Mike's Ladle

Re: Mike's Ladle

Steve Mushinski

>OH my Keith! You are a brave soul! This is one of them - Never going to find a solution questions. The people that call themselves turners like to turn and the ones that call themselves wood artists also like to turn. I do feel there needs to be a set in stone place for great works of woodturning that hasn't been changed with "enhancements". I do have a question of when does the carved turning become a carving? Some say the AAW is there to promote artist in wood not just the turner. I do remember in Orlando�s (Sea of Odyssey) there were a few pieces that I said to myself �Now, that doesn�t belong in a turning show�. But then who the heck am I to say!!! The answer I see most offend is �Does it really matter�? I believe that is answering a question with a question.

Steve

Oy!

Mike Schwing from Md.

>A perennial question perhaps?

A little while ago I started caring about this subject. I cared because I became interested (still am) in coming up with something that truly stands out in the field. I figured that it would be nearly impossible to do that with a purely turned item. They just don't seem to draw the eye to them for the masses in the way that otherwise embellished objects do. Having no other skills to apply to the task, it seemed an impossible goal. So I started asking the same types of questions as you posited here. If I ever manage to attain that goal I know that it will involve more than turning a perfect bowl (another goal I'll never reach). As far as I can tell, the turner out there today most closely producing perfect, artistic, purely turned bowls is Bill Neddow. Look at his work, every piece is stunning, and excellent examples of what can be done when one concentrates on form and execution without further embellishment.

I was told by the "big guys" (and gals) that turning is just another skill in a woodworker's reportiore. We all use bandsaws, but does anyone call himself a "bandsawyer" or a "tablesawyer" or a "finisher?" (OK, maybe Jeff or Sam are exceptions) How about a "sander"?

There was a long thread on the AAW website on this same topic about 2 months ago. It got pretty heated. Some of the folks here participated. The short version is...AAW intends to promote itself and the art of woodworking. If carving, embellishing, painting, etc.. help with that, they are OK with including it. That doesn't mean you have to follow AAW's direction. But look at del Mano - not many purely turned items in the small treasures exhibit. The collectors seem to want things that have seen multiple skills involved beyond bandsaw, turn, sand, finish. If thats your goal and market - apparently the writing is on the wall.

But I think that the majority of turners couldn't really care less about this subject/topic. They like turning, don't particularly care to be "judged" or on display, and in many ways that is something to envy. This frees them up to do whatever they wish with their work. I tend to fall in the trap of believing the same things that are important to me are to most others as well. Just ain't true.

For this reason I do think that AAW contests/exhibits/etc.. should consider multiple categories - pure turnings and "other". But this gets difficult because truthfully, applying even a clear finish is an embellishment, no different really than applying a color. When we examine a turned bowl, we are also examining the sanding and finishing and buffing work, not just the pure turning.

As I learn new skills, airbrushing, texturing, carving, I have begun to see the lathe as another tool in my shop. Just like the bandsaw and tablesaw, they help me to shape wood somewhere along in the process of doing woodworking. It is somewhat different in that it is the only tool that I can really say is useful from start to finish of a product. AND it still has center stage in my shop, thats for sure.

For me, I put my carvings in the turning forum for two reasons - 1. you guys are my friends, there's no group of folks I'd rather share my work with, and 2. others doing the same has helped inspire me, if I can give some of that back, great.

If I can learn to do these things, anyone can.

Re: Oy!

John Lucas

>Well said Mike. I appreciate all work,flat,carved and turned and don't feel a need to stick with one or the other. I do like turning mostly because it's fun to play on the lathe and exciting to figure out how to hold,shape, or manipulate a piece to get to the final product.

I think shape is all important no matter whether it's purely turned or totally carved. Without good shape and form a piece is just lost. We all try to achieve that and occasionally get lucky and really nail one.

I think the only time dividing this hobby or art form is necessary is in competition. It seems unfair to judge a purely turned form against an almost totally carved form, assuming both are done to the highest standards. A poorly carved form will not compete with a well turned bowl if competent judges are present. Unfortunately this is similar to judging a talent contest where you have to judge a Comedian against a contortionist against a Juggler,against a classical guitarist, etc. If they are all equally talented and charismatic it's really tough.

