Turned art

[reeves]

HI ya'all, i know we dont need another debate on the art vs functional lathe turned items topic but seeing some of the response about the Exton article and various views on the issue i figured it might be worthwhile looking at some works and engaging further discussion.

It's fairly obvious that the influx of art turning over the last several years has developed a new and lucrative market (mainly US side) for experienced or creative turners. It is also obvious that the 'art' side of things has created some uncomfortable conundrums compared to more traditional turning methods and views.

This could probably be summed up as the functional but decorative method vs the only to look at or sculptural method.

I really like some of the more 'artistic' stuff, looks good and i can appreciate art for arts sake. I also appreciate nice functional work that has been sensibly decorated or uses ornamental turning (which is an older tradition).
I also love the basic tradition of wooden functional items where the beauty lies in the wood and the turned form.

Plenty of good examples on this site

http://www.woodturningcenter.org/exhibits.html

and plenty of Australian turners do more creative stuff and possibly earning a better living than they would if they only did functional things.

Plenty of good viewpoints and examples on these forums.

So where does any problems with this lie ?
Is it exploitative or redundant or fallacious or pretentious to go 'too far' away from the basics of turning?
Is it purely a matter of personal subjective views ?
Is it purely the evolution of an age old functional art form ?
Is it stupid to try and make turned items look like they havent been turned?

am I talking crap ?

anyone got any other views ?

cheeeeeeers
john

[ticklingmedusa]

Hey Reeves, I'm too tired to write more so I'll throw this cut & pasted spew of mine here
just to get things moving.
tm



<HR style="COLOR: #663333" SIZE=1>
<!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I wasnt going to respond to this because after I first read the Exton 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 just to get a rise out of him)
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
<!-- / message -->

[Andy Mac]

Hi reeves,
Good to continue that discussion, using the article as a starting point. Mind you I didn't respond to it, mainly because I'm not really a turner (simply use turned elements in my work) so I don't feel qualified to comment, but also I get enough of the art vs. craft, decorative vs. functional debate here at uni!:rolleyes: I just think he has somehow lost his way and wants to afflict everyone else with his malaise!!
There is a book in the library here about Mark Lindquist's work, turned non-functional vessels mostly, but enough of his practice to chart his development. The really intriguing thing about his stuff is the sculptural qualities of the form: the sense of weight and volume, and his appreciation of texture. His experiments with a chainsaw on the lathe are quite remarkable:oo: , and I just appreciate his defection from the pristine, smooth-as-a-babies-bum finish one usually associates with turning! (see here: http://www.lindquiststudios.com/mark-index-online-gallery-vessels.htm)
He has moved on yet again, if his website is anything to go by, with large worked sections of tree trunks, called "ICHIBOKU "http://www.lindquiststudios.com/ICHIBOKUS/Ichiboku-Sculpture-Directory.htm
but these aren't turned I don't think, so irrelevent to the discussion!:p

From my point of view, the whole craft of woodturning has been made redundant in a functional sense, as very few modern items need to be 1/turned out of wood, and 2/made by hand. So from that perspective it comes back to an aesthetic choice, almost to the realm of luxury...as is the case with most real timber products! Someone in the previous thread said it was about the pleasure of having a beautifully crafted piece of timber in the hand or home, and I tend to agree. Therefore it frees the woodturner to do anything: extend the basic form, resaw and join, carve, elaborate with inlay, add differnt forms etc, as there is no need for traditional turnings. Just go for it, the process and the product are justified, with no right or wrong!

Cheers, its Friday arvo and the Farmers Arms beckons...

[hughie]

Reeves,

I find that they are separate and quite distinct and yet both are an extension of the other.

I tend to have a go at both and admire good examples of either.

The Masters of the Art seem to able to combine both at times. To produce some remarkable pieces almost Zen like in the design and execution.

You know when you see one, as it will seem to resonate and touch something within the beholder.Often simple in form, yet seemingly complicated in its simplicity.

My experience to date is that most folks who obtain/purchase such items whether they be functional or artistic tend to treat them as art and at best use them for static displays ie fruit bowls etc.

enuff pontificating.....:U

[Hickory]

I sorta, almost, kinda , agree with the Tickled Medusa until the word genius came into play. These are fine pieces and may be considered art and most definately considered creative expression. It is obvious that the turner was quite skillful, talented, and was creative way outside the realm of normal turning, but to call it genius does not fit the bill for my opinion of genius. The redudnancy of the pieces once the style and technique was accomplished leads itself toward production rather than art.

