PDA

View Full Version : Before we start the challenge, can we discuss design?



ElizaLeahy
25th July 2009, 10:40 AM
I've looked at a lot of pictures online of lidded bowls (boxes, whatever!) and while there have been a lot I do like, there have been even more that I don't.

While design is individual preference MY preference definately leans more towards Ken's very fine work. I find a lot of the ones online to be rather clunky, with finials with huge knobs on the top, which unbalance them (unbalance them visually, I'm sure that they are stable).

So what do you look for in a lidded bowl? We should have many different opinions, and none of them are "wrong", but it would be good to see if there is a definate lean in one or the other direction.

tea lady
25th July 2009, 10:47 AM
I like the fine ones too, but they are useless objects aren't they. :shrug: Chunky ones might actually be able to hold something more than one ring.:rolleyes: But I also think there can be fine crisp detail on anything. Big doesn't necessarily mean clunky and ugly.:doh:

ElizaLeahy
25th July 2009, 11:00 AM
Design for use is the other side of the coin. I'm doing markets these days, and I'd be marketing them as ring boxes, and, for the price people are willing to pay, they won't be something I've slaved for days over!!!

Kens boxes are art objects. Art is generally "useless" except how it feeds the soul. I know very well that what I like isn't always what someone else will like. I can't tell you how many times I've done something that I thought was ugly as hell and it was fought over on ebay and sold at a high price!

At my last exhibition, for example, a self portrait sold for $3000. I hadn't expected it to sell at all - why would anyone want a portrait of me? No accounting for taste!!!

But as you say, "Big doesn't necessarily mean clunky and ugly" and a lot of the boxes I see online are that. Do a search for wooden lidded bowls - images only and see what I mean. So, SOMEONE likes them! :)

Texian
25th July 2009, 04:42 PM
Eliza,
Just for ref. would you show us some that you like?

ElizaLeahy
25th July 2009, 04:59 PM
I feel a bit uncomfortable using pictures I've found online. But the forum members are fair game!!!

TTIT - I like his turnings a lot. They don't have the long tall finials and stands that Ken does, but they are very different.

http://www.ttit.id.au/gallery/Lidded-box-Camphor-Black-Bean.JPG

I particularly like this one, because of the wood that hasn't been removed.

http://www.ttit.id.au/gallery/lidded-box-Pecan.JPG

And if you look at the thread about the "Ken Wraight box" then - well, those ones :)

So it doesn't have to be about long tall finials, sometimes the piece (or pieces) of wood direct the design.

Skew ChiDAMN!!
25th July 2009, 05:17 PM
So it doesn't have to be about long tall finials, sometimes the piece (or pieces) of wood direct the design.

:yes:

I honestly like the forms of your finials in that other thread. Admittedly, I think they're too large for the boxes they're on, but the forms of the finials look good. They just need to be scaled down to suit the size of the box.

(And crisper details, but that'll come with time & practise anyway.)

As you said, they don't have to be delicately thin & tall.

But I gotta admit I'm hoping that, one day, I'll be able to emulate Ken or Cindy Drozda. I'm working on it. Gimme another 10 years or so... :rolleyes:

ElizaLeahy
25th July 2009, 05:26 PM
I had to go do a search for Cindy Drozda - yes, that's just perfect!!!

Some of them are just for looken at, some are more "useful".

And I'm impatient. I'm not waiting 10 years!!! Of course, if I practice 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, maybe I can cut it down to only 6 years...

:)

Skew ChiDAMN!!
25th July 2009, 05:33 PM
Sorry, I thought I pointed you at her before? :doh: I meant to. :B

Cindy's the Queen of Finials.

jefferson
25th July 2009, 06:21 PM
Sorry, I thought I pointed you at her before? :doh: I meant to. :B

Cindy's the Queen of Finials.

So sorry, Andy, I don't agree. Your finials are much finer and better. :2tsup: And Ken W's are the next step up.

I think the main problems the US turners have is with their woods. But they can buy some good stuff on-line, can't they? :D

dai sensei
25th July 2009, 06:47 PM
I am a really big fan of Cindy Drozda's (http://www.cindydrozda.com/Assets/html/Portal/Gallery.html) work. It has very fine lines and detail. I also note most of here lidded containers are from our burls. She mainly uses African Blackwood for her finials, but does use other timbers. I had a great time talking to her at Turn-fest this year, certainly a lovely woman to talk to.

That Queen Ebony also works a treat for finials, just make sure you use a dry and uncracked piece. Any fine grained timber would do for the finials.

tea lady
25th July 2009, 11:20 PM
I had to go do a search for Cindy Drozda - yes, that's just perfect!!!

Some of them are just for looken at, some are more "useful".

And I'm impatient. I'm not waiting 10 years!!! Of course, if I practice 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, maybe I can cut it down to only 6 years...

:)When I started pottery i was told by someone that it took ten years to really get the hang of it. I thought, "geez! I'm better than that. I can do it quicker" And along the way I did make some good stiff, but about 10 years after I started I did finally feel that I could perhaps finally make anything put to me. :rolleyes: I think any art takes ten years. Heard someone on the radio once talking about learning the cello as an adult and actually giving himself ten years like a kid would take to learn. :shrug: I'm not saying that you'll never get there. :doh: What I'm saying is that you CAN"T rush. Even though we wish we could because our life is rushing past and it always seems that we have less and less time. And with modern life and all.:C But hand done stuff still takes as long as it always has, even though men have been to the moon. (Actually didn't Ken say he'd only been doing his for 9 years. :shrug: Maybe SOME people can do it quicker.:rolleyes: )

Sorry to get all philosophical on you.:C

ElizaLeahy
26th July 2009, 10:30 AM
For myself I disagree. Don't know what it's like out there in the real world where people can actually do something for 10 years. My disorder seems to allow me the max of 2 years before I jump to something else.

So maybe I'll never master woodturning.

But I mastered scratchboard in that time. These two are licenced for the front of Moleskin books. Unfortunately when my computer crashed I lost a lot of scans and professional photos of my later works.

I gave up oil painting for scratchboard, and I gave up scratchboard for wood turning!!! Who knows what will be next, but it will be within 10 years, that's for sure!

I can live with never having been a Master, as long as I'm not a slave! lol

Frank&Earnest
26th July 2009, 07:53 PM
I agree with you, Eliza, Skew was only being falsely modest. Turning is a skill, not a talent. I would not be able to draw like you, however long I took to learn, but I would feel ashamed of myself if I could not learn to produce turnings of that standard in 2 years and I am sure you will also. As far as design goes, those who had the real talent were those who developed, for example, the Grecian urns 3000 years ago. What cheeses me off is that I would like to be really good at carving, but that is a talent!:C

ElizaLeahy
26th July 2009, 08:11 PM
Frank, your comment shouldn't make me laugh - and for the most part it didn't. But the last line...

I just watched "The music man" today. I don't know if you know it, but there is a group of women, the wives of the prominant men in the society, who have a "dance group" and they are doing "Grecian urns"

It's really funny, and your comment reminded me :)

(exit, whistling "76 trombones")

Skew ChiDAMN!!
26th July 2009, 08:38 PM
I agree with you, Eliza, Skew was only being falsely modest. Turning is a skill, not a talent.

Thank you for the compliment, but no... I wasn't being falsely modest.