This has been a battle since the beginning. There are those who want this purely as a hobby and really don't care for all this philosophical chatter. That's great, I was there for a long time and sometimes think I should go back. Then there are those who see turning as there way to express themselves. This is my "voice" and I'm going to use it. Of course this tends to alienate some because your "voice" may not speak to others.

I still think we can co-exist as long as we are tolerant with each other. All in all it's still driven by what people like. You may go to one gallery and find that pure tunings sell better than carved and vice/versa. We are seeing more carved and decorated pieces right now because that's what poeple seem to like.

I agree with Mike, many carved turnings won't compete in a carving group. I think the top carved turnings do. I'm guilty of this but you have to start somewhere. You don't become a master turner or carver overnight. When you do both well then the pieces will show it. My friend Everett Elkins is there. He is a master carver and a master tuner and is forms are excellent. You will never see his work because he just does it for fun and isn't looking for fame or fortune. Wish I could be like that but as a young guy(under 60) I guess I still want to say something with my life.

Apples and oranges, or ...

Fred in NC

>Apples and chickens. I agree with John Lucas.

Sooner or later, however, someone will enter a CNC'd piece of plastic in a competition. It will qualify because it had to be 'turned' around while machining....

Granted wood art is not limited to turning, and I do appreciate the beautiful pieces that have been posted here.

Now, my question: What category does ornamental turning fall in ?

Re: Oy!

Richard Allen

>I think it's that the AAW. I am unaware of an AAC that promotes carving as efectivly as the AAW promotes woodturning. So wood artists go where they will be seen. Right now that happens to be with the woodturners.

Should we exclude non-turned items. Absolutly! But not until there are efective venues for those other items. The AAW should branch out and embrace the other disiplens. And as those branches grow, harvest and make bowls out of those branches (;->)

A book by it's cover

Sam Simpson

>Hi Y'all,

Horses for courses Mike. I love these little philosophical chats. But trying to understand why Mike Schwing posted a picture of a non turned item has to be totally separated from the considerations of how and why juried shows will develop in the future. For one, Mr. Schwing's talents are so well received, among this community, that most of us would accept him posting pictures of cake decorations.

I find it more interesting to ponder why some folks like to have their work jugged and yet others don't. I'm quite certain that it has little to do with their available talent.

Collage educated, self taught, professional, amateur and hobbyist are categories that might offer some demarcation, but I often wonder why they do, or should, when it comes to juried shows. The fact that one person is self taught in a specialty area, or that another is a professional generalist, are these any reasons to discriminate? Some purest judges would have a category for man powered lathes, yet others for machine lathes. And is the use of laser lighting and measuring cheating? There seems to be little debate about that now, but years ago it was a hot topic.

A book by it's cover. We are all being judged by the cover we present. In this very thread I am referred to as a finisher. Sure that is a specialty of mine, But the fact is I am a maker and conservator of fine furniture. I have seen many chapters of Mike Schwing, and I like them all. He is only a turner on the cover.

Regards Sam Simpson.

Re: Mike's Ladle

Ed Kelle

>Maybe part of the problem is that in general, it is not typical for people to have wooden bowls in their houses any more, outside of the typical IKEA type mass produced versions which may or may not even get used. So people have come to constantly expect low prices on anything they buy. Which leads to the thought, " If I am going to spend X amount of money on a wooden piece, then I am going to want something much more decorative than a simple bowl". Thus the trend towards more decorative works, and the lower regard for bowls and hollow forms.

As turners, we know how much skill and talent is involved with making a first rate bowl or vessel. But for those who have never tried it, hey, its just a bowl. They don't understand the thought that goes into developing flowing lines, or making the best possible use of grain pattern. They might view any atempt with these art pieces as being more worthy of praise. With the praise comes more publicity, and thus as you said the bowl turners are struggling more and more.

I think another issue is that in any exhibition, the viewer is faced with lots to look at, and of course the eye naturally goes towards things that stand out or are different. I know that in an exhibition setting, I look at things closely, but after a short while, it gets a bit tiring and I tend to just concentrate on things that catch my eye first. This is especially true for me with museums, which is sad because i am an artist.

