Three Facets of Woodturned Art: An incomplete consideration.
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Nonetheless, I thought I'd throw it out as possible fodder for discussion.
Lyn
Three Facets of Woodturned Art: An incomplete consideration.
Many of us approach wood turned art as creators, some of us are also
collectors or regularly deal with collectors, and a few of us interact
with the intermediaries between the creator and the collector the
galleries, museums and craft fair organizers. I m not an expert with
respect to any of these facets of woodturned art, but I do find it
interesting to consider the different contributions and perspectives
that each of these groups have brought, and continue to bring, to the
rise and continued production of woodturnings intended as art. So in
this brief survey, I m going to briefly offer some thoughts and describe
some resources that have helped me increase my own understanding of and
appreciation for these three interrelated aspects of woodturnings as art
objects. The following thoughts are not fully developed, and the
resources incomplete, but perhaps they may serve to generate a fully
discussion of the topic.
The Creators:
This aspect, understandably, it is the one wood turners have the most
familiarity with. The definitive discussion of the pioneering turners is
presented in the book Woodturning in North America since 1930 [WTNA]
which was published in 2001. This book is a history geared towards both
turners and collectors alike. A briefer but nicely illustrated history
of the early developers of woodturned art has been put forward by Kevin
Wallace in the first of two articles he has done for the magazine
American Style (Fall 2002, issue 30). This article is clearly written
for the collector, but will be of equal interest to the turner. Both
Wallace and WTNA describe the pioneers such as Prestini, Stocksdale,
Osolnik, and the Lindquists, among others, and both provide interesting
little anecdotes and biographical tidbits about these and other trail
blazing turners. There are also two books which specialize in providing
brief biographical statements of the elder statesmen of woodturned art
(though the turners presented were contemporary at the time of the books
first publication): Master Woodturners by Dale Nish, 1985; The Art of
Turned Wood Bowls: A Gallery of Contemporary Masters And More. by
Edward Jacobson, 1985. Many of a later generation of turners have been
well profiled in the books from the late photographer/turner Tony Boase:
Woodturning Masterclass and Bowl Turning Techniques Masterclass.
Obviously, the creation of woodturned art is ongoing and expanding. Some
of the best profiles of contemporary creators of woodturned art are
found in the pages of the magazine Woodwork. Woodwork is a bimonthly
slick paper magazine which describes itself as A Magazine For All
Woodworkers, but has a strong focus on the studio furniture movement
and woodturning as art. The magazine has been around for a little over a
decade, and about a third of the issues have had a profile of some
woodturner and their work. Recent issues have profiled Kevin Wallace and
his cutting edge turnings (April 2003, issue 80), Merryl Saylan (June
2002, issue 75), Michael Hosaluk (August 2001, issue 70), and Betty
Scarpino (February 2000, issue 61), to name just a few. The magazine
also has run an article by Kevin Wallace, The Past and Future of Wood
Art (August 2002, issue 75) that both expands on and parallels his
writings for American Style.
The Intermediaries:
The intermediaries are the galleries, museums and craft fair organizers.
I think this is the group least understood by both the typical
woodturner and the typical collector. These people are highly
influential in determining which turners and thus what individual styles
and pieces will be brought to the collectors attention. To that extent,
in many respects, they have at least as much power in defining what will
be considered wood art, as either the creator or the collector. Wallace
does a good job of describing this in his article for Woodwork magazine
listed earlier.
Though as much as a matter of historical curiosity as for current
understanding, Wallace tells us of the early craft fairs (e.g., the
American Craft Council s East Coast/West Coast 1978 exchange in San
Francisco), and their role in exposing and fostering early wood artists.
It is also amusing to read the introductory text of Edward Jacobson s
book (listed earlier), where he tells the story of how he was one of the
first to bring wood art (namely his private collection) to the attention
of museum directors as he was entertaining them during their stay in his
home town for a convention. Today, we have woodturned art well
represented in The American Craft Museum in New York, the Arizona State
University Nelson Fine Arts Center in Tempe, the Detroit Museum, the
High Museum in Atlanta, the Mint Museum in Charlotte, The Renwick
Gallery in Washington D.C., to name only a few, but as recently as 1981,
such exhibits were virtually none existent.
Certain galleries were early to accept woodturnings as art, and along
with others, continue to bring wood art to the public s attention. The
del Mano gallery is one of the most well known, but Martha Connell s
gallery in Atlanta is another of venerable standing. Martha, is
particularly interested in the development of turners over their career,
and a tour through her usually closed lower cabinets is like a walk
through the modern history of turning. Other prominent galleries, though
relative new comers, include the Patina Gallery in Santa Fe, the gallery
materia in Scottsdale, and the Duane Reed Gallery of Chicago and St. Louis.
An interesting new twist on the traditional gallery is the rise of the
internet gallery. While a number of woodturners have websites with
photos of their work, some of which is priced for sale, an approach more
similar to a traditional gallery is created I cyberspace by places like
Guild.com. Guild.com presents the works of such familiar turners as
Christian Burhard, Art Liestman and Binh Pho, with are offered for
prices that you would associate with any traditional gallery.
More an auxillary organization than an intermediary, there is also the
Wood Turning Center established by Alfred LeCoff in 1986. Wallace, WTNA,
and the Wood Turning Center s own books (e.g., the Challenge Series see
my article at Andi Wolfe s website for their description)and periodical
Turning Points, all describe LeCoff s successful efforts to guide and
develop woodturning as an art form, and to organize symposia and
exhibitions to foster that intent.
The role of the craft fairs cannot be underestimated in any discussion
of woodturned art. The craft fair was one of the earliest means of both
exposure, and financial support for those wishing to creat artistic
turnings. East coast events such as the Rhinebeck Craft Fair provided a
venue for turners like the Lindquists, Giles Gilson and Al Stirt. The
West Coast craft fair circuit similarly offered exposure for turners
like Dell Stubbs and William Hunter. Juried craft fairs, like galleries,
can serve as a significant filter of what work is brought to public
attention.
The Collectors:
Collectors are of obvious importance, for they create the financial
viability of producing woodturned art, not just in the present, but also
with respect to the future. By the art they choose, they also play a
role in defining what will and will not be considered desirable and
valuable wood art. Many also assume the role of sharing their
collections with others, by gifts to museums, sponsoring exhibitions,
and providing the substance for books which may or may not be associated
with exhibitions. Kevin Wallace, in the second of his two articles for
American Style (Winter 2002-2003, issue 31) describes the significance
of collectors, and acquaints those uninitiated with the type of people
drawn to collecting. Wallace quotes David Ellsworth as saying
Collectors&can influence an artist s work, as their purchases allow the
continued exploration of a particular series or approach. In a sense,
collectors take on the role of patron, enabling the artist s continued
growth. And by providing validation and exposure for this relatively new
art form, they have also have been responsible for new artists taking up
the medium.
Prominent and influential collectors include Edward Jacobson (his book
described earlier), Jane and Arthur Mason (Turning Wood Into Art: The
Jane and Arthur Mason Collection, 2000) who credit seeing Jacobson s
collection for sparking their interest, Robyn and John Horn who maintain
a friendly rivalry with the Mason s Robyn being a noted wood artist as
well (Living With Form: the Horn Collection of Contemporary Crafts),
Bohlen (The Fine Art of Wood: The Bohlen Collection), Ron and Anita
Wornick (Expressions in Wood: Masterworks from the Wornick Collection,
1996 ), and David and Ruth Waterbury. Sadly, one of the first and most
loved of the major collectors, Irving Lipton, died not that long ago in
2001.Wallace also provides a nice brief profile of a less exalted but
serious collector, Joe Seltzer, who has more than 600 turnings, many of
them miniatures.
Collectors can also offer the opportunity to see the way they present
their acquisitions within their own homes. Seeing turnings in a home
setting (even though many of these homes bear little resemblance to the
typical turner s home), can provide ideas not only about how turnings
can be displayed to good advantage, but also it can provide ideas about
designs one might wish to develop to fill a particular type of space, or
compliment a specific style of setting. The second of Wallace s articles
for American Style is almost entirely illustrated with photos of wood
art in its daily surroundings. An earlier issue of American Style
(Winter 2000-2001, issue 23) has an article on the collections (not just
of wood) of Margaret Pennington, where we see turnings displayed about
her mansion, including the Mark Lindquist ground breaking wood
sculpture, Silent Witness #1/Oppenheimer.
