Symposiums,Conferences

Oh, my, I see my brief return forey into RCW isn't being very brief.

As I'm going to say also in reply to Will, two things influence my proposal that may make it what it is:

  1. I'm a book person. Obviously I'm comfortable with and appreciate the opportunities that internet based mediums offer, but I still like the qualities of presentation are associated with fixed print. My proposal is intended to culminate in a book. (of course in reality, the proposal is unlikely to get off the ground, let alone a book)

  1. I view the value of the proposal as much or maybe even more in what it can provide to people who are principally not turners. I am interested in helping develop an appreciation of woodturned art by gallery owners, museum curators, actual and potential collectors, and non purchasing appreciators.

With that as a backdr> An interesting proposal to be sure. A few thoughts (in no particular order)

I'm not competent to determine how much bandwidth, but I'm surprised that you think so. My conception is that one is only talking about one turning being review every 2-4 weeks. Granted that one would want a couple of photos of each turning, and for them to be high quality, but the overall quantity of photos would not be great for a very long time.

Same as above.

Yes, that would be very nice. How great it would be to follow a single critics comments over multiple forms, or certain qualities over multiple critics.

I would think a single web based mailbox for submissions that could be accessed by the panel selecting the forms to be critiqued would be quite sufficient. Then the head of the panel could sent the work directly out to the panel of critics.

or will just 1, 2, ...

Yes, all critiques will be "published" when the form is posted to the site. The importance of the site is that the form is available for appraisal by the "audience" in the context of multiple critical perspectives.

I ask this because it will surely happen that most pieces

No problem, as above. In my fantasy of the site (and eventual book) that piece will never be presented until and unless a full battery of critiques are in accompanyment.

Great point. I think for both practical and ethical reasons, it would be important that no piece be accepted unless it was done at the request of both the owner and the turner (which of course could be one and the same).

Do we get into copyright problems when we post the pictures of that

I would think so. Part of the submission process could be the agreement to relinquish copyright for purposes of posting on the website and possible inclusion in a book. This is a common practice and shouldn't pose any difficulty, but it would be important to make explicit and do.

My feeling is that all rights will be relinquished as condition of participatioin. The bottom line is that a book of this nature is not going to be a big money maker, and like with those of us that publish in professional journals, the reward is in the recognition and dissemination of our work.

If this thing comes of in someones hands, it is going to be there call. This won't work as a community project. The people I suggested were not meant to be an exclusive list, nor even necessarily my favorites. What I am aware of is that the permenant members will have the most value if they are recognized and respected by both turners and all those other groups (gallery owners, collectors, etc).

Perhaps, as you

Yes, the permenant few is essential IMO. They are what offer continuity between turnings. Whether one agrees, disagrees, or partially agrees with their findings, they provide a baseline for comparison between turnings and make the critique of various turnings less dependent on the "luck of the draw" of which panel members are chosen for that particular turning.

The key is

Absolutely. Not just turners of different perspectives (and less nobly, personal styles to defend), but non turners of different perspectives. Keep in mind that I think woodturned art will never "arrive" until a body of critics comes into existence that are not turners. I'd like to see gallery owners, artists in other media, even sophisticated collectors be represented.

I do not

I totally disagree, as explained above. What is not fair is to be vulnerable to the random selection of reviewers.If there is not continuity, in part, then the same turning could recieve very positive or very negative critiques based solely upon the selection of the panel.

I actually, but perhaps naively, suspect that will be no problem if the other parameters are clearly established and laid out. What is takes is someone who is sympathetic to all potential groups (i.e, non turners, and non artists, as well as turners). I'm bold enough to think that I could do it, but I'm sure there are many others who could manage it even better.

First, I don't think that a great amount of time is involved. I'm talking about one critique every two weeks. For most people suited for the task, they can formulate their thoughts in minutes. One could offer editing services to help them with their writing. Indeed, if necessary, we could even have a couple of volunteers to transcribe verbal critiques into readable text.

Yes, this would need to be established. I don't think it would be too hard to come up with them (lots of juried shows already have guidelines that could be modified for this sites purposes), but I agree that it would be very important to post these specifications.

Only so many

Yes, though again, I'm not suggesting that only but a very limited few items with teaching potential or exceptional artistic presentation be accepted and reviewed. The WOW site does a great job offering a place for folks to share and receive informal commentary on their work. My proposal is meant to be much more limited in scope and intended to provide an archive of serious criticism.

