PDA

View Full Version : Article to discuss "The case against the vessel"



Richard Findley
18th June 2007, 09:33 AM
Hi All,

I'm a member of the AWGB forum(UK) and the Woodturning Online Forum(US). We've been disscussing an article which is posted on the net at:

http://www.woodturningcenter.org/TurningPoints/002/TP002_Exton.pdf (http://www.woodturningcenter.org/TurningPoints/002/TP002_Exton.pdf)

Warning for dialup users - 2.6 Mb download (Thanks Cliff) :2tsup:

Thought it might be worth a look. Its a bit heavy going but might get a discussion going!! :;

Cheers,

Richard:2tsup:

Cliff Rogers
18th June 2007, 10:32 AM
Warning for those on dialup, it is a 5 page document that is 2.6Mb, I'm still waiting for it to finish downloading.

rsser
18th June 2007, 04:07 PM
Hmm, I can't really see why he's so dyspeptic about vessels and I disagree that the form is exhausted. There are a myriad of ways of doing them and a look at 500 Bowls opens up my thinking when scoping the possibilities of a nice bit of wood. I can't ever see matching form to wood becoming boring; certainly I'm bored with bowls per se but that's different.

I think there has been a quest by turners like Raffan to refine the bowl for example, and some of the lines in his bowls like the lines in an acorn-shaped enclosed form are very d*mn hard to accomplish.

As for the move to texture, carve, paint etc., a lot of it leaves me cold on aesthetic grounds but there are practitioners (Rolly Munro to name but one) whose work evokes powerful emotional resonances in me and which I do regard as having pushed the boundaries notably.

See also Andew Potocnik with his Interactive and his 'starfish' (I think there's some pics on the ITC site, also http://www.theaustralianwoodturningexhibition.com/ 2006).

I seem to recall Darlow also getting dyspeptic about the infatuation with faceplate turning.

Whatever rings your chimes.

Frank&Earnest
18th June 2007, 04:35 PM
Whatever rings your chimes.

We have already gone down this road, haven't we Ern?:)

rsser
18th June 2007, 06:24 PM
In the case of netcheral v rafeened forms with features ;-} ... whole new ball park here don't you think?

Frank&Earnest
18th June 2007, 07:02 PM
In the case of netcheral v rafeened forms with features ;-} ... whole new ball park here don't you think?

Gosh, do you mean I need to read the article? :D

rsser
18th June 2007, 07:10 PM
:p

Frank&Earnest
18th June 2007, 07:29 PM
Ok, I have read it (I love ADSL2 :D )

I totally agree with the author's diagnosis.
I think he is deluded about the cure. Obsolescence is more powerful than he thinks he is.
I share your feelings, Ern.
Next?

Skew ChiDAMN!!
18th June 2007, 08:28 PM
I fail to see his point. :shrug:

I'm assuming the photos in the article are in support of his arguments... but are they for or against? :? I mean, his plaint is about work being done with other tools off the lathe, right? yet it looks to me that almost all of pictured items have seen the use of non-turning tools at some stage... whether it be a saw, chisel, router or whatever. So what if it was done using an indexed chuck on the lathe? That's just a matter of geography... it's no different to setting up an indexed vice to work in a more comfy environment than standing at a lathe, as I sincerely doubt that the lathe was running at the time.

What's with this banning hollowing? While only two of the pix are spindle turned? I just don't get it. :no: Or are the pix totally irrelevant to the article, being a case of the editor deciding "Oh, we need to fill in some space. What snaps of wood-turned items do we have?"

I'm sorry if I seem thick... but it strikes me as being like a woman giving you the 'come hither' approach while saying "no, no!" What's being said doesn't gel with what's being shown and I'm left feeling "Huh?"

hughie
18th June 2007, 08:38 PM
I read this on another website, left a comment. Dont really see the need to give it any more time, here or anywhere else.


Dont really agree with him and it appears he might have a axe to grind.



I agree with Erns comments, far more eloquent than myself.

rsser
18th June 2007, 09:23 PM
I think the white column piece was the author's Skew.