One of the best ways to keep in touch with the activities of the most
serious of wood art collectors is to visit the Collector s of Wood Art
website: http://www.collectorsofwoodart.org./ or attend one of their
semiannual meetings. This organization was spearheaded by Robyn Horn and
has grown into an influential group which includes most of the
influential collectors listed above. It s development as a group is
clearly delineated in their newsletter (available at their website) and
is summarized in the article The Past and Future of Wood Art Wallace
wrote for Woodwork Magazine (Vol. 56, August 2002). As Wallace notes,
while the CWA s mission has been to expose and educate potential
collectors to wood art, the influence of this largely well healed group
of collectors cannot be underestimated. Coming to the attention of this
group, and meeting with its approval can bring a prominence and
financial reward to a turner that reap rewards for many years to come.
The down side of this is that such a small number of people can have a
powerful influence in determining what will be defined as successful and
desirable wood art and indirectly determine what even established
galleries will seek to present.
Before ending, these brief ramblings, I can t resist pointing out
Richard Raffan s acerbic critique of woodturnings as art, which
masquerades as a review of the book Wood Turning in North America
(Woodwork, Vol. 64, August 2002). In much the same spirit as his article
in Fine Woodworking well over a decade earlier ( Current Work in
Turning: Do High Gallery Prices Make It Art, Fine Woodworking, Nov.
1987, Vol 67) Raffan reveals his disdain for those who seek to promote
their turnings as nonfunctional art. A brief quote can serve to
represent Raffan s view: &we should begin to take a long hard look at
what woodturners, lathe artists, wood-lathe artisans call them what you
will have produced, especially if they wish to be taken seriously as
Artists with a capital A. Consider also that much of what is promoted as
art is best a technical achievement and no more than a mediocre
decorative object which no amount of verbiage can elevate. Virtuosity
for virtuosity s sake creates some impressive objects, but are they art?
Very rarely. Raffan expands on these remarks, while taking several
established turners to task. While I find his critique to reveal a
rather narrow perspective if not being outright egocentric (which I
suspect will be the apparent to some others who are familiar with
Raffan s own history and style), it is a critique, something that is
actually rather little found in the discussion of woodturning as art.
Other areas of the arts have an established body of art critics but to
my knowledge most evaluative commentary of woodturned objects has mostly
been in the form of (usually gentle) peer review. Perhaps when we have
an active fourth facet of non-turners who regularly choose to
critically write about the merit of woodturned objects, will we really
know that woodturned objects have reached a parity with other forms of
artistic expression.
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Nonetheless, I thought I'd throw it out as possible fodder for discussion.
Lyn
Three Facets of Woodturned Art: An incomplete consideration.
Many of us approach wood turned art as creators, some of us are also
collectors or regularly deal with collectors, and a few of us interact
with the intermediaries between the creator and the collector the
galleries, museums and craft fair organizers. I m not an expert with
respect to any of these facets of woodturned art, but I do find it
interesting to consider the different contributions and perspectives
that each of these groups have brought, and continue to bring, to the
rise in stature and continued production of woodturnings intended as
art. So in this brief survey, I m going to offer some thoughts and
describe some resources that have helped me increase my own
understanding of and appreciation for these three interrelated aspects
of woodturned art objects. The following thoughts are not fully
developed, and the resources incomplete, but perhaps they may serve to
generate a fully discussion of the topic.
The Creators:
This aspect, understandably, is the one wood turners have the most
familiarity with. The definitive discussion of the pioneering turners is
presented in the book Woodturning in North America since 1930 [WTNA]
which was published in 2001. This book is a history geared towards both
turners and collectors alike. A briefer but nicely illustrated history
of the early developers of woodturned art has been put forward by Kevin
Wallace in the first of two articles he has done for the magazine
American Style (Fall 2002, issue 30). This article is clearly written
for the collector, but will be of equal interest to the turner. Both
Wallace and WTNA describe the pioneers such as Prestini, Stocksdale,
Osolnik, and the Lindquists, and both provide interesting little
anecdotes and biographical tidbits about these and other trail blazing
turners. There are also two books which specialize in providing brief
biographical statements of the elder statesmen of woodturned art (though
the turners presented were contemporary at the time of the books first
publication): Master Woodturners by Dale Nish, 1985; The Art of Turned
Wood Bowls: A Gallery of Contemporary Masters And More by Edward
Jacobson, 1985. Many of a later generation of turners have been well
profiled in the books from the late photographer/turner Tony Boase:
Woodturning Masterclass and Bowl Turning Techniques Masterclass. All of
these give some limited insight into the motivations and lifestyles of
those who seek to produce woodturned art.
Obviously, the creation of woodturned art is ongoing and expanding. Some
of the best profiles of contemporary creators of woodturned art are
found in the pages of the magazine Woodwork. Woodwork is a bimonthly
slick paper magazine which describes itself as A Magazine For All
Woodworkers, but has a strong focus on the studio furniture movement
and woodturning as art. The magazine has been around for a little over a
decade, and about a third of the issues have had a profile of some
woodturner and their work. Recent issues have profiled Kevin Wallace and
his cutting edge turnings (April 2003, issue 80), Merryl Saylan (June
2002, issue 75), Michael Hosaluk (August 2001, issue 70), and Betty
Scarpino (February 2000, issue 61), to name just a few. The magazine
also has run an article by Kevin Wallace, The Past and Future of Wood
Art (August 2002, issue 75) that both expands on and parallels his
writings for American Style.
The Intermediaries:
The intermediaries are the galleries, museums and craft fairs. I think
this is the group least understood by both the typical woodturner and
the typical collector. These people are highly influential in
determining which turners and thus what individual styles and pieces
will be brought to the collectors attention. To that extent, in many
respects, they have at least as much power in defining what will be
considered wood art, as either the creator or the collector. Wallace
does a good job of describing this in his article for Woodwork magazine
listed earlier.
Though as much as a matter of historical curiosity as for current
understanding, Wallace tells us of the early craft fairs (e.g., the
American Craft Council s East Coast/West Coast 1978 exchange in San
Francisco), and their role in exposing and fostering early wood artists.
This role cannot be underestimated in any discussion of woodturned art.
The craft fair was one of the principle means of achieving financial
support for those wishing to create artistic turnings. East Coast events
such as the Rhinebeck Craft Fair provided a venue for turners like the
Lindquists, Giles Gilson and Al Stirt. The West Coast craft fair circuit
similarly offered opportunities for turners like Dell Stubbs and William
Hunter. One the other hand, juried craft fairs, like galleries, can
serve as a significant filter of what work is brought to public attention.
Certain galleries were early to accept woodturnings as art, and along
with others, continue to bring wood art to the public s attention. The
del Mano gallery is one of the most well known, but Martha Connell s
gallery in Atlanta is another of venerable standing. Martha, is
particularly interested in the development of turners over their career,
and a tour through her usually closed lower cabinets is like a walk
through the modern history of turning. Other prominent galleries, though
relative new comers, include the Patina Gallery in Santa Fe, the gallery
materia in Scottsdale, and the Duane Reed Gallery of Chicago and St.
Louis. A good gallery not only selects work for display (and thus places
their own stamp of approval on it), but educates the collector in the
medium, the artist, and the style.
An interesting new twist on the traditional gallery is the rise of the
internet gallery. While a number of woodturners have websites with
photos of their work, some of which is priced for sale, an approach more
similar to a traditional gallery is created in cyberspace by places like
Guild.com. Guild.com presents the works of such familiar turners as
Christian Burhard, Art Liestman and Binh Pho, which are offered for
prices that you would associate with any traditional gallery.