I personally am not looking for a great number of daily hits, but rather to establish a location where learning can take place. I don't think the quality of the review will be a problem. All critiques would be pre-screened and if they did not achieve a realistic level of clarity or appropriateness, the reviewer would be offered the opportunity to revise (with assistance if necessary). Again, I'm on old guy and am happy for this to develop over years, rather than weeks. I would think it would be good of there were 50 turnings at the end of two years that could be transformed into a book.

These are great comments and I'm impressed that anyone would take my comments as worthy of such a thoughtful and helpful response.

My vision would not be for anything that would be generating daily hits at that rate. Rather, I would suspect that one would need to announce to the forums and newsgroups when the next set of review were being posted, and that there would be a flurry of activity that would die down in the periods inbetween.

Again, I toss these ideas out as things that interest me, but am doubtful they will ever be able to come to pass.

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli
Loading thread data ...

Hi Will,

As I wrote in reply to Andrew, two things influence my proposal that may make it what it is:

  1. I'm a book person. Obviously I'm comfortable with and appreciate the opportunities that internet based mediums offer, but I still like the qualities of presentation associated with fixed print. My proposal is intended to culminate in a book. (of course in reality, the proposal is unlikely to get off the ground, let alone a book)

  1. I view the value of the proposal as much or maybe even more in what it can provide to people who are principally not turners. I am interested in helping develop an appreciation of woodturned art by gallery owners, museum curators, actual and potential collectors, and non purchasing appreciators.

With that as a backdr> Lyn, I have problems with your suggestion as you have described it.

Great, it offers the opportunity to refine my thoughts and allows those who might consider implimenting some aspect of them to have a fuller perspective.

I imagine that will depend on what folks want to get out of the website. Lots of websites are non interative, indeed that vast majority of them. This is intended to be a teaching site, and later to be a teaching book, not a vehicle for self expression and arguemnt. Teaching can obviously occur in many fashions, but books and videos have long been respected vehicles for teaching and are non-interactive. It is great to have sites of all kinds, but my proposal is to emphasize a limited number of quality comments.

As a critic you want to connect with your subject and see the

I think this well expresses your approach to the process and I wouldn't argue that it has many advantages and is comfortable for many. I would strongly assert that it is not the only way to conduct critiques, nor the best way for many. In another context, I regularly critique others work. The vast majority of those reviews are done blind, meaning I don't know the author and the author doesn't know me. This is common in professional publication. There are big advantages to this style to. There are other ways as well, including the one I am proposing. Of course if such a proposal ever got off the ground, the test of it's utility would be whether people would choose to submit, choose to critique, and choose to read those critiques. I am betting they would. Again, keep in mind that my interest is in reaching a much wider audience than turners. I am confident that most (not all,but most) of that wider audience are not interesting in bantering and bickering over some of the technical points that turners would fall into. They are interested in what constitutes good form, original extensions of existing forms, etc. Most of the larger crowd are going to want a few well written, well edited, and thoughtful critiques, not the often less organized, less focused, and sometimes poorly written comments that interactive forums are prone to.

Personally, I think there is reasoned argument and there is blasting. I know of what John spoke of, and seen it happen a lot. Let the blasting take place, if it must, in different venues, but in my proposal, it has no place. Blasting is not conduce to enlarging our audience, or building respect for woodturned art. Most importantly, it discourages reviewers from offering honest (but still respectful) criticism.

My proposal suggested critique pieces that were exceptional and provided a vehicle for teaching. The balance of these two could vary, but both should be included. Given two works that offer identical teaching potential, I'd always select the overal better of the two. Keep in mind that I am interested in that wider audience. I think I am safe in suggesting that gallery owners and serious collectors are going to be much more intrested in learning from high quality pieces. Again, I am not interested in seeing a duplication of the WOW site (which is a favorite site that I regularly follow), nor something that duplicates what you are already doing very well (Kestrel Creek being another site I am very fond of). I am offering a proposal that might be of value to all of those "Three Facets" is wrote of in my past article.

I'm not surprised you would make that observation. Any discussion that advocates that some individuals are more suitable for a task that others falls vulnerable to being accused of elitism. The truth is that I do believe some folks have better credentials and specialized knowledge and/or talent that make them better suited for some tasks than others. It is fine to have other sites that offer everyone an opportunity to comment-again, the WOW site is already being very successful offering that opportunity--but I am proposing a site that by the stature of those doing the critiques, will gain the interest of both turners and others who are involved in woodturned art.