Far too many times a turner gets a basic design in his skull and unfolds a unique turning, then as you look at the following turning they all show simularity, style (much the same as an artist in oil painting "goes through his Blue phase" or or a writer is stuck on a particular Romance novel) They too ventured away from creativity and into a production era in their works. Was not Shaker unique when it was first created? Or Stickley furniture rather different approach, but over time and repeated production the uniqueness wanes.

Some folks just like to try new approaches and develop new techniques and the result is an attractive piece, perhaps useful, perhaps a piece that makes you fill good when you see it, or a piece that provokes though as to "how he do that?" no more than the intertwined captive rings we turn as a lark, but in a quite grander scale.

Most art forms are someone fiddling around with the media and an idea and let the creative juices flow.... If not then it is production work.

Reeves, I believe is stuck in the "Form Follows Function" aspect of turning and in a way as I look at the mentioned web site... If the pieces are for sale and if there are a lot of hard earned cash exchanged and the pieces are duplicated, then Form Follows Function as the function is to make the dollar and the form is what attracted the buyer. Are they the one and only and on display for all to see or for personal reverance, then it is truely art. for Art's Sake....


I don't expect all or many to totally agree with me and I am stubborn enough not to change and I hope this does not offend any one or group. I just find trouble with folks who think "your stuff's ???? and my ????'s stuff" Please pardon my crude language.

I look at pieces and try to draw pleasure from them and also think of little changes "I would have made" if I had been able to do that. Or try to figure out the approach and technique to do one too, or if it is way out of my league (most are) I just find difficulty when one fellow thinks his/her work is supperior to anothers... Old Dogs & Snobish Cats can lick their own butts too.

[Sebastiaan56]

There was a program on Radio National yesterday about Fashion in Art. Been running for a couple of weeks now. This one was about GF Handel. Most western classical music was written to produce income. Its the benefit of hindsight and some sort of nostalgia that looks back and eulogises the entertainment of the previous generations and calls it "art". So get ready for it, Sex Pistols, Melamine, cassettes, The Brady Bunch, etc, etc. Its already happened to Art Nouveau and Art Deco, purely decorative devices.

Form follows function, the purpose of most modern art including turining is to provide an income for the artist.

Sebastiaan

[Frank&Earnest]

There was a program on Radio National yesterday about Fashion in Art. Been running for a couple of weeks now. This one was about GF Handel. Most western classical music was written to produce income. Its the benefit of hindsight and some sort of nostalgia that looks back and eulogises the entertainment of the previous generations and calls it "art". So get ready for it, Sex Pistols, Melamine, cassettes, The Brady Bunch, etc, etc. Its already happened to Art Nouveau and Art Deco, purely decorative devices.

Form follows function, the purpose of most modern art including turining is to provide an income for the artist.

Sebastiaan

Hi S. I broadly agree with your sentiments, but please allow me to sandpaper over a couple of dig-ins. :D

1- the fact that artists have to eat does not necessarily mean that their products are inferior. It certainly might favour some repetion: I love Vivaldi, but tend to agree with the critics who say that he wrote the same piece 300 times.

2- hindsight and nostalgia might have a minor effect on eulogising the past, but in reality the passing of time is the most powerful reality check: for every Handel there were dozens of also ran, all making a crust in his time, who are now all but forgotten.

3- Maybe form follows function, but when the function is decoration the point is moot, isn't it? You seem to equate function with the artist's purpose.

4- turning (or painting, sculpting...) is not art, is a technique to hopefully produce it (just semantics :) ).

Hope the grit was not too rough...:wink:

Cheers

[rsser]

Some random thoughts ...

1. Sometimes a functional design or problem solution is so elegant we say it's beautiful. So aesthetics is not necessarily just about appearance.

2. One of the things I like about fine vessels is how they feel to touch. I felt like I lost one of the senses when I couldn't pick up some of the pieces at the Woodturning Exhibition last week. Another dimension to aesthetics.

