Symposiums,Conferences

John I think you have hit the nail on the head as far as symposia categories for experienced turners. Beginners need a buffet of various techniques and approaches to build interest and ability as they begin the craft of turning. With experience comes direction in the craft. Most of us determine a type of turning that catches our interest and in which we specialize. Other forms are mildly interesting but we are not really wanting to go there. However, what a person does and why they do it in that direction may have a lot of bearing on what we do with our particular piece of wood. I like your turnings but I am not especially interested in making grain disappear with dyes. On the other hand what you do with the dye and why you use it and how you propose to enhance your work intrigues me. Why you might carve one piece of maple one way and the next another is a good question that may not have one answer but it might have three or four equally valid ones. I am turning a piece of maple burl that will become a "bowl" with a major void in one side if the bark inclusions allow it to remain in one piece. The process began with a burl that could have made several different types of forms. It might have been an elongated bowl, a lamp base, a vase of several shapes, a hollow form, ... I cut a piece from it that will likely be a future vase but for now it is in the bag with small burls. The decision process of examining that burl, deciding what it will be, and figuring out how as well as why intrigues me because I think someone else would look at the burl and say "I think it should be a ..." Making the bowl is just a basic turn, sand, and finish procedure. The other thing you alluded to is instruction or hints in using other tools. While some of us come to turning through general wood working, others start in as turners. Yet we use grinders, Dremel tools, chain saws, files, band saws, table saws, hand grinders, carving tools, and a myriad of others, often badly. The other day I was helping do some work at a summer camp our church supports. I borrowed a hand saw for a few minutes and it was dull as a table knife so I took out a triangular file and sharpened it. All of a sudden I had an audience of about ten looking at me like I had two heads. Sharpening is a basic skill but it is not well known. Cutting a stub from a turning with a dull saw is a royal pain. Drilling a hole with a dull drill is another pain. Cutting with a badly set up band saw is a dangerous hassle. Not every pertinent topic in a turning symposium has to be turning. I am reading a book on the history of porcelain and pottery in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and America. Some of it is ugly in the eye of this beholder but some is lovely. It raises questions of "can I do this in wood?" and "why would I want to?" Glass blowers do neat stuff with round shapes and it intrigues we as to how it might move over to wood. There is a lot to consider in other media that we could look at as turners.

Reply to
Darrell Feltmate
Loading thread data ...

Arch,

Nothing you say ever bothers me, although I admit I don't always know what you are talking about. :-)

John

Reply to
John Jordan

That's good Darrell. Two heads huh? Like going to cut wood with a guy I know who roots through his used chains for the "sharpest" dull one. There's always room for a sharpening rotation!

John

Reply to
John Jordan

Jim,

That's well put. But you *can* include a t least some aspect of those things, as you found with Stephen Hogbin.

John

Reply to
John Jordan

I watch video tapes multiple times, getting more each time.

Reply to
Derek Hartzell

John, Why should you know what I"m talking about when I don't? ***************** Jim, Running today's AAW symposia as the old Greeks ran their originals might help. The Symposiarcs (now called demonstrators) insured lively yet constrained debates (now termed rotations) by varying the strength & flow of wine according to the NE (novice/expert) ratio. They adjusted the mix of wine from a Grecian Urn that sported surface embellishments, with water from an urn merely turned, sanded and finished. Attendance was full and attention rapt. Of course temperance wasn't big then, but litigation due to wine unsafe finishes finally did them in; plonking being unknown in those ancient times. Sorry; in the life of every serious thread, some absurd rain must fall, This may be hail. ;) Arch

Fortiter,

Reply to
Arch

Just want to say that this has been one of the best threads I have seen on RCWT in a long time. My thanks to Jim who started this discussion and all who have contributed. The entire thread has served as a model for forthright discussion of views conducted in a constructive, respectful manner. I would only reinforce that I think these issues extend well beyond the symposiums and that most have merit when applied to clubs and forums as well.