You seem to suggest that only John and David and a few other select

Not "only" but exemplars of those how have the respect and expertise within the turning community and the stature and recognition within the larger commumnity associated with woodturned art, that might make such critiques be considered authoritative.

Sure I can, but again, this is from your perspective. I am making a proposal from my perspective, you are free to offer one of your own (and indeed yours is manifested in your excellent Kestrel Creek site).

The turners you mention are indeed capable of

Yes, there are many who can comment, but few who can comment with authority and stature. If we are to develop woodturned art, and particularly the criticism of woodturnered are, it is not going to come from an attitude that everyone is a valid critic.

Being an intelligent and supportive critic is a separate skill from

Yes, absolutely, which is consistently my point. I want to see the development of people qualified to comment on woodturned art independent from the possession of any woodturning skills. The ultimate would be to have folks taking a serious and formal interest in woodturned art completely apart from vested interest roles as turner or gallery owner. I see my proposal as helping to create a bridge to what might eventually be an independent group of woodturned art critics and scholars. I continue to assert that there has been way too much emphasis on woodturners appraising other woodturners work for the purpose of developing those other woodturners techniques, and not enough appraisal of woodturners work such that is helps inform all those with an interest in woodturned art as to what is quality and original work.

You lay it all out. The web has its advantages and disadvantages, like all media.

Yes, it very much would be nice to have what were contemporary critiques available years later. We have that in other artistic media, but we don't have any significant amount of it in woodturning. To this day, the very best means of archiving is via books. At present, web sites are way too ephemeral.

Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid all of this is just an abstract exercise, as I lack the resources to pull off such a proposal. Still, a discussion like this may encourage someone else to adopt some of the ideas discussed and bring us further along toward a more mature and greater place for woodturned art.

Lyn

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli

I have lots more to contribute to your responses to both Will's and my posts but this one I wanted to quickly ask a question about before I continue with my weekend project (a live online lathecam). What resources do you lack exactly? Lay them out and we'll see what we can come up with to fullfill the need.

- Andrew

Reply to
AHilton

Andrew, They are just personal ones. As Will already knows,I have absolutely zero web skills and don't feel it is realistic for me to set out to develop them. As has been mentioned in another thread, poor websites are almost worse than no website. (I do have a professional website--www.cognimetrix.com for those who know or care--but I paid to have it developed and don't have a clue as to how to make even a simple change to it.) What I know how to do well is assess things (be they people or tools), write and edit, and conduct research.

So what it seems to me it would take to get this off the ground would be a site, someone to set it up, and someone to maintain the technical aspects of it (of course it could require a lot more than this and I am just to naive to realize it). I would be quite willing to do, or help someone else with doing the rest (i.e., set policy and create the necessary release forms, solicit reviewers, help parcel things out to reviewers, nag reviewers to get their stuff in, write background content that sets the stage and ties the reviews together, edit reviewers comments, and convert the web material into a format for a book). If there was interest, I could also post some articles along the lines of my three facets article.

Lyn

AHilt> I have lots more to contribute to your responses to both Will's and my posts

Reply to
Lyn J. Mangiameli

Lyn, I've been following this whole evolving discussion and I love this evolution of an idea. Two comments:

  1. From what I know of them, this idea *sounds like* the kind of think the AAW has the Educational Opportunity Grant program for. Or check with the
    formatting link
    site, which I think was started with an AAW grant.

  1. Watching the idea evolve has been very educational in itself. Similar discussions about how pieces of wood become the resultant turned objects could be equally educational. Perhaps, some turners could agree to take a small tape recorder and "think outloud" about how a piece develops. Maybe they could allow a photographer to take some photos at "key points" in the process. (Now a NEW idea is born and needs to "grow up")

Matt Heffron

Reply to
Matt Heffron

Yes you do infringe on a copyright, but not the one you think. It is the photographer's pemission you need since he/she made the artwork in question, the photograph. What he/she photographed is inconsequential. Most photographers don't mind you putting up a low-res version provided you give them credit. Most will complain about a high-res version unless they are getting paid. Dan

Reply to
Dan Bollinger

That reminds me of my favorite part of a all day session I had with Richard Raffan. There were 5 of us turners and he ran us through some basic skills. Nothing new for me, but I did get some techniques tweaked. Towards the end of the day he asked if we had anything particular we like to know. The guy whose shop we were in produced a hunk of wood and said "how would you cut this up" Richard kind of said "there is a bowl here, a box here...." So we all told him show us please. So the next 30 minutes he proceeded to whack the hunk up on the bandsaw. Wonderful to see it happen. As you would expect, he changed his mind as he cut because of bark inclusions and pretty grain. He explained his decsions as he went. I learned a lot from that session.

-- Rusty Myers Austin, TX

Reply to
Rusty Myers

Hi, Lyn. I'd look at people other than turners for doing critiques, too. They would bring a universal set of aesthetic experiences that you wouldn't get with self-taught, folk turners. How many turners (besides me) do you know that have art degrees or have taught at the university level? A solid background in aesthetics should be the first requisite of any critiquer. Find a craft gallery owner, an art museum curator, and an industrial designer to cover the craft, art and utility aspects of turning. If you stick with only folk turners doing the critiques you'll just end up with a higher quality of backslapping. ;) Dan

Reply to
Dan Bollinger

Based on my experiences in art school, "Gentle Critique" is a contradiction in words! I know full-well what he intends and if the goal is to be gentle, versus speaking the truth, then you end up with spooning out pablum. To me, a critique is that you speak the truth first, and figure out the best way to say it second. Not the other way around. Having done many critiques, I'd like to see what he and you propose. Dan

Reply to
Dan Bollinger

I'll try to keep this as short as possible and not get into great detail (yet) ...

I was thinking there would be far more reviews than that. With the amount of reviews you're talking about, the bandwidth and storage requirements are negligable.

Perhaps the panel would have a voting system for new submissions in order to decide which turning would get a review? Each submission would be given a time-frame to be picked by a panel member to get reviewed. At that point, the piece is given another amount of time to be voted on by all panel members to get reviewed or not. If a majority (or all of them?) agree that it is to be reviewed, then it will be. Everything else will be graciously appreciated but declined for review at this time.

And in the case of older or an unknown creators' pieces with significant features needing a review? This is more of a policy and legal issue. Again, how would you verify ownership? How do the magazines do it?

Yes, that a good point. While I'm not a big fan of the attitude that one person's viewpoint is more or less significant and valued than another, I do see the fact that you have to have some "names" that are respected and at least easily recognized in this field as well as (and perhaps more importantly) other fields as you mentioned above. Please note that I'm not suggesting that your attitude is as I've described. I'm am just painfully aware of the road (and wreck) that gets traveled when talking of critique and one person's "value" in their opinion as compared to another. It's going to do little good, especially if we're trying to expand the woodturned art into other fields, to have a perfectly valid and comprehensive review of a piece by ONLY or MAINLY by someone that isn't recognized by those fields we're trying to reach. I say "only" and "mainly" because I'd certainly like to see the "average" turners' review as well. I think that can give a nice view into what a highly experienced turner is looking at when compared to a relatively newer turner is looking at.

Do you envision a situation where only a few of the reviewers do the reviewing of each piece and not all of them on the panel for each piece? I'd like to see each reviewer doing a review of each piece. That would eliminate "luck of the draw" and keep things much more consistent. I could, for example, get a better idea of a reviewers' viewpoint if that reviewer actually reviewed all of the pieces.

I do like the idea of having some different non-turner perspectives from the worlds of gallery owners, collectors and other artists. I wouldn't like to see things getting too far into that area though. I can imagine that it would turn into a completely abstract and silly farce if there were an imbalance in any direction. My overriding interest is in elevating and strengthening the craft and art of woodturned objects. I want to help the woodturner more than I want to add yet another sign-post in the world of "art". I'd like this to be helpful to the woodturner that needs that extra kick to take their work to the next level but may not know exactly why it isn't getting there. I don't mean the technical details of how to avoid tearout either. I can see the merits of attracting more of the "art world" and those that revolve around it to the woodturner and the woodturning field in general. I'm not interested in just slobering all of the same tired "art-speak" onto a different medium (woodturning) in order to sell a $100 hollowform for $3000 afterward. Nor do I want to see a purely woodturning-oriented project here. Valid opinions and reviews come not only from those officially trained in the arts.

On a side note here .... I often have to chuckle at my friends that have art and design degrees. Most of them purport to believe that only they (and those with the same formal training) have the right to critique and review others' work "for the good of the art community." What an attitude.

