear out with paint it either takes many, many, many layers, or it takes very thick layers of paint. The latter of which probably won't look that good in the end (in general). Of course, with paint you could use some sort of surface filler prior to painting, but folks also do that with bare wood surfaces as needed.

The same reasoning applies to lumps. You cannot hide an uneven surface just with paint. It always shows through, 100%. Just like you'd evaluate the contour of a non-embellished bowl or hollowform with raking light, you'll be able to see the undulations as light reflects off the painted surface. Same thing with fine pyrography. The entire surface can be stippled/hatched/whatever, but any inconsistent contour will still be very obvious to someone that wishes to evaluate the turning skill. Burning with a torch, it depends, but if you burn uniformly and wirebrush away the charred surface, you better believe lumps will still show up. You may be able to mitigate this with secondary or tertiary localized torching sessions and subsequent brushing, but again that's the equivalent of the 60gr gouge I suppose.

Carving probably gets you the most forgiveness in correcting these shortcomings, but like Marc said above, in that case the turning skill is definitely secondary to the carving skill. Charring and painting will absolutely not make up for bad form, but heavy carving might--like you said, it's ultimately specific to the individual piece.

 

[odie]

Always a debate, haha. You're right when you say ultimately it depends on the piece design. As well as the amount of time spent and heavy handiness of burning/paint/whatever.

But, all things being equal, tear out and lumps definitely show through, no question. For example, when you burn the surface of a piece, it should burn uniformly. Tear out effectively results in fibers that sort of wick the fire further down the surface than the non-torn surroundings. Of course, if you charr the piece so heavily that the entire 2-3 mm of surface can be removed with a wirebrush that's a different case. Likewise with paint. To mask tear out with paint it either takes many, many, many layers, or it takes very thick layers of paint. The latter of which probably won't look that good in the end (in general). Of course, with paint you could use some sort of surface filler prior to painting, but folks also do that with bare wood surfaces as needed.

The same reasoning applies to lumps. You cannot hide an uneven surface just with paint. It always shows through, 100%. Just like you'd evaluate the contour of a non-embellished bowl or hollowform with raking light, you'll be able to see the undulations as light reflects off the painted surface. Same thing with fine pyrography. The entire surface can be stippled/hatched/whatever, but any inconsistent contour will still be very obvious to someone that wishes to evaluate the turning skill. Burning with a torch, it depends, but if you burn uniformly and wirebrush away the charred surface, you better believe lumps will still show up. You may be able to mitigate this with secondary or tertiary localized torching sessions and subsequent brushing, but again that's the equivalent of the 60gr gouge I suppose.

Carving probably gets you the most forgiveness in correcting these shortcomings, but like Marc said above, in that case the turning skill is definitely secondary to the carving skill. Charring and painting will absolutely not make up for bad form, but heavy carving might--like you said, it's ultimately specific to the individual piece.

Quick comment here......You can't hide an uneven or poor curvature with paint, burning.....but, you certainly can with the 60gt gouge!

Headed out the door now.....will be back later......

-o-

 

[Perry Hilbert]

I started turning as a teenager in the 1960's first with my Dad at home and a bit in school shop class. A turner then, never considered using a piece of wood that had knots, or crevices, or rotting. Today, much wood that was discarded back then is turned for it's artistic appearance. I have seen some really beautiful pieces that were pierced, or carved, segmented to create a complex design. Then we have items assembled from turned and other parts, Like Mark Sfiri's tables., We have items painted, air brushed, pyrographed, stained dyed, treated with fumes or acids, Burned with a torch, or electricity, or even wrapped with a chemically treated cord that was ignited to burn a pattern. Items inlaid with all manner of materials, guilded, resin-ed, Cut apart and reassembled.

I recently made a few spindles to replace some that were lost in the complicated gingerbread work of the eaves in an 1880's house. It gave me a real appreciation for the turners who conceived and made that stuff 150 years ago. To me the house is not a "turned item" and no individual piece is very complicated or particularly difficult, though planning assembly lengths and angles might be, but assembled the trim is undoubtedly a magnificent example of turning.

There is a small Chatauqua community near here with some very eclectic residents. The porch railing across the front of one home consists of very plain ballusters that each have one large bead. The beads are at various heights on the ballusters. When assembled into the railing, stripes were painted at the same heights on each. , the beads are then notes on a scale that are the beginning measures of the owners' favorite tune. Art? turning art?

 

[hockenbery]

When the turned surface is obliterated with fire, carving, heavy paints, whatever the method, its pretty easy to cover up tear out, lumps, and bad form.

