Thread: To foot or not?

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Of course well turned out feet are a turn on,

Uh oh. One of those, eh?

[Damme, set off the drivel metre. Sorry.]

Hi Seb,

Morning??? Its 11pm over here!!!

The way I see it there are 3 main reasons (and probably many more!!) to have a foot on a bowl...

1/ Stability
2/ To "lift" a piece from the surface it sits on making it look lighter
3/ As a feature (although these are often exagerated tall feet etc)

If I think of any more I'll add them later !

One reason to have a foot which (in my humble opinion) is not valid is that "it's where the chuck held it"

Just some thoughts, hope they help

Richard

Yes, I'd agree with Richard, tho will allow combining the use of the foot as a chucking point with one of the three reasons to have one.

One reason not to have a foot is what it can do to the feel of the piece when you hold it ie. make it bottom heavy. You can counter this by making a recess in it for your chuck expansion space - many folk think this limits the grip but I've rarely found a problem.

Many feet are pretty plain but don't have to be ... a bead or cove can add interest.

My views about feet on vessels are heavily influenced by my other craft, which is pottery. My pottery teachers were also heavily influenced by the Japanese ceramic tradition. In that tradition, a piece cannot be fully appreciated until its foot is closely examined. It’s the execution of the foot that helps distinguish the master from the apprentice. I put an equal amount of aesthetic consideration into the foot as I do into the rim, and, of course, into the relationship between the two.

I have been a subscriber to the NZ Woodturners Association and they have had a protracted ‘discussion’ in their magazine over the years about the foot, and in particular the extent to which the making process (tennon recesses, etc) should remain obvious in the finished item. They have tended towards the view that any remnant of the making and holding process detracts from the quality of the finished piece. I might add that some Australian woodturners have, in part, influenced this view.

I don’t share that view. For me the foot is a window into the making process and its maker that, if well executed, is as integral part of the overall design. If I like someone’s work, I usually pick it up to see whose signature is on the foot and then enjoy, or otherwise, the craftsperson’s competence in the detail, execution, and balance of the foot in relation to the overall piece.

Of course, as indicated by Richard and Ern and without getting into the form versus function debate, the practicalities of function also have to be satisfied. Large platters need wide feet, etc, etc.

Neil

Good afternoon, Sebastiaan.
Your love for Coopers obviously qualifies you as a man of discerning taste . Besides this, I also agree with you that the only reasons for the bowl foot are aesthetic ones.

To those who expect it to provide stability I would ask: how? Unless you define a vase or a goblet "a bowl on a foot" (which would deeply offend Skew!), the bottom of a bowl is by definition larger than the foot, therefore a flat bottom is more stable than the smaller foot. Unless they changed physics while I was not looking...

Cheers
Frank

.. well yes, if the flat bottom isn't; ie. is concave, so that if it sits on an uneven surface there's a ring rather than a disc in contact, which will make it less prone to rock.

Without feet, or some form of stabilisation such as drooping wings on a winged bowl (which, oddly enough, are often called "feet" anyway ) you're limiting the form of the bowl. It'd need to have a flat or concave base to sit squarely, even on a perfectly level surface. As often than not mine have convex bases... so some form of foot is a necessity. Whether they be tiny little warts or a massive great ringed bead. It's either that or make a seperate stand! (Which I'm sure most of us have also tried at some stage...)



(And goblets? I've always said they were just end-grain bowls on stilts. )

I don't have a foot fetish, I am however into nice looking bottoms.

Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers

I don't have a foot fetish, I am however into nice looking bottoms.

Beware the thought police! I said the same didn't I?

Ern, Skew, that's semantics: we were talking about the foot as a structural unity (that also has to be concave etc ), not about the rim of a recess or multiple "legs"... and, Cliff, don't start with legs now...

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

... and, Cliff, don't start with legs now...

One day.... when I find 'the right... piece of wood' I will do a piece called 'Thunder Thighs'

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

Ern, Skew, that's semantics: we were talking about the foot as a structural unity (that also has to be concave etc ), not about the rim of a recess or multiple "legs"... and, Cliff, don't start with legs now...

Semantics? But I'm not Hebrew!

From Post #1:

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

and thought to myself......"what kind of bottom are you making here genius?",..... I was stumped, I answered myself to stop the silence "well this is where you make the foot"..... and then the clanger.... "why?".
[...]
Is it because we copy forms from other materials and styles? or is there a practical reason?
[...]
Of course well turned out feet are a turn on, particularly when the turner judiciously carves a number of scallops to make really feety looking feet. Turned feet on the bottom of a graceful curve can add to the overall form but can also look like, well... a foot, cause thats what we do. Flat feet can be cool too,
[...]
Apart from the aesthetic, why feet?

Where, in the original post, does he say a foot? The question, as I see it, is "why feet?" When does a foot become not a foot?

Ummm Skew.... what planet are you on?

"well this is where you make the foot"

Turned feet on the bottom of a graceful curve can add to the overall form but can also look like, well... a foot

Semantics? But I'm not Hebrew!

.... Byzantine semantics!