True. I can see that the continuity is important. I would just hate to see a reviewer being permanent over a very long period of time. I'm more along the lines of a person that asks "what have you done to deserve this lately". The past accomplishments of a person gets my respect but doesn't automatically give them license in the present and future for me. On a different vein, what kind of permanent panel member would you attract if they are *required* to commit to these reviews (although not nearly as many as I had originally imagined) and do so on a regular schedule. I don't think it's very fair to expect those people, already overworked I assume, to commit to that. Maybe a turner like John Jordan has far more time than I imagine he does.

Maybe, but I don't see them doing anything about it either!

This goes along with what I said a couple of paragraphs above. Maybe it won't be as big of a time issue than I imagine. A thought that just crossed my mind was this ... how good of a review can we expect to get with just a picture or pictures no matter how detailed? I know that this is done for review for inclusion into print, galleries, or juried shows but for this kind of critique we're hoping for? Much of the work with woodturned objects, being 3D in nature, has to do with it's feel much more than a watercolor, for example. Am I just far off base here?

I think I'd like to see, eventually because of the nature of the web-based universe I'm so immersed into, a way for the "public at large" voice their opinions about the reviewed piece as well. It doesn't mean that it can't be a moderated place (with concern over the backbiting and other problems inherent in that). It also doesn't mean that those public comments need to be included in the book. I would just like to see, again eventually, some of the interactive nature of the web (as opposed to your book-oriented thoughts) be used here. Otherwise, you might as well just personally pick out some pieces that are worthy of review that you know about and get some comments from a few turners, artists, collectors, galleries and just make a book out of it and be done. If you're going to use the web then actually use it to it's best advantage.

I'm a young guy (I guess it's all relative) and would like to see double that on a website with maybe 50 select turnings from that group make it into a book. I know it would take some time and momentum to expect that but as long as we're dreaming ....

As most websites are that way. Any ideas for a website name (domain name ... it looks more professional and independent than just tacking it onto an existing site)? With such a smaller scope and depth as you propose, this is completely workable from a website technical standpoint on about any budget and location. There will be some minor backend database work (even more specifically my expertise) and front-end website design and coding (I stink at design .. I usually leave that to the professional designers and do all of the backend coding/admin/technical stuff myself). The key is going to be all of the work of getting reviewers and procedures in place.

- Andrew (who didn't keep it short .. sorry)

Reply to
AHilton

I went to his demo on Sunday. He did a good job of showing the entire process - focused on creating a small box from a star inlay patterned wood that he created. Since the content was new to me I felt the demo was very worthwhile. I would go to more of his demos in the future. This type of demo was why I attended the symposium.

Plusses: > Created the box from start to finish, discussing the piece and technique while doing it > Passed numerous samples around during demo > Demo content was organized from start to finish and effectively covered the time allotted > Courteous answers to all the questions during the demo. And was helpful after the demo too. > Showed and discussed each tool during its use, and explained why he used that specific tool.

Minuses: > Small communications problem - he did not know all the English words for the techniques used. But he speaks better English that I do Iraeli !! > Too much time on sanding grit discussion - which he finally remedied by putting it on the whiteboard

Jeff Jilg Austin, TX

Reply to
Jeff Jilg

On this point, I'll jump in here. It's most certainly a background sort of thing but books (if we're talking about the actual physical book and not the literary form of a "book") are the worst possible means of *archiving* in this age. Sure, they were better than those blasted scrolls rolling down the hills behind my home or my nicely carved stone tablets that kept getting broken when sent them via mail to the publisher but they aren't much good anymore to many (certainly not most in the world but that's changing rapidly) in this area. My wife, a writer, thinks I'm (also a published fiction writer but far less so) nuts on that issue.

- Andrew

Reply to
AHilton

Reply to
Dan Bollinger

My suggestion to invite turners of stature to critique their own work on a moderated forum with pictures is clearly not a good idea. Why wouldn't this be a useful project for the time between conferences & symposia? Not all of us travel or live in large cities or belong to big clubs to be exposed to the current ideas of leading experts . This thinking is rarely found in books, tapes or ng's with their 'one pearl per read or view'. Elitist or not, experts and leaders (and yes, pseudos) do exist in all fields of endeavor. I'd appreciate a gentle answer, off line if the idea is so odious as to best be ignored here. :) Arch

Fortiter,

Reply to
Arch

Arch

Asking folks who earn their living selling expensive turned wood to critique their own work in a public forum is like asking Colonel Sander to admit he sells dead chickens. Don't we have enough reality shows?