It is amusing to read the introductory text of Edward Jacobson s book
(listed earlier), where he tells the story of how he was one of the
first to bring wood art (namely his private collection) to the attention
of museum directors as he was entertaining them during their stay in his
home town for a convention. Today, we have woodturned art well
represented in The American Craft Museum in New York, the Arizona State
University Nelson Fine Arts Center in Tempe, the Detroit Museum, the
High Museum in Atlanta, the Mint Museum in Charlotte, The Renwick
Gallery in Washington D.C., to name only a few, but as recently as 1981,
such exhibits were virtually none existent. Though late in the
Intermediary chain, museums do much to determine which turners and what
style of turnings come to public attention, and act as a significant
confirmatory of the choices collectors have made.
More an auxillary organization than an intermediary, there is also the
Wood Turning Center established by Alfred LeCoff in 1986. Wallace, WTNA,
and the Wood Turning Center s own books (e.g., the Challenge Series see
my article at Andi Wolfe s website for their description)and periodical
Turning Points, all describe LeCoff s successful efforts to guide and
develop woodturning as an art form, and to organize symposia and
exhibitions to foster that intent.
The Collectors:
Collectors are of obvious importance, for they make creation of
woodturned art, financially viable not just in the present, but also
with respect to the future. By the art they choose, they also play a
role in defining what will and will not be considered desirable and
valuable wood art. Many also assume the role of sharing their
collections with others, by gifts to museums, sponsoring exhibitions,
and providing the substance for books which may or may not be associated
with exhibitions. Kevin Wallace, in the second of his two articles for
American Style (Winter 2002-2003, issue 31) describes the significance
of collectors, and acquaints those uninitiated with the type of people
drawn to collecting. Wallace quotes David Ellsworth as saying
Collectors&can influence an artist s work, as their purchases allow the
continued exploration of a particular series or approach. In a sense,
collectors take on the role of patron, enabling the artist s continued
growth. And by providing validation and exposure for this relatively new
art form, they have also have been responsible for new artists taking up
the medium.
Prominent and influential collectors include Edward Jacobson (his book
described earlier), Jane and Arthur Mason (Turning Wood Into Art: The
Jane and Arthur Mason Collection, 2000) who credit seeing Jacobson s
collection for sparking their interest, Robyn and John Horn who maintain
a friendly rivalry with the Mason s Robyn being a noted wood artist as
well (Living With Form: the Horn Collection of Contemporary Crafts),
Bohlen (The Fine Art of Wood: The Bohlen Collection), Ron and Anita
Wornick (Expressions in Wood: Masterworks from the Wornick Collection,
1996), and David and Ruth Waterbury. Sadly, one of the first and most
loved of the major collectors, Irving Lipton, died not that long ago in
2001.Wallace also provides a nice brief profile of a less exalted but
serious collector, Joe Seltzer, who has more than 600 turnings, many of
them miniatures.
Collectors can also offer the opportunity to see the way they present
their acquisitions within their own homes. Seeing turnings in a home
setting (even though many of these homes bear little resemblance to the
typical turner s home), can provide ideas not only about how turnings
can be displayed to good advantage, but also it can provide ideas about
designs one might wish to develop to fill a particular type of space, or
compliment a specific style of setting. The second of Wallace s articles
for American Style is almost entirely illustrated with photos of wood
art in its daily surroundings. An earlier issue of American Style
(Winter 2000-2001, issue 23) has an article on the collections (not just
of wood) of Margaret Pennington, where we see turnings displayed about
her mansion, including the Mark Lindquist ground breaking wood
sculpture, Silent Witness #1/Oppenheimer.
One of the best ways to keep in touch with the activities of the most
serious of wood art collectors is to visit the Collector s of Wood Art
website: http://www.collectorsofwoodart.org./ or attend one of their
semiannual meetings that are often timed to coincide with the SOFA
(Sculpture Objects, Functional Art) Expositions. This organization was
spearheaded by Robyn Horn and has grown into an influential group which
includes most of the collectors listed above. Its development as a group
is clearly delineated in their newsletter (available at their website)
and is summarized in the article The Past and Future of Wood Art
Wallace wrote for Woodwork magazine (Vol. 56, August 2002). As Wallace
notes, while the CWA s mission has been to expose and educate potential
collectors to wood art, the influence of this largely well healed group
of collectors cannot be underestimated. Coming to the attention of this
group, and meeting with its approval can bring a prominence and
financial reward to a turner that reap rewards for many years to come.
The down side of this is that such a small number of people can have a
powerful influence in determining what will be defined as successful and
desirable wood art and indirectly determine what even established
galleries will seek to present.
Before ending, these brief considerations, I can t resist pointing out
Richard Raffan s acerbic critique of woodturned art, which masquerades
as a review of the book Wood Turning in North America (Woodwork, Vol.
64, August 2002). In much the same spirit as his article well over a
decade earlier ( Current Work in Turning: Do High Gallery Prices Make It
Art, in Fine Woodworking, Nov. 1987, Vol 67), Raffan reveals his
disdain for those who seek to promote their turnings as nonfunctional
art. A brief quote can serve to represent Raffan s view: &we should
begin to take a long hard look at what woodturners, lathe artists,
wood-lathe artisans call them what you will have produced, especially if
they wish to be taken seriously as Artists with a capital A. Consider
also that much of what is promoted as art is best a technical
achievement and no more than a mediocre decorative object which no
amount of verbiage can elevate. Virtuosity for virtuosity s sake creates
some impressive objects, but are they art? Very rarely. Raffan expands
on these remarks, while taking several established turners to task.
While I find his critique to reveal a rather narrow perspective if not
being outright egocentric (which I suspect will be at least somewhat
apparent to others who are familiar with Raffan s own history and
style), it is a critique, something that is actually rather little found
in the discussion of woodturning as art. Other areas of the arts have an
established body of art critics but to my knowledge most evaluative
commentary of woodturned objects has been in the form of (usually
gentle) peer review. Perhaps when we have an active fourth facet of
non-turners who regularly choose to critically discuss the merit of
woodturned objects, we really will know that woodturned objects have
Larry Osterman
Leif Thorvaldson
Leif
"Larry Osterman" <la...@pinefish.com> wrote in message
news:CEYja.91149$OV.194740@rwcrnsc54...
Leo Lichtman
*G*
No mention of LDD? Must be from someone masquerading as Leif!! <BG>
Leif Thorvaldson
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fwjka.49742$ja4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Arch
essay, but you asked for discussion of this timely topic. I am
disappointed by the lack of rcw response to your efforts in giving us a
fine summation of where we stand, and offering us approaches to a better
understanding of woodturning's recent pathways toward art. So my post is
to encourage discussion, not to add much of anything to it.
Important subsets of the facets that you considered might be worth
exploring even further. One is the huge influence of their peers on what
our artists produce. Has the lonely worker become irrelevant? Another is
the ? influence of the 'appreciators' who don't make, broker or buy
woodturned art. The large group who know what defines good art and
'appreciate' it. What is appreciation as opposed to liking? Have cliches
like "art is in the eye of the beholder", "I know what I like when I see
it" or "I got a catch and went thru the wall, so I'll call it art" made
me lazy and obstructed my transition from liking to understanding? I
know that most shapes and interpretations have been around for
centuries, but not all. To meet the definition, must art have no
practical function, be in some aspect 'original' and contain a message?
Is a beautiful spoon just fine craft, but a picture of it is art? The
old dilemma of 'ought' as opposed to 'is'. Why is an _exact_ copy not
art? Who wrote the art rulebook, anyway? As with many, I didn't have
the advantage of growing up in a town or in a family that paid attention
to 'the finer things'. What a shock when I arrived at a big college in a
big city and began to realize what I had missed. What I didn't
understand I made fun of, being ignorant of the pleasure I was missing
out on. I've spent a lifetime trying to escape that miserable mistaken
attitude. I, at least made sure that my children didn't follow me. My
daughter once owned a gallery in Manhattan's SoHo, and the tales she
told with distain & despair of the louts that came only to eat cheese
and drink wine. I still wince on remembering myself as one of them.
These personal musing are probably wrong, or old stuff from art
appreciation 101 and laughable to most of you, Lyn's contribution
shouldn't be allowed to wither, even if kept alive by a tiresome post.
