AWGB Woodturning Forum
General Category => Gallery => Topic started by: Sevilla on August 22, 2015, 10:01:34 PM
-
Hello, here is a 12 inch plus lid vase inspired by the chinese ginger vases. Could not do a chow chow or a defence lion so I opted for an acorn. May be not very effective for esthetics nor defence but I liked it when I made it and now is there.
CandC welcome.
PS: I hope pictures are better now. Sometimes I like to see fine details, for which one needs a certain amount of pixels. Others may prefer dozens of pieces in one low resolution picture. Hope these pictures are a good compromise.
-
I wish you people would sort out how to upload pictures so that we can see them properly.
I am not prepared to adjust my settings so that I can view pictures that are uploaded wrong.
Regards George
-
Just hold the Ctrl key and scroll George, one way increases the size of the page, other way decreases.
Pete
-
If people take the trouble to learn how to upload pictures properly Pete there is no need for us to adjust the pics it is not difficult and all explained here http://www.awgb.co.uk/awgbforum/index.php/topic,202.0.html
Regards George
-
Hi Sevilla
Thank you for sorting your pictures out that is much easier to see.
I quite like the shape of the main vessel but the top looks a bit too busy for me and the dark streak spoils it
Regards George
-
Sevilla I sorry but this does not work very well for me. I think the shoulder should finish at nearly 90 degrees to the neck. I also think that the acorn on this style of pot again does not look right. If it were me I would replace it with a knob.
However these comments are down to personal taste so that is just me.
It looks like Ash? with a red stain of some sort in the grain, an effect that I quite like. Looks to be wll finished.
Well done.
-
Just had another look at I think it is an Acorny thing on the top but I think a small round button would have looked better.
I don't think the Acorny thing is upright but that might be the picture.
Just my opinion of course.
Regards George
-
Thank you for your comments.
You are right as I said it is an acorn, which notoriously is similar to an acorny thing.
Chinese spice vases often had a lion or an aggressive chow chow as pommel on the lid as a defence of the content, the precious spices that the vase was suppose to contain.
The dark streak was in the wood of course, the sign of a long beatle attack.
Regards
-
Sorry, but I am not a fan of this, neither in the original nor in your version. This shape just doesn't do much for me.
-
Not to my liking either. Sorry but it looks like a short dumpy man with a bowler hat.
However I like the red colouring, but the dark stain down the vase does detract slightly.
Ralph
-
Not to my liking either. Sorry but it looks like a short dumpy man with a bowler hat.
However I like the red colouring, but the dark stain down the vase does detract slightly.
Ralph
Got me just right then! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Some very harsh comments I think.
This piece is obviously influenced by the ones in the other pictures and in my opinion without making an exact copy it is not that bad at all.
Regards george
-
...Chinese spice vases often had a lion or an aggressive chow chow as pommel on the lid...
Hi Sevilla....I quite like the shape of the vessel, but don't like the acorn.
I think that it can be a mistake to try to copy a shape made in one medium, be it glass or ceramics for example, and reproduce that shape in wood. Your photos of the Chinese jars are an excellent example, they are principally white and shiny, they are made of a material that our eyes immediately recognise and we process that image, making our decision as to whether we like the shape based on our knowledge of the material. When the same shape is reproduced in wood, our eyes read it very differently and out minds process the information very differently. Whilst we may have viewed the ceramic jar as looking right, we might well view the wooden copy as looking too heavy.
Les
-
Based on a chinese vase it is a pretty good copy. Looking at chinese pottery it often clashes with what we think of as correct in dimensions and design, some seems down right ugly at times. Oddly enough the only thing I am not that keen on for this is the wood, I don't have a problem with the design or the 'acorny thing' LOL.
Pete
Just read Les's comment and agree, the graining is too heavy visualy perhaps.
-
No insult intended TBH ;D
-
Hi Sevilla,
Ash has been suggested as the timber for the body but I think it's a softwood, the dark stripe in the first picture is something I've seen before, like a resin marking.
You've managed the shape very well comparing it to the original, it's well turned and finished as all your work is but your discovering the problem I'm struggling with, 'Why can we not make something in wood that looks as good as it does in other media's like ceramic or glass.' It's not something we do wrong, or a perception of the eye, but rather the medium of wood that we work with.
-
Glass ware doesn't transpose easily I find. With my goblets I have to make them look slender and delicate but maintain strength. Medieval ones are fine chunky and heavier looking. Ceramics, potteryetc can be done as long as you are carful with the wood you use. Heavily grained wood can look clumsy especially with oriental shapes. As a basic rule I personally think that simple shapes can allow the wood to be more dramatic but when making the more elaborate shapes as in this jar, a plainer wood works best as the complex design can become lost or overpoering if done in a dramatic wood. As with all rukes there are exceptions as no doubnt someone will show now LOL.
pete
-
Thank you all for the comments. As I wrote before the dark streak is a discoloration created by the infestation of a bug in this case probably long horn beetle. The wood is Ash.
As I said the acorn was sort of a funny thing to do but now is there. The pictures I posted of the chinese work were were taken today after a google search.
Just one question: is here anybody who believes he/she is turning pieces whose shape has never been done before?
How many artists have been influenced by Japanise art which by the way is a copy of the chinese art. Roman pottery was copied by the Greek pottery which was an evolution copied from the mid eastern ....
To come closer to us I want to say that a bowl is a bowl no matter if made of porcelain, terracotta, metal or wood. A vase is a vase is a vase and so on. Even Van Gogh had inspiration from japanese paintings (I already said where these originated) and Modigliani like so many great artist of the last century when art was still art took inspiration from african art. And the neolithic potter must have copied from the numerous bubbles of wood that now are colled hollow forms.
-
I forgot to mention the the vase i made is conforming to the golden ratio, like many chinese pottery.
-
I am interested to know how this piece conforms to the Golden ratio.
please explain.
Regards George
-
Hi Sevilla
Thank you for posting this. In relation to the Chinese ginger jar I am not a fan of this style, it has a lot going on and for such a busy wood I feel there is too much going on and would suit a plain wood with only a few accents to highlight perhaps the lid finial/acorn and the intersection of the main sections perhaps with burn lines to add fine detail. As you have kept the main piece classical Chinese ginger jar the acorn for me classes as it is not what I would expect to see as it is not in keeping, just my thoughts.
It is I can see well turned with good sharp definition and of a good finish which is to be commended as sometimes on such an elaborate piece the fine detail can be over looked.
In relation to people turning forms that they believe have never been done before.
We are all I believe when turning generic forms influenced by what we have seen before, certainly I am am heavily influence by many, far eastern, African etc etc. What we then do with these pieces is what can make them unique to us. It does not mean that the concept has not been done before. As you say a vase is a vase is a vase, but one that also turns on the stereo and dims the lights to relax the flowers every time you water them could be seen as unique. :)
Recently there was a discussion in another thread about 'Steal Like And Artist' a book by Austin Kleon, in which, as does he in the TED speech state that nothing is 'Original', this I do not fully concur with. New designs and ideas are being created on a regular basis especially in technology and design. Agreed these in a short time span may seem similar to other concepts and ideas, but if we look at them over a much greater history they are indeed original.
Fire being used for cooking was an original idea the case man started. Nearly a million years later man invented the wheel, a totally new original way to move goods. Then the chinese invented gunpowder and weapons, then came, the steam engine, combustion engine, flight, etc etc etc which still continues today. Also when you look at creative artists/sculptors there are many works that are indeed original in design, granted a sculpture as a concept is not original but the design may indeed be.
As said generic shapes are not original, they have been around in plant life far longer than man ever started pottery. But yes the majority of woodturnings produced are derived from generic forms. This does no for mean mean nothing is original, we may just not have found it yet due to being so heavily tied into the mind set that nothing is new, this for sure will restrict any hope of coming up with something 'Original'
Just my thoughts, by the way, not saying I am right, but I hold on to the excitement that I can come up with new ideas, even if I don't. If not I would give up turning as a creative craft. :)
-
I like the shape and form of this lidded vase,looks just like some Chinese vases we have at home apart from the acorn,which I think is a nice touch,as it isn`t made of porcelain,cheers,
Eric.
-
Hi Mark and GBF, first thing first.
The golden ration. The vase non including the lid is about 11 inch (I did not use a caliper but a ruler and eyeballed so little approximations are to be expected). The golden ratio in its accepted approximation is 1.618. Thus, 11-6.8-4.2-2.6 would be the "perfect" mesures for the larger point (6.8), its distance from the top(4.2), the size of the opening and the narrow point (4.2) and the distance of the narrow point from its diameter (2.4). Well the real measures are: 11-6-4-2. I believe they are close enough.
New forms. Well never confuse or overlap technology with art. They have nothing to do with each other. The best literature was written with primordial tools of writing. In the age of the word processing I see only a growing ignorance. Just an example.
Technology may help in making something more precise but even this is not necessarely true. Just look at Greek or Roman vases. Not to mention Japanise urns, incense burners etc. Which are much imitated.
There are people in woodturning who made a career with hollow forms. Nothing wrong with it but take a look at these neolitic urns and decide who copied whom. By the way, pottery neolitic started 6400years bc.
Regards.
-
Hi Sevilla
As I said in my previous text, I agree that generic forms are very old and most of what we do in turning is indeed derived from these early forms. Although some of the Jomon pottery dates back as far as 14000 bc over twice as old as you note, Jomon Period.
For me however there are two different strands of what we do, those that are breaking new boundaries in woodturning and art and those who's work is derived from previous works/generic forms. To say that every thing comes from what has gone before for me is a closed view on the subject and only restricts our thinking and those that wants to develop beyond the generic form.
Yes people are inspired by objects and as a result produce new ideas, man was inspired to fly by watching birds, does this then mean that the first petrol powered monoplane was not a new idea. Agree this does not relate to pottery and shape and I agree that most concepts may not be original but an individuals design of it may indeed be original, there is a difference and this can be seen in various makers work.
-
If there were never any 'original' ideas and developments mankind wouldn't have evolved as he has. Whether it is in an artistic medium or a practical one there will always be those who can think outside the pail and come up with a new idea. Granted it is perhaps harder nowadays with so much already discovered, invented and thought out but it does still happen in all walks of life. In art the surrealists for example went down a completely new pathway, some perhaps were influenced consciously or not by previous forms but some were unoubtedly new ideas. Tosay that art and technology have nothing to do with each other is also IMHO simply not true both influence oeach other, art is influenced by life be it technical, emotional, or some other area of life Go and look at some of the victorian inventions and the designs and tell me that they weren't influence by art in some ways. I don't think anyone can say that any one part of life is not influenced n some way by another. new ideas come when those influences make us thik or feel in a new way altogether be it a gradual process or a leap.
Pete
-
Perhaps the biggest misconception is that art, or science go by leaps and bounds. I've been in medical research and practice for decades, published many scientific papers and can tell you that notic is discovered without the knowledge of previous discoveries or observations. Humans are part of a continuous evolutive process so is its thinking and production of new things, perhaps to the point of self distruction, but nothing is totally new. Just go in a IBM research lab and ask.
The surrealist movement would have been a very different thing if Sigmud Freud did not do what he did and marxist dialectic was not in fascion.
Regards.
-
Look on the positive side it is good to have another know all on the Forum for us all to learn from.
Regards George
-
Since Freud based all his so called teachings on 6 case studies, some of which weren't even his and as he has been proven to have been very wrong in most of his ideas I don't think he is a good example to use. As someone who has been involved in areas that deal with such things for most of my life I think you perhaps need to look again at some of your hypotheses as they are based every much on the mainstream teachings that have dominated and stunted much of our thinking in the last 100 years. With all due respect you cannot state as fact something that is self evidentially wrong and is based on a premise that went out of date many years ago. Mankind is capable of original thought and to say or suggest otherwise in any way is to assume that others have no common snese and cannot think for themselves. The greatest gift that any person can have is to look openly at what others say and learn which means accepting at times that we are wrong.
pete
-
For me,
I am not a highly educated person, basic 'O' levels, a few bits and pieces here and there picked up on my travels and that's my lot. But to say that nothing is new or original for me shreds everything we try to do on a daily basis. If this is the case then surely we are nothing more than programmed entities, destined to fail as all those that have gone before us who have put their hands up and bowed to the status quo.
Agreed, many many ideas are born from studies that have gone before, as you have stated from your experience and I respect this.
Every now and again though some one comes along that kicks the status quo into touch, just because we have not been able to do this ourselves does not mean the possibility does not exist, as for some it does.
Now there is no way that I think I am this person, but to start out with the belief that we can not come up with anything original bodes the question, why bother in the first place, are we just giving into the desire to fail before we start as some sort of cushion/excuse for not achieving ?
One of the main problems I see with human development is the belief that we have the answers before we start, these answers being born from the regimented education and doctrine we are forced to follow, a system constructed by other 'experts'.
Just think for a moment what would happen is we choose not to follow these 'experts' and look at things from a beginners mind, just think what could happen then. !!
Of course I am happy to be shown to be wrong as this makes me challenge the way I think and this ultimately helps with the path I follow.
Great thread by the way :)
-
Original ideas exist of course but always based on previous observations or studies or knowledge. Even if unconscious. Not only, observation of existing things is essential in any cultural process and even while turning or making anything else we observe what we are doing and change or proceed according to our intentions. Leonardo was the master of observation and look at what he produced just looking at the human body. These are not my ideas although I believe in them but are part of how we process our ideas which never float in air, unless we have allucinations, but are based on solid bases. The more solid the bases the greater the ideas. Bach, another example here, at his first paid job left and travelled to Denmark to meet and listen to Buxtehude risking his job. Why? Becouse he wanted to learn from a master, at any cost. I believe that there is alwas something to learn, that is why I post some of my turnings here and ask for CandC. Any discussion, any critic is important to me. Sorry if somebody thinks I'm a "know everything": nothing is more wrong than this statement. I just like to state my opinions and listen to those of others.
I thank you everybody for this nice conversation.
Regards.
-
I thank you everybody for this nice conversation.
Regards.
The thanks goes to you. These types of treads I very much enjoy as it challenges the way I think, this thread has made me look again at this subject in greater depth and that has to be a good thing.
When I started turning I waited for a long time to have a flash of inspiration strike me as indeed I thought it would out of no where like a lightening strike. It was not until many years later of making that a few small embers started to burn in my grey matter and I realised that inspiration does not, at least for me, come as a bolt out of the blue but is a slow drip drip from previous exposure. As I highlighted earlier most of my work if not all is derivative so if we look at this then it can not be original. 'Unique' may be to me in design but of original concept no.
This got me thinking last night, if this is the case, that even if there is even a infinitesimal connection some where from some time with our ideas, and thus the work we produce from those ideas, can anything indeed be 'Original'. Umm got me thinking.
I appreciate that this may be taking it to the extreme and is possibly not relevant in or work on a daily basis, as I say most of what I if not all is derivative and I am never going to be rich from turning, it just got me thinking that's all and as I say that is a good thing :) :) :)
That ties in with 'Unique' which is slightly different, I think :) and the clarification between the two is something I will muse over for a while.
So, Thank you Sevilla for getting me thinking and I hope you raise some more thought provoking threads in the near future , and show some more of your work.
-
Ooooh.............I like this.
This is the good Kardomah and frothy coffee stuff of my teens.
Surely originality is a matter of context. It is the point at which an apparent step change in thinking or action occurs. It is completely dependant upon historical events.
Does the artist have complete freedom to develop ideas and form?
Neuroscience is telling us that the unconscious mind is the driver of all actions; that the hand moves to perform an action before the conscious mind is aware that the movement is taking place. It follows that only previous experience lodged in the unconscious can determine what we do or are about to do.
Einstein did not produce his theory of relativity without rather a lot of dreary mathematics followed by an insight (probably unconscious) into how to tidy it up. The originality came from the ability to use items from the past to make sense of the present (and indeed the future).
We should delight in the ability of some people to combine items from the past into beautiful words, forms or visions. Our desire to codify their efforts (golden rules etc.) may serve to block the development of the content of our subconscious minds .
A thought: If the lathe had been developed 6000 years ago then we might be carping that the ceramicists are copying our forms and ideas.
My name is not pseudonymic. But pseudoscience is all around us.
Great thread............Nick
-
I've stayed away so far from this debate, but now I do have to say a few words (yes, George, the other know-it-all is at it again! ;D ;D).
Neuroscience is telling us that the unconscious mind is the driver of all actions; that the hand moves to perform an action before the conscious mind is aware that the movement is taking place. It follows that only previous experience lodged in the unconscious can determine what we do or are about to do.
If this were true, we would be complete slaves to our unconscious, essentially animals, with no free will to decide on anything. However, (admittedly by our own definition in the absence of any other judges on the subject) we are not animals, and we do possess free will. Therefore it follows that although the fine motor control in the arm may be subconscious, the overall action of the arm is dictated by the will of the mover.
I will admit that the totality of experiences during our lifetime has a dramatic, deep, often unconscious, influence on what we perceive as ugly or beautiful, and that much of what we do is a repetition or extension of these experiences. But all of us are capable to (every now and then) jump over the edge of our bowl (pardon the pun, fully deliberate) and do something "outside of the box". In fact, this is something that can (and should) be practised. The results are generally surprising.
-
I think I am very lucky because I am thick and haven't got a clue what you are all on about. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Regards George
-
I think I am very lucky because I am thick and haven't got a clue what you are all on about. ::) ::) ::) ::)
Regards George
....that's what we all like about you, George!
Les
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi George (GBF)
I think I will join your club(GOM) ;D I have read everything in this thread several times (sad) and I still do not understand all of this I am glad we have a lot of clever members on this Forum I might need to use some of their knowledge on day.Good Luck everyone. ::) ;D
Regards John