So, it's not a vessel but it is carved and painted. Yeah, go figure.

Frank&Earnest
18th June 2007, 09:30 PM
Guys, there is a faint smell of denial, here... We all seem to share Ern's feelings, the author might have been grinding an axe a bit, the focus on vessels seems a bit excessive, the relationship between pictures and text might not be clear, but his analysis appears to me very coherent. Wouldn't it be more productive to say specifically what you disagree with, if anything, and why, so we can see if there is a better explanation? Otherwise we can just put it in the too hard basket and have another beer:wink:.

Skew ChiDAMN!!
18th June 2007, 10:23 PM
OK... to me his main case appears to boil down to this statement:

The case against the vessel boils down to this: the fascination with this one form has left wood turning ill-prepared for further innovation. Many thousands of hours have been dedicated to working the vessel; a bare fraction of that time has been spent exploring other uses of the lathe.

I imagine this is true enough, although I've never seen any statistics proving so. It's really just opinion, albeit one I agree with. may disagree though. :D He follows this statement with:

On that basis alone we should assume that we really don't know much about the lathe.

Now, is that loaded or what? (Is he a politican?) "We should assume..." :rolleyes: Why?

Personally, I don't turn vessels... well... apart from my goblets. :- Bowls bore me and hollow forms (decent ones) are beyond my meager abilities. The vast majority of my work is spindle turning and I think I am doing what he's espousing; looking for new forms. Only because that's what interests me. And frankly, it seems to me that short of committing exactly the same "sin," that of falling back on non-turning related tools, there is actually less possible variety of form if you rule out hollowing.

Going back to my "associated photos complaint," there's only one (maybe two, but I have reservations) 100% spindle turned item in the lot. How many variations of that do you think you could come up with and still call yourself "innovative?"

BTW, your shout... it's becoming a dry argument here. :beer:

Frank&Earnest
18th June 2007, 10:35 PM
Yep, what you said.
His opinon we can agree with. His conclusion we don't. What more can we squeeze out of the lathe that we don't already know about? (whatever our ability to actually achieve it).

Sorry, I missed your last sentence. OK, I'll rock up in Croydon (Adelaide suburb:D ) and shout you a beer!

Toolin Around
18th June 2007, 10:52 PM
I think it's much more simple. He's turned lots of vessels... now he's bored with them. The one thing that kept coming into my mind as I read it was, if he's so down on what's going on what's he done to be innovative? So far a google search brings up nothing.

After you've turned a lot of "vessels" you get bored with them. I know I have very little interest anymore in "vessel" turning. I use the lathe most every day but most of that time it's used to work with something other than turning wood.

OGYT
19th June 2007, 08:10 AM
I read the article last week or the week before. Didn't agree with him then, and still don't. Just to be honest with everyone, I believe he's p-oed because he can't think for himself anymore, and rambles on about the craft/art of turning going down the tubes. His article makes me believe that he is overly conceited. Maybe he ought to sell his lathe, and get him a scroll saw or something of that ilk, and leave the turning to those of us that are having fun. I'm still learning, having fun at it, and making a lot of shavings, turning "vessels" and I'm not bored. Once in a while, I even get inovative. When I get bored, I'll quit, without knocking the craft that has given me so much, or those that enjoy it. :stirthepot:

Sebastiaan56
19th June 2007, 01:25 PM
My two bob's worth. As far as I can tell wood turning has been used over the centuries to make functional objects. The obsession with the 20/21st century "artiste" is a recent blip in the progression of aesthetics. Objects were turned to become more useful, ie a bowl is more useful than the log it came from, similarly a recorder makes better music than a stick. It can also be made to be attractive, even beautiful.

To impose the "artiste" upon this artform is to hijack the artform in the service of an intellectual ideal. I wonder how Jackson Pollock would have approached a lathe, or Picasso, or Stravinsky, or Utzon, or Albert Namatjira. You get the idea, the medium informs the output. This wally might be a great critic, but I can criticise as well. :D

Sebastiaan

Frank&Earnest
19th June 2007, 03:12 PM
First paragraph: 100% understood.