3. Some old phart said that 'beauty is truth, truth beauty'. When I tire of that 'unheard melody' of a bowl exhibiting the Zen truth that Hughie mentions then I'll put the gouges down.

None of what counts is out there. It's all inside. If 'you can know the whole world from a single room' you can assuredly glimpse perfection in a single form.

... ok, back to the shed to flatten the backs of old bench chisels while I've got some fingertips left. The Zen of that is a whole lot harder to get into.

[rsser]

... actually here it goes (or a bit of it), and it was about a vessel too, a Grecian urn:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>When old age shall this generation waste,</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD>Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD>Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD>Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

4- turning (or painting, sculpting...) is not art, is a technique to hopefully produce it (just semantics :) ).

You obviously haven't seen doing the Turner's Tango. :D Now that's Art! Hair-raising, blood-curdling, stomach-churning art! :wink:

[rsser]

..K. Sounds like a WT hakka we should ask him to do on the turners' day :D

[Edit: maybe not hakka. What is it the Maoris do when facing down an enemy?]

[ticklingmedusa]

I recently watched the film "Whale Rider" where hakas were taught to kids.
I was curious about it and googled.
Must have scared the daylights out of Capt. Cook back in the day.
I have to remember to try one the next time I push steel into spinning timber. :D
tm


The haka is a war dance. The words are chanted loudly (shouted) in a menacing way accompanied by arm actions and foot stamping. A haka was traditionally performed before charging into battle.
The Maori pronunciation is basically one vowel per syllable, with the vowels having the European rather than English sound. The `wh' is aspirated almost like an `f' (f is good enough for most people).
As for what it all means, about 140 years ago, a particularly notorious warlike chief named Te Rauparaha of the Ngati Toa tribe (based just North of present day Wellington), was being chased by his enemies. He hid in a kumara pit (the local sweet potato, only much better) and waited in the dark for his pursuers to find him. He heard sounds above and thought he was done for when the top of the pit was opened up and sunshine flooded in. He was blinded and struggled to see those about to slay him, when his sight cleared and he instead saw the hairy legs of the local chief (reputed to have been exceptionally hirsute) who had hid him. Te Rauparaha is said to have jumped from the pit and performed this haka on the spot, so happy was he to have escaped. Undoubtedly, he also had in his mind to do a little pursuing of his own --- Te Rauparaha being that way inclined was he.

Haka


Ka mate Ka mate<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P> </O:P>
It is death It is death
<O:P></O:P>
Ka ora Ka ora<O:P> </O:P>
It is life It is life
<O:P></O:P>
Ka mate Ka mate<O:P> </O:P>
It is death It is death
<O:P></O:P>
Ka ora Ka ora<O:P> </O:P>
It is life It is life
<O:P></O:P>
Tenei Te Tangata Puhuruhuru<O:P> </O:P>
This is the hairy man
<O:P></O:P>
Nana i tiki mai whakawhiti te ra<O:P> </O:P>
Who caused the sun to shine again for me
<O:P></O:P>
Upane Upane<O:P> </O:P>
Up the ladder Up the ladder
<O:P></O:P>
Upane Kaupane<O:P> </O:P>
Up to the top
<O:P></O:P>
Whiti te ra<O:P> </O:P>
The sun shines

[reeves]

From my point of view, the whole craft of woodturning has been made redundant in a functional sense, as very few modern items need to be 1/turned out of wood, and 2/made by hand. So from that perspective it comes back to an aesthetic choice, almost to the realm of luxury...as is the case with most real timber products!

Yes thats true, in functional terms you can get pretty much any item such as bowls, vases, plates etc cheaply in plastic or other materials. People go for wood cos its nice and natural. In an art sense where the item is purley decorative or aesthetic i guess the wood factor is either predominant, as in using the beauty of wood or is painted as its easy to form and work or post processed as in turned then carved, drilled or peirced. In a non vessel sense i guess the object is in reality a scuplture albeit a lathe based one but the common forms are bypassed for the 'pure' scupltural form.

Thanks for the Linquist links, his stuff is great i really like it, leaving rough bits around a defined form. His chainsaw technique sure is inspiring. HI forms and marked logs really retain and promote the raw textures of wood so i guess the beauty of wood is really a motivation for him.