Lyn

Jim Christiansen wrote:

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli

I agree with Will, the Instant Galley this year was pretty problem fraught, I finally just walked away as most of the time it was not possible to hear what the speakers were saying. A real downer given Hogbin's repuatation and the chance to get a gallery director's views from Owen Edwards. I also agree that the critiquers should pick the work that catches their eye and that they want to talk about

Kip Powers Rogers AR

Reply to
Kip055

Will -

I know what you mean - I find the inspirations for design to be very interesting, also. However, I don't think most turners fit into this mold. I overheard one attendee from Provo complain about Graeme's extensive overview of his South Pacific design influences (they said they went to see a turning demonstration and not listen to a bunch of talk about what makes him tick). This individual's reaction was the total opposite of mine - I was most interested in finding out how Graeme thinks and why he does what he does.

Bottom line? Turners that have covered the basics want more information about the creative engine and less about actual techniques, whereas turners just starting the process want the nuts-and-bolts and how-to's.

I'm glad you enjoyed the exhibit. It was a pleasure to share the work of these talented, but unknown, turners.

I'd be interested in seeing some presentations along these lines at future symposia. Something where an "expert" gives an overview of woodturning from different countries (e.g., France, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Africa). We were fortunate to have the "Woodturning in North America since 1930" exhibit make the rounds, but I think there is a lot of potential for expanding on this type of historical overview through some slide presentations at major meetings.

If one is lucky enough to live in the Philadelphia area, it is possible to attend lectures and special events sponsored by the Woodturning Center. However, most of us only have an opportunity for this type of enrichment at major symposia, or if we participate in the CWA Fora.

I think this is where a format other than AAW can work well. I'm not sure it would be possible to organize much social interaction with

800-1000 attendees. This year a lot of us that belong to various internet groups organized ourselves to get together for dinner. Even then, it was hard to mingle with a group size of less than 50.

Where I've seen a lot of interaction among turners (demonstrators and attendees) at AAW symposia is the question-and-answer rotations that have been described in other posts of this thread.

Andi Wolfe

formatting link

Reply to
Andi Wolfe

Will,

The technical problems are always there-like much of the symposium, it seems to be a surprise every year. There is clearly a lot of interest, as evidenced by the attendance, and that is bound to create some problems. One way, as you pointed out, would be to take select pieces to an auditorium setting. Under the current method, the critiquers(sp?) should pick the pieces well in advance. Some useful constructive crisis is fine, but as you pointed out, there is nothing to be gained from being overly critical of a newer turner's work-encouragement is called for. David and I proposed, but never got, a session with serious critical discussion-no crying allowed. A number of people have asked us about that when we have done sessions in the past, and there are plenty of turners who are interested in and would benefit from a serious critique of their work. That just can't be done (well) in the instant gallery setting.

For those who might want some input into their work, don't be afraid to ask. I often do this and I know many of us are asked if we will take a look at someone's work. If you do this, be fair and allow and expect those you have asked to be honest. :-)

Reply to
John Jordan

This could be a great focus for a website (or portion of one such as Will's or the AAW or even WC). People could submit detailed photos of a turning, one or two pieces could be selected every two weeks or a month. The pieces could be selected according to their teaching value as well as quality. Then a small panel of advanced turners (say 3 or 4, ideally with a couple of regulars and a couple of invited guests--perhaps even one from outside turning, such as an expert in ceramics or fiber art or even criticism of art) could each write a several paragraph critique. The pieces and the critiques would then be posted and archived on the site. Over the course of even a year, this could become quite a resource and eventually the content could easily be translated into a book. I'd sure purchase such a book.

Obviously the limitation to such a scheme is the lack of direct experience with the turning. The above scheme could be supplemented by several pieces being selected at the Utah and AAW Symposiums and given the same treatment--detailed photos and multiple critiques appearing on the website.

I think the key to this is that the folks doing the critque really have some status as persons whose work is respected, that there are multiple perspectives gained from a panel of reviewers, and that there be some stability in the group so that there is consistency as well as differences in opinion. I also think it would add credibilty to the process for the panel choosing the turnings to be reveiwed to be different from the panel offering the critiques.

If anyone might be interested in pursuing this, I'd be happy to help in further conceptualizing and setting this up.