Thanks again, Lyn. Arch
Fortiter,
John Jordan
and that Bill Hunter primarily did the east coast shows. There are/were very
few shows of the quality of the major east coast shows in the west.
Also, it would be fair to say that Richard Raffin softened his views
considerably after actually getting to know some of the people he was
criticizing. A trip to the Emma Lake conference in Canada helped that
along. In my opinion Richard was never really qualified to act as a (public)
critic anyway, since he had little interest in or knowledge of the work at
the time. We should expect valid critical review to be grounded in an
informed base of knowledge.
Why not send to someone to publish? We have a lot of woodturners without the
slightest knowledge of our (brief) history. I think it's incumbent on anyone
who desires to pursue woodturning seriously to learn where we have come from
and how we got to this point.
John Jordan
John Jordan
--
www.stubbylathe.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E8FCC0D...@earthlink.net...
Joe Fleming
Joe Fleming - San Diego
=====================================
"Arch" <al...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7848-3E9...@storefull-2351.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Joe Fleming
Joe
========================
"Arch" <al...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7848-3E9...@storefull-2351.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Tony Manella
This is very interesting but I feel it doesn't really apply to most of us
(maybe that's why it hasn't gotten much attention). What percentage of
woodturners would actually qualify as artists? Probably not more than 1%,
more than likely something like .01%. A better question may be, how many
woodturners want to be considered by the world to be a serious artist?
As woodturners our definition of art is much less rigid than that of the art
world. I see many turnings that I consider art but the snobbish art world
would consider craft. I think what is more important to most of us is good
design and shape rather than what the trendy art world desires. Yes I am
glad there are turners out there pushing the envelope of design and am glad
that woodturning has gained some acceptance. Yet this really has little
effect on me, or most of the turners I know.
I enjoy the historical aspect of turning. Even with all of the new artists
out there Stocksdale is still my favorite. His forms are simple, clean and
perfect. Of course in the art world they are only appreciated because of
the name on them. If you or I had the same collection with our name on it
no one in the art world would be interested. We would need to pierce,
carve, air brush, or defecate on to get noticed by the art world.
I know this is sounding bitter and I guess it is. Not because I want to be
considered an artist, I don't, but because I know some extremely talented
woodturners, who excel in design, who are not considered artists. I
acknowledge the influence of these collectors and gallery owners on our
"art", but I really don't care what they think about my work. I turn for
myself and myself only (OK, I do like to get compliments from other turners
and my wife). I would hate it if every time I got in front of a lathe I
started thinking what will these people, who I don't even know, think of
this piece. That is NOT what wood turning should be about. Art on the
other hand is exactly that.
Thanks for the thought provoking piece.
Tony Manella
http://home.ptd.net/~ndd1/
Lehigh Valley Woodturners
http://www.lehighvalleywoodturners.org/
"Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E8FCC0D...@earthlink.net...
> The following has never really come together as a proper article.
> Nonetheless, I thought I'd throw it out as possible fodder for discussion.
> Lyn
>
> Three Facets of Woodturned Art: An incomplete consideration.
>
> Many of us approach wood turned art as creators, some of us are also
> collectors or regularly deal with collectors, and a few of us interact
snip
Arch
thread was begun the same date, maybe a cross post? I'd enjoy some
comments about this subject from you and others. Arch
Fortiter,
Lyn J. Mangiameli
It's always good to hear from you.
John Jordan wrote:
>It's good, Lyn. I would add that Del Stubbs never really did craft shows,
>and that Bill Hunter primarily did the east coast shows.
>
That's what I get for using secondary sources. It was Wallace who made
that observation with respect to those two individuals. Might you have
any names I can substitute so as to save that line?
>There are/were very
>few shows of the quality of the major east coast shows in the west.
>
>Also, it would be fair to say that Richard Raffin softened his views
>considerably after actually getting to know some of the people he was
>criticizing. A trip to the Emma Lake conference in Canada helped that
>along.
>
That would make sense, but I'd point out that his article for Woodwork
was written only a year ago.
>In my opinion Richard was never really qualified to act as a (public)
>critic anyway, since he had little interest in or knowledge of the work at
>the time. We should expect valid critical review to be grounded in an
>informed base of knowledge.
>
Yes!! I couldn't agree more. He was apparently asked to write a review
(and that was the way his piece was titled) on the book WTINA and seemed
to give little attention to that aspect and instead critiqued the work
of those engaged in making woodturned art.
>
>Why not send to someone to publish?
>
I guess I felt my original contributions were miniscule, with almost all
of the material being only a discussion of other rescources. If you can
identify any possible outlets, I'd be happy for the word to get out.
> We have a lot of woodturners without the
>slightest knowledge of our (brief) history. I think it's incumbent on anyone
>who desires to pursue woodturning seriously to learn where we have come from
>and how we got to this point.
>
Yes, I'm of that opinion as well. I wrote this to widen perspectives, or
at least to remind people of alternative perspectives and give folks
some ideas on where they could pursue greater information on them. I
think turning will benefit from looking at itself both with respect to
its history and from outside.
Lyn
>
>
cindy drozda
to all of us woodturners. Relevant even to those of us who never aspire to
be "artists". As the public becomes more educated about woodturning and
the medium gains respectability, it opens doors for all woodworkers. Just
getting more respect is a big benefit. Bringing woodturning and wood art
to the public awareness makes the pursuit of woodturning and woodworking
more accessable to more people, making it more possible to make a living
at it, increasing the availability of tools and equipment, and raising the
standards of design and technique in the field. I agree with John, this
should be published! How about a book with pictures and bios of people in
all 3 aspects. Covering the subject from this point of view so completely
is unique and very interesting. Bravo!
-CD-
boulder, co
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Tony Manella wrote:
>Hi Lyn,
>This is very interesting but I feel it doesn't really apply to most of us
>(maybe that's why it hasn't gotten much attention). What percentage of
>woodturners would actually qualify as artists? Probably not more than 1%,
>more than likely something like .01%. A better question may be, how many
>woodturners want to be considered by the world to be a serious artist?
>
I agree that few turners rise to those ranks or attention and stature,
but I would suggest the material can be of significance to the average
turner nonetheless. Few of us become Olympic or professional athletes,
yet there can be an interest in the history of sport, the outstanding
exemplars of athletic prowess, and even the behind the scenes
machinations that set the rules and effect the success of the athletes.
I'd also point out that folks do rise from the ranks of our peers to
encounter the issues I discussed. Consider the recent (and well deserved
rise) of folks like Art Liestman and Andi Wolf who now are shown at the
del Mano.
>
>As woodturners our definition of art is much less rigid than that of the art
>world.
>
> I see many turnings that I consider art but the snobbish art world
>would consider craft.
>
I honesty don't know if this is true or not. I wonder how many painters
and sculptors, and weaverers and potters and those who do marquetry feel
their productions are faced with the same things.
> I think what is more important to most of us is good
>design and shape rather than what the trendy art world desires. Yes I am
>glad there are turners out there pushing the envelope of design and am glad
>that woodturning has gained some acceptance. Yet this really has little
>effect on me, or most of the turners I know.
>
If one looks at the history (relatively brief that it is) of collectable
woodturnings, one sees that many of the collectors have sought those
their qualities in their acquisition. Frequently it is the (often would
be) "artists" who engage in the flashy pushing of the envelope, while
collectors often seek artistic works that are more representative of the
classic designs and shapes. This is not always true, but if one looks at
the work of Andi Wolfe (at the recent end) and David Ellsworth (as a
grand master) one still sees an emphasis on classic line and
shape--things that can apply to the works of many a recreational turner.
Even some of the innovative new embellishments, such as those of Art
Liestman, can be easily and comfortably incorporated into the typical
turners work.
>
>I enjoy the historical aspect of turning. Even with all of the new artists
>out there Stocksdale is still my favorite. His forms are simple, clean and
>perfect.
>
Yes.
> Of course in the art world they are only appreciated because of
>the name on them.
>
No. Having seen many of Stocksdale's turnings up close, whether named
or not, they have an immediate pull. Going through Martha Connell's
lower cabinets, one picks up a piece prior to seeing the name on it.
