Musing about improving nature's art. An unctuous waste of bandwidth?

snip

This area is not blessed with much gnarly stuff. There used to be pine knots lying around, but since the days of turpentine dipping are gone around here there are very few. Most of my stuff would be rotting in the land fill or burned for firewood if I didn't rescue it. How many times have I heard "I didn't know you made bowls. I just had a big _____ (Dogwood, holly, cherry, bradford Pear or whatever) tree cut in my yard and they just hauled it to the dump."

I think Arch, you are actually looking at two differnet positions at the same time while looking at one situation.

#1 Are we turning "art"

or,

#2 Are we turning "stuff".

As for #1, I would not presume to improve mother nature, merely present her creations in a different way. When I see a large crotch in a tree, I see what is underneath the bark, the part with most of the occlusions cut away and the curly grain exposed. While I see curly grains, chatoyance, bird's eyes, interesting knots, and different light catching effects and colors, my buddies see fire or bbq wood. Ink lines in maple mean to them it is time to "burn that crap because it is starting to rot". But we all know what those pieces mean to us.

So with that material as my starting point, my attempt is to take the wood and show someone what the wood looks like, presented in a pleasing manner. Long sweeping shapes make end turned pieces have long lovely grain patterns; shorter wider pieces do a better job at showing off burly and gnarly grains of lenghtwise turning. So to me the task at hand is to help liberate these invisible treasures and put them out for all to see in shapes and designs that draw the eye. And I don't feel bad about "my failures" as they were going to be burned up anyway, you got it, in the bbq or wood stove.

For scenario #2, I do indeed think I am making improvements. I take a dead piece of firewood with non descript grain, no eye catching color, and not much to commend it at all in the beauty department and make something useful. I do indeed think it is an improvement on nature to take a stick and make a spoon that could be used for years, or a mallet, or rolling pin, or a writing pen. Those little pieces of wood may have been put in the landfill, burned up or left to rot somewhere.

So "stuff" is the actual improvement on nature's remains here, not so much the "art" part in my book.

Here's another take on this. A large block of snow white granite was to Michaelangelo a canvas. According to him, he "found" David in the block. On the other hand, a raw block of granite was the actual piece of art that pleased Picasso, and he saw the block as art, not the canvas.

The parallel would be this for the artistas - they turn wood to release the art within. In your hypothesis, the other side of that coin would take the piece of wood as it was (mother nature's perfection), and declare it couldn't be improved upon. But not many could see the hidden art inside a crusty mesquite crotch sitting on a coffee table. But they could enjoy the exposed grain of a bowl turned in pleasing dimensions and profiles.

I think most of the "art" we see in turning these days is not art at all, but excercises in technique. Strange and complicated shapes, super thin walls turned with laser guided tools, motorized buffers and polishers to achieve mirror finishes... all that seems like great technique, but I dunno about "art".

Robert

Alan Hollar speaks of Craftsmanship versus Artistry. Some "art" requires superb craftmanship and even engineering.

An in-law is dating a very financially successful New York artist. Looks to me like all he does is slap pieces of posters together to make another poster. That makes me wonder how much of "art" is actually "fashion".

I never could get into Picasso but Terry Redlin's nature scenes warm my heart mightily. One sells for millions, the other thousands. I'll give thousands for a bookpaged crotch mahogany table but nothing for a glass topped dining room table which is actually more functional but really bought for its fashion design.

Arch looks at driftwood and wonders if it should be left alone. It's already been reworked by Nature, so maybe yes. But other wood like logs becomes striking by our reworking, same as a diamond isn't squat until polished - and then the difference in the polisher's skills makes it more or less valuable.

So, the criteria could be that it sells - and sells for a lot. Or that could just mean it's popular. I've bought numbered prints and yet have never understood why someone really thinks that makes them valuable beyond ego or elitism or peer pressure. "Nah-nah, nah-nah - my number print's lower than your numbered print!". I've a Carl Brenders print of a pair of Pileated Woodpeckers that moves my soul to this day, years after the purchase. I love the scene, the birds, and his use of color. But I haven't looked at the numbers since I purchased it. One of my biggest treats with where I live now is that Pileateds are around. Has anyone ever seen one come to a suet feeder?

God gave us this gift of appreciation of natural beauty. Whether sunsets, mountains, lakes, seashores, or wood grain and shapes. Then provided the resources. Then gave us this thing about individuality and creating during our journey. So, IMHO, I'd say give yourself a moment to think and feel, then what moves you is what you should do (with the wood:)).

May your mind be quick and sure, and your heart measured and deep. TomNie

Arch, I never ceases to amaze me how you manage to create a difficult situation only to then find yourself confused and perplexed by your own invention. You bang yourself in the noggin with a mallet and then wonder about the mallet's intention or the source of your headaches.

Here, I'll help you untangle your Gordian knot before you gag on it. Nature doesn't make art. Only sentient beings create works of artist endeavor. Nature does, on occasion and purely by accident, create unusual shapes, colors, and textures that us artistic types appreciate. Go to any artist's home and you'll find the windowsills filled with found objects. Some of them created by nature, others by man.

Some artists use these found objects exclusively in their artwork. Others use none at all, preferring to use raw materials delivered in bulk instead. Most artists have incorporated found objects in their artwork at one time or another. It's no big deal no matter how Arch spins it. (no pun intended) ;)

Dan

Hi Gerald, Thanks for responding. I grew up on the family's piney woods and turpentine still in N. Fla. Wild fires, Dupont's solvents and St. Joe's paper mills finally did us in. 'Fat lighterd knots' are one case where burning is the best use of nature's work. :) I wonder if anyone here has finished a turning by dipping it in molten rosin? Remember the fad a few years ago of cooking potatoes in a bucket of the stuff?

Hi Robert & Tom, Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative responses. I think your posts are the stuff that helps a ng's unmoderated narratives, Q's & A's and 'word pictures' continue as a viable forum for anyone interested in turning wood.

Hi Dan, Thanks for your authoritative counter-response. For me, it's the old "I don't agree, but I respect your right to disagree" thing. I'm pleased that my poor musings perplex you enough to post your corrective dissections. Keep em coming.

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter