Thread: Before we start the challenge, can we discuss design?

I like the fine ones too, but they are useless objects aren't they. Chunky ones might actually be able to hold something more than one ring. But I also think there can be fine crisp detail on anything. Big doesn't necessarily mean clunky and ugly.

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!

Eliza,
Just for ref. would you show us some that you like?

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...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.

Originally Posted by ElizaLeahy

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

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...

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...

Sorry, I thought I pointed you at her before? I meant to.

Cindy's the Queen of Finials.

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Sorry, I thought I pointed you at her before? I meant to.

Cindy's the Queen of Finials.

So sorry, Andy, I don't agree. Your finials are much finer and better. 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?

I am a really big fan of Cindy Drozda's 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.

Originally Posted by ElizaLeahy

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. 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. I'm not saying that you'll never get there. 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. 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. Maybe SOME people can do it quicker. )

Sorry to get all philosophical on you.

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

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!

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")

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

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 - 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! However, most of my work is still... clunky. I'm working on that too, though.