Now granted, I am familiar with the styles of various turners, but long
before seeing Bob's name, I feel in love with a piece that was done by
him. Thought John Jordan's work is perhaps even more distictive in
style, I equally feel in love with one of his pieces as it was pulled
out from the a lower cabinet. I didn't know it was his for sure, but I
knew that was a turning I wanted (and now have).
> If you or I had the same collection with our name on it
>no one in the art world would be interested. We would need to pierce,
>carve, air brush, or defecate on to get noticed by the art world.
>
This is part of the point of the putative article. There are many forces
that combine to influence what gets attention as a work of art, and what
doesn't. While the embellished pieces are getting a lot of attentions,
the collectors are still buying a lot of more classic forms. Think of
some of John Jordans pieces from not that long ago that were simply
painted black, to emphasize the form. Think of the continuing interest
in the work of the Moulthrops. The Moulthrops over the last several
years have had an annual major exhibit of 30-40 works at Gumps in San
Francisco. 90 percent of those works are very traditional. Always or
very nearly always every piece is sold. I don't think most of these
pieces go to the upper echalons of collectors sophisticated in wood art,
but rather to rather typical uppper middle class individuals looking to
acquire a tasteful object for their home or office. Personally, I would
suggest that most of the more extreme looking pieces come from those of
rather limited talent who seek to draw attention to themselves through
shock value, rather than an ability to create an appealing and tasteful
thing of beauty.
>
>I know this is sounding bitter and I guess it is.
>
I don't see it as bitter at all, rather I think it provides a very valid
(though IMO restricted) viewpoint.
> Not because I want to be
>considered an artist, I don't, but because I know some extremely talented
>woodturners, who excel in design, who are not considered artists. I
>acknowledge the influence of these collectors and gallery owners on our
>"art", but I really don't care what they think about my work.
>
And that is exactly the point. You write that you don't care about what
they think about your work, and that is a very legitimate stance to
take. However, I am suggesting and offering some resources for you to
think about what they care about your work.
> I turn for
>myself and myself only (OK, I do like to get compliments from other turners
>and my wife). I would hate it if every time I got in front of a lathe I
>started thinking what will these people, who I don't even know, think of
>this piece.
>
I think many things can influence what we make on our lathe. That can
include the characteristics of the material, a predetermined design,
etc. things that I have discussed on my other design article. But there
is another thing as well, and this is a consideration of the space the
turning will fill. That space can be concrete (like whether the piece is
to be floor standing and fill a hall, or small and set within an
enclosed cabinet) or abstract (like to meet a given market need or the
desires of a patron). I'm suggesting we give thought to the "spaces"
our pieces will fill, and the greater our perspective, the more we will
understand those "spaces."
> That is NOT what wood turning should be about. Art on the
>other hand is exactly that.
>
I wouldn't make such a defining statement.
>
>Thanks for the thought provoking piece.
>
Thanks Tony, that was the point, to generate thought and offer some
resources to pursue that thought if one desired.
Lyn
Arch
anecdote (paraphrased for turned wood art) applies to me and maybe to
some other turners; After 'doing' a gallery of great turned art in
twenty minutes, some visiting turners disdainfully remarked to the
attendant that they didn't think very much of the work displayed. He
gently replied; "These objects are not here for you to judge; you are
the ones on their trial." An excessive intellectual approach to
appreciation could be snobbish, but critical appreciation (which is said
to be liking, supported by judgement) isn't. Those of us who want to be
involved as turned wood becomes an accepted and respected art medium
need to learn how to do this. Most of the trend toward the artistic
within this craft has occurred within the lifetime of most of us, and it
doesn't seem to us like a history lesson that needs to be learned.
Nevertheless, you can't know where to go if you don't know where you
have been. Funny thing about the few good artists I've known; their
admirers were into messages, feelings and such, but the artists,
themselves, seemed more concerned with craft and technique. Andi Cindy,
Tony, John, Lyn and all correct me if you wish. Arch
Fortiter,
Lyn J. Mangiameli
I'm going to see what I can do to follow through with your suggestions.
How about considering a companion commentary?
For others,
If you haven't already, do go to Cindy's web site and look at her work.
Here lidded vessels are just strikingly good, and well photographed as
well. http://www.cindydrozda.com/index.htm
Lyn
Lyn J. Mangiameli
I think those are great observations. Interestingly, over at the WC group
( http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/turning.pl?index )
there is a turner arguing just the opposite, that technique is rather
low priority to the artist and the message is the focus. He's a guy with
an art education and does sculpture.
As shows in my later post, I'm seriously giving some thought to some of
Cindy's and John's suggestions. One possibility would be to make up an
expanded article or chapter that would include others comments on the
facets I describe. How about one of you inimitable essays to be part of
the project?
Lyn
Arch wrote:
>Hi all, This thread has now become an interesting discussion. The old
>anecdote (paraphrased for turned wood art) applies to me and maybe to
>some other turners; After 'doing' a gallery of great turned art in
>twenty minutes, some visiting turners disdainfully remarked to the
>attendant that they didn't think very much of the work displayed. He
>gently replied; "These objects are not here for you to judge; you are
>the ones on their trial." An excessive intellectual approach to
>appreciation could be snobbish, but critical appreciation (which is said
>to be liking, supported by judgment) isn't. Those of us who want to be
John Jordan
Even from people like Kevin who are quite knowledgeable, there is a lot of
mis-information. There was a lot to question in the WTINA book, although it
was researched for several years. The shame of this is that at the time the
book was written, nearly ALL of the makers were alive. That's not typical
when someone is doing a historical perspective, and it's a shame that the
makers in question were not used for more accurate sources of information.
Still, it's hard to be too critical, since it's all we've had so far.
E-mail me or call if you want some input, but I'm sometimes slow to start
typing.
John Jordan
--
www.stubbylathe.com
Lyn J. Mangiameli <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3E944D09...@earthlink.net...
Andi Wolfe
> admirers were into messages, feelings and such, but the artists,
> themselves, seemed more concerned with craft and technique. Andi Cindy,
> Tony, John, Lyn and all correct me if you wish. Arch
Actually, Arch, I got into woodturning for the therapeutic rewards it
had to offer. I don't know of many other hobbies where you can become
so involved with the activity of the moment that everything else goes
away. I've never thought of myself as an "artist" per se, but I enjoy
expressing and exploring my ideas through woodturning. For me, the
purity of the form comes first and the surface enhancements should be
just that - enhancements to the wood. I like to work with
complementation where the design motif brings out some feature of the
form or grain-- a good example of this would be my "Autumn" platters
made of big leaf maple where the coloring and pyrography enhance the
wood. No hidden messages in this work - just the joy of exploring
color and form.
George
doesn't it?
"Andi Wolfe" <Andi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6150bf34.03041...@posting.google.com...
Tony Manella
Comments interspersed below.news:3E94593D...@earthlink.net...
> Hi Tony,
>
> I agree that few turners rise to those ranks or attention and stature,
> but I would suggest the material can be of significance to the average
> turner nonetheless. Few of us become Olympic or professional athletes,
> yet there can be an interest in the history of sport, the outstanding
> exemplars of athletic prowess, and even the behind the scenes
> machinations that set the rules and effect the success of the athletes.
> I'd also point out that folks do rise from the ranks of our peers to
> encounter the issues I discussed. Consider the recent (and well deserved
> rise) of folks like Art Liestman and Andi Wolf who now are shown at the
> del Mano.
>
I didn't mean that the article wasn't interesting, it was, but I'm just not
sure it is "significant" to what most woodturners do. I agree that some of
our peers do rise to the level of artist but that is something they strongly
desire. I still believe that most of us don't want to be well renowned
artists but rather just woodturners (there is nothing wrong with just being
a woodturner is there?). I love both Andi's and Art's work, they are great
artists. Yet, if they didn't do any embellishment to their work they would
have a beautifully shaped and executed piece would they garner interest from
the art world? The odds are no. I feel this is very unfortuanate. Most of
the artisan shops around here don't carry local artists but carry turnings
they bought at a wholesale show. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this
but I have to assume that they belive that since a person pumps out enough
pieces to do a wholesale show their stuff must be good. To be blunt, many
of these turnings are poorly designed, executed and finished. I could name
dozens of local artists who do better work. Yet these shops won't even talk
to them because they are "local" and not national. I don't know if this
predjudice is common across the country or just here. This is probably why
I have little respect for shop and gallery owners.