Reeves, I believe is stuck in the "Form Follows Function" aspect of turning and in a way as I look at the mentioned web site..

Not really, i think function determines form. You dont see many square bowls or flat vases or tall platters etc. If as you say the function is aesthetic then i guess any form will do as long it is pleasing to the eye.

One thing I am finding a little confusing is that a lot of people are noting the last 15-20 years in terms of the development of art based turning. I have been reading Holfpazzels book from the 1820's about ornamental turning and they sure had a lot of stuff happening with decorative wooden items back then. Complex techniques but very aesthetic stuff.

It seems turned or just wooden items may have always been decorated in some way, often with tribal or village specific motives. Aboriginals painted or burnt their spears or null nullas, pole lathe wooden bowls were marked in specific ways.

I think the 'real' issue with the current debate has more to do with the art scene itself and overall perception of innovation. Theres alkways been an strong aspect to 20th Century art (now 21st) where genuine innovation is sought and applauded and rewarded by high prices for truly innovative works. The down side of this is that there are probably only a handful of truly innovative artists in any field and true innovation is quite rare.

Tickling Medusa, good comments mate, a maori guy once told me it was toilet pit the chief was hiding in and it was a big hairy mama that he was hiding under.

thanks all for the interesting comments.

[reeves]

I just figured i'd post some actual works for discussion of their qualities in regards to natural form, traditional form, vessell ness, innovation, turned &#37; and carved % and art for aesthetic properties. Also whether the works are are 1 piece or constructed from several pieces of wood seems to have a bearing on the nature of the works.

Ken Wraights Praying mantis
http://www.theaustralianwoodturningexhibition.com/

http://www.theaustralianwoodturningexhibition.com/2006/praying_mantis.jpg

John Woolers jarrah burl scuplture
http://www.johnwooller.com/

http://www.johnwooller.com/images2/mtalleyman2.jpg%5Dhttp://www.johnwooller.com/images2/mtalleyman2.jpg

Mark Linquists vessells
http://www.lindquiststudios.com/mark-online-gallery6A.htm

http://www.lindquiststudios.com/images/MARK-GALLERY/GROUPOF3/3-800.jpg

Havey Fiens platters
http://www.delmano.com/artists/wood/hFein/portfolio01.htm

http://www.delmano.com/content/photos/225435-090106_big.jpg

escoulens eccentric turning scuptures
http://www.escoulen.com

http://www.escoulen.com/images/acrea/acp3.jpghttp://www.escoulen.com/images/acrea/ncp3.jpg

I guess the thing i like about this bunch of works and what they have in common despite their wide difference in form is they all retain and even amplify the natural beauty of the wood. No paint, dye, or other non wood additions. No attempt to make the form more important than the wood. They also have a strongly lathe turned basis that is then adapted via composition, carving, texturing etc but the turning element remains central to the piece.

[Frank&Earnest]

Reeves, I might be opening another can of worm here, but I would keep the Praying Mantis separate from the other examples. All the others are original forms, the praying mantis is a beautifully executed copy of nature. I realise that I am pushing it a bit, but compare it with the Pinocchio I posted in the other thread. The creativity is Collodi's or mother nature's, the difference is in craftmanship.

This aside, IMHO your selection highlights the relationship of the tool with the function.

You can make a vase or a platter without touching a lathe, but the symmetry and linearity provided by the lathe are likely to enhance the result.

You can make a sculpture using the lathe a lot, but the predictability of the rounded form provided by the lathe is likely to stifle the result.

FWIW. Cheers

[reeves]

Reeves, I might be opening another can of worm here, but I would keep the Praying Mantis separate from the other examples. All the others are original forms, the praying mantis is a beautifully executed copy of nature.

huh? i cant see that matters much Frank, its still a sculptural turning done on a lathe. In fact i posted it because i thought it was an excellent piece and a good example of what Exton may have been talking about, non vessell artistic work. In fact I think accurate 'copies' of nature are quite rare in the turning world and a very creative use of both lathe and wood.

In painting or sculpture its fairly normal to 'copy' nature in many ways. So why not turning?

As an example I'll use the Wooller sculpture in the 2nd image, nice wood and interesting shape but it has no semiotic meaning or structural reference to anything, in fact its a little weird, like he may have been smoking something when he thought of it ;-). I guess the shape is pleasing to the artist and possible pleasing to the viewer but thats as far as it goes. It doesnt mean anything or have an realtime reference as the praying mantis does. Some of Wooleys other work does but he places it firmly in the arts practice area of woodwork. Which is more about the 'artist' finding their individual voice or trademark style.

Those works are just a cross section of art based turning, theres lots more and i hope anyone can post others for discussions

[Sebastiaan56]

Thanks Mate, nah not to rough, Im made of uglier stuff then that, but please allow me....

"1- the fact that artists have to eat does not necessarily mean that their products are inferior. It certainly might favour some repetion: I love Vivaldi, but tend to agree with the critics who say that he wrote the same piece 300 times."

Which is why I will probably need to make the same bowl 300 times to get it right! I do however disagree, most of Vivaldi's music is unknown as it has not been reperformed. The same could be said of most composers.

"2- hindsight and nostalgia might have a minor effect on eulogising the past, but in reality the passing of time is the most powerful reality check: for every Handel there were dozens of also ran, all making a crust in his time, who are now all but forgotten."

Have you been watching me in the shed? :B, except I dont make a crust from it.

"3- Maybe form follows function, but when the function is decoration the point is moot, isn't it? You seem to equate function with the artist's purpose."

Yes I do. Its the decoration that defines the "artistic" worth of an endeavour. Im afraid that Im a bit postmodern in my approach. If I cant see it then it dont exist. My "hidden meanings' in things are the projection of the viewer. If an artist is clever enough to evoke that kind of stuff thats cool but there can be no definitive interpretation. My favourite painting of all time is Blue Poles. Go to the gallery and watch the effects Jackson Pollock created. Still cant see any meaning.

Sebastiaan

[Frank&Earnest]

With point 3 I actually meant that your sentence was not saying function=decoration, Sebastiaan, it was saying function= making money, which is instead the author's purpose. We seem to broadly agree on the outcome, though. Which means that we both disagree with you about the turned insect, Reeves... :wink: It is not that a portrait is not art, the point is that it is bound to represent a pre-existing concept, while the other sculptures in your example are not.

In the end, to borrow an expression I learnt from Ern: "whatever floats your boat...":)

[reeves]

Which means that we both disagree with you about the turned insect, Reeves... :wink: It is not that a portrait is not art, the point is that it is bound to represent a pre-existing concept, while the other sculptures in your example are not.

In the end, to borrow an expression I learnt from Ern: "whatever floats your boat...":)

mmm, one of the backbones of modern art/design theory is the Bahaus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahaus) motto

"repetition with variation" leads to good design

http://www.goshen.edu/art/ed/Compose.htm

hence the opposite, variation with repetiton leads to chaos, or lack of strength in design.

Kens insect represents a repetative design in a varied medium, turned wood and there achieves the goal of innovation in terms of that medium.

Of those other works in the example, 2, the big vases and the platter are common forms, given individual stylistic treatments but the basis is not original.

I find that a lot of 'original' ideas just turn out to be mud, they have no basis or strength in thought, even tho they may look nice or interesting.

It's the thought behind the design that determines the form, very few original ideas exist within the thought frame of humanity but a million adaptions of an original thought abound daily.

To accuratley adapt a form in nature, such as the insect and represent in an outcome (turned wood) where it hasnt been seen before or not often, is probably quite innovative in real terms.

The innovation being in the discipline or technique not the form.

The whatever floats yr boat angle is reliant of individual taste where as design and form have their instigation in inspiration and technique. The perception of the viewer may be one of the taste but the overall levels of techniuqe and theory are common across a whole range of artistic practices.

[Frank&Earnest]

I'll agree to disagree and bow out gracefully, then. :) I have more discussion on these matters than I need, with a son studying industrial design and a daughter studying architecture...:rolleyes:
Cheers

[rsser]

The older I get the less I find use for abstract principles and theories, though they were my stock in trade earlier in my career.

Now at the heart of every deep engagement with something worthwhile I find a mystery, and no longer feel much need to analyse it.

I think my kids feel relieved by that change because our frames of reference are different enough, and bless 'em and their peers, I can see the baton passing.