Turning is the same as drawing. It really doesn't take long to learn how to use the relevant tools. Even a 5yo quickly picks up on how to get different effects out of a pencil.

However - there's always a however :rolleyes: - in both cases it's artistic talent that makes the difference between mundane and art. I don't have that talent: I can see, I can copy, but it's hard for me to create. So I've gotta hope that hard slog will make up for it.

I believe that I'm fairly skilled with my tool control; I've been practicing it for long enough, after all! :U However, most of my work is still... clunky. I'm working on that too, though.

jefferson
26th July 2009, 10:49 PM
However - there's always a however :rolleyes: - in both cases it's artistic talent that makes the difference between mundane and art. I don't have that talent: I can see, I can copy, but it's hard for me to create. So I've gotta hope that hard slog will make up for it.

I believe that I'm fairly skilled with my tool control; I've been practicing it for long enough, after all! :U However, most of my work is still... clunky. I'm working on that too, though.


Andy, I don't agree with any of it. You just don't have the time or the equipment..... more the pity. :(

Sadly, you hollow the inside of boxes with nails. Bent nails. And you do it better than I do will all my good gear.

Handy Andy you are. Drop the Skew title. (And please come up again!)

Bring the young Pup (AKA DJ) with you next time, along with Calm who has been very quiet.

Frank&Earnest
26th July 2009, 11:53 PM
Andy, I don't agree with any of it. You just don't have the time or the equipment..... more the pity. :(

Sadly, you hollow the inside of boxes with nails. Bent nails. And you do it better than I do will all my good gear.

Handy Andy you are. Drop the Skew title. (And please come up again!)

Bring the young Pup (AKA DJ) with you next time, along with Calm who has been very quiet.

The funny thing is that I agree with your disagreeing, but I agree more with Skew/Andy's logic than yours. There is no turning that cannot be done given enough time and sandpaper.:D What I was getting at is that we all, including Cindy Drozda, hardly ever "create" something, hence my reference to ancient pottery (Chinese, if Grecian makes you laugh!:p). And finials were done to death in Victorian times. So your logic, Skew, IMHO is flawless but does not change the point of where the real "talent" is.

There are a few turners (Mike Hosaluk for example) who genuinely try to overcome the limitations of the machine (whether you like his unconventional forms or not is another matter), but round is round and no amount of modesty, false or not, will convince me that you can not "copy" as well as Cindy Drozda or any other celebrity. A lot of the visual appeal of a turned object seems to me to be in the natural beauty of the timber, anyway. I do agree that some talent is necessary in matching the form to the timber, but that is such a rarefied and subjective field that I do not have the courage to enter it....

ElizaLeahy
27th July 2009, 01:14 PM
A lot of the visual appeal of a turned object seems to me to be in the natural beauty of the timber, anyway.

Right on!!!!

I think we are all here because we have a crush on timber! We are always looking for that special grain and pattern that makes us go "ohhhh!"

But sometimes you see a shape made out of the most plain and boring wood, or wood that has been painted, and that makes you go "ohhh!" too!

The one on here http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=101382

Although we can't see the grain of the wood the simplicity of the design of the shape, along with the complexity of the decoration, makes it totally "ohhhh!" worthy :)

hughie
27th July 2009, 01:26 PM
Sometimes the simplest of forms or shapes can be the most appealing. Raffan points out in several of his books about always go for the best form/shape etc . Because your timber will darken and or fade over time and what is left is the form or shape

The reverse is true that many a piece of exquisite timber has been murdered by poor workmanship.

At the end of the day its a balance of form, shape, texture-finish etc. We all know when we get it right and we all know when we stuff it. Its the bit in the middle that causes all the drama and angst at times :U

But there is no formula or set of rules thats will give us an answer before we start. :no:
It all comes down to interpretation, experience, ability, timber, time and what ever else we can come up with.

ElizaLeahy
27th July 2009, 01:35 PM
The reverse is true that many a piece of exquisite timber has been murdered by poor workmanship.

Are you looking at me???

:whatonearth::erm_smile:

hughie
27th July 2009, 01:42 PM
Are you looking at me

Nah , not at all, thinking more or less along the lines of my own stuff ups. I am more familiar with them than anybody else's :C :U
\

tea lady
27th July 2009, 01:53 PM
You still have to have the eye to see what is good or bad. And to be able to see the gap between what you are doing and what you are aiming for. Tool control and technique are one thing. Being able to design great things and make them in 3 dimensions is another. And Although maybe you could say that sort of thing is born not made, even the best "designer" or artist" has to practice and develope. This is what takes the time, and what gives that extra "thing" that makes something a "master piece" instead of just a lidded box.

I have a vague memory of a video of someone on here talking about this. He said good things. :rolleyes:

ElizaLeahy
27th July 2009, 02:05 PM
TeaLady - you do realise that you are bringing out the "yeah, well I'll show HER!!!" in me, don't you?

You're doing it on purpose, aren't you? Go on, admit it!

tea lady
27th July 2009, 02:28 PM
TeaLady - you do realise that you are bringing out the "yeah, well I'll show HER!!!" in me, don't you?

You're doing it on purpose, aren't you? Go on, admit it!Yeah! Well! That's what I thought too back when my freind said it to me when I was just starting. I'd be that fastest learner ever. But no. Took ten years. But that is not the race. Contrary to popular belief, doing something really fast and being a young achiever is not what its cracked up to be. You have to take time to really get to know something. That was fine by me in the end. :shrug: What else was I gonna do?

Actually, time is one of the things with my work. My pottery especially. The detailed decoration is often commented on. I must have used a stencil or something. I prolly could if I wanted to, but I want to spend the time. To me "Art " should not be thought of as trying to be efficient. I think that is part of its value. Someone took the time to do something really well.

Frank&Earnest
27th July 2009, 03:19 PM
Actually, time is one of the things with my work. My pottery especially. The detailed decoration is often commented on. I must have used a stencil or something. I prolly could if I wanted to, but I want to spend the time. To me "Art " should not be thought of as trying to be efficient. I think that is part of its value. Someone took the time to do something really well.

Bingo! It is good to see that we all agree on the essence. Art requires talent, turning requires skill, and everything requires time. Hughie is right on the ball also: but note that while Eliza and I could appear arrogant in our conviction that "anything can be turned", neither of us has denied that it may take us a lot of stuff ups to get there!:U

Skew ChiDAMN!!
27th July 2009, 04:00 PM
I'll try again:

If you put a badly designed but well turned item on a bench along with a well designed but badly turned piece and asked a disinterested passer-by to rate them, they'll probably pick the badly turned item as best.

Why? Because together on the bench they'd both have faults and, being judged by a non-turner who's totally ignorant of what's involved, considered of equally poor quality.

However, the well designed but badly turned item will look better from a distance.

That is the difference between art (form) and skill (turning quality)

tea lady
27th July 2009, 06:27 PM
I'll try again:

If you put a badly designed but well turned item on a bench along with a well designed but badly turned piece and asked a disinterested passer-by to rate them, they'll probably pick the badly turned item as best.

Why? Because together on the bench they'd both have faults and, being judged by a non-turner who's totally ignorant of what's involved, considered of equally poor quality.

However, the well designed but badly turned item will look better from a distance.

That is the difference between art (form) and skill (turning quality)

:think: Random thoughts in no particular order........

