Naming pieces?

Re: Naming pieces?

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Tough topic! � Some possibly random thinking...

You can name a series or an individual work. Examples of this might include my �bug� series � of which each one has individual names. Or Andi�s leaf series, with individual names for major pieces. You can have named series with no individual names � to my knowledge Christian Burchard�s baskets are not individually named. Art Liestman�s puzzle series is another example. Seems to me that J. Paul Fennel�s pierced and carved works in carob are not named by series but individually, but they all have his look and feel. (by the way you have no idea how silly and pompous it feels to put my name in the same paragraph with these folks).

My collectors have asked for names on my weird stuff. Knowing this, I now try to name them in advance. I am making a series of eyepods, but I think a series name will be all they get.

But how to decide? Shoot, tough question. Some random thoughts.. truly one of a kind pieces are good candidates for names, as are series of unique or signature work. Don Derry�s �Island Fire� is a one of a kind work that is named.

For a show, it can help elevate a piece if it is named, but it can also seem corny! As examples - Al Stirt's "wave" platters/series surely deserve names, and it helps identify which type of his incredible (and highly varied) work you are discussing.

However, it would be corny and somewhat ridiculous to name a simple black cherry salad bowl, no matter how well turned, in my opinion, unless you're going to name it something like "George". (in fact, that is an idea I've toyed with, giving otherwise common work familiar names, jokingly) Black Cherry Salad Bowl as a name suits a black cherry salad bowl just fine, and making one up serves no additional purpose (and can be really self serving).

I think "collectors" when I think of names. Imagine the owner of Keith's rose, the one that won the Niche award. Much easier for him, and the rest of the art turning world to say "I have Keith's rose", rather than "I have a turned and carved flower made by Keith Tompkins". Everyone knows Keith's Rose.

I was trying to think of other turners who's work I knew by individual name. Andi's most recent piece "Dylan's Song" - is there anyone in the turning collector world who is not going to know what that piece refers to? I doubt it.

People also know some turner�s work by style alone. I�d use Molly as an example of that. She has developed a very unique style, but I can�t say I recall any of her individual names (other than Dragonflies), even though I can picture all of her recent pieces in my head. And � I�m not sure which is more valuable � to know someone�s work intrinsically, or to know an individual piece � I think Molly might just be on to something.

Any of this make any sense? Hope I haven't offended anyone.

Re: Naming pieces?

John Lucas

>I think Mike nailed it pretty good. I often start a piece with an idea and a name sort of evolves. Sometimes the name comes up and I make the piece around the name. Usually my names have something to do with the piece. I've never quite made it to the point of building a piece and then assigning a name that has little to do with the actual piece.

Bowls, vases, christmas ornaments etc are production work to me and just have the name of the wood and my name.

Re: Naming pieces?

Dick Hines

>Don't name any f my pieces. They are much like cats, they don't come when you call them anyway so why waste time doing it.

Re: Naming pieces?

JL

>I am not saying "name every piece" - just the more unusual ones - or the ones that you put more effort into. Gary Ljostad did a vase in Madrone a while back - beautiful piece. IMO, it needs a name.

Re: Naming pieces?

Carole in VA

>ROFL! Tell it like it is, Dick!

Re: Naming pieces?

Glenn Hodges

>Only rarely do I name a piece.

Re: Naming pieces?

ArtLiestman

>FWIW, my puzzling illusion pieces DO have individual names. (Mike suggested that they didn't.) Almost all of the pieces that I make have individual names.

2 ways to do it

Bob Hackett

>1-Hand the piece to a child or grandchild,they`ll name it for you.

2-Pay alittle more attention to the radio while turning.For example,Hendrix was was in the CD player while I turned a highly spalted and figured vessel.That piece became "Walking thru the clouds".

I have a friend who takes trees with history that have been downed and turns pieces,then a name that ties to the history comes from it."Founder`s bowl" came from a tree taken from the homestead of the founder of his hometown."Marriage tree" came from one of a pair of trees that followed the tradition of planting 2 trees at the entrance to one`s property.One each for,and planted by, husband and wife.