Right within limits
It is possible to remove evidence of a poor curve, tearout, lumps, burnishing etc. but this takes a lot of wood removal

But, all things being equal, tear out and lumps definitely show through, no question

True for most embellishment.
Most high end embellishment relies on both curves and smooth surface.

Gesso is a thick paint I have used…. It won’t cover up tearout or a stray line in a turning. Worse - lighting will highlight the turning defect.
I do sandblasting. Again this does not erase tearout or a stray line. It will blend them in a bit.
I’ve done Caved flutes that remove most of the surface- tiny ridges depend on a well turned surface to look good.

Regarding carving- it’s hard to do many carving carving techniques on torn or uneven surfaces.

 

[Curt Fuller]

I don't mean to open another extra large can of worms here, but this conversation and the previous one on embellishments leads my old man brain down the rabbit hole of "What is the difference between art and craft?". The only real limits on what can be achieved in either are our own self imposed limits. Each of us will choose our own path and each will decide which is our own goal. And both are equally worthy directions. But personally, I think we all owe it to ourselves to take a detour now and then and try something different. If you've drawn your own line in the sand, just step across it once in a while. You can always go back or you might want to just keep going.

 

[Marc Banka]

Art, craft, or just crafty.
I lack the imagination of some here, the true “artists”. I am, however, an excellent craftsman with good artistic sense. I’ve developed a good eye for what is graceful and inviting, and I posses the skills to move these nearer to perfection. (This is aspirational. While I can’t be perfect, I can try)
I keep my designs simple with little to no embellishment. This allows me,,or requires me, to focus entirely on the simple form and my craftsmanship. I’m both challenged and satisfied. Well, satisfied that my direction is correct. I’m pleased with my work, but never satisfied.

Others have different motivations. Might be you just love the 64 box of crayons aspect to the craft. Nothing wrong there. I love new toys too. Texturing, painting, burning and all the other modalities are fun to learn. Does it contribute to your vision? Or do you want to make a pallet to play on? Both are fine, of course. It’s helpful though, to give thought to your motivation.

Some on this forum are real artists, as well as having the craft skills to create what they imagine. I’m envious. Also inspired and motivated.

I’ve found a lane that suits me. I think that’s good.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

As a long time cabinetmaker I can say that any amount of paint or glossy clear finish will only accentuate an unfair curve, tearout or bad sanding. Grinding away may disguise such problems but the game is not worth the candle, especially when sanding a spinning piece of wood with alternating long and end grain just increases its asymmetry.

 

[RichColvin]

The AAW has an "official" definition of woodturning:
"Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation. "

Presumably the AAW would define a "turned object" as something made by the craft of woodturning.

Obviously the AAW definition is very narrow and inaccurate. My guess is something less than .001% of woodturnings worldwide fit the AAW definition.

Is it time for some new definitions?

Doug, Where did you see this published?

Also, I‘d like to challenge the requirement for the tools to be hand-held.

 

[Doug Rasmussen]

Doug, Where did you see this published?

Also, I‘d like to challenge the requirement for the tools to be hand-held.

Click on AAW at this top of this forum page. That takes you to the AAW site. Scroll down near the bottom of the AAW site to the topic "Discovery Woodturning", under that click on the "Learn More" and there's the definition word for word as I quoted it.

Why did I say the definition is narrow and inaccurate? Mostly because it over reaches and is wrong. I can go to my local Home Depot and find any number of turned wood objects (knobs, spindles, etc) that don't fit the AAW definition. I know of two large businesses that produces world class musical instrument parts that don't fit the AAW definition because the tools are not hand held. Even off center or multi-axis is an accepted process that does not meet the AAW's symmetrical axis definition.

Maybe the forum here can come up wiht a better definition, possibly along the lines of instruction in and promotion of traditional hand woodturning.

A few years back I did work for a high end gallery, basic display fixtures to accent featured jewelry and glass art. They wanted more pieces but they required an artist's statement about my "woodturning". I went on to explain my process involving visualizing the object, sketches then onto graphic design software right down to dimensions and assuring tangency of all blended curves. Then find the perfect piece of wood with my object in it. From there use whatever tools or machinery are most efficient to remove all the material not part of my object. It just happens my favorite machinery is CNC.

 

[odie]

Boy now......it's been a long day, but I'm back here reading all these replies given today. We are having a great discussion, thanks to everyone's very thoughtful input!

If I may be presumptuous, I think everyone who has posted, is definitely including everybody else's favorite artistic, and/or fine craftsmanship efforts.....and all are to be considered within the realm of what "woodturning" has evolved to. The purpose here, might be to define categories of woodturning, so that all forms can be included.....but, separately appreciated on their own merits.