>
> If one looks at the history (relatively brief that it is) of collectable
> woodturnings, one sees that many of the collectors have sought those
> their qualities in their acquisition. Frequently it is the (often would
> be) "artists" who engage in the flashy pushing of the envelope, while
> collectors often seek artistic works that are more representative of the
> classic designs and shapes. This is not always true, but if one looks at
> the work of Andi Wolfe (at the recent end) and David Ellsworth (as a
> grand master) one still sees an emphasis on classic line and
> shape--things that can apply to the works of many a recreational turner.
> Even some of the innovative new embellishments, such as those of Art
> Liestman, can be easily and comfortably incorporated into the typical
> turners work.
>
We agree that a good turning, regardless of embellishment must have a
beautiful form. My point is that, for a gallery, this is not enough, you
have do do embellishment if you want to be an artist. This entails mixing
other forms of art; carving, painting, ect.; into your work. While I can
appreciate and like these, I want to turn wood, not paint or carve. How
many of us turners want to spend more time painting and carving than we do
turning?
>
> No. Having seen many of Stocksdale's turnings up close, whether named
> or not, they have an immediate pull. Going through Martha Connell's
> lower cabinets, one picks up a piece prior to seeing the name on it.
> Now granted, I am familiar with the styles of various turners, but long
> before seeing Bob's name, I feel in love with a piece that was done by
> him. Thought John Jordan's work is perhaps even more distictive in
> style, I equally feel in love with one of his pieces as it was pulled
> out from the a lower cabinet. I didn't know it was his for sure, but I
> knew that was a turning I wanted (and now have).
>
I agree that Stocksdale's pieces do have pull. But there are other turners
out there who can do the same but will never be known. Your argument above
is flawed by the fact that you were in a gallery that only sells well known
turners. Now if you had been at a craft fair and seen the same piece, and
the artist was unknown, would you have paid the same price for that piece?
I doubt it. You paid the high price for the name not for the turning.
> This is part of the point of the putative article. There are many forces
> that combine to influence what gets attention as a work of art, and what
> doesn't. While the embellished pieces are getting a lot of attentions,
> the collectors are still buying a lot of more classic forms. Think of
> some of John Jordans pieces from not that long ago that were simply
> painted black, to emphasize the form. Think of the continuing interest
> in the work of the Moulthrops. The Moulthrops over the last several
> years have had an annual major exhibit of 30-40 works at Gumps in San
> Francisco. 90 percent of those works are very traditional. Always or
> very nearly always every piece is sold. I don't think most of these
> pieces go to the upper echalons of collectors sophisticated in wood art,
> but rather to rather typical uppper middle class individuals looking to
> acquire a tasteful object for their home or office. Personally, I would
> suggest that most of the more extreme looking pieces come from those of
> rather limited talent who seek to draw attention to themselves through
> shock value, rather than an ability to create an appealing and tasteful
> thing of beauty.
>
Yes John Jordan and the Moulthroups do sell a many pieces that are just
beautiful classic forms. But they are established names and that is a big
part of what people are buying. Can you name any newer woodturners that
have gained attention of collectors that just turn classic forms, no
embellishment? I can't. I don't have any first hand knowledge, other than
knowing upper middle class people, but I doubt that they are paying $1000's
for a piece just becasue they want something beautiful to sit in their home.
They are also making an investment in the artists name.
> And that is exactly the point. You write that you don't care about what
> they think about your work, and that is a very legitimate stance to
> take. However, I am suggesting and offering some resources for you to
> think about what they care about your work.
Yes you are offering me resources if I care what they think but I'm still
not sure why I should care.
> I think many things can influence what we make on our lathe. That can
> include the characteristics of the material, a predetermined design,
> etc. things that I have discussed on my other design article. But there
> is another thing as well, and this is a consideration of the space the
> turning will fill. That space can be concrete (like whether the piece is
> to be floor standing and fill a hall, or small and set within an
> enclosed cabinet) or abstract (like to meet a given market need or the
> desires of a patron). I'm suggesting we give thought to the "spaces"
> our pieces will fill, and the greater our perspective, the more we will
> understand those "spaces."
>
>
> Thanks Tony, that was the point, to generate thought and offer some
> resources to pursue that thought if one desired.
>
> Lyn
>
I hope these are constructive criticisms. You are the unfortunate victim of
the argumentative writing class that I am currently taking. I do believe
everything I have said, I have just taken a stronger stance than I usually
would. Aint education grand.
Tony
Gene
would like to learn how to use a skew chisel though, without one catch per
linear inch and maybe even create a little less kindling out of perfectly
good fire wood.
Gene
"Andi Wolfe" <Andi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6150bf34.03041...@posting.google.com...
AHilton
(Raffan's various videos helped me a lot. I'm sure there are others). Books
are useless here. Practice, practice, practice. Watch someone live that's
good with a skew. Practice, practice, practice!
I've gotten a lot better with the skew in the last couple of months because
I've made it a point to do so. It's not something, IMO, that you can just
pick up once in awhile and make it work well.
- Andrew
<<snipped>>
Darrell Feltmate
I was reading your letter on facets of wood turning and have a few
ramblings. I have just eaten supper, choir practice is in a little while
and I am too full to sing but mellow enough to ramble. Somewhere along
the line we are faced with the question of what is art, specifically if
it is to be addressed in the field of wood turning. For some such as
myself, it is a moot point as I do not picture myself as an artist,
rather as a technician, striving to perfect technique. That said, it is
to the artists that the technician turns for new areas to address those
techniques. The old "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a
heaven for?" drives us to better and better and technique and thus
enjoyment of the task. Many of us seek a different challenge than
turning the next thousand pens better than the last.
As we question what is art with respect to wood turning, we come to a
fourth facet of the field, one to which you have alluded, namely the
wood turning art critic. Peers tend to suggest almost universally that
"the bottom needs to curve in more" as the harsh criticism along with
"hey, nice piece." We need to address questions of form in relation to
purpose, curves as directions to a resolution, interplay of light on
surfaces, enhancements to surface and texture, resolution of idea,
thought and intent as expressed in a finished piece, among others. How
does the beauty of the medium draw us in ways that another medium might
or might not. Would the piece be better resolved in metal, glass,
ceramic or some other material?
Critics and criticism thoughfully and wisely applied can determine much
of the direction of artistic development not only of a person but also
of a medium. We must also remember that if turned wood is to be an art
form, we need to be open to the criticism of our peers and the group is
naturally expended. No longer is the peer group only wood turners or for
that matter collectors and sellers; it is a collection of potters,
ceramicists, painters, fabric designers, sculptors and other artists.
Most of them will take it for granted that the technique must be of a
high standard. Their question will be, "does the result of the technique
say anything?"
--
God bless and safe turning
Darrell Feltmate
Truro, NS, Canada
http://www.roundthewoods.com
Derek Hartzell
feistiness for nice folks needing to get tough"
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Tony Manella wrote:
Hi Lyn, Comments interspersed below. "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kuma...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3E94593D...@earthlink.net...Hi Tony,I agree that few turners rise to those ranks or attention and stature, but I would suggest the material can be of significance to the average turner nonetheless. Few of us become Olympic or professional athletes, yet there can be an interest in the history of sport, the outstanding exemplars of athletic prowess, and even the behind the scenes machinations that set the rules and effect the success of the athletes. I'd also point out that folks do rise from the ranks of our peers to encounter the issues I discussed. Consider the recent (and well deserved rise) of folks like Art Liestman and Andi Wolf who now are shown at the del Mano.I didn't mean that the article wasn't interesting, it was,
but I'm just not sure it is "significant" to what most woodturners do.