Second paragraph: 100% understood if you replace "artform" with "instrument" (or tool, or technique). Is this what you meant? If not, please explain? (I am not a Queensland politician, but I can say this as well :D ).

Sebastiaan56
19th June 2007, 04:08 PM
Hi Frank&Earnest,

I meant to strike a distinction between artform which invariably includes a high degree of craftsmanship and "artiste" which is the 20/21st C persona. The persona is larger than life and the bloated ego is called the "artist", often severely lacking in craftsmanship. The art industry breeds a symbiotic leech called "critics", a bit like society breeds "politicians". It is the critics who have this ideal in their heads, that we need to push boundaries etc. For most of human history tried and true designs prevailed and the criteria for an object ranked 1. functionality and then 2. aesthetics. 20/21st C art is primarily aesthetic and occasionally functional.

Inevitably great artists are great at their craft as well, hence the listing of some greats. My point is that the medium does determine the output. This critic is stirring the pot.

I guess thats a bit like separation of the powers..... tee hee....

Sebastiaan

Woodturnerjosh
19th June 2007, 06:09 PM
As a Visual Arts student I can totally agree with your comments Sebastiaan, regarding current "artists" lacking craftmanship. As a matter of fact, one of the points I constanly debate with students and teachers about is how little skill a lot of the art you see at commercial galleries displays. Nothing disgusts me more than a painting that looks like it was drawn buy a 12 year old sell for a couple of thousand dollars, give me break!
Anyway, I can agree with what the article says about woodturners concentrating on "vessels" but I don't see what the big deal is. Allain Mailand's work is all based on vessels and I consider his work the most amazing "wood art" I have seen (seriously, check out his website if you don't know his work (no...I don't know how to do a link, stop being lazy and goole his name))
With regards to his point about turners considering the vessel the way an artist considers a canvass well.....artists (painters) still use canvasses and, well, gee, they have only been doing that for a few hundred years. Considering we have only been playing with vessels for a couple of decades we had better change now before it becomes boring and overdone (just in case it wasn't apparent this last paragraph should be read with lots of sarcasm).
Anyway I could rant on and on about what a tool the author is (being at art school I can rant on and on for quite a while about nothing because that is what is recquired of us) but I think I will end it here.
Cheers
Josh :2tsup:

Frank&Earnest
19th June 2007, 08:01 PM
Well, Josh, thank you for clarifying what is required by your teachers... spelling is obviously not a requirement.:p
From the high ground of your artistic education, would you then say that
a) you would not buy a Chagall for a couple of thousand dollars
b) Chagall could draw
c) you are studying art for its snob value but would prefer to be a craftsman
d) you are failing art so you will end up as a craftsman anyway

Just in case it was not apparent, there is quite a bit of sarcasm in the above too:D

Woodturnerjosh
19th June 2007, 08:40 PM
As a matter of fact Frank and Earnest, the only reason I am studying art is to get in to teaching. To be a teacher you have to have completed either a degree in teaching or in another field and do a diploma of education. I thought I was better off doing a degree in art, to work on my carving and turning, than to do a degree in education. Luckily I picked a course that has not been going to long so they were not all that picky about who they let in, :U and I have made my attitude clear to the teachers. Regrettably I will have to make up all the b.s. artists statements about my work to pass, but as long as I get my degree I will tell them what ever they want to hear. That's what education is about anyway....isn't it?:rolleyes:
So, in summation I would say that you are pretty damn close to the mark with option "c" and as a whole painters don't tend to do much for me.
One semester down and all subjects passed 5 more to go:oo: !
Josh

Sebastiaan56
20th June 2007, 07:09 AM
"as long as I get my degree I will tell them what ever they want to hear. That's what education is about anyway....isn't it?"