Layout in any exhibition plays a role in how long we might spend appreciating any piece. Of course, if room permits, pieces would always have their own separate pedestal, instead of the typical overcrowded tables. But we all know that will not happen. You see a packed table and your eye goes to whatever stands out first. I was guilty of vieweing pieces this way in Saratoga, and also at our show on Long Island. I guarantee that I did not appreciate the bowls and hollows like I should have. Of course looking down on bowls on tables did not give a good viewpoint of the profile that was produced, not or any work done on the bottom. In any public display, you need to protect pieces first and foremost, but I was dying to pick up pieces and inspect and appreciate them. Hands on contact is one of the things we take for granted when we produce our works and show our friends, but in a show setting, this all goes out the window. We have often heard of making a piece that "feels good". Not as easy as it sounds. So public opinion will be shaped by purely the visible rather than the tactile sense.

Is the answer to separate the more pure forms from the others? Possibly. But will that lead to people ignoring the pure display while crowds form around the others. Hopefully not.

But I think everyone will agree that any additional interest in turning which has been gained by the production of more artsy pieces has been a benefit no matter what. We should always look to explore new directions in out work and push the boundries. Right now we have pushed them so far, that it is quite a blurry line. This has happened in every form of art thruout history and will always continue. It is a challenge to embrace this future and still hold ties to the past. An issue that I have struggled with in the past and continue to do so.

And hopefully this has not come off as bashing the artsy work, because I honestly see myself as heading towards this. It's going to be an interesting journey for sure.

Everybody just go out and create, in whichever style and process you enjoy. No matter what, you have produced a work on your own, something that is becoming more and more rare these days. Pat yourself on the back, step back and smile, then go make more.

Thanks to Keith for raising a thought provoking issue. And thanks to Mike for always sharing his fantastic works and thoughts.

Re: Mike's Ladle

Stuart Johnson

>This topic seems to come up very regularly lately. I don't understand why it is so hard for the turning community to agree on standards.

Look at the dog shows. I don't know how many different breeds there are but the dog breeding folks can come up with breed winners and a grand champion using standards for each breed. A little toy poodle can out do a mastif. There is one main one rule, they must all be dogs. No cats allowed.

Using similar rules if a lathe is involved it meets the first rule. Then additional levels can be applied or excluded as the show chooses.

Using this process one of Wally's hollow forms, a carved one by Andi and say one of TD's large bowls could all be chosen as champions in their catagory and then based on set rules / guidelines they can be judged against each other and a grand champion is picked. Sorry Mike your ladle with no turning will not make this show.

Personally...

Mike Schwing from Md.

>I don't think any of my stuff really deserves to be in any show - yet.

I totally agree with your line of thinking on this. But theres another sticky issue - as of late I've been using the lathe only to quickly, safely, and accurately remove material from a work in progress. Beyond that, it loses all resemblance to a turning. It was, however, on the lathe. In my mind, though, it cannot be called a turning any more than a bandsawing. In fact, it was chainsaw carved at one point in the process...

Re: Mike's Ladle

Bill Grumbine (Kutztown PA)

>Hi Keith

For some reason I am having a real hard time responding to this. It is not trouble finding words, it is finding the wording. I am really working at not sounding harsh, but I am not having a lot of success. I have deleted everything I have written several times now. It used to be I was only able to speak as a plain old turner, a member of the rank and file. In the past few years I have achieved a modicum of success with my teaching and most noticably with the DVD, enough success that there is going to be a second DVD, and maybe even a third. So now I can speak as someone who has "made it" to a certain extent, it being recognition and a certain degree of financial success.

The AAW is probably the most infuential turning organization in the US right now. It is definitely skewed towards the art end of things. Regular turners and their work are routinely snubbed. I do not think there is a lot that can be done about that, mainly because of the nature of human nature. There are a lot of nice people I have met through the AAW, but there are a lot of self important people there as well. As far as I am concerned, the artsy people can do whatever they want. They invest the time in the organization, they spend the time schmoozing with gallery owners and collectors, they make the effort to explain why their art is so valuable, and apparently at least some of them find others who will believe all that. It is a free country.

But, I do not agree with a lot of it, and I do not mind saying so publicly. No one at the AAW national level has done me any favors, and I have sought none. I have yet to see a benefit from sending in my money to belong. No business has come my way, no students have come my way as a direct result of me sending my money in to the AAW.

