Random musings about genetically perceived good work. (long)

Arch · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

This is not to imply that turned wooden objects whether for use or for
appealing to the senses are not worthy of doing the best we can. Turning
a salad bowl to be as handsome as you can make it isn't the same as
trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, nor is creating a lovely
turned work of art tantamount to gilding a corn stalk. How do we decide
when we've 'done good'? It's getting to be that the decision is not
ours to make. It's in the perception of others.

The hows for trying for our best instead of whats and whys is the
subject of most of our threads as it should be for a ng called rec.
crafts woodturning. It seems to me that we all measure the usefulness
of a turned platter or bowl with much the same standards. Whether there
are standards for turnings to satisfy our senses isn't so universal.
Some people appreciate discordant strident music, some don't.

I wonder if like sheep we are being herded into 'standards for beauty'
by other's critical opinions instead of our own five senses. We all
protest that "we turn for ourselves" and "we don't care what others
think". But is there an ingrained beauty recognition gene, a universal
standard for creative beauty that unknowingly we adhere to, aided and
abetted (herded) of course, by the critiques of those ever present
'others' ...a sort of reverse meaning to "turning by the numbers" I
mean connecting the dots to create a fine instead of a humble object.
It's always easier to turn inside the frame.

Anyway & whatever, the old "eye of the beholder" line may be more truth
than cop-out. Trying to define what makes for a beautiful turned form
may be as someone said about love, "If we could define it precisely, it
would disappear". Showing a turning or a picture of it followed by a
gaggle of attempts by other turners to define its ugliness or beauty
might have a destructive effect on the forms we turn, even if if we
believe we turn them only for ourselves.

Should we all try to define precisely what makes for an ugly bowl? If we
could all agree, it might disappear. That will never happen owing to the
"eye of the beholder" law which some critics scorn and think to be
unconstitutional, but they claim to know beauty, not ugly like some of
us do.

It's obvious that I've never had any formal training or took a class in
art or asthetics, but I know that no woman with a pleasng personality is
ever ugly. Could it be the same with our turnings? Smile

Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter

http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Archived from group: rec>crafts>woodturning

Leo Lichtman · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 122

"Arch" wrote: (clip)gilding a corn stalk. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can see that a gilded corn stalk might be quite attractive.

The questions you are raising about esthetics keep coming up, not only among
wood turners, but also among painters, photographers, architects, designers,
to name a few. The subject is complex, and I don't think will ever be
completely resolved, which is why it keeps coming up. As a photographer, I
am quite familiar with the rules of composition. These rules represent
centuries of experience, but they do not *determine* what is beautiful.
They are no more than helpful guides. The danger is that once you learn the
"rules," you may start being controlled by them, and your independent
esthetic sense could fade away.

When everyone starts following the same rules, we are on the road to
dullness. Inevitably, though, someone with a backbone comes along and
starts does something different, creating a new excitement, possibly a new
trend, some new rules, and eventually a new dullness.

John · Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 61

In message ,
Leo Lichtman writes
>
>"Arch" wrote: (clip)gilding a corn stalk. (clip)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I can see that a gilded corn stalk might be quite attractive.
>
>The questions you are raising about esthetics keep coming up, not only among
>wood turners, but also among painters, photographers, architects, designers,
>to name a few. The subject is complex, and I don't think will ever be
>completely resolved, which is why it keeps coming up. As a photographer, I
>am quite familiar with the rules of composition. These rules represent
>centuries of experience, but they do not *determine* what is beautiful.
>They are no more than helpful guides. The danger is that once you learn the
>"rules," you may start being controlled by them, and your independent
>esthetic sense could fade away.
>
>When everyone starts following the same rules, we are on the road to
>dullness. Inevitably, though, someone with a backbone comes along and
>starts does something different, creating a new excitement, possibly a new
>trend, some new rules, and eventually a new dullness.
>
>
Do you find that with your photography, even though you know the rules,
you can take 1000's of photographs, which when you look at them you say
to yourself ok, ok ,ok and then you find one where you say to yourself
'I Like' ? I find I do that with Pictures, art, buildings, craft
objects, basically anything where there is an element of art. Now I play
with turning, I find I the same. An object can be complex, which I will
say 'neat', or 'clever', but it doesn't mean the same as ' I like'. It
is as though when 'I like' something deep inside me has been touched,
maybe its emotion, maybe its the lines of the object flow perfectly
together, maybe its a million and one things all combining together in
one instance

I think the term that comes to mind is rules are meant to be broken, try
it, how else do we really learn something new ?
--
John

Lobby Dosser · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 105

almcc@webtv.net (Arch) wrote:

>
> It's obvious that I've never had any formal training or took a class
> in art or asthetics, but I know that no woman with a pleasng
> personality is ever ugly. Could it be the same with our turnings? Smile

Same here, I may not know much about art, but I know what I like. Smile

Turns out that most(?) people from diverse cultures and walks of life
know what they like and it is all down to Nature. There are natural
forms such as the golden section and the Fibonacci series that appeal to
all.

Here are some books I can recommend:

Geometry of Design by Kimberly Elam - Overlays are especially useful.

Fragments of Infinity by Ivars Peterson - Some lovely step by step art &
more.

Nature's Numbers by Ian Stewart - Why do tigers have stripes and
leopards have spots?

Arch · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

Of course I was aware of my redundancy. I had tried to put a mildly
entertaining and slightly different spin from a narrow but hopefully a
little different perspective on the tired old question. My 'can opener'
wasn't too creative, but I thank you all for good responses to it.

Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter

http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Leo Lichtman · Joined: 01 Aug 2007 Posts: 122

"John" WROTE: Do you find that with your photography, even though you know
the rules,
> you can take 1000's of photographs, which when you look at them you say to
> yourself ok, ok ,ok and then you find one where you say to yourself 'I
> Like' ? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I often have difficulty judging my own work. Yes, it is only occasionally
that something immediately rises above the rest. Frequently I file pictures
away that are not bad enough to throw away, and later I start to like them
more. It's a little harder to file bowls away, since shelf space does not
obey Moore's law. Smile

Rick Frazier · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 11

Arch wrote:

> [much snippage]
>
> I wonder if like sheep we are being herded into 'standards for beauty'
> by other's critical opinions instead of our own five senses.
>
> Anyway & whatever, the old "eye of the beholder" line may be more truth
> than cop-out. Trying to define what makes for a beautiful turned form
> may be as someone said about love, "If we could define it precisely, it
> would disappear". Showing a turning or a picture of it followed by a
> gaggle of attempts by other turners to define its ugliness or beauty
> might have a destructive effect on the forms we turn, even if if we
> believe we turn them only for ourselves.
>
> Should we all try to define precisely what makes for an ugly bowl? >
>
>
> Turn to Safety, Arch

As with women, the old saying comes to mind. "Beauty is only skin deep,
but Ugly goes clear to the bone"

Of course, trying to eliminate ugly will only stifle creativity, and as
our tastes change (individually or as a society) the relative
definitions of beauty and ugliness tend to change as well.

Generally speaking, in today's thought, ugly in a bowl (or other vessel)
is something that "looks heavy or clunky" and has lines that are not
continuous or smooth curves. Just as we tend to see animals with big
eyes (squirrels, kittens, puppies) as "cute" and those with tiny eyes
(rats, etc) as ugly or distasteful, so do we have similar cultural
tastes when it comes to art. If we look back into history, we find many
of the "classic forms" are those with smooth, flowing lines that tend to
look "light" relative to the surface they sit or stand on. Heaviness
has little to do with the physical weight or wall thickness of a peice,
(though the turn it paper thin crowd will sure to differ with me) but
does have a lot to do with whether the object seems to rise above the
planar surface it sits on. Of course, with wood as with many art
objects, many feel that art should be pleasing to touch and hold, so
there is definitely a benefit to create something that is relatively
light for it's size, as it is easier to hold and typically judged as
more pleasing to handle. NO need to go overboard, but to a reasonable
level, lighter is good if not overdone.

Of course, any approach can be taken to make a statement, and much art
is about a statement made by the artist. Whether it's to evoke thought
or emotion, or to prove they can do something nobody else can do really
doesn't matter, so long as nobody gets hurt....

--but I digress --- back to "good work"

The popularized use of the "golden mean" [which is typically no more
than a proportion using 1 to 1.6 as the base ratio] to define shapes,
relative to diameter vs height, and so forth, is probably more clinical
than I really want to get with this reply, which is likely too long
already... However, what is considered Good and what is considered Bad
is often shadowed by the capabilities (and learned opinion) of the one
doing the judging.

A smooth, simple line can go a long ways towards causing a wider variety
of people to see an object as good. Following established and accepted
standard forms (like the ancient and/or classic forms) can't hurt,
though then we get into whether it is a learned thing, or a reasoned or
feeling one. (I suppose this is why Arch used the words "genetically
perceived" to begin with.) The same applies to color. We tend to like
objects that use harmonious colors, and dislike those with discordant
ones, though the same argument that learned responses of what is good or
bad tends to overpower any innate sense that would come through if there
was a lack of societal pressure.

---
After reading the above, I start feeling that I don't really know the
answer after all, but as they say, I don't know about art but I know
what I like. For me, good is a bowl or vessel that has consistent,
smoothly changing curves free of odd or flat transitions. In short, one
that feels smooth and has easy transitions when caressed, even with the
eyes closed. Bad has rough transitions or flat spots in the curve (or if
flat spots were intentional, they are irregular). Good is a vessel that
appears to sit above the planar surface it sits on, bad is one that
looks like a lump of clay that was dropped on that surface. Good is a
vessel that has been finished to not show errant sanding scratches and
has a finish that compliments the wood, whether it be matte oiled, waxed
and shiny, polished oil, varnish, lacquer, shellac or other film finish,
so long as it is consistent on the object and looks like it was desired,
not just happened.

OK, so now I finally get the point that none of us really knows what
good is without some sort of input relative to the society in which we
live. Thanks Arch, for waking me back up again.

Damn, that means I'm going to have to re-evaluate some of the things
I've been taking for granted lately (again...)

Thanks
--Rick

Arch · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

Rick, many thanks for taking time to respond with your very readable and
thought provoking comments. Responses like yours and all the good
contributors to this ng show the value of uncensored dialog about any
facet of woodturning; a happy mix of its hows, whys and what's.

In spite of spam, doggerel, sarcasm, spats, flames and whatever else
"goes bump in the night", turners at any level or attitude can learn and
share much here.

Anyone interested in woodturning should feel free to post to this ng
since a silly question or a profound answer is only in the eye of rcw's
disparate beholders. Smile

Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter

http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Fred Holder · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 29

On Feb 21, 10:21 am, al...@webtv.net (Arch) wrote:
> This is not to imply that turned wooden objects whether for use or for
> appealing to the senses are not worthy of doing the best we can. Turning
> a salad bowl to be as handsome as you can make it isn't the same as
> trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, nor is creating a lovely
> turned work of art tantamount to gilding a corn stalk. How do we decide
> when we've 'done good'? It's getting to be that the decision is not
> ours to make. It's in the perception of others.
>
(clipped)
> Turn to Safety, Arch
> Fortiter
>
> http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Hello Arch and others,

When I was doing craft shows a number of years ago, I came to the
conclusion that every piece we make has an owner, we just have to find
that person. At my first craft show in 1993, I had some nice pieces
for sale but my wife had insisted that I take my first bowl also. I
considered it to be awful and no one would consider purchasing it. It
was the only piece that sold at that event. The lady walked up and
grabbed that bowl and said I'll take it, without even asking the
price.

Another time I was at the Anacortes Arts and Crafts show in about 1995
with a rented booth and tent. I had a vase that I thought ugly, so it
was displayed in the very back of the exhibit. A lady walked in and
pushed her way right through the crowd looking at my work and said,
"That's mine." without looking at the price. That was the time when I
realized that every piece we make has an owner, we just have to find
them.

What is beauty to one person may be ugly to another, regardless of the
rules that we apply. That doesn't mean that we should not try to do
our very best work on every piece that we produce even if it is only
for ourselves.

Fred Holder

tww · Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 2

The recent post about every turning having a customer brought several
things to mind. The first two have nothing directly to do with
turning or do they?

First, Catholic monks who live in monastaries where they cycle through
reading the Psalms can have a passage in a Psalm have great meaning to
them one time when they read it and then mean little the next time
they read it.

Second, the author of some book on Zen said he had read one Zen book
multiple times using a different color pencil to mark what was
important and saw how what was going on in his mind varied over
time.

Third, when I started playing with making wooden bowls I created a
series of bowls I named 'the firepit collection'. They went into a
firepit in our yard awaiting heat and oxygen. Once when we had guests
over they wanted to start a fire in the firepit so I said OK. A little
while later I looked outside and saw one person with a rake pulling
things from the fire and another kneeling down reaching into the fire
and pulling something out. They thought my trash had some value to
them and were rescuing it.

My point is people see things in their environment that somehow
connects with what is going on with the stirrings in their minds at a
point in time. When someone sees a turning that somehow clicks with
what is happening inside their heads they may want it.

There is also the idea of 'meaningful coincidences' where people have
events happen that seem like coincidences but have some sort of
meaning to them. Finding what to them is a work of art could be one of
those chance happenings.

Now, I suppose is hard telling how to use any of this to get people
to part with their money.

Ted · Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 11

I keep a pile out in the back of my barn/workshop where I through
scraps and such. Every so often my uncle or one of my cousins brings
over a trailer, loads up all of the scraps and uses then to start
fires in the winter.

Some of the scraps are roughed bowls that are cracked to bad to be
able to finish. One day I noticed a few of these cracked, weathered,
thick, oval, waxed, nasty looking pieces in my aunts flower garden.
She was using them as pots to put plants in. Who would have thought.

Ted

Arch · Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 165

There may be another reason why people will buy art/craft. At one time
my daughter owned a gallery in SOHO (Broome & Broadway in NYC). In this
venue she enjoyed a fairly sophisticated spectrum of patrons and
artists. Here in S. Fl we have attended several fund raising art shows.
Whether in NY or Fl and I suspect in Kansas or Idaho, the same purchase
patterns seem to obtain.

I think people want to buy something whether to show support of a cause
or to assuage their guilt over regularly
consuming free wine and cheese with no thought of buying. In many cases
it doesn't seem to matter what the object is, so long that it is not too
expensive in the particular buyer's financial situation, but the low end
goods sure sell better regardless of the clientele.

I remember Lori buying a particularly uninspiring, but surprisingly
affordable painting at one art 'do'. I inquired why it never hung at our
house. She replied, "we had to buy something", I say, "thank goodness
for the "affordable shows". We are not alone. Many affordable
paintings reside in the closets of our town.

Moral: In many venues and especially at fund raisers, don't be sure
someone loved your bowl or your work found its one happy owner just
because that someone bought it. Maybe they could afford it. Smile

Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter

http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

Random musings of a COC. If I can't turn it, I'll disparage Painting a wooden bowl turned on a lathe and terming the effort 'Turning Wood' is sort of like painting a sunset on a canvas and calling the effort 'Weaving Cloth'. A good turner who knows nothing about the craft is sort of like a good driver who knows no

A COC's musings. Unhappy holidays and all that. I think turning wood on a lathe using hand held tools is a hand(i)craft. Being a craft it requires skill and ability to use our hands. Our hands are not tool posts nor top slides and our arms are not cross slides nor lead screws and in my view we don't 'm

interminable musings of an eccentric who turns concentric. I rarely draw crossing diagonals in the ends of blanks to locate centers. I never check spindle speeds with a tachometer. I don't mike bevel lengths or protractor accurate bevel angles. I don't weigh bowl blanks, or measure exact lengths and diameters of

Really stupid musings, sorry 'bout the waste of bandwidth To all of you woodworking Frank Zappa fans; I just got my Domino Friday and have been using it all morning and the song that keeps running through my tiny little brain is a version of DOMINO-HUM. Marc (who should be "outside now" because it is sunny and i

RANDOM Mising of COC Remember that life is not a journey to the grave but a trip that should end with a lot of hoopla screaming what a trip it was