*There has been some debate in the field of painting too about the value of "skill" as opposed to "idea" in a work. Things had swung away from skill as a valued part of painting for a while. Post modernism and all that - Anything can be art. But there is now a move back towards skill.

* Not sure you can badly turn a well designed object. :hmm: It kinda cancels out the good design. Some of the design details like the curve just so and edges just so are contained in the technique. If you can't do it they are not there. :shrug: Not everything can be replicated by a copy machine or sandpaper.

Frank&Earnest
27th July 2009, 06:36 PM
I'll try again. :U

I totally agree with what you say, Skew. All I say is that you and I have sense enough to recognise and chuck the badly designed item (i.e. the poor copy of the Grecian urn/ Cindy Drozda vessel/ Victorian trembleur) into the fire instead of putting it onto the bench, and start again until we get a better copy, which with practice will also be better from the turning point of view. Financial considerations aside, of course.

What I can not say is whether you or I will ever be able to truly "create" something really innovative, and my suspicion is that using a lathe would make it extremely difficult for anybody.

Do you remember a long time ago when we were talking about the most desirable proportions ( the best design) for a goblet? The stem might be longer or shorter, the cup wider or narrower, but a goblet is a goblet. Even if you put a cup at each end. :D

underfoot
27th July 2009, 06:46 PM
Things had swung away from skill as a valued part of painting for a while. Post modernism and all that - Anything can be art. But there is now a move back towards skill.
.
Too true TL, but you'll need to convince a few art teachers that are a result of the"anythingcanbeart" era :rolleyes:
I've just spent a week with a career "conceptualinstallationgovtgrantartist",
it was hilarious:D:):rolleyes::(
my theory is that skilled work will mostly never end up as landfill

tea lady
27th July 2009, 06:57 PM
Too true TL, but you'll need to convince a few art teachers that are a result of the"anythingcanbeart" era :rolleyes:
I've just spent a week with a career "conceptualinstallationgovtgrantartist",
it was hilarious:D:):rolleyes::(
my theory is that skilled work will mostly never end up as landfillThankfully most of their work is digital anyway, so we can just accidently press "delete" when they are not looking. :devil:

But part of my problem in my "career" is that I could not articulate what my work was about well enough to get a grant.:doh: I've just spent twenty years doing it instead. :rolleyes: And I've never heard of a woodturner getting a grant in Australia. Or a job in a university.
:C Might have to go to New Zealand..

KenW
27th July 2009, 06:59 PM
I'll try again:

If you put a badly designed but well turned item on a bench along with a well designed but badly turned piece and asked a disinterested passer-by to rate them, they'll probably pick the badly turned item as best.

Why? Because together on the bench they'd both have faults and, being judged by a non-turner who's totally ignorant of what's involved, considered of equally poor quality.

However, the well designed but badly turned item will look better from a distance.

That is the difference between art (form) and skill (turning quality)


I'll try again. :U

I totally agree with what you say, Skew. All I say is that you and I have sense enough to recognise and chuck the badly designed item (i.e. the poor copy of the Grecian urn/ Cindy Drozda vessel/ Victorian trembleur) into the fire instead of putting it onto the bench, and start again until we get a better copy, which with practice will also be better from the turning point of view. Financial considerations aside, of course.

What I can not say is whether you or I will ever be able to truly "create" something really innovative, and my suspicion is that using a lathe would make it extremely difficult for anybody.

Do you remember a long time ago when we were talking about the most desirable proportions ( the best design) for a goblet? The stem might be longer or shorter, the cup wider or narrower, but a goblet is a goblet. Even if you put a cup at each end. :D
You are both correct.
To turn something round takes practice. To come up with a round design that is different to every body else, is dificult to learn. I think you are born with at least some of this ability. I would hope some of my designs are innovative.

ElizaLeahy
27th July 2009, 07:05 PM
Oh boy am I on the fence here!

As an artist I agree with both sides of the story. (I have no problems in being in two minds at any time :))

But each type of art is and should be judged in context.

What I HATE is the "will it go with my lounge?"

Other then that...

The man next door has Downs syndrom, although he is 27 he has the mind of an 11 year old. He is living away from home for the first time, usually has a carer with him, occasionally spends time alone there. A great, wonderful, kind neighbour and we love living next door to him, even if he does play the drums (we also like the drums, so that's ok)

He recently left a painting at our front door - he does that, surprises us with little gifts, thinks we won't know where they come from.

I want to show it to you. Now when you look at this you are going to think "this is a kids picture, something mum would hang on the wall from kindy" and you would kinda be right. But this picture is also a VERY GOOD PAINTING! Bet you can't see it. But it is. He has captured the feel of my pets, the attitude of the cat as she sits on the window, Muffets bung eye, Gem's upright stance. And this is just natural to him, nothing trained or learned.

He is what is called an outsider artist. Also Raw and/or naive.

Now, because I haven't had any formal art training and I have a mental illness I also have the right to use the title "outsider artist". But I don't. I don't consider myself outside, I have studied, even if it's just by myself, and I've emerced myself in art history. I also practice (well, ok, not for 10 years with any particular medium...)

So while I see where you are coming from, and there is something totally magical in a piece that has been made by a master craftsman who has worked at his craft for 25 years + ... there is also something magical about a badly turned vase that has been turned out by someone who has just got a lathe and is excited about making anything at all.

Sure, one is "worth" more if you want to talk $$$ - but if the master craftsman has turned out hundreds of them in his lifetime, and the novice has made only two or three - which ones do you think are worth more to the maker?

I babble :)

And I don't think I made a point. If I did, can you tell me what it was?

Skew ChiDAMN!!
27th July 2009, 07:11 PM
In essence I agree with Eliza. If you have artistic talent it will show, because no matter how poor your technique you're working to create something that looks right to you. It's the eye that guides, not the hand.

Somehow I get bogged down in doing fancy cuts and what "feels" right; I'm being seduced by the technique and I lose track of the big picture. I gotta learn to stand back and take good hard look at where the piece is really going instead of where I imagine it to be in my head. :doh:

(Hmmm... that's my life story in a single sentence! :oo:)


* Not sure you can badly turn a well designed object. :hmm: It kinda cancels out the good design. Some of the design details like the curve just so and edges just so are contained in the technique. If you can't do it they are not there. :shrug: Not everything can be replicated by a copy machine or sandpaper.

A well designed piece has pleasing proportions. Sure, the fine detail may be bodged but from a distance it can look really, really good.

A badly designed piece can be perfectly turned straight off the tool and have all the crispness of detail your little heart could desire... but from a distance it'll still be just another ugly dust collector that you wouldn't want in your house. :U

jefferson
27th July 2009, 07:11 PM
Dunno about all of this stuff.

My belief is that you must learn chisel control before you get too far into what looks and feels right.

And by that, I mean you should be able to pick up any spindle or bowl gouge to achieve exactly the same cut. can do it and I am envious.

For me, all this means that my boxes won't be super-thin for a while (as DJ will attest, a fine box can split if it comes out of the jam chuck and hits the floor).

I have plenty of ideas about where I want to take my turning (mostly box-related). But I have many hours of practice ahead before I can even contemplate how to execute said ideas. New specs arriving later in the week, so hopefully I'll be able to see what I am cutting. Or trying to cut.

A rare percentage of people excel in their chosen field. We have a few here on the board who do exactly that. For the rest of us, let's cope and copy as best we can. The plebs out there won't know the difference..... :wink:

It's all about the journey, not the destination. So let's enjoy it.

Off my soap box for now I promise!

tea lady
27th July 2009, 07:18 PM
I love that painting. :cool: A friend of mines brother also has down syndrome. He is involved with a program where he does art and drawing. And he had an exhibition some years ago. I took my other friend who is a "real" artist, with a name and everything. He tries to work in a childish direct way so I though he would appreciate this exhibition. He was very depressed after going there cos he know he could not paint as directly and raw as that. :rolleyes:

But in a way that is the aim of the exercise. You start off raw, direct, entheusiastic and naive. You learn all the proper techniques. you learn all the history, you discover what your own art is. (which can be the tricky bit.:doh: ) And then we want to get back to a raw direct approach, but with all the technique there, and knowing exactly what we wanted to do. Someone looking at it might think it didn't take long to do, and it looks spontaneous, so what's the big deal? :doh:

tea lady
27th July 2009, 07:23 PM
A rare percentage of people excel in their chosen field. We have a few here on the board who do exactly that. For the rest of us, let's cope and copy as best we can. The plebs out there won't know the difference..... :wink:

It's all about the journey, not the destination. So let's enjoy it.

Off my soap box for now I promise!One of my teachers once said " If you think its nearly right, but you can't be bothered fixing it up cos no one will notice, you are right. No one will notice. But YOU will notice." My further thoughts on this is that if you notice its a good thing cos your eyes are starting to be able to see.:cool:

Sorry if I'm harping on. Maybe I'm just practicing "articulating" myself.

And Amen to the journey!:2tsup:

Skew ChiDAMN!!
27th July 2009, 07:35 PM
Do you remember a long time ago when we were talking about the most desirable proportions ( the best design) for a goblet? The stem might be longer or shorter, the cup wider or narrower, but a goblet is a goblet. Even if you put a cup at each end. :D

Ah! But you haven't seen my latest foray into designmanship!

Moving on from the double-ended goblet, I've started turning bowls that can be flipped over and used as dip & cracker platters!

Still looking clunky though... :rolleyes:

underfoot
27th July 2009, 08:14 PM
. No one will notice. But YOU will notice."
Sorry if I'm harping on. Maybe I'm just practicing "articulating" myself.
And Amen to the journey!:2tsup:
Nailed it TL:2tsup: harp away!
Amen to the journey,(THE most important bit)
YOU will notice, (who else are you trying to impress)
ARTiculating comes when you are comfortable with your skills and experience, (comes easier to some than others)

Frank&Earnest
27th July 2009, 10:15 PM
Now, now, Underfoot, what are you doing here with the Philistines? Not planning to bring down the temple with your Samsonian body, are you?:D

jefferson
27th July 2009, 10:26 PM
Oh boy am I on the fence here!

I babble :)



You are quite right, Eliza, you do babble along a little. :D So do I, so keep it coming, it's always a good read and it all keeps the Tea Lady in check. We hope. :rolleyes:


One of my teachers once said " If you think its nearly right, but you can't be bothered fixing it up cos no one will notice, you are right. No one will notice. But YOU will notice." My further thoughts on this is that if you notice its a good thing cos your eyes are starting to be able to see.:cool:



Tea Lady, I think we judge ourselves more harshly than most others. That's OK if you're seeking perfection, but sometimes you must stand back and say "enough". Lesson learnt. Time to move on.

I turned a pretty reasonable Chinese Hat box with Ken W a few weeks back. I didn't bother to sand or finish, preferring instead to spend those valuable hours with Ken on things more important than sanding.

I'm now onto some Elegant Boxes, which I much prefer. I'll do a series of them, not only for the practice but because I like the design. It's not mine but so what? And the last one I do will be as perfect as I can get - this year anyway. (In 5 years, I will more than likely groan and say - Did I turn that?)

Sure, I could re-chuck and finish the Chinese Hat box, but I'm "over it". If I'm careful, I'm sure I can duplicate again. But I don't like the box!

Original work of any kind is hard to find. Literature, art, law.... And especially woodworking / turning.

I note here with some regret that some turners somehow feel obliged to paint, carve, burn or otherwise embellish their turnings in order to be "different" or original. And yes, I admit to being a fan of Ken W's work, but surely what he aspires to remains firmly within the "turning" domain - and not a mix of that and something else.

Back on my soap box again, my apologies. :B

tea lady
27th July 2009, 10:40 PM
Now, now, Underfoot, what are you doing here with the Philistines? Not planning to bring down the temple with your Samsonian body, are you?:D:think: He did get a lathe last year some time didn't he? What have you made on it Undie?:D

tea lady
27th July 2009, 10:45 PM
:? There seems to be a consensus that there is no originality ideas left to have. Or is it just that you lot don't reckon you've got an original bone in your bodies?:doh:

Acshully, I don't think "originality" is the point.

:think: I've got to go away and think about this now..........

jefferson
27th July 2009, 10:57 PM
Tea Lady, you go away and think about it for a while....

And don't you dare visit Tooradin and the Axe Wielder for the entire month of August while the box challenge is running! :((

(I will be but I am a plagiarist at heart). :D

ElizaLeahy
27th July 2009, 11:07 PM
I'm totally for the journey. Just my journey is a bit different from some of yours. I'm happy not to master anything, but I'll get as good as I can within the boundaries that I know I have. Time just isn't one of them.

I wanted to say something about originality too.

Ideas grow from everything we have ever seen (if it's a visual art we are talking about). I was asked "where do you get ideas from?" a lot at my last exhibition, so I have this speach pretty well down pat.

A lot of my art for many years was portraits, people and animals, paid the bills. Not exactly what I call "important" art, but it was marketable.

From there I started studying faces. I did a piece called Contemplating Mortatality - an old man, just his face and a hand to his chin looking contemplative - but as it moved down the picture he got older, until the bottom of his hand is bone held together by a bit of sinue (ewwww - I love it! lol) That's what I call an "important" piece of art. Might be totally up myself but it will remain in my personal collection until I die, then be donated to the museum, wether they want it or not!!! (HA!)

So when I realised I had to get a body of work together I concentrated on faces, but gradually only parts of faces seemed important, then I realised they could be masks, so I did masks, and then if I had a mask with eyes but no face, I could do a face with no eyes (the one in my tiny pic here)

So one flowed from another - was the last one an original idea? Not really, because it came from the one before, was that? No, because it came from the one before - and so on.

And all of them were influenced by all the portraits I've done. And my portrait style was a mismash of styles I'd studied in art history...

Do you know how long ago Soloman said "there is nothing new under the sun"? Me neither, but it's in Ecclesiasties :)

The roads that Romans built were the width of two marching soliders. Which is why cars are the width they are today.

I'm so full of &*#@ - just ignore me.

Skew ChiDAMN!!
27th July 2009, 11:38 PM
All that matters to me is that an idea's original as far as I am concerned. My brain child, as it were. I don't particularly care if someone else had the same idea a thousand years ago... or last year... or even last week.

I don't copy, per se, nothing annoys me more than just copying. And some forms just have to be called "public domain." The plain 'ol bowl, for example. But I'll often see someone else's work and gain ideas for future pieces. Some might call that plagiarism, I don't know. :shrug:

Does it really matter?