Might there be three "categories" of woodturning?

A) Traditional woodturning

B) Non-traditional woodturning

C) Embellishment of a woodturned object.

As far as the official definition of woodturning, previously defined as: "Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation."......this would probably be the exclusive purview of traditional woodturning. Dave Rasmussen's CNC creations would likely fall into the Non-traditional woodturning category.......and, embellished turnings would have a category all to itself. All three could be considered on their own unique merits, and within the category they reside.

Could ornamental turning be another entirely separate category?

-o-

 

[Monty Ivy]

Up to a certain point...

There is without a doubt a certain point on the horizon where a turned object is still a turned object regardless of the embellishments used. Beyond that place, a lathe may have been used to some extent to make some part the object but it is no longer obviously recognizable as a turned object or even made from wood. Is there a grand unified definition, words on a page, that can navigate those broad waters? Pretty difficult task. If such a definition exists how would that change anything?

Is time spent orienting grain in a blank cut from a log to produce the best possible outcome for that piece of wood somehow less skilled or appreciated than someone who paints to cover the all of the grain? I think there is room for all to express their individual vision.

@odie has a pretty good idea about categories for such things. Not only should we have defined categories for objects submitted to the gallery, recognition for things like TOTW should also be classified. This would allow broader participation across all of the membership.

 

[Doug Freeman]

Even off center or multi-axis is an accepted process that does not meet the AAW's symmetrical axis definition.

Yes, they do meet the “symmetrical around AN axis of rotation”. There is no limit to the # of axis used.

The purpose here, might be to define categories of woodturning, so that all forms can be included.....but, separately appreciated on their own merits.

I think it would be helpful and meaningful, though the categories take some thought. Several have commented that shows etc may have categories, perhaps they can elaborate what they are along with definitions. It helps understand the type of skill/talent to do a type of art. Some will likely say there should be no limits - the intent is not to limit but to be more informative about the area of skill/talent.

 

[Brian Gustin]

Also, I‘d like to challenge the requirement for the tools to be hand-held.

Not me. To me, Woodturning is a SKILL that is learned, and not everyone would be really good at it.

To put it in perspective, compare it to baseball, There are relatively FEW Pro (Major League) baseball players - the world renowned famous guys that make lots of money at doing something they enjoy... despite there being millions of baseball players of varying levels of talent (Some bordering on Pro level too) They all have one thing in common:

They learned to play the game of baseball.

Now along comes someone with a computer and plays a simulation game of their own design, or someone with a wooden hand-made mechanism that plays the game according to how they see the rules... Would you call either of those baseball players? (Even if they "played" well enough to compete with the pros?)

So, even though one can do turned wooden projects using a CNC (Computer machine) or a Rose Engine (Pattern controlled) neither one requires any great level of talent or skill when it comes to tool control and selection...So I wouldn't call them woodturners (I'd call them programmers/designers), or place their products in the SAME CLASS as that produced by traditional woodturners....

So, IMHO, rather than change the traditional definition of WOODTURNING, I'd say change the SCOPE of the AAW (and mission statement) if it hasn't already, to SPECIFICALLY include CNC/Ornamental turnings but as a separate specific class of product from traditional turned objects.

.....Then there is the messy area which is the definition of wood turned object vs. Art - which is actually the whole point of THIS thread - At what point should it no longer be classified as Turned, even if some small portion of it was done on a lathe? There are pieces here that very few, if any, traditional turners might ever even DREAM of creating (no artistic talent or vision), much less even have any ability, machinery, (or money in some cases) to create, But still, put in a class of their own, those same traditional pieces would be prize winners at any woodturning expo (excluding the "Art") - But I so rarely ever see those same quality pieces being featured or put up as an example (In the AAW magazine, at exhibitions, etc) in favor of the enhanced ART pieces, one may even start to think the AAW means Artistic Achievements in Wood . (That was one reason I was hesitant to even JOIN the AAW at first, having seen so much of their Featured stuff, I wasn't sure I'd ever see any benefit to joining here since I knew I would NEVER be able to make some of those fanciful art pieces - Not even if I won the powerball lottery and could buy every tool there is, and then some there ain't... because I could barely even SEE the "Turning" part of the piece. )

 

[R Henrickson]

Might there be three "categories" of woodturning?
A) Traditional woodturning
B) Non-traditional woodturning
C) Embellishment of a woodturned object.
Could ornamental turning be another entirely separate category?

Based on a four decade career where everything depended on differentiating and classifying all sorts of things ranging from individual shapes to how a craft was organized and its working methods (archaeological ceramics), I don't think that meaningful comprehensive definitions -- ones that a meaningful number of people agree on -- are feasible. There wasn't even real agreement about the definition of 'pot' vs 'jar' between me and a colleague I worked with for 20 years. I was the pottery specialist for the project she directed. Many discussions, no final definition. When I published material I defined my terms, for clarity.

Take just the word 'traditional'. What is a "tradition"? Whose tradition? Do you base the definition on working methods or end products? I use thoroughly traditional tools to do multiaxis work. My emerging bowl in the July challenge was done entirely with just a bowl gouge and a detail gouge, on two axes. But if I use just a detail gouge and turn on half a dozen axes -- while maintaining multiple axes of symmetry -- to do ALL of the shaping ON THE LATHE? No further modification of shape or surfaces. Traditional tool. Non-traditional(?) product. So what is it?

Ornamental turning has centuries of history -- clearly a tradition. It could be said to be a "traditional" form of turning. Does "handheld" rule out hollowing systems? Most are hand-guided, but handheld?

The devil is in the details. We use the same words but with idiosyncratic twists. An interesting discussion but I don't see a solution. Define your terms so others know what you intend, but don't expect others to agree.

I'll let Humpty Dumpty and Alice have their say
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

 

[Michael Anderson]

@Brian Gustin i think you’re going to ruffle a lot of folks’ feathers with your comment. I’m gonna pull out the popcorn.

I will say that looking back at just about every single American Woodturner magazine I’ve received, there are myriad featured traditionally turned, non-embellished (off-lathe embellishments) pieces. Most of the follow-along projects in the magazines have to do with traditional turning techniques. There are also a lot of heavily embellished pieces featured, of course. But to say that you rarely see a traditionally turned piece that is featured is pretty…wrong. Just looking at the most recent issue, in the Members’ Gallery, 4 of the 5 featured artists have no “artsy” embellishments in their sample pieces, “artsy” meaning off-lathe techniques. There is a featured article about British turners making a living with traditionally turned vessels, a threaded insert follow-along, a follow-along for end-grain bowls, a follow-along for a box, a follow-along for chucking systems, and a bunch of traditional turning inspired tips. The only embellishment-centric articles involve adding leather to a traditionally tuned piece, a segment on steam bending wood (which has roots in tradition), and one featured artist that is an excellent turner and embellisher (Tom Hale). I’d say that is pretty focused on tradition and not just “Artistic Achievements in Wood” as you say.

 

[Jerry Bennett]

I enjoy woodturning. I use the lathe and my skills along with other things to make art. For me, it is all about the art. Nothing else. I have many friends that enjoy placing the lathe at the center of what they do and what they make is incredible. I respect and appreciate that and we also collect it.
The AAW is unique. They understand the role of the lathe encompasses a very wide swath. They have been very successful in supporting woodturning playing a secondary role as well as being the center of attention. Good on them.
My work would not be what it is without it woodturning. It also would not be what it is by imposing artificial limitations. All of our efforts are good. It is a heck of a lot better than sitting on the couch watching drivel on TV.

Exhibitions…. To have a balanced show, jurors must impose categories that respect the diversity and artistic approach of the submitters. A good jury puts aside their preferences and presents a show that is categorically balanced with the best in each category. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. There should be categories for jurors also.
Just as important is submitting your work appropriately. I have seen submissions that were like throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks.
When it all does come together, there is nothing better.
jerry

 

[odie]

I don't think that meaningful comprehensive definitions -- ones that a meaningful number of people agree on -- are feasible.

An interesting discussion but I don't see a solution.

I'd have to agree completely here.....

This and previous threads will change nothing, simply because getting woodturners to agree on anything is pretty much like herding cats!

There is no realistic expectations of fundamentally changing definitions, and the only real value of this discussion is to bring opinions up for consideration, discussion, debate, enlightenment, and a further understanding of our woodturning "sphere".

-o-

 

[Russ Braun]

Like Marc, I’m in a lane I like. Everything evolves/ erodes over time. I was in a completely different lane prior to this current lane….started riding the bumps of the lane markers and boom, a new lane!! I currently find myself riding the bumps again. Every itch wants to be scratched….with color, textures and limitless minds like Michael Anderson, I’m itching all over, lol!! It certainly is an exciting time to be a Woodturner, Woohoo!!

 

[odie]

Like Marc, I’m in a lane I like. Everything evolves/ erodes over time. I was in a completely different lane prior to this current lane

Yes, yes, yes......I feel the same about my own work.

The difference here, is many of those "lanes" are obvious to others when they visually see outstanding accomplishments in turning by a single turner.....of which you, Russ, are among many of those I speak of!

Now, speaking strictly for myself, my "traditional" style of woodturning has also taken a "lane".....but, the difference is nobody can see it, or understand what that lane is.....It hasn't been a visual experience at all! it is strictly in the mechanics and spiritual methods I have evolved to. That is the point, where the I can get a tooled finish on the most difficult of woods that completely eliminates the need for power sanding!.....and, it makes little difference how dry, dense, degree of hardness or level of difficulty that wood is. When I first discovered how to do this, needless to say, I was thrilled to have achieved it, but that "lane" has gone through a number of "crossroads" over time since making the initial discovery. To me, the value of what I have learned is to get many turned details in my bowls, with only a minimal of sanding by hand necessary to get a final surface, ready to apply a finish.

-o-

 

[Russ Braun]

Yes, yes, yes......I feel the same about my own work.

The difference here, is many of those "lanes" are obvious to others when they visually see outstanding accomplishments in turning by a single turner.....of which you, Russ, are among many of those I speak of!

Now, speaking strictly for myself, my "traditional" style of woodturning has also taken a "lane".....but, the difference is nobody can see it, or understand what that lane is.....It hasn't been a visual experience at all! it is strictly in the mechanics and spiritual methods I have evolved to. That is the point, where the I can get a tooled finish on the most difficult of woods that completely eliminates the need for power sanding!.....and, it makes little difference how dry, dense, degree of hardness or level of difficulty that wood is. When I first discovered how to do this, needless to say, I was thrilled to have achieved it, but that "lane" has gone through a number of "crossroads" over time since making the initial discovery. To me, the value of what I have learned is to get many turned details in my bowls, with only a minimal of sanding by hand necessary to get a final surface, ready to apply a finish.

-o-

Odie, you are in a well marked lane! There are few people that can skillfully drive in the center of a lane which is impressive in its own right! It’s important to remember that “traditional style” is the foundation that we all rest on. Those who have mastered it are among the most impressive batch our “catch all” group has to offer!! Remember that regardless of which lane one might find themselves, we all are chasing excellence with technique and toolwork. Those who have attained this excellence are what we all aspire to be!! “How’s the weather” up there, haha!!

 

[Perry Hilbert]

Boy now......it's been a long day, but I'm back here reading all these replies given today. We are having a great discussion, thanks to everyone's very thoughtful input!

If I may be presumptuous, I think everyone who has posted, is definitely including everybody else's favorite artistic, and/or fine craftsmanship efforts.....and all are to be considered within the realm of what "woodturning" has evolved to. The purpose here, might be to define categories of woodturning, so that all forms can be included.....but, separately appreciated on their own merits.

Might there be three "categories" of woodturning?

A) Traditional woodturning

B) Non-traditional woodturning

C) Embellishment of a woodturned object.

As far as the official definition of woodturning, previously defined as: "Woodturning is the craft of using the wood lathe with hand-held tools to cut a shape that is symmetrical around an axis of rotation."......this would probably be the exclusive purview of traditional woodturning. Dave Rasmussen's CNC creations would likely fall into the Non-traditional woodturning category.......and, embellished turnings would have a category all to itself. All three could be considered on their own unique merits, and within the category they reside.

Could ornamental turning be another entirely separate category?

-o-

Good ideas all, but there are items turned that are used in the assembly of a larger piece. Do we consider just the turned parts? Must the piece be at least a certain percentage "turned"? A German Christmas pyramid might be 70% constructed of turnings and 30% other items. Take the table top away from Mark Sfiri's tables and you have 4 off center spindles. I tried to plan an off center turning to accomplish a particular shape. It is a geometry nightmare.

 

[Kevin Jenness]

Seems as though this thread is about nomenclature and categorization, useful and perhaps necessary but tangential to considering a piece on its own terms. Hockenberry mentioned Mark Lindquist's work using both lathe and chainsaw. It's useful to remember that Lindquist was instrumental in setting up the conference that eventuated in the establishment of the AAW and probably would have been more influential in the organization but for an auto accident with long term consequences. The AAW was strongly influenced at the outset by artistically oriented woodturners like him and David Ellsworth. lifetime AAW member

Here's a link to one part of an interview by Prof. Sara Robinson (spalted wood scientist and woodturner) in which Mark Lindquist talks about his approach to turning. Seri and Mark talk turning
And another link with video of Lindquist's shop process. Mark Lindquist Sculptor