Way to go Josh! the times where insitutional education was about questioning and exploring are long gone. When you are out you can start thinking,

Sebastiaan

cedar n silky
20th June 2007, 08:21 AM
It's great to read all the comments so far.:2tsup: I guess I go a bit cold when I read heavy intellectual critiques of the state of wood turning (vessells).
I read some of it, and saved it for another time, but I "glaze over" when I read this sort of stuff.
For me it has been a personal journey (as with most turners, novice and profesional I am sure), if I can coin a "corny" phrase.
I have gone from turning thick awkward bowls and am now turning more stylish and appealing forms. But I am now concetrating on "functional" turnings. I will probably move into another 'phase" as my skills improve, but at the end of the day, I don't take intelectual criticism too seriously.
Geting back on the "lathe" has given me a focus at a difficult time, and it is a personal journey for me, in exploring the beauty that timber can be revealed, as we work it.

cedar n silky
20th June 2007, 09:07 AM
Further to that, and I know I am straying from the subject, but "having just drunk a strong coffee" on a bitterly cold morning (god knows what it must be like down South!) I would have no qualms about selling a pen bowl to a highly paid CEO for $10,000 (not that it is likely to happen!) if that person likes it and wants to call it "art".
I will give away my best turnings to a penniless person if I see that it is greatly appreciated and loved. (maybe I can call that craft or art-who cares?)
What's in a name.
It is an inate instinct for us all to be connected with a peice of nature! No matter how devoid and stark our environment becomes. One might live in an apartment but they most likely buy flowers to bring a bit of "nature" indoors, and probably have a wooden item or two as well.
Thats the case with wooden forms, I beleive.
You don't see shoppers picking up plastic bowls and feeling them or looking under them!:) People buy wood because it brings "nature' into their lives. It also connects the creator of that object with the holder on a personal level. (A mass produced item in a factory canot do that) As a craftsman (ex carpenter) I get great joy revisiting places where my work has stood the test of time, 30 years later. Still there, and still good!
I don't imagine that vesel turning will sudenly stop because someone has raised the issue. There will always be people wanting to enjoy wood (whether for function or asthetics), and there will always be people wanting to make things from wood. It goes back to the begining of civilization.:)

rsser
20th June 2007, 09:53 AM
OK Richard, you dropped this grenade ...what's your take?

(Good point Tony. Art costs! :wink: )

reeves
20th June 2007, 10:45 AM
ok I read the article, interesting but its a bit of a wank isnt it?

It really started to me off when I got the part where is suggesting a moratorium on hollowing for a year for turners, ostensibly to promote exploration of non hollow items, meaning no vessels i guess. he is arrogant and stupid enough to suggest that turner 'shouldnt' make up thier own minds about what they make and instead follow his lead, which seems to going away from the core functions of skill development (hollowing be a defined skill) and earning a living from ones work, not to mention meeting the needs of buyers of woodturning work and producing quality items from beautiful woods.

To suggest innovation is not happening in various forms is not only disresepectful to the many talented turners who are pushing the boundries a bit creativley speaking but suggesting that the 'vessel' itself is not relevant anymore is ignoring the fundemental basics of the turning craft whether it is functionaly based (usable) or artistic (aesthetic sculture).

Woodturning will always be limited because it makes essentialy round objects (eccentric turning only adpats this propensity).

The term 'vessel is also a bit of a wank, vessel being any kind of container really.

Whilst bowls can get a bit boring, its probably impossible to define the 'perfect' bowl, so turners will always be able to stretch their skills and techniques whether its with carving, dying, decoration, hollowing or whatever.

I like the 500 bowls book, its full of different ideas but the really abstract stuff leaves me cold, might look good but its so far away from the original concept of woodturning that it becomes art or sculpture and then it purely subjective, some people will like it others not not, it's usefulness is gone and its becomes art, of which there is many forms.

The container-ness of the vessel, its ability to actually do something useful, like hold things is at the basis of bowl or box or vase turning, no matter what then adaptions.

My guess is that the articles writer, Peter Exton is just making exuses for his own lack of innovation and trying to build himself a case to produce more high selling 'art'. theres no way he could possible comment accuratley on the diversity of work from thousands of woodturners.

If he doesnt want to deal in 'vessels' or faceplate turning why bother turning at all, move into moulding clay or welding steel where he wont be restricted by the nature of the lathe or the wood.

At the and of the day is surely about the beauty of the wood and the skill of the practitioner. There has probably been more development in the nature of woodturning in the last 20 years than in the last 5,000 years so I dont think he has much to bitch about.

The art gallery market has given tuners fresh ways or making a living and exploring their craft, which will always have its root in the making of useful day to day objects no matter how decorative they get.

So I say drop the vessell crap, call it a bowl, or vase or pot or whatever, or call it an art sculpture, call it what it is and appreciate the work of the thousands of turners who in many different ways, strive to bring out the beauty of wood.

Then use that appreciation to develop your own skills and presentation as an example and inspiration to other turners, not a bland generalisation as criticism.

heres the guys site, http://www.peterexton.com/ a blurb but no turned examples

Frank&Earnest
20th June 2007, 12:10 PM
If he doesnt want to deal in 'vessels' or spindle turning why bother turning at all, move into moulding clay or welding steel where he wont be restricted by the nature of the lathe or the wood.



When all is said and done, I think this sums it up.

reeves
20th June 2007, 12:37 PM
yes i agree Frank.

On second thoughts maybe the future of turning is going the same way as painting did in the 50's when it had gotten pretty boring so 'action' painting came along to liven things up,a complete breakdown of form, represented by Jackson Pollock( ya know, Blue Poles in the national gallery), the guys gets drunk and throws paint at the canvas.

Maybe the guidance we get from the article is that we should just stick any old hunk of wood on the lathe, turn it on to the highest speed and just throw things at it, anything, really, chainsaws, chisels, paint, nail polish remover, small dogs, bodily fluids, car parts, underwear and takeway food...

then stand back and call it art.

From the guys site, which has a list of his achievments but no lathe work pics and from the article where his scuplture at page bottom is easily the least interesting, least skilled and most boring of all the turning work pics in that PDF, we could probably conclude that he is a careerist, trying to get awards and credentials to further himself rather than a genuine woodworker who loves woodturning and appreciate the efforts of other turners.

Frank&Earnest
20th June 2007, 12:42 PM
Hey, don't push it - of course you agree, you said it!:D

reeves
20th June 2007, 12:52 PM
Hey, don't push it - of course you agree, you said it!:D

jeeez, so u mean i was agreeing with meself, sorry missed that bit :doh:
I thort i was agreeing with U...i was out sharpening my hollowing chisel, very sharp...now for some really crappy wood..:~:o:2tsup:

Frank&Earnest
20th June 2007, 03:48 PM
Here it is: 100% spindle turned, pure art!:D

reeves
20th June 2007, 07:17 PM
Here it is: 100% spindle turned, pure art!:D

ahha now thats funny!

art for sure and not a hollow in in sight

Richard Findley
21st June 2007, 09:34 AM
Hi Guys,

Thought it might get you all talking. As for me, I would rather be called a craftsman than an artist. I aim to make nice things that people will buy, or stuff that people order from me and experiment a little when I have time.

I think many of you guys are far more articulate than I am and have done a grand job of showing us your opinions:2tsup: .

I made the point that the lathe mostly makes things round on the AWGB forum and was firmly told off because you can make off centre stuff... blah blah... but I think my point, that the lathe, as a tool, is in itself limiting, still stands.

I also told of a bowl I made from a nice piece of Horse Chestnut Burr, it was well finished, had flowing curves, nice pieces of burr, solid wood, bark and some natural holes etc etc... all the stuff its supposed to have, and the main comment I got about it from most people I showed was "that wouldn't hold much would it!":doh: In fact, it's been christened "The Cullinder"!!! :doh: :doh:

I find a lot of these arty types tend to take them selves rather to seriously and I must admit I don't have much time for folk like that:~ !

The other thing I wondered was, does any one else think that the term "Craft" has been hyjacked by people who do cross stitch and make cards using beads and glue?? I wondered if this is why so many people prefer to be called artists?

Just a thought,

Richard

rsser
21st June 2007, 09:59 AM
Could be.

I find it a tired distinction though and an exhausted debate. I don't label myself as either (though when searching for a web domain name opted for wood turned art or somesuch (never use it) to indicate that my work was intended to be decorative rather than functional).

reeves
21st June 2007, 11:12 AM
one of the most interesting turnings i have seen for a while was in the woodturning mag where a highly experienced turner from Germany turned a rough piece of wood into perfectly proportion bowl and left the grey outside of the plank alone, making the top rim. The piece was raw wood no finish at all but it had presence and its lines and form was pitch perfect.

This piece was exhibited in a gallery and works as a bowl, vessell and art so I guess thats a good example of how skill and appreciation for wood can cover all 3 bases.

with a view to Extons article i looked through the 2006 AWE exhibition

http://www.theaustralianwoodturningexhibition.com/

and while vessels of varying kinds predominate, there is definatley some innovation happening using the lathe for scuptural forms like the praying mantis and other non vessell works. Pretty creative stuff. I just wish whoever built the website had got the images and resolution working in a better more professional manner.

I had always been a bit sqeamish about hollowing, mainly cos it wastes a lot of good wood but tried some experiements recently and its take a lot of skill to develop and does provide a functional vessel form that people like or even expect, but yes its creates a lot of sawdust.

there an old Bukowski quote, hes an american poet..

"art, as the spirit wanes the form appears"

Maybe Mr Extons spirit has waned a little to far ;-)

ticklingmedusa
22nd June 2007, 04:00 PM
I wasnt going to respond to this because after I first read the article my
thought was: Why should I respond to a critic if it doesnt
really matter to me what he thinks?
I may not agree with everything he said but for me it ended up being thought provoking.
After seeing the same article sort of stir things up at 3 or 4 other forums
I started thinking about it a little more and what it means to me
and my craft.
If it truly doesn't impact me so much,
why did I keep thinking about it?
Maybe this guy wrote it to deliberately just to stir things up.
It would be interesting if there was a whole new crop of off woodturners who suddenly started cranking out museumworthy woodturnery because this one wanker called our work lame.
(Not likely in my case but fun to think about)
Most of my thinking about this was done at the toolrest
so maybe some of my musings are just the lacquer fumes talking.
I love hollow forms for most of the same reasons everyone else has mentioned i.e., beauty and their utility.
I'd like to be able to chat with the author of the article in an open online
forum. Not so much to rip him a new one but to get inside his head and really understand where he is coming from. Even if he might be on a platform of arrogance and someone I may not agree with.
( If it was person to person maybe I would offer him a brewski & some popcorn from one of my handturned bowls)
At my level of experience I cannot say that my work breaks new ground.
I turn out beautiful things from time to time but unfortunately I don't consider my stuff to be terribly unique or innovative.
There are genius level turners the same way there are genius writers,
musicians or artists,
people who push the limit and think outside of the box. In regard to turning I think of names like Todd Hoyer, Mark Siffri and Jean Escoulen, I'm sure there are others that stand out.
Those are the few that I can recall.
Try these links and have a look...
Or just google search the names.
www.escoulen.com (http://www.escoulen.com/)

http://woodturningcenter.org (http://woodturningcenter.org/)

Interestingly enough, much of their work that jumps out at me isn't utilitarian in its nature. But they are very memorable for their style, content and yes, beauty too.
I wish I owned just a little of the DNA that gives them what they have.
I'm pretty happy with my work , not to say that there is no room
for improvement.
It doesn't mean that I dont respect my fellow turners at these forums
any less. Innovation isn't the sole property of the well known.
It can happen anywhere anytime.
I think turning is a creative and constant learning process and I hope to continue to improve my skills.
But I'm still waiting for the moment when I see something
in the wood that I can bring out that may have never been seen before.
The odds are against that happening but THAT in my opinion is one of the very best things about spinning wood...
We can all participate at whatever level of involvement we choose.
tm

rsser
8th July 2007, 04:15 PM
Just came across this defence/account of the vessel in woodturning ..

http://www.ellsworthstudios.com/david/vessels.html

Captures some of what I think well.

Added: pic of Ellsworth work, 2006 .... does this make you feel the vessel form is exhausted?