Hmmm... thinking a bit more on it, it's an odd thing but I don't get many ideas from Ken's work. perhaps because his work tends to be so intricate & "complete" in itself that there's not really much room to say "maybe if you changed this for that..."? Or maybe it's because his style is so far removed from what I currently do that it's difficult to translate his ideas into my turnings?

maybe I'll be able to answer that question in 10 years from now, too! :p

jefferson
27th July 2009, 11:47 PM
I'm so full of &*#@ - just ignore me.

Apologies Eliza, but part of me agrees with your own self-assessment. :D

But, as I said, your message (and your mis-use of the Queen's English) always brings me pleasure. :)

You are in quite a hurry, aren't you?

Can I suggest that you slow down a little and enjoy the journey a little more?

And I don't like your finials.

Not that I do it well either, but I am aiming high. I've got Skew (thanks Andy for the lesson) well in front of me and for the moment, that's enough. But it's not a competition. It's all about aiming high and seeing how far you can reach. (Robert Browning I think).

As for originality, take another peek at the Carriage. I've seen the original picture that Ken W. based his work on, but what he did was truly exceptional. Artistic certainly. Far from functional. But great turning.....

Original? Not in strict terms - carriages have been (or were) around for centuries. But has anyone else spent those many months in turning one? Not until now - and I think that is not only original but inspirational.

And please don't ask / bother Ken W with how he did it all. That's for us to learn - and for Ken and Hans to share when and if they are ready.

112075

Skew ChiDAMN!!
28th July 2009, 12:01 AM
And please don't ask / bother Ken W with how he did it all. That's for us to learn - and for Ken and Hans to share when and if they are ready.

Looking at the photo, it's a fairly straightforward process. A complicated build, but the individual parts are... I won't say easy, but simple enough to make in theory.

Each one needs patience, skill and accuracy, of course, but it looks like there was a lot of repetitive turning there. That's the sot of thing - repeated accuracy of detail - that Ken excels at.

From the wheel geometry I think that maybe he made a jig and turned sections of 2 or maybe 3 wheels at the same time, but then again maybe he didn't. That's more organisation than anything.

The only part I can't see how he turned on a lathe is the frame! :D

Of course, in reality there may've been problems that I'm just not seeing. :shrug:

What I want to know, more than anything, is just how many pieces were rejected before he turned parts he was happy with?

Frank&Earnest
28th July 2009, 12:27 AM
All that matters to me is that an idea's original as far as I am concerned. My brain child, as it were. I don't particularly care if someone else had the same idea a thousand years ago... or last year... or even last week.

I don't copy, per se, nothing annoys me more than just copying. And some forms just have to be called "public domain." The plain 'ol bowl, for example. But I'll often see someone else's work and gain ideas for future pieces. Some might call that plagiarism, I don't know. :shrug:

Does it really matter?

Yes, I see what you mean, Skew. I start with a piece of wood and go where it takes me, until I am happy with the form. What makes me, or anybody IMHO, "happy" is an unconscious reference to what I have seen and liked. Applying the golden ratio can not possibly be called plagiarism, can it?

At the risk of appearing iconoclastic, what I am really pointing at is the inanity of calling the use of a tool (turning) a form of artistic expression. A turner is somebody who produces turned objects because that's his job.

Would a writer say that his artistic expression is "typewriting"? Would a calligrapher with some claim to artistry just for that call herself a writer? Ken uses a lathe (possibly also a router and at least a bandsaw, from what I have seen), Underfoot uses a bandsaw, power tools and chisels, Michelangelo only used chisels and a mallet. Would you call them a turner, a grinder and a chiseller or call all three sculptors? (No prizes for guessing which one I like the most, but that's not the point :D).

underfoot
28th July 2009, 07:25 AM
:think: He did get a lathe last year some time didn't he? What have you made on it Undie?:D
nothin yet :no: soon but...soon


:? There seems to be a consensus that there is no originality ideas left to have. Or is it just that you lot don't reckon you've got an original bone in your bodies?:doh: Acshully, I don't think "originality" is the point. ......
you're right, originality is not the point, originality is easy (it's all in the head :rolleyes:)
but only important if thats what you want to achieve,
mebbe ( as an experiment) for my first ever turned piece I might try for "original" whilst still blissfully and completely unskilled :rolleyes:

tea lady
28th July 2009, 09:59 AM
Tea Lady, you go away and think about it for a while....

And don't you dare visit Tooradin and the Axe Wielder for the entire month of August while the box challenge is running! :((

(I will be but I am a plagiarist at heart). :D:p I'll go down there, but only to use his lathe. My lathe bumps and wiggles and the tail stock doesn't meet up and I don't have any pin jaws, or a detail gouge and can't just go out and buy some.:C ) And I'll only make him cups of tea and go and buy the pies for lunch. No talking and no instruction. I promise. :whistling:

tea lady
28th July 2009, 10:03 AM
That carriage is amazing isn't it. I didn't get a good look at it at the show cos there was a scrum of people around it and no one else could get near it.:doh:

jefferson
28th July 2009, 10:27 AM
:p I'll go down there, but only to use his lathe. My lathe bumps and wiggles and the tail stock doesn't meet up and I don't have any pin jaws, or a detail gouge and can't just go out and buy some.:C ) And I'll only make him cups of tea and go and buy the pies for lunch. No talking and no instruction. I promise. :whistling:

OK, Tea Lady, I think permission is granted for you to visit Tooradin BUT ONLY TO USE THE TOOLS etc. No tuition, suggestions etc. :no: (All this from me, when you are setting the rules!)

You might struggle to find a spare lathe, as Ken W has apparently set a "two-box" challenge for . :wink:

tea lady
28th July 2009, 10:30 AM
You might struggle to find a spare lathe, as Ken W has apparently set a "two-box" challenge for . :wink::doh:


So when are you down there again?:U I'll try not to be sick this time.:C

jefferson
28th July 2009, 10:33 AM
:doh:


So when are you down there again?:U I'll try not to be sick this time.:C

I'm not sure exactly when I'll be down next, but soon. So little time....

KenW
28th July 2009, 05:03 PM
Looking at the photo, it's a fairly straightforward process. A complicated build, but the individual parts are... I won't say easy, but simple enough to make in theory.

Each one needs patience, skill and accuracy, of course, but it looks like there was a lot of repetitive turning there. That's the sot of thing - repeated accuracy of detail - that Ken excels at.

From the wheel geometry I think that maybe he made a jig and turned sections of 2 or maybe 3 wheels at the same time, but then again maybe he didn't. That's more organisation than anything.

The only part I can't see how he turned on a lathe is the frame! :D

Of course, in reality there may've been problems that I'm just not seeing. :shrug:

What I want to know, more than anything, is just how many pieces were rejected before he turned parts he was happy with?
Skew,
The wheels are turned on a partial sphere. one pattern at a time, then each ring is rolled with a skew. The wheels had to put on and off the sphere 24 times to complete the front rings, then fitted into a reverse sphere to do the inside rings. After all that another jig was needed to cut the step on the edge for the black rims. As you said a lot of organized repetitive turning. The part that I enjoy with a piece like this, is firstly coming up with the idea, them working out how to make it.
No parts were rejected, I do scale drawings of each piece, then just turn to the drawings. I do turn a few extra parts if I am not sure how a piece should look. For example, I turned two crowns because the first one I made was part of the lid, I thought that it might get broken if the lid was dropped. I changed it to be part of the carriage.

KenW
28th July 2009, 05:09 PM
I'm totally for the journey. Just my journey is a bit different from some of yours. I'm happy not to master anything, but I'll get as good as I can within the boundaries that I know I have. Time just isn't one of them.

I wanted to say something about originality too.

Ideas grow from everything we have ever seen (if it's a visual art we are talking about). I was asked "where do you get ideas from?" a lot at my last exhibition, so I have this speach pretty well down pat.

A lot of my art for many years was portraits, people and animals, paid the bills. Not exactly what I call "important" art, but it was marketable.

From there I started studying faces. I did a piece called Contemplating Mortatality - an old man, just his face and a hand to his chin looking contemplative - but as it moved down the picture he got older, until the bottom of his hand is bone held together by a bit of sinue (ewwww - I love it! lol) That's what I call an "important" piece of art. Might be totally up myself but it will remain in my personal collection until I die, then be donated to the museum, wether they want it or not!!! (HA!)

So when I realised I had to get a body of work together I concentrated on faces, but gradually only parts of faces seemed important, then I realised they could be masks, so I did masks, and then if I had a mask with eyes but no face, I could do a face with no eyes (the one in my tiny pic here)

So one flowed from another - was the last one an original idea? Not really, because it came from the one before, was that? No, because it came from the one before - and so on.

And all of them were influenced by all the portraits I've done. And my portrait style was a mismash of styles I'd studied in art history...

Do you know how long ago Soloman said "there is nothing new under the sun"? Me neither, but it's in Ecclesiasties :)

The roads that Romans built were the width of two marching soliders. Which is why cars are the width they are today.

I'm so full of &*#@ - just ignore me.
I would love to see a photo of your Contemplating Mortality, can you post one?

Dommo
28th July 2009, 05:49 PM
KenW - From a n00b point of view the Carriage is incredible :2tsup:

To all the other contributors to this thread...it was very good reading...seeing everyones view on talent v skill etc, it has also encouraged me to have a go at various forms etc. For me the technique will be the issue as I am a noob and there will be a lot of trial and error to learn the techniques etc.

Thanks to all for a great read and also for the links to other very talented / skillful / artistic turners out there. It has opened my eyes to what can be achieved on a lathe:o

betta get practisin...never made a box before..so here goes :oo:

Skew ChiDAMN!!
28th July 2009, 05:56 PM
KenW - From a n00b point of view the Carriage is incredible :2tsup:

From anyone's point of view, the carriage is incredible. :D


The wheels are turned on a partial sphere. one pattern at a time, then each ring is rolled with a skew. The wheels had to put on and off the sphere 24 times to complete the front rings, then fitted into a reverse sphere to do the inside rings.

Thanks Ken.

I thought for the rings that form the "spokes" you might've made the jig so you could mount 2 wheels at a time, both offset in opposite directions to halve the turning time.

I hope you know what I mean?

I've tried making a few similar jigs but I don't remount accurately enough when I'm offsetting. Still... practice, practice, practice... :rolleyes:

mickelmaster
28th July 2009, 07:20 PM
My view, and im not an expert, im barely a learner, but my view on this point is simply that you can create a 'new' piece rather than a 'copy' when you do something with it after youve turned it, for example kens carriage, he didnt do the whole thing all at once, its not one big piece, he made several (hundred :p) pieces and put them together to make something 'new'. Just my view on it. But you can also recreate the wheel to put it that way, for example when someone invented the angel wing bowl, they took something that was a 'copy' and altered it to make it 'new'.

Tony Morton
28th July 2009, 10:37 PM
Hi

With regards to Kens magnicifent carrage I am awed by his work in general also that of Hans who I have seen demonstrate lattice turnings, They have been doing it for years are perfectionists in their chosen field of turning. We must realise that before we can stand up and walk we need to be able to crawl so we must start with the basics and practice practice practice and remember scale drawings precision measurements dedication to task and learn from mistakes. Often you can learn more from what you are not told by demonstrators than what they show you. One of the most important things that I have found with this work is the selection of timber needs to be tight grained both Ken and Hans use a lot of boxwood and African blackwood. To date I have attempted four of the latice topped boxes I have achieved the sequence of actions and am mastering the measurments and nearly have the tool shaped to suit, however to date I can only get 13 rings where Hans has 22 but I will endvour to split the difference with the next one. I have found Quilla works ok and have piece of tallowood burl stands up well. Please take up the challange and see what you can do.
Cheers Tony

jefferson
28th July 2009, 11:11 PM
Tony, show us what you've done so far. As far as I know, not too many have tried that lattice work. :2tsup:

NeilS
28th July 2009, 11:14 PM
You still have to have the eye to see what is good or bad. And to be able to see the gap between what you are doing and what you are aiming for. Tool control and technique are one thing. Being able to design great things and make them in 3 dimensions is another. And Although maybe you could say that sort of thing is born not made, even the best "designer" or artist" has to practice and develope. This is what takes the time, and what gives that extra "thing" that makes something a "master piece" instead of just a lidded box.



:wss:

Neil

ElizaLeahy
29th July 2009, 11:17 AM
I would love to see a photo of your Contemplating Mortality, can you post one?


I lost the professional photo. I can scan it, but I'd have to take it out of the frame first, which I'm a bit lothe to do. hmmmm

OK, the best I can find online is here

http://www.artistcitizen.com/ElizaLeahy/contemplating.html

KenW
29th July 2009, 03:38 PM
Hi

With regards to Kens magnicifent carrage I am awed by his work in general also that of Hans who I have seen demonstrate lattice turnings, They have been doing it for years are perfectionists in their chosen field of turning. We must realise that before we can stand up and walk we need to be able to crawl so we must start with the basics and practice practice practice and remember scale drawings precision measurements dedication to task and learn from mistakes. Often you can learn more from what you are not told by demonstrators than what they show you. One of the most important things that I have found with this work is the selection of timber needs to be tight grained both Ken and Hans use a lot of boxwood and African blackwood. To date I have attempted four of the latice topped boxes I have achieved the sequence of actions and am mastering the measurments and nearly have the tool shaped to suit, however to date I can only get 13 rings where Hans has 22 but I will endvour to split the difference with the next one. I have found Quilla works ok and have piece of tallowood burl stands up well. Please take up the challange and see what you can do.
Cheers Tony
Tony, try Conker Berry, Mountain Tee Tree or WA Sandlewood. I don't use much Boxwood or African Blackwood, too hard to get, and I like to use Aussie woods. Where Hans puts 22 rings I put 25. He tels me my rings are too fine, I tell him he will get better with practice. (Hans has a great sense of humor).

KenW
29th July 2009, 03:48 PM
I lost the professional photo. I can scan it, but I'd have to take it out of the frame first, which I'm a bit lothe to do. hmmmm

OK, the best I can find online is here

http://www.artistcitizen.com/ElizaLeahy/contemplating.html
Eliza, thanks for the link. Your drawing is amazing, I wish I had the talent to draw like that.

jefferson
29th July 2009, 04:07 PM
Tony, try Conker Berry, Mountain Tee Tree or WA Sandlewood. I don't use much Boxwood or African Blackwood, too hard to get, and I like to use Aussie woods. Where Hans puts 22 rings I put 25. He tels me my rings are too fine, I tell him he will get better with practice. (Hans has a great sense of humor).