So I have to ask myself, why support this art venue when I disagree with most of it, and what little I receive from my membership is not worthwhile to me? I ask myself this question every year, and this year was the first in many that I actually renewed my membership. I did so solely to take advantage of the insurance policy for demonstrators. It remains to be seen if that will be a profitable decision. Although I have a long list of invitations, the economics of the situation makes most of them a break even issue at best, unless I subscribe to the altruistic notion of "furthering the cause". Now I am a nice guy, but I prefer to direct my altruistic energy in other directions.

I think there is no real answer to this question. Artists are always going to look down on craftsmen on the whole. This does not extend to every artist, but to the majority I think - at least the majority of the ones I have encountered. There is no way to force them to "like us", so to speak. But why do we need to? By way of example, I have been asked to apply to demonstrate, encouraged to apply to demonstrate, or solicited to be a vendor at several symposia over the past couple of years. In each case, while it makes my head swell for a moment or two, the reality of the situation comes crashing in. Becoming "known" is not important to me, and most of what I have seen in recent years pretty much guarantees that I would get short shrift at a symposium. And my business is thriving without having to attend symposia. I do not have to send letters to all the AAW chapters in a region of the country, letting them know that I would like to grace them with my presence for a certain amount of money. I am doing very well turning those boring old table legs and such for the local people who have never even heard of the AAW.

That might sound a bit odd from someone who has filmed, released, and promoted a DVD, but it is true. I did not even do that of my own accord, but rather was recruited to do so by one of my students who thought we could do it profitably. He was right, and now I am known to a certain extent. I like to think though (and this may be self delusional) that I am known, not because I went around yelling "Hey everyone, watch me!", but rather because those who found me learned something from what I had to offer. Does this make any sense to anyone reading this?

So let the artsy people have their organization and their symposia, and their galleries and collectors. I am sure that the crafsmen (and women) among us can find our own way without the benevolent guidance of those who think they are our betters.

Bill

Re: Mike's Ladle

Don Orr

>Keith, you did it again. Opened a thread and opened our minds. So much thought and heart has been written here it just inspires more thought. I think, personally, that amateur hack hobyists like me look to the accomplished turner/artists for inspiration and motivation and education. Hopefully someday we can do something unique and special if that is our goal. If that is not our goal and we like turning just because we like turning then that is just as valid as any other reason. I tend to like it when I can look at a piece and say "that's So-and-So's piece, they do such great work". Even when I have no desire to do anything even remotely like it.

Someone mentioned our show in Saratoga where woodwork of all sorts is displayed for both show and competition. There is serious disscussion going on about expanding the "Turning" categories because of the recent trends that this thread is all about. These changes were recommended by one of this years judges who happens to be a "known" turner. I think this will be a good thing, especially for those who wish to have their work judged among their peers. Comparing apples to apples is a good thing I think. Real success to me is found inside myself and what others think usually doesn't change how I feel about something I make but it may influence something I do in the future. It's all food for thought to me. I read the critiques and try to take what I can from it and learn something.

This site is an exceptional resource to turners and all woodworkers. This type of mind opening, thought provoking, discussion inspiring thread is certainly a prime example of that.

Thanks to Keith and all the rest.

Happy turning...or carving...or burning...or coloring...or.........

Re: Mike's Ladle

John Trant (Baltimore/DC area)

>I have a few points to make on rebuttal to those who think they can classify turnings: i.e., pure form, embellished, carved, painted, etc. Clearly all of us could easily classify turnings that fit the extremes, i.e., a perfect but unadorned bowl made from a single piece of wood clearly fits in the �classic turned forms� and Mike�s brainless, ant thingy clearly is a �carved turning�. The difficulty come is judging the middle. For example, should a vessel that was textured with a chatter tool or a Sorby texturing wheel be considered carved or turned. This becomes more a difficult decision when classifying a vessel possessing nearly identical textures that were made with a rotory carver. Is the former turned whereas the latter is carved. After all, the texturing of the former vessel was done on the lathe with a lathe tool (not unlike a chisel or gouge). How about if I told you that the texturing with the rotor tool was done while the vessel was spinning on the lathe? Is it no longer carved and now should be classified as a turning? Best yet: Should Mark Kauder�s beautiful forms he displays in his segmented vessels be classified as a �carving� (no), �embellished� (where is the chemical colorant, carving, pyrography, etc?), or as a �pure classical form�? Should it be judged along side the plain first bowl I mentioned above?

Finally, who ever said that a piece that was �embellished� by staining, dying, painting, piercing, or carving should be segregated from the �pure forms� of the craft? Those of use that began in the flat world would never consider a piece of furniture as �inappropriate� or �classified differently� if it were colored (stained or painted) or carved. I think you will be hard pressed to find a piece of cherry or walnut furniture that isn�t stained. It is the norm! Why is this different for woodworkers that happen to use a lathe somewhere in the construction of the form? Is a cradle that is made completely from spindle turnings piece of furniture or a turning? Would it be classified differently if it was painted opposed to lacquered? How about lacquered with an opaque color? Is a table a turning if it has turned legs?

My bottom line is that it doesn�t matter. If a lathe was used and the craftsman/artist wishes for other woodworkers who use lathes to view it, then so be it. There is much to learn from the skills of other craftsman so we should welcome them with open arms opposed to �pigeon-holing� them (or as suggested by another, segregating them into their breed as in a dog show). I vote for being inclusive.

But what do I know.

John

Thank you Keith

Jennifer@Indy.USA

>This is a great topic of discussion and I'm enjoying every single addition to it. It's really making me think. Keith, you and Duane and I had a great conversation about this at lunch on Sunday I've not stopped thinking about it since. Betty and I discussed it yesterday over coffee....it's a very hot topic right now. I myself have been in a very exploratory phase of my turning and really enjoying it. Almost everything that I take off my lathe lately has some sort of surface treatment. So yesterday I made it a point to not do that and I picked up a piece of beautiful curly poplar and turned a simple bowl and was done with it right off the lathe. I was a treat to be completely done with it instead of just starting it, and to my surprise....I enjoyed that just as much as messing with it off the lathe with texture, color,burning, carving etc. My theory is....turn what you want and if it fits the current trend great...if not...it will be the next fad coming around the bend.

I do think that the AAW has a responsibility to make sure that they continue to recognize the "true" woodturnings that always have and continue to be the foundation of woodturners. Its where most all of us started. A simple bowl.

Most importantly, keep turning, keep making beautiful things, and keep feeling good about what you're doing.

Jennifer

Is it a turning?

Fred in NC

>Just what I think, hot off the top of my head. No justification whatsoever.

A turning is a turning if the final shape or a substatial part of it was done in the lathe.

Decoration of any kind, including stain, texture, carving, cutting, guilding, and yes, painting, does not change the fact that it was a turning to start with.

Making a cylinder and then carving a bear out of it does not qualify the piece as a turning.

The definition of a lathe is a machine that turns the workpiece, while a more or less stationary tool cuts the shape.

Since in ornamental turning the piece is more or less stationary, and the tool rotates, ornamental turnings qualify only as ornamental turnings. They are more or less a specialty.

Any comments, disagreements, put downs, etc. much appreciated.

Re: Mike's Ladle

Mark Kauder, Phenix City, AL

>This conversation is raging over on WOW as well - I think of more of the turners on that forum as leaning more in the Art arena.

Thanks Keith, again a great thread. Just the kind of discussion that goes on between turners standing looking at any given Instant Gallery.

First off, in my opinion, a great many of the people that complain that their "Traditional Bowl Turning" is not appreciated, are quite frankly turning out sub-par bowls. I would point out to you the Wally Dickermann turns tradional hollow forms (mostly) and receives high praise (and high prices in the galleries) because of his superior wood selection and flawless classical forms. Most of us still are in awe of the beauty and simplicity of bowls by Stockdale or Michael Lee.

This subject purplexes me. I lean in the direction of those that want catagories (not that my opinion matters). I do have my concerns about primary material turned not being wood (i.e. Abaster, Talk, etc) mostly because the W in AAW stands for WOODturning. Long time a go, I used to do work on a Metal Lathe. What would be the reception if I turned a conventionally shaped bowl/Vase, but did it in Aluminum? I turned it on a Lathe after all. AALW (American Association of Lathe Workers)??

I have always considered Segmented or Laminated turning to be conventional. I goes back to the dawn of time in woodturning. Segmented turning is still using wood, we just assemble our wood stock - not drastically removed from chainsawing and bandsawing solid wood turning stock. I think if you would consider the time spent searching for, chainsawing, bandsawing, roughing out, sealing and drying (boiling, DNS, etc)a regular/solid wood bowl, the "Traditional Wood Bowl" takes nearly as long as a simple segmented bowl.

I guess my cut would come, when the average person cannot see where the lathe was ever used. J.Paul Fennell is one of my favorites. He probably spends 100 times more time piercing his work than time at the lathe - HOWEVER, the turning part is readily visable (and very skilled at that). My friend Keith's Rose from earlier this year - I can still see how a lathe was involved (though I am still perplexed by it). I have always loved Andi Wolfe's work and appreciated the burning, carving and coloring enhancements, however in her newest "Dylan's Song" piece, the lathe work disappears, as great as it is.

I guess in some cases it comes down the amount of turning. If I were to turn the posts and rails of a bed, it would be a turning. If I turn the knobs of a Chest of Drawers, is is not a turning project.

Just a thought: Why do people that outwardly profess that it does not matter what tool they use to produce their "Wood Art", bristle at the thought that some people no longer consider their work "WoodTurning"? Could it be that, as someone said earlier, their work would not get a second look if it were including in a carving, painting, etc competition/gallery? Just wondering.

Please - No one take offense. This is just an intelectual discussion. One one is suggestion that you be banned from the AAW as some apostate.

Mark

Re: Personally...

John Lucas

>Mike

That means that you'll have to go to Oregon and compete with the lumberjacks

Re: Mike's Ladle

John Lucas

>Mark

An interesting side note to your discussion. A lot of "woodturners" are entering other competitions and doing quite well. I know 2 have won wood carving competitions and I also know that a lot of them are entering competitions that are labeled Wood Art and many are winning these.

I said what I said about turners who carve not doing well in carving competitions because most of us are novice or at least fairly new carvers and if judged against experienced carves would not do very well. We'll keep working on it however and sooner or later be considered a good carver as well as turner.

Re: Mike's Ladle

Mike Schwing from Md.

>Mark, both you and Keith have pointed out a curious little fact that bears repeating - most of the carving done on woodturnings is completely amateur compared to wood carvers. Pick up a carving magazine and hold some of those pics up to some of the carved stuff (including mine!) you see in the turning world - laughable really. Every single minute detail exquisitely carved and painted. Totally life like! That is the exact reason I choose to carve things that don't really exist - I couldn't do it! But give most/some of those carvers a lathe and a gouge - they can't do what we do. This convenient little arrangement is what allows us to hold contests, exhibits, etc.. surrounding our "speciality" without worry that we'll be overpowered by a "pro" in another area.

Same goes for the paint work, and the dye jobs, and so on, and so on.

If a turner wants to stay in the turning world/AAW exhibits/stratosphere/etc., they really do need to figure out how to keep the turning a readily visible aspect of their work - just like J. Paul in your example.

I could get away with taking my eyepods with me to KC and put them in the instant gallery only because I will also have turnings there, but they don't really belong. A dedicated bird carver, however, wouldn't put his stuff in the KC instant gallery, because he's not a woodturner, too. It is tough for me to divorce the actual person involved from the object being shown for this reason.

Great conversation.

Re: Mike's Ladle

Keith Tompkins

>Thanks for the great responses....I think this is a topic that will be debated for years to come. I think the vast majority of turners are "pure form" turners who continually strive to improve their work.

I think it is a great mistake for the AAW leadership to take this aspect of turning for granted, and should encourage more pure turning to be displayed in the symposiums, and include the very best of the lot in the critique. Excellence should be rewarded.

Re: Is it a turning?

bill Crommett in seneca

>All this reminds me of what SWMBO said at the AAW in Tacoma a few years ago when there was a bowl that could have been wood or ceramic or concrete or plastic that was covered completely with beads. She asked: "what does AAW stand for---The American Association of Whatever ?

Re: Mike's Ladle

Mark Kauder, Phenix City, AL

>John and Mike,

I should have mentioned my undying admiration for folks that have real artistic skills (carving and painting, etc). My wife is one of those. I am the guy that goes to an Andi Wolfe demo and buys the tools and only uses them to carve the tenon off the bottom of a bowl or sign the bottom of a bowl. (or my wife uses them)

I also should more closely proof-read my posts (talk vs Talc).

Mark