Here's Darrell's comment: "it is to the artists that the technician turns for new areas to address those techniques. The old "a man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?" drives us to better and better and technique and thus enjoyment of the task. Many of us seek a different challenge than turning the next thousand pens better than the last."
Here's Arch: "An excessive intellectual approach to appreciation could be snobbish, but critical appreciation (which is said to be liking, supported by judgement) isn't. Those of us who want to be involved as turned wood becomes an accepted and respected art medium need to learn how to do this." and " you can't know where to go if you don't know where you have been."
Here's Cindy: "You say some things that are very relevant to all of us woodturners. Relevant even to those of us who never aspire to be "artists". As the public becomes more educated about woodturning and the medium gains respectability, it opens doors for all woodworkers."
Here's what the not so typical turner John Jordan said: "I think it's incumbent on anyone who desires to pursue woodturning seriously to learn where we have come from and how we got to this point."
There is more that has and can be said, but I suggest the above are some rather thoughtful statements about the significance of the issues.
I agree that some of our peers do rise to the level of artist but that is something they strongly desire.
Note Andi's comment: "I got into woodturning for the therapeutic rewards it had to offer. I don't know of many other hobbies where you can become so involved with the activity of the moment that everything else goes away. I've never thought of myself as an "artist" per se, but I enjoy expressing and exploring my ideas through woodturning. For me, the purity of the form comes first and the surface enhancements should be just that - enhancements to the wood. I like to work with complementation where the design motif brings out some feature of the form or grain-- a good example of this would be my "Autumn" platters made of big leaf maple where the coloring and pyrography enhance the wood. No hidden messages in this work - just the joy of exploring color and form."
I still believe that most of us don't want to be well renowned artists but rather just woodturners (there is nothing wrong with just being a woodturner is there?).
I love both Andi's and Art's work, they are great artists. Yet, if they didn't do any embellishment to their work they would have a beautifully shaped and executed piece would they garner interest from the art world? The odds are no.
I feel this is very unfortuanate.
Most of the artisan shops around here don't carry local artists but carry turnings they bought at a wholesale show. I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this but I have to assume that they belive that since a person pumps out enough pieces to do a wholesale show their stuff must be good. To be blunt, many of these turnings are poorly designed, executed and finished. I could name dozens of local artists who do better work. Yet these shops won't even talk to them because they are "local" and not national. I don't know if this predjudice is common across the country or just here.
This is probably why I have little respect for shop and gallery owners.
If one looks at the history (relatively brief that it is) of collectable woodturnings, one sees that many of the collectors have sought those their qualities in their acquisition. Frequently it is the (often would be) "artists" who engage in the flashy pushing of the envelope, while collectors often seek artistic works that are more representative of the classic designs and shapes. This is not always true, but if one looks at the work of Andi Wolfe (at the recent end) and David Ellsworth (as a grand master) one still sees an emphasis on classic line and shape--things that can apply to the works of many a recreational turner. Even some of the innovative new embellishments, such as those of Art Liestman, can be easily and comfortably incorporated into the typical turners work.We agree that a good turning, regardless of embellishment must have a beautiful form. My point is that, for a gallery, this is not enough, you have do do embellishment if you want to be an artist. This entails mixing other forms of art; carving, painting, ect.; into your work. While I can appreciate and like these, I want to turn wood, not paint or carve. How many of us turners want to spend more time painting and carving than we do turning?
No. Having seen many of Stocksdale's turnings up close, whether named or not, they have an immediate pull. Going through Martha Connell's lower cabinets, one picks up a piece prior to seeing the name on it. Now granted, I am familiar with the styles of various turners, but long before seeing Bob's name, I feel in love with a piece that was done by him. Thought John Jordan's work is perhaps even more distictive in style, I equally feel in love with one of his pieces as it was pulled out from the a lower cabinet. I didn't know it was his for sure, but I knew that was a turning I wanted (and now have).I agree that Stocksdale's pieces do have pull. But there are other turners out there who can do the same but will never be known. Your argument above is flawed by the fact that you were in a gallery that only sells well known turners. Now if you had been at a craft fair and seen the same piece, and the artist was unknown, would you have paid the same price for that piece? I doubt it. You paid the high price for the name not for the turning.
This is part of the point of the putative article. There are many forces that combine to influence what gets attention as a work of art, and what doesn't. While the embellished pieces are getting a lot of attentions, the collectors are still buying a lot of more classic forms. Think of some of John Jordans pieces from not that long ago that were simply painted black, to emphasize the form. Think of the continuing interest in the work of the Moulthrops. The Moulthrops over the last several years have had an annual major exhibit of 30-40 works at Gumps in San Francisco. 90 percent of those works are very traditional. Always or very nearly always every piece is sold. I don't think most of these pieces go to the upper echalons of collectors sophisticated in wood art, but rather to rather typical uppper middle class individuals looking to acquire a tasteful object for their home or office. Personally, I would suggest that most of the more extreme looking pieces come from those of rather limited talent who seek to draw attention to themselves through shock value, rather than an ability to create an appealing and tasteful thing of beauty.Yes John Jordan and the Moulthroups do sell a many pieces that are just beautiful classic forms. But they are established names and that is a big part of what people are buying. Can you name any newer woodturners that have gained attention of collectors that just turn classic forms, no embellishment? I can't.
I don't have any first hand knowledge, other than knowing upper middle class people, but I doubt that they are paying $1000's for a piece just becasue they want something beautiful to sit in their home. They are also making an investment in the artists name.
And that is exactly the point. You write that you don't care about what they think about your work, and that is a very legitimate stance to take. However, I am suggesting and offering some resources for you to think about what they care about your work.Yes you are offering me resources if I care what they think but I'm still not sure why I should care.
I think many things can influence what we make on our lathe. That can include the characteristics of the material, a predetermined design, etc. things that I have discussed on my other design article. But there is another thing as well, and this is a consideration of the space the turning will fill. That space can be concrete (like whether the piece is to be floor standing and fill a hall, or small and set within an enclosed cabinet) or abstract (like to meet a given market need or the desires of a patron). I'm suggesting we give thought to the "spaces" our pieces will fill, and the greater our perspective, the more we will understand those "spaces.">Thanks Tony, that was the point, to generate thought and offer some resources to pursue that thought if one desired. LynI hope these are constructive criticisms. You are the unfortunate victim of the argumentative writing class that I am currently taking. I do believe everything I have said, I have just taken a stronger stance than I usually would.
There's great irony in that statement, given the issue discussed.Aint education grand.
Lyn
Arch
I've long forgotten what little I ever knew about formal logic, but one
fallacy I do remember is the argument directed against the person to
make what he says appear to be wrong; 'Argumentum ad hominem' ? Neither
Lyn nor Tony do that. Errors in reasoning are many and multi-faceted.
Perhaps you lawyers, computer programmers and philosophers would tell us
of some of them. It might be fun to have a contest for who finds the
most fallacies embedded in the next argumentative thread. Or would that
just kindle another, with even higher flames?
I guess we best just turn wood. ;) Arch
Fortiter,
Ruth
Lyn and All,
I would like to express my opinion on this subject and using Tony's post
interspersed:
<<< "I love both Andi's and Art's work, they are great artists. Yet, if
they didn't do any embellishment to their work they would have a
beautifully shaped and executed piece would they garner interest from
the art world?">>>
This is true in any medium; art, music, scupture, etc. A long time
ago there was a thread about getting your work noticed and John Jordan
said (paraphrased) "get it seen my as many people in as many places as
you can." This is to say that if the work is pleasing, desirable and
well executed that your work will become famous as people recognize it
in each place they visit and it will be accepted in finer galleries.
<<<"Most of the artisan shops around here don't carry local artists but
carry turnings they bought at a wholesale show. I'm not sure of the
reasoning behind this but I have to assume that they belive that since a
person pumps out enough pieces to do a wholesale show their stuff must
be good.">>>
True. Also any shop or gallery is giving their customers THEIR opinion
of what is nice, artistic and worth buying. This includes Del Mano.
I've seen offerings there that I don't consider fine art nor would I
ever care to own.
<<<"... while collectors often seek artistic works that are more
representative of the classic designs and shapes. This is not always
true, but if one looks at the work of Andi Wolfe (at the recent end) and
David Ellsworth (as a grand master) one still sees an emphasis on
classic line and shape....">>>
The term "collector" seems to mean someone of great means and a great
eye for beauty. I am not an artist and do not consider my turnings as
being "collectible", yet there is a person who has told the one gallery
that offers my work, they wish to have first choice of any of my new
work. Although they are a "collector", they will not make my work
"famous". Fame comes from what John Jordan said in my first paragraph.
<<<"My point is that, for a gallery, this is not enough, you have do do
embellishment if you want to be an artist.">>>
Again this is true of any medium. You must give them "different" and
the term "artist" is bogus because it's "Opinion". Do not
misunderstand; I love the work of Liestman, Jordan, Fleming and others
and do consider them to be fine artists. If we want the public to see
our opinion of the turnings we consider "fine art", we must open a
gallery. We must keep in mind that a lot of the "collectors" buy for
investment (what they think will increase in value when they are ready
to sell) and not artistic appreciation. They are part of the
impression of who/what is a desirable collectible or "art" and should,
in my opinion, not be counted.
<<< "Your argument above is flawed by the fact that you were in a
gallery that only sells well known turners.">>>
True. Bottom line, a gallery owner is in the business for sales and
wants to present what will make them realize the best profit. If you
see work that does not impress you in, say, 4 expensive galleries, you
are going to think, "this must be good work, I guess I don't really know
fine art."
<<< "There are many forces that combine to influence what gets attention
as a work of art, and what doesn't. While the embellished pieces are
getting a lot of attentions, the collectors are still buying a lot of
more classic forms.">>>
Forces such as selling what's "new" and "different" ..... the same as
clothing, furniture and everything in our competitive market.
<<< "Yes you are offering me resources if I care what they think but I'm
still not sure why I should care.">>>
I've always felt that if you use what collectors are buying and what you
see in most high-end galleries as a guideline for your work, you are an
imposter. You will be copying a style, form or enhancement. Andi said
it best; she wasn't going for becoming a noted artist, she found
something she loved to do and loved the time doing it. We loved it,
too, and that's what made her work desirable to the people of great
means. I don't think Andi's art work would be a collectible if it were
on canvas in fine art museums, but on wood turnings, it is. (please
forgive me, Andi, you know I love you!).
I believe there are two types of people; those that buy because it is
already popular and those that buy because they love it and thus make it
popular. Either way it all boils down to one word; OPINION!
collector's opinion gallery owner's opinion woodturner's opinion
decorator's opinion customer's opinion
but, most important, MY opinion. : )
The End
Ruth
Woodturners Logo
My shop and Turnings at
http://www.torne-lignum.com
Tony Manella
I've loved your work since I first saw it at Providence last year. Do you
spend a lot more time burning and coloring your turnings than you spend at
the lathe? I've spoken to David Nittman and to Jack Vesery about their work
and both of them spend less than 20% of their time turning. Another
question I have. Do you feel that a non-woodturners first impression of
your work is its a "beautiful woodturning" or a "beautifully decorated
woodturning"? I'm not trying to be argumentative I just would like to know
what you think others see in your work.
Tony Manella
(and yes I'm jealous of you because I don't have one artistic bone in my
entire body)
"Andi Wolfe" <Andi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6150bf34.03041...@posting.google.com...
Dan Bollinger
A self-perpetuating, private-logic statement! I'm sure if we asked you at
age 5 if you were an artist we'd have gotten a different answer. Dan
Andi Wolfe
Wow, good questions! I'll try to answer them, but I'm not sure I
really know the answers. . .
> Do you
> spend a lot more time burning and coloring your turnings than you spend at
> the lathe? I've spoken to David Nittman and to Jack Vesery about their work
> and both of them spend less than 20% of their time turning.
I would fall into this category, also. Turning a bowl or a platter is
a relatively easy activity for me compared to the time spent in
thinking, sketching, burning, carving, coloring, and texturing. I
enjoy both sets of activities, but in very different ways. I love the
sensory experience of turning wood -- the sound of the tool on the
wood, the smell of shavings as they peel away from the blank, the
experience of watching a form emerge as the wood is spinning.
However, I can personally only obtain a limited amount of pleasure
from repetition of the same activity, and that is why I started
exploring surface enhancements.
> Another
> question I have. Do you feel that a non-woodturners first impression of
> your work is its a "beautiful woodturning" or a "beautifully decorated
> woodturning"? I'm not trying to be argumentative I just would like to know
> what you think others see in your work.
I'm not even sure that non-woodturners initially view my work as
woodturning. The general reaction I receive is, "This is beautiful -
how did you make it?" and, "I've never seen anything like this." Once
I explain that I make the form on the lathe and proceed to carve,
burn, and color a piece, the response is usually a comparison to
woodturnings they've seen at craft shows, and a repetition of the
latter statement.
I have no idea what-so-ever as to how collectors of wood art view my
work. I'm too new to the scene to know if it's perceived as a gimick,
or a new form of expression. I'm very glad to have del Mano carrying
my work, and I trust their belief in my potential as an artist (even
though I really have a hard time thinking of myself as such).
I generally receive favorable feedback from other woodturners. Once
they have had a chance to explore one of my pieces, the reaction is
usually something along the lines of "this is a beautifully decorated
woodturning" and, also, "this is a beautiful form." The latter means
a whole lot more to me, because I believe that without the strong
foundation of a beautiful form, my surface enhancements would be a
distraction.
I think this discussion has been really interesting and I've learned a
lot from the different viewpoints presented. I'll add my two cents
worth -- I think woodturning as an art form is still very much in its
infancy. We've seen tremendous advancements over the last couple of
decades - not only in technical achievements, but also in the movement
of using wood as a medium of artistic expression. I'm sure the
ceramics and glass communities have been through these same
discussions as their media moved from craft to art. They are way
ahead of us in this regard, and what one sees after the dust has
settled is that there is room for all makers to express themselves,
each in his/her own way.
Some of this discussion boils down to concerns about marketing and the
hierarchy of venues ranging from local, regional, national and
international craft shows to local, regional, and
nationally-recognized galleries. That's a broad range of
opportunities for anyone who wants to make an effort in finding a
niche for their work.
Tony Manella
How dare you call that #%$^!@ Lyn a friend of mine! You are all just a
bunch of @#$@#'s. Why don't you all go &*(Q $#% in the #$)!*^+. Just
kidding, why shouldn't we have a "proper argument"? Just because we
disagree about one issue doesn't mean we should break out the AK47's and go
at it. Of course if he starts with that anti-laser hollowing stuff again
then I might have to...., oh wait a minute, I agree with him on that too.
OK, I just like the guy. We are carrying out our discussion in private now
so you can rest easy. LOL
Tony Manella
http://home.ptd.net/~ndd1/
Lehigh Valley Woodturners
http://www.lehighvalleywoodturners.org/
"Arch" <al...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6306-3E9...@storefull-2352.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Tony Manella
about. Good luck with the Del Mano.
Tony Manella
http://home.ptd.net/~ndd1/
Lehigh Valley Woodturners
http://www.lehighvalleywoodturners.org/
"Andi Wolfe" <Andi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6150bf34.03041...@posting.google.com...
Owen Lowe
wrote:
> I would like to learn how to use a skew chisel though, without one
> catch per linear inch and maybe even create a little less kindling
> out of perfectly good fire wood.
Check out a video by Alan Lacer, The Skew Chisel. I'd say it's one of
the best produced and presented educational turning videos I've seen.
(And I usually check out at least one or two per month from the two
local AAW chapters I belong to.) Alan details the grinds, the sharpening
methods and the various uses of the skew; he also explains how catches
happen. It's not one of those project-oriented videos. The production
value is excellent - sound is great and easily understood, camera angles
and views are right in there showing the tool at the wood.
Alan Lacer's website: <http://www.woodturninglearn.net>
BTW, now I wanna get me or make one of those 1.5" skews!
_____
American Association of Woodturners
Cascade Woodturners Assoc., Portland, Oregon
Northwest Woodturners, Tigard, Oregon
_____