Lyn

John Jordan wrote:

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli

Lyn,

I like the idea in theory and agree it could be helpful, but as we know, it's sometimes difficult just to say "hello" on-line without being blasted by someone. If one was given a somewhat negative critique, I'll assume they would take it in the spirit it's given, but I'm afraid someone else would take exception, as in "who do they think they are?"............. then someone defends the critique etc. A lot of us have gotten tired of those exchanges. :-) Besides, you're not even here any more.

Best,

John

Reply to
John Jordan

Hi John, You are right on both counts. The latter first. Only a truly quality, respectful,thread that has implications beyond the newsgroup (or to defend a friend) pulls me in. This has surely been one.

My comments have been to try to move this out of the newsgroup and symposium setting, as I feel many of the comments apply just as much to the forums and turning groups.

My proposal with respect to the critiques would be for them to appear on a non-interactive website, and hopefully eventually become a book. That way the "blasting" (and I sure understand what you mean about it) could be almost eliminated, at least the public blasts.

As I've written before, and I know you recognize, woodturned art is at a disadvantage because there are few if any avenues for its independent critique and discussion. My proposal suggests a means to, and a model for, transition from "clubhouse" backslapping to some more independent critique of the better current (and perhaps even past) woodturned creations. As we don't have much in the way of independent woodturned art critics, it seems like we need to go with the next best thing, which is calling upon the perspective and talent of folks of the stature of you and Ellsworth. Thus, if I could will it to happen, I'd love to see you and David be the two permenant panel members (or even RR!), a third member be rotating from a pool of willing turners like perhaps Andi and Art and Jaques and Micheal, and a fourth from someone who is decidely not a turner (though perhaps still a creator of art), such as a gallery owner or museum curator. The pieces would be submitted by willing turners looking for critique (and perhaps fame if you all rave over their work), but only the ones that were seen as good teaching exercises would undergo the critique.

To my way of thinking, the archives of such a website, and better still a resultant book, would be one of the more valuable contributions to the advancement of woodturned art. It would have value not only for turners, but serve as a means to educate intermediaries (i.e, gallery owners and curators), purchasers and appreciators.

I wish I could make it happen, but don't have the talents or resources, but as I said earlier, if the necessary folks are game, I'd sure be willing to contribute what I could to pull it off, perhaps as an editor or go between.

P.S. I'd still love to see some of your turnings become gallery quality photos. I can see a lot of persons loving to have your work in their home, but can't afford the turned object itself (or even who might prefer a 2 dimensional format hung on a wall rather than an object on a table or stand)and taking great satisfaction in having some classy $150-$450 photos of your work. Similarly, there is a photo in the latest Darlow book of a series of natural edge nested bowls done by Mike Mahoney that are against a black background and reflected in the black surface beneath them. It's one classy photo that, because of the reflection and uniform black backdrop, is in some ways more dramatic than the objects themselves. I think this would be a means to expand the interest in woodturned art into new markets, and in the process make some additonal dollars for the artists.

Lyn

John Jordan wrote:

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli

Lyn,

I'll keep an open mind. Mike's photos are very dramatic-they serve him well getting into shows too!

I still have difficulty imagining a market for high end photos of work. Maybe I should have a couple of Cibachromes printed and see what you think.

John

Reply to
John Jordan

We have tried something similar at KestrelCreek

formatting link
with mixed success. We went about the critiques a little different though. We here in Idaho have thick skins and are well aware of our short-comings. We also are practiced in critique methods because of the way our guild operates. So we put a couple of our own pieces up for critique and ask visitors to critique a particular piece. We modeled what we thought would be helpful critiques and even offered a drawing for a prize. It flopped. We provided a form to fill out with both a rating system and a place for comments. A couple people looked critically at the work but most of the 40 or so that participated just said "great looking piece" or "I wish I could turn that" or something else equally not helpful.

What we found is that most people don't have a language or the training in art so they can comment successfully about the merits of someone else's work let alone their own work. For most people it is "I know what I like when I see it" or "it is art when I call it art." Most also felt that they had to be able to turn up to the same level of the critiqued piece in order to be able to morally justify commenting. We don't have these kind of morals, we are willing to critique anything.

Jim Christiansen has spent quite a bit of time developing a "Gentle Critique" program. He has presented it to a few AAW groups with great success. Jim's program is based on plenty of communication about (skill level appropriate) objective criteria that is established in advance.