[reeves]

The older I get the less I find use for abstract principles and theories,

ahh good words Ern, i agree entirley, I am finding more pleasure in simple designs with good form than abstract ideas. I find i accept the 'rules' and priciples of design a lot more rather than relying just on personal taste or views. Full blown abstraction leaves me cold and humans can rarley improve on nature, though its fun trying, in an anthropomorphic kind of way.

It's a broader maybe deeper and i guess less personal approach that comes with age and more aquired knowledge, along with the developed perception of our own views.

Frank, huh, do you give up discussing such things with yr kids that easily ?
thanks for the dialogue anyways.

cheeeeers
john

[Frank&Earnest]

Frank, huh, do you give up discussing such things with yr kids that easily ?


No Reeves, that's why I am too exhausted to widen the discussion...:D




I think my kids feel relieved


I think I will follow your example Ern...:D

[rsser]

:D

Apart from a parent's natural bias to be impressed by their kids, the part-time teaching I do (in a completely different discipline to my own kids' I might add) gives me hope that Keats was right.

[rsser]

... added (sorry, have been reading these posts as email and that's missed something)

TM: thanks for the haka. How'd you know I have face fungus? ;-}

John, thanks for the pics on the previous page. Inspiring stuff.

[Hickory]

Reeves, Frank & Ernest... Another slant (as discussing Art leans in several directions) the Grasshopper piece is eith a crude attempt to duplicate nature, or a creative rendition of a Grass Hopper through lathe turning techniques. Artistic form comes with a person's perspective of appreciation for wood texture and natural grain colors and structure being used to express the interesting shapes nature has provided. Or Is it a model grasshopper one might assemble as a kit to learn the different componants of the creature? All in the perspective.

The grouping picture from escoulen... Is it the group that is an artistic feature or is it a turned figure that by itself is an expression of the turner's crafting whimzie, turned into production and demonstration of ability to reproduce the same design, in different sizes, or his inability to reproduce in exact sizes, or What?

Back in the past Centuries, Wanna Be Artist would travel around the country with paintings almost complete aside from the subject's face or other features and peddle their talents at making a portrait (similar picture) of a person for profit or for existance. Were they artists or skilled technitions? Was not Michelangelo a talented technition who could closely depict God's creations and display his talents in an artistic fashion. Is painting pictures on the wall art? then is Graffiti art? Some say yes, some no depending on rather or not you have to clean it up or you have to look at it or not.

Interesting string of discussion and thought.

[littlebuddha]

Art or fart, i prefer to fart. I have been a carpenter for 40 years and enjoyed it i enjoy drawing and my lathe work, ive covered diff stuff some i like some not so much, some of the things i have come across through the net or magazines and exabtions have been utter crap and they get great reviews, here in coventry some years back we the tax payer paid out thousands of pounds for some sculptures that look like black plastic bin linners blown up, also thoushands of pounds for chainsawn sculptures nothing brill. Also there was a guy call george melly jass singer and some sort of critic he sad that art in the galleries was something that the ordenery guy on te street new nothing of and was wasted on him, funny these are public musseums, an artist built a small brick wall and he was a fantastic artist, so whas this make a brick layer..If you are good with words and string a load of waffle together then its art. Sorry but to me a rambrant is art, a guy that throws a bucket of paint in the air and has it blown onto a canvas with a jet engine, is paint blown on to canvas, i have one i put on floor when i decorate my room. Sorry about the long waffle and spelling mistakes its late and i hate the crap that goes with what is or is not art. crawl back into my bed, cheers guys. Oh yer ill put a few zero's onto the price of my work, sorry its my art now.

[Frank&Earnest]

Oh yer ill put a few zero's onto the price of my work, sorry its my art now.

If you can do that, and sell it, I formally promise to call you Artist, Sir.:D

[Woodturnerjosh]

I could not agree more littlebuddha. I recently went to a sculpture exhibition/competition that was won by a person who had about eight convex mirrors set into the ground (mirrors like the anti-theft ones you used to see in service stations, milkbars, etc). This sculpture won about $250,000 and after one of my lecturers saw it he drily said "Must have had a great artist statement." The better the BS that goes with your work the more artistic it is. One art critic once said " the more minimalist the art, the maximum the explanation" Ican't remember the exact wording but you get the picture.
Cheers
Josh:rolleyes: