Thread: Article to discuss "The case against the vessel"

Warning for those on dialup, it is a 5 page document that is 2.6Mb, I'm still waiting for it to finish downloading.

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever rings your chimes.

Originally Posted by rsser

Whatever rings your chimes.

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

In the case of netcheral v rafeened forms with features ;-} ... whole new ball park here don't you think?

Originally Posted by rsser

In the case of netcheral v rafeened forms with features ;-} ... whole new ball park here don't you think?

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

Ok, I have read it (I love ADSL2 )

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

I fail to see his point.

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

What's with this banning hollowing? While only two of the pix are spindle turned? I just don't get it. Or are the pix totally irrelevant to the article, being a case of the editor deciding "Oh, we need to fill in some space. What snaps of wood-turned items do we have?"

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

I read this on another website, left a comment. Dont really see the need to give it any more time, here or anywhere else.


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



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

I think the white column piece was the author's Skew.

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

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

OK... to me his main case appears to boil down to this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep, what you said.
His opinon we can agree with. His conclusion we don't. What more can we squeeze out of the lathe that we don't already know about? (whatever our ability to actually achieve it).

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

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

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