Ken W., you are positively anal. Hans will be after you no doubt.... :)

A few of us here (and elsewhere no doubt), are chasing after you. It might take a decade or three, but mishaps aside, I've got plenty of time..... :D

I think you need to change your call sign to something like:

"The Anal Retentive One."

Or:

"The Impractical Box Maker". (A touch of Krenov there).

Or (more simply):

"Madness". Or simply "Insane".

I see you are yet to critique my last box..... :oo: It wasn't that bad, was it?

Tony Morton
29th July 2009, 06:12 PM
Hi Ken
Thanks for the info on the timber I have some conkerberry so I will give it a try for the challange.
Jeff Some pics of the lattice lid boxes these are no's 3,4&5 still got a ways to go but I feel I have the consept in my head Just a matter of refining tequnics a bit. For some one like me who puts a piec of wood on the lathe the bigger the better and lets the timber dictate what the final shape is it is hard to be using callipers and working within the tollerences needed for this kind of turning the grouves on the top are about 1.5 mm and the same underneath. I took some photos of the process then realised that I had missed several minor but critical steps so will do a series for the challange.
Darker box is Quilla and the other two are tallowwood burl .

Cheers Tony

KenW
29th July 2009, 06:51 PM
Hi Ken
Thanks for the info on the timber I have some conkerberry so I will give it a try for the challange.
Jeff Some pics of the lattice lid boxes these are no's 3,4&5 still got a ways to go but I feel I have the consept in my head Just a matter of refining tequnics a bit. For some one like me who puts a piec of wood on the lathe the bigger the better and lets the timber dictate what the final shape is it is hard to be using callipers and working within the tollerences needed for this kind of turning the grouves on the top are about 1.5 mm and the same underneath. I took some photos of the process then realised that I had missed several minor but critical steps so will do a series for the challange.
Darker box is Quilla and the other two are tallowwood burl .

Cheers Tony
Tony, 1.5mm rings are too large, Hans turns rings .9mm wide, I turn .6mm wide rings.
This is only on fine work like the box you are trying to make.
Your boxes still look good, keep practicing.

jefferson
29th July 2009, 07:44 PM
Hi Ken
Thanks for the info on the timber I have some conkerberry so I will give it a try for the challange.
Jeff Some pics of the lattice lid boxes these are no's 3,4&5 still got a ways to go but I feel I have the consept in my head Just a matter of refining tequnics a bit. For some one like me who puts a piec of wood on the lathe the bigger the better and lets the timber dictate what the final shape is it is hard to be using callipers and working within the tollerences needed for this kind of turning the grouves on the top are about 1.5 mm and the same underneath. I took some photos of the process then realised that I had missed several minor but critical steps so will do a series for the challange.
Darker box is Quilla and the other two are tallowwood burl .

Cheers Tony

Geez, Tony, I've given up already....Who else does this stuff out there??

RETIRED
29th July 2009, 07:47 PM
Probably most people that have seen Hans do it have tried it but KW has just moved it up a notch.

tea lady
29th July 2009, 11:53 PM
They look great tony. :2tsup: A good start towards finer. Would love to see Kens first attempts.:p I would have thought Tallowood and kwilla would be too course to do much finer latice on. :shrug: I guess you've got to get a tool small enough too.:doh:

Skew ChiDAMN!!
30th July 2009, 12:05 AM
:wss:

I first saw that style of turning a few years ago, mainly just disks turned for lids on potpourri bowls.

Of course, I tried my hand at it... but without any success. Mind you, I was using redgum from the firewood pile at the time... and my patented "nail in a stick."

Somehow I just can't bring myself to "risk" good wood with the method, at least not until I know I can do it on crap. To date, I wouldn't call any attempts even a partial success. :B

:think: I have some nice Apple blanks that are just about ready for turning...

KenW
30th July 2009, 11:25 AM
They look great tony. :2tsup: A good start towards finer. Would love to see Kens first attempts.:p I would have thought Tallowood and kwilla would be too course to do much finer latice on. :shrug: I guess you've got to get a tool small enough too.:doh:
My first attempts are on display in our lounge room, you are welcome to have a look anytime.

tea lady
30th July 2009, 07:03 PM
My first attempts are on display in our lounge room, you are welcome to have a look anytime.Might take you up on that soon. My "kitchen quality controller" need educating. He was very impressed with my 1st box.:rolleyes:

mick61
30th July 2009, 08:27 PM
G`day I am waiting to see Jeffersons lattice boxes I think he might be holding out on us lesser mortals.
Mick:D

P.S.By the way Tony nice work although maybe a bit thick to some peoples taste

Tony Morton
30th July 2009, 08:38 PM
Hu Ken
As I said you have to crawl before you can walk, I'm about to stand up I'll be happy with 1mm if I can make that I will take on the next challange.
Jeff give it a try what I have achieved so far has given me a great sense of achievment. You turners in the south are lucky to have such good turners in your area its like a turning desert in this area.

Cheers Tony

PS Thanks for the positave comments.

mick61
30th July 2009, 09:26 PM
G`day Tony I heard a rumour there are a few good turners in the hunter valley or is that a bit far away?
Mick:D

Tony Morton
30th July 2009, 10:10 PM
Hi Mick
Hunter is about 3 hours away Neil Scobie 2 hours north at Coffs Harbour Peter from Artisans retreat at Taree about an hour away.

Cheers Tony

jefferson
31st July 2009, 12:09 AM
G`day I am waiting to see Jeffersons lattice boxes I think he might be holding out on us lesser mortals.
Mick:D

P.S.By the way Tony nice work although maybe a bit thick to some peoples taste

Mick,

I had a little redgum bowl fly out of the chuck today...... Not happy. :((:(( It hasn't happened for some time - and I thought I was making progress. I've done maybe 30 of these little bowls and cannot for the life of me understand why.

Methinks sometimes the chisels work and sometimes they do not. As for lattice work..... that's so many years away that I dare not think of it.

I gave lidded box no 10 to my GP today. At least he liked it! :p And for those that didn't like my lid, I checked the 50 Boxes book and I had it correct to specifications!

Trying to talk the wife into going to SATurn, but it will be a struggle. I know of at least two very inferior, absolute novice turners, that are going. Lucky they have good / great wives as the pair otherwise haven't got much else going for them.... :D:D:D

Absolute novices.

It makes me feel good that I am so far ahead of them. Well.... maybe I am a city block or three behind. But Tea Lady, Eliza and I are barking at their heels like puppy terriers. :D

tea lady
31st July 2009, 12:33 AM
Mick,

I had a little redgum bowl fly out of the chuck today...... Not happy. :((:(( It hasn't happened for some time - and I thought I was making progress. I've done maybe 30 of these little bowls and cannot for the life of me understand why.

"Because" is the reason I think you'll find. :rolleyes: Or because wood is a natural material amd as such contains flaws and imperfections.:cool:

It makes me feel good that I am so far ahead of them. Well.... maybe I am a city block or three behind. But Tea Lady, Eliza and I are barking at their heels like puppy terriers. :DMY terrier doesn't bark. :whistling:

ElizaLeahy
31st July 2009, 11:04 AM
Geez, Tony, I've given up already....Who else does this stuff out there??

Me! OK, I don't. But I'm going to give it a go, although the thickness will depend on what the thickness of my tools are.


:wss:

:think: I have some nice Apple blanks that are just about ready for turning...


Grrrr - I WANTED apple!!! You kept it all to yourself! Meany!


Mick,

It makes me feel good that I am so far ahead of them. Well.... maybe I am a city block or three behind. But Tea Lady, Eliza and I are barking at their heels like puppy terriers. :D

Leave me out of this! I'm not barking at anyone's heels. I'm not even in the same TOWN! In fact, I'm in a different STATE!!! (a rather tranqual state this morning, after taking a tranq last night in desperation for some sleep)

I'm happy when my lids fit.

Tony Morton
31st July 2009, 05:50 PM
Had another practice today but to go the next step to 1mm or finer the old eyes let me down it was alright for the first few rings but when it got to air turning it was too much a blur I tried chalk, pencil lines but didnt work tomorrow I have some conkerberry blanks so hopefuly I can achieve a win and have a piece for the challange I'ts been a challange for me.

Cheers Tony

KenW
31st July 2009, 06:18 PM
Hu Ken
As I said you have to crawl before you can walk, I'm about to stand up I'll be happy with 1mm if I can make that I will take on the next challange.
Jeff give it a try what I have achieved so far has given me a great sense of achievment. You turners in the south are lucky to have such good turners in your area its like a turning desert in this area.

Cheers Tony

PS Thanks for the positave comments.
Tony, you are doing a great job, just teasing you.
I'm sorry I never get up your way, always travel inland to Queensland.

KenW
31st July 2009, 06:22 PM
Had another practice today but to go the next step to 1mm or finer the old eyes let me down it was alright for the first few rings but when it got to air turning it was too much a blur I tried chalk, pencil lines but didnt work tomorrow I have some conkerberry blanks so hopefuly I can achieve a win and have a piece for the challange I'ts been a challange for me.

Cheers Tony
Tony, if you have trouble turning rings when they go into free air. Mount your lid in a disk of scrap wood, and turn solid rings. Use hotmelt or double sided tape.

Frank&Earnest
31st July 2009, 06:28 PM
Now I am totally confused. The rings of the "coach" box appear to me at least 2-3 mm wide. Less than 1mm would produce a texture, more than a lattice with visible rectangular spaces. What am I missing?

ElizaLeahy
31st July 2009, 06:31 PM
I tried this today. Well, what a stuff up :)

Looked great on the outside, my bumps and spaces were about 3mm I'd guess, that's about the width of the tool. Was so proud.

Then I turned it around, cut off the off centre tendend, cut the bottom of the box off, hollowed out the lid of the box, check the depth (with my finger) and started to turn the inside of the lattice.

Which then all fell apart.

What did I do wrong?

:)

KenW
31st July 2009, 06:44 PM
Now I am totally confused. The rings of the "coach" box appear to me at least 2-3 mm wide. Less than 1mm would produce a texture, more than a lattice with visible rectangular spaces. What am I missing?
The rings on the coach are 1.5 mm wide, that's because the wheel is 3mm thick.
As the rings get smaller in width you need to make them smaller in height, if you don't you can't see through them.

jefferson
31st July 2009, 09:08 PM
MY terrier doesn't bark. :whistling:

Tea Lady, you're little bitch doesn't bark, it just bites. :rolleyes:

Frank&Earnest
31st July 2009, 09:08 PM
The rings on the coach are 1.5 mm wide, that's because the wheel is 3mm thick.
As the rings get smaller in width you need to make them smaller in height, if you don't you can't see through them.

Thanks, that's what I figured. This means that boxes with <1 mm rings have <2 mm thickness. It's not lattice anymore, it's lace! :oo:

Not many timbers would take that, I imagine. I'll see if olive stands a chance.

Frank&Earnest
31st July 2009, 09:12 PM
Tea Lady, you're little bitch doesn't bark, it just bites. :rolleyes:

Given your previous righteous stance regarding the Queen's English, I must assume that your spelling of this sentence is deliberate.

tea lady
31st July 2009, 09:44 PM
Had another practice today but to go the next step to 1mm or finer the old eyes let me down it was alright for the first few rings but when it got to air turning it was too much a blur I tried chalk, pencil lines but didnt work tomorrow I have some conkerberry blanks so hopefuly I can achieve a win and have a piece for the challange I'ts been a challange for me.

Cheers TonyYou've got the whole month to do the challenge. From the 1st to the 31st. Someprople just got a little enthusiastic and started early!:rolleyes: (Just practicing! Honest! )We would love to see your chucks and a bti of how you do it. :cool:

Tony Morton
31st July 2009, 10:02 PM
Thanks Ken I use a chuck like Hans does but will try the solid ring in the future.
Anna-Marie photos will come in next few days tomorrow is alloted for the real thing with photos may take a fw days to type notes up.
Cheers Tony

jefferson
31st July 2009, 10:04 PM
Given your previous righteous stance regarding the Queen's English, I must assume that your spelling of this sentence is deliberate.

I'd like to say the mistake was deliberate, but alas not. :D:D And I also assume you meant to say that my mis-use of the QE related to the word "your", not the "spelling of this sentence". How do you spell a sentence?

Ten VBs will do that to you. Sorry if offended anyone - we all write / communicate as best we can.

I have a little thing going with Eliza - she paints and draws much too well, so I need to bring her down a peg or two. :D:D She doesn't mind either. A nice lady.

And we all make mistakes with our typing and grammar. I just try not to make a habit of it. I think it's somewhat disrespectul to the reader if you know that what you write is wrong, but fail to correct it.

A text message from my 21 year old son is almost unreadable. Too much of the shorthand stuff and it that takes me too long to decipher. A new generation....

Tony Morton
31st July 2009, 10:08 PM
Hi Eliza

Attempting lattice turning with only six months experience you are setting the bar high your aims are putting the challange out to some who have been turning for many years. I am still learning after 35 years of making chips of wood fly of the lathe if I can help in any way I will but not having any formal training I'll probably tell you the wrong way but it works for me.

Cheers Tony

Frank&Earnest
31st July 2009, 10:32 PM
How do you spell a sentence?



A word at a time.

But I admit to an imperfect understanding of the language. To me, "I'd like to say the mistake was deliberate, but alas not" means" I would like that what I said was correct". Which means that you would like the involuntary insult to have been deliberate. Which means that TL has a case for suing you. Which means that I will shut up and quietly go to brush up my English. :wink:

tea lady
31st July 2009, 10:42 PM
[Which means that TL has a case for suing you. Which means that I will shut up and quietly go to brush up my English. :wink:What ? Where? who which why? :?


Tea Lady, you're little bitch doesn't bark, it just bites. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Is it her fault you can't mind read?

I think you better lay off the stirring a bit now Jeff. You could get in trouble.:secret:

KenW
2nd August 2009, 07:36 PM
Thanks, that's what I figured. This means that boxes with <1 mm rings have <2 mm thickness. It's not lattice anymore, it's lace! :oo:

Not many timbers would take that, I imagine. I'll see if olive stands a chance.
I haven't tried Olive, it has nice fine grain so it should work well.