Juergen

Arch wrote:

Reply to
Juergen

Jim

I would like to see more emphasis on design, form and "artists topics"

The "what" is for beginners The "how to" is for the hobbyists The "WHY" is for those with a bit of experience and a desire to take the next steps in being a real artist

I think we need to push for more of the art/creative topics to be covered.

In Providence last year, Frank Sudol presented a speech entitled "Starting Your Creative Engine" I drank it up. David Ellsworth and John Jordan did a general discussion session - which quickly turned into a Gallery/Jury how to. Jacques Vessery did a discussion on design and carving and it was jam packed!

We intermediate to advanced turners are thirsty for validation of our work and need information to help us in taking the next step in being a "professional" wood artist.

just my 2 cents!

Ray Sandusky

formatting link

Reply to
Ray Sandusky

Thanks Juergen, Trolls & COCs hate to be ignored. My suggestions often beat a dead horse, but never a dead chicken. ;) Arch

Fortiter,

Reply to
Arch

Arch Perhaps what we need or would at least like to have is a teaching site where wood turners are able to post a picture of a wood section and then show what they did to get from a to b to c to... and why. This is more along the lines of what a professional does at a demo or club presentation, not so much a critique of their work as an explanation. Ruth alluded to this on another post as a "how do I get ideas from this disaster of a piece of wood?" sort of question. On the other hand it is still asking a pro to spend a fair amount of time teaching when they can be turning for profit. Put a few of them together and the book would likely sell though.

Reply to
Darrell Feltmate

Hi Tony,

First of all you should know that I have already been to your site and admire your work.

Eli is my teacher and he's one of if not the best here in Israel. My English is passable because I'm originally from California. =o)

I took a basic course from him and kept up with his whirlwind pace and now that I have been turning for six months now, you would think that I have been tuning for much longer. I'm sure wading through the books and videos helped a bit, too. The most impressive thing he showed me besides regular work is pieces that he received from professionals and his execution of the same pieces, most times with improvements. His was recognizably better.

You should certainly make a point to see him and please send him my regards, Reuven [my Hebrew name] from Israel, that will freak him out.

All the best,

Ron

Reply to
RonZ

Ron wrote: "What I would like to have is a place where I can post my work and professionals critique my work." ...snip... and "... find out what's the 'tolorence level' of mistakes for works to be sold or if the shapes I have come up with catch the eye..."

***************************** Ron, For the first part of your request, there are already two sites where you can post your work and professionals will critique it if you ask; one is WOW (World of Woodturners, email Herm de Vries for info) and the other is WoodCentral. There may be other sites, I only know these two. On WOW we have Wally Dickerman, Andi Wolfe, John Jordan, Art Liestman, Jack Straka and a few more I can't think of at the moment. Great "critique panel"!!!

As to "tolorence level" for mistakes; you'll "catch the eye" of potential buyers if there are no mistakes and your designs are original. If you are already pointing out flaws to relatives, you know what needs to be improved about the design or workmanship already. No professional is going to say "well, this mistake is ok".

To All, This need for "professionals to critique" your work bothers me for this reason; how can you learn to develop your own style and become famous if you want someone else's opinion?

Yes, I know when you are beginning, it is great to have someone say, "cut the bottom in more", "turn the top lower", "take out that flat area", (opinions from WOW) but after you've been turning a number of years, you should be aware of flaws in form or technique.

Yes, even professionals can get "opinions" (better word for "critique") that will improve or veer a *new design. John Jordan did it recently on WOW; some raved about his new design and a few (braver souls!) pointed out why and what they did not like about the design. Of course, John didn't ask if his technique was good, he merely asked what we thought of his new idea for a design. Frank Sudol's "Getting Your Creative Juices Flowing" rotation has also been mentioned and I attended one in RI. The very first 15 min. he basically said "do not look for other's opinions, do not seek professional critique", they are YOUR creative juices, if you look for other's approval of your design, you are only going to end up copying and not creating.

I don't understand all this need for a "professional's critique", there are "professionals" that I (personally) wouldn't want their opinion because I don't like what they are creating. They are famous, they are selling one piece for what I make in a year, but I still don't want their opinion of my work.

Doggone I didn't even see myself step up on Frank's soapbox! : )

Sorry if I offended anyone, you know I would never do that intentionally.

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.