We have been working on a way to bring this to the wild web but have been caught up in other projects. We feel that if done with enough sensitivity and understanding of the limitations of the web it just might succeed.

Will Simpson

formatting link

Reply to
Will Simpson

An interesting proposal to be sure. A few thoughts (in no particular order) based on the sketchy information provided and a little brainstorming on my part ...

Technical Website Details (my specialty):

- A high bandwidth situation. Lots of large, highly detailed photos.

- High storage space required to save all of these pictures.

- No need for threading or interactive comments coding required.

- Need a way to do searching for critiquer, critiqued, keywords in the critique, type of turning, materials used, etc.

- Automated way of allowing uploads of turning pictures to be either 1) sent directly to each critiquers' email/snailmail/etc and then await a return email/upload/etc. of the critique 2) placed in a queue which can be seen and critiqued (written), online, by the critiquers 3) some hybrid of the above approaches.

General ...

- Must all critiquers give their critiques before the turned piece is considered officially critiqued on the website or will just 1, 2, ... critiques do it? I ask this because it will surely happen that most pieces will only receive one critique. Is that enough? Perhaps it is. I'm just asking.

- Do we care if a piece is sent in to be critiqued that is not owned by that person? Do we get into copyright problems when we post the pictures of that piece without the actual owners' permission?

- Along those same lines, you mentioned turning this into a book deal. Rights issues will have to be worked out with all parties involved (critiquer, critiqued, site owner).

- Who do we select as the critiquers? I know you mentioned your favorites below. I have different ones. Everybody else will too. Perhaps, as you suggest, we have a semi-permanent few with a few others (again, maybe from different disciplines as you suggest) to give their viewpoints. The key is to provide different viewpoints from several corners and people. I do not like the idea of anyone *permanently* on the panel. It's not fair from many perspectives.

- Who's going to pull together all of these people to do the critiques? Who has that kind of pull?

- I can see what the benefit is to the ones being critiqued but what benefit is there for the substantial time involved for the critiquer which, by their nature of being asked to do it, means they are already going to be quite busy anyway?

More Technical ...

- Standards from the critiqued: Pictures must be a certain size, resolution, number of pictures total, number of angles, etc. Only so many submitted pieces in a given time-frame. If the site gets busy with items to be critiqued, we need to pass around the opportunity to as many people as possible given the time constraints of the critiquers.

- Standards from the critiquer: Minimum number of words. We can't have "This stinks" any more than we can have "Love it" as a complete critique. Loose maximum number of words of critique for each turned piece. Must critique a minimum number of items in a given time period. Sure, those best able and trained to critique are going to be busy anyway but we still need them to be available otherwise we'll just get a few critiques. They might be great critiques but there will so few of them that there won't be as much of a "draw" of the public.

I'm sure I'll come up with much more as the night progresses but this may get some thoughts started elsewhere.

I have the knowledge, experience, and resources to create such a website but not to host it on my webservers and pipes if it becomes a 10,000 hit/day site.

- Andrew

Reply to
AHilton

Lyn, I have problems with your suggestion as you have described it.

  1. Using a "non-interactive" website would be unfulfilling for all the participants. As a critic you want to connect with your subject and see the proverbial light come on. As the subject of a critique I'd want to be able to respond, banter, question, confirm and not be force feed a critique. Just ask anyone who routinely does one on one critiques and see if they prefer to write the critique down or have face to face interaction.

  1. A certain amount of "blasting" can be helpful. It allows the organizers and participants to see weakness in the process. If we have such thin skins we'll never evolve to where we want to be as an art form. The key to minimizing this is through sensitivity and communication.

  2. If a process is developed with enough sensitivity, we wouldn't have to just critique "the better current (and perhaps even past) woodturned creations". Why shouldn't anyone be able to submit to a skill level appropriate critique? While critiques of these "better current creations" would be very instructive, I think that critiques of even yours and my work could also be instructive. To suggest otherwise misses the spirit of critique. Everyone knows I need all the help I can get. If we critique a great piece we can learn a lot, if we critique a failed piece we learn even more.
  3. I'm sorry Lyn, but I sense an elitist attitude running through your message. You seem to suggest that only John and David and a few other select turners have stature worthy enough to perform valid and valuable critiques. You could not be so wrong. The turners you mention are indeed capable of great critiques but so might you and potentially hundreds of other turners. There are many other voices out there and some of them are really new to turning. Being an intelligent and supportive critic is a separate skill from woodturning. Being good at turning doesn't automatically make you an outstanding critic, and visa versa.

  1. You also seem to suggest that a book is the best venue for this. The dynamic, interactive nature of the web fits perfectly with the evolving ideas and processes associated with critiques, if only we can overcome the technological presentation barriers.

Lyn, it ain't all negative. I agree that having an archive of critiques would indeed educate future makers, collectors and intermediaries. Imagine if we had access to critiques done by David Pye on Bob Stocksdale's early work.

Will Simpson

formatting link

Reply to
Will Simpson

John & Lynn, As always, thoughtful commentary, It seems that not very many of the upper echelon turners post to or perhaps even read the woodturning news groups. I wish they could be more involved with us day to day, and not just in demos, tapes, articles or web sites. Maybe in part, it's the old "those who can, do; those who can't, make fun or criticize". Of course, what they have to sell includes their limited time. I wonder if it might be a mutually good thing to invite our leaders to show & discuss pieces of their _own making, or a piece they valued enough to acquire. Even post a pamphlet on a subject of their choosing. Perhaps best on a moderated forum with pics if discourtesy & lack of sincerity is a deterrent. A Master to invite, schedule, correlate and keep house would be necessary. Someone who is already too busy always works out best. [As an aside: there should be a broad spectrum of interests as, for good or bad, the rise of specialists (and sub specialities) in almost all of the professions, crafts and arts includes woodturning. These days one has to ask of any leading turner, without being snide; "expert at what kind of turning?" or conversely, "novice at what kinds?" Again the old cliche about learning more & more about less & less, or less & less about more & more, etc.] I hope we all don't disappear into the void of knowing everything about nothing. Some have. ;)

To trudge on with questions/suggestions: Why great turners made or bought the turning. Why they count it special. Anecdotes about the piece's history and/or the Turner's. General self-critique re form, decoration, finish, classification, timber choice, their failures, whatever. The Turner's personal philosophy, views and concepts of woodturning's place in their world. Dare I suggest their pricing? These suggestions may be stupid, flawed, naive and fattening........... Why? Arch

Fortiter,

Reply to
Arch

John wrote: "I still have difficulty imagining a market for high end photos of work. Maybe I should have a couple of Cibachromes printed and see what you think."

****************************** John, There is a market for everything! People paid a LOT of money for a painting of a soup can..... : ) Seriously, the one picture you posted to WOW that I said would make an excellent framed photo is a good example. I would buy it (maybe not for $450!) not so much for inspiration as it pleases my eye.

Lyn's right that having framed artwork, like Mike's, would draw more public attention and awareness to the wonderfully artistic work being created on a lathe.

Ruth

Woodturners Logo My shop and Turnings at

formatting link

Reply to
Ruth

A demonstration I would pay extra to attend would be one that starts at the very, very beginning; having odd shaped logs and "seeing" what to turn. In the books I've read they show slabs of even thickness or logs of fairly straight growth.

I'd like to see an apple crotch, a large odd-shaped burl, a twisted limb with a knot, etc. In other words logs where I can "see" bowls and forms but they all overlap or I can visualize on one side, turn the log over and the vision is warped.

I also love the suggestion of a "discussion rotation" where the audience participates with questions, suggestions and new ideas. Last year's show at RI was my first ever symposium, John Jordan was very sweet to allow me space in his booth for my CLTL items, I thought I'd learn SO much from rotations I tried to see every single one. A few weeks after the show I was quite depressed realizing I made a terrible mistake: I would have learned so very much more had I stayed at the booth with John Jordan and Stony listening to turning conversation!

A lot of people go to a demo just to be in the same room with a really famous turner (as one posted said, (paraphrased) thinking being near the greatness will rub off), and don't come away with any more awareness of technique than they went in with.

One woman's opinion.

Ruth

Woodturners Logo My shop and Turnings at

formatting link

Reply to
Ruth

InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.