I do like Mike`s idea of naming salad bowls though,not a surprise from a fellow who named his dog Otis.

Mainely,Bob

Re: 2 ways to do it

John Lucas

>I have some pieces that have been "called names" whilst in the efforts of turning but I don't think that's what mike had in mind. John

Lettuce name a bowl ! .

Fred in NC

>

Re: 2 ways to do it

John K Jordan

>Maybe I should name them like I name my chickens: Drumstick, Hot Wings, Pot Pie, Egg Factory 4, etc. I'd have pieces named Coin Holder, Dust Collector, Place for Tops, Sits on Shelf, Could do Better.

Seriously, I might be inclined to name something for a gallery or publication (if I ever had anything in a gallery or published).

JKJ in East TN

Re: Naming pieces?

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Sorry Art. Tried my best/very early in AM. Still the point that your work is instantly recognizable whether named for series or work is quite valid.

Re: Naming pieces?

Mark Kauder, Phenix City, AL

>I guess I will throw in my 2 cents worth:

I personally find the naming thing a bit pretentious. But, that said, I have been told that if you want to be taken seriously by the art community you have to name your work, even if it is just a number in a Series. That is what I like best, a la Trent Bosch.

Mind you this is for Artistic work, and not functional pieces.

Just my Opinion.

Mark

Funny: Add these to your names1

steve antonucci

>Bottom too Thick

I Hate Sanding And This Piece Proves It

Exploded while Parting

Still Haven't Found All of the Pieces

and my personal favorite:

@$#*&^! (of which I am now on piece number 100 in that series...)

Thanks for the good laugh.

Steve

Re: Naming pieces?

Arch

>I have always called my series by their family name: "Bowl" "Platter" "Vase" "Box" "Etc."

I christen every decent piece within the series (the ones that burn with white smoke) with the same name: "Untitled".

The indecent screw-ups (they burn with black smoke), are all named: "Anonymous"

Like the opinons of WC woodturners, the word "name",itself, has opposing meanings. We avoid calling each other names, but we are impressed with some of our Big Names.

Look at "500 Wood Bowls", it's a good workbook to help you decide if calling your work names would disparage it or distinguish it.

What's In A Name?

Mark Mandell - Gone Round In Jersey

>Not much, really. Beyond the basic human need to label and catagorize the world, a name is a literary handle used to allow others, most of whom think they can't do it otherwise, to have some point from which to relate to the object in question. Naming is largely an attempt (very rarely successful) to bridge the gulf between image-based thoughts and language-based thoughts.

Here's an example: I did a largish piece in walnut many years ago that was carved from a 5' trunk section with a double crotch. As a piece of "sculpture," I got several comments that it "had to have" a name.

Hmm, what to call this five foot piece of wood . . ?

Came up with "Requiem For A Pair of Lost Limbs." It came (OF COURSE) from the double crotch and the grain that swirled around the two large leads that had branched off the trunk and suggested the forms I carved; nothing more. People have responded as "How sad. Was it a friend of yours who lost his legs?" and similar comments because they'd taken me at my word, assumed a lofty meaning because it was "art," and had chosen to relate to the literary content of the name instead of trying to understand the sculpture itself.

Object names also provide a degree of comfort for those who genuinely respond emotionally to a piece, but can't formulate an understanding in language for why they "like" or "dislike" the object. The problem comes in when the artist names it connoting one feeling or concept, and the viewer gets something totally different from the piece. In that case, the name is an impediment to understanding.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, you have people ascribing ragingly pretentious labels evoking transcendent emotional content like "Love" or "Hate" or "Grief," usually with contrived vocabulary that they never use in their everyday communications, in the hopes of making up for lacking artistic content, usually with even poorer literary effort.

In my view, if you must name something, proceed at your own risk, and DO NOT get PO'd when somebody disagrees with the literary content you've tacked onto your piece.

I submit there is nothing wrong with letting the person who buys it name it, if name it they must. After all, it will be sitting on their coffee table, not yours.

Rant Off.

M

[Your mileage may, as usual, vary]

Re: Naming pieces? - Great Discussion

JL

>Can we say varying opinions? Great discussion - I like it. In my view, language is a tool. If you as an artist choose to use this tool to "guide" people towards what you were thinking - fine. If you choose to be pretentious, also fine - it's egg on your face anyway.

Many people want to have a "handle" on something, to help them categorize it. Is this wrong? Possibly - or possibly not.

Re: Naming pieces? - Great Discussion

David

>I've only turned a handful of things that have survived the lathe so far, but the same names keep coming up over and over.

1) Ones that don't survive the lathe: these are called "damnit" or "oohhhhhhh"

2) Ones that survive are referred to as: "I stopped using the tools and started using sandpaper when my fear that it would become damnit outweighed my desire to shape it further. That part is smaller than I wanted because I had to erase a catch."

Re: Naming pieces? - Great Discussion

JL

>And I have - Very expensive donut, and "this piece of #@&$ keeps cracking at the base" or "why can't I chuck this piece of #@&$".

Re: What's In A Name?

Chris Wright

>I don't name many of my pieces simply because I can't always come up with a name. I have a few that are in a series and so they get "Series name #1, #2, etc." There are a couple of pieces completed and to be completed that have very specific names. These are pieces that started out with a very specific meaning in mind and my goal was to convey that thought, emotion or idea that I drilled down to a single word. This works for me because these pieces don't start with a plan, they are turned and embellished with that word in mind, the goal being to convey that word in 3 dimensions how I personally interpreted it as such.

Should someone else see something else in the piece that's fine, and if they want to buy it they can rename it, but for the most part, those pieces are for me a personal journey through a moment in my life. Otherwise if the process doesn't start this way, a bowl is a bowl, etc.

Re: That Translates

Mark Mandell - Gone Round In Jersey

>Chris,

I did a series of pas-a-deux pieces with the dancers interpreting colors. The "titles" were simply "Green" "Purple" "Red" "Sky(blue)" and such. The challenge was, therefore, to work within the very simple, yet very complex concept of a single word. Some were more successful than others either because my concept of the color was clearer and I could communicate it better, or because I had chosen a color with too much literary baggage that confused the issues.

Most often, however, I simply have the piece in mind as an image, not as a word concept. I pull the mental image out and make it real, but not much more than that. I have no high purpose to communicate anything other than the image because I know, from experience of my own and many other artists, that more weighty "messages" simply don't get through except to a few people who happen to be on my wave length. I leave it to the art-psycho-analysts to plumb the depths of my libido to discover the true meaning behind the pieces |;-}}}}

Turning, however, is very different. I can look at the wood and get some feel for possibilities, but I purposefully let things change and develop as the cutting moves along. That doesn't lend itself to concept work unless I choose to disregard the characteristics of the material which I am, as yet, unwilling to do.

M

Re: Naming pieces?

Keith Tompkins

>Hi Mike, actually my piece "Merengue" won the Niche award!! LOL, this is fun! Yes,I guess I name my pieces. The merengue piece was named for the Latin dance, as was the "Tango" piece. I think those names fit pretty well. They were my interpretation of the dance.

I actually didn't name my rose piece "the rose".That seems to be the name people who have seen it have given it. I have gotten lots of publicity on that piece...If I introduce myself to someone, the response is...ooooh,you did the rose!

Since I think French is a romantic language, my next piece is called "C'est Leve' ". (The Rose) He He...pretty clever, eh? LOL

Re: Naming pieces?

Mike Schwing from Md.

>I didn't say you did name it "the rose"! Geez, whats with you guys... At least I remembered your names.

Re: Naming pieces?

Keith Tompkins

>I name some of my pieces; some exhibits won't let you put in an untitled piece. I can see their point, as it may seem little thought or effort went into the work if it is just labeled "untitled".

I personally don't like titles that convey a particular political slant. Too often in the art world this is the case....the message is more important than the piece itself. Please, don't force your views upon me.... I can think just fine for myself, thankyou!

As a potter friend likes to say " It's all just esoteric bull$#*@!".