When is it turning, and when is it carving?

[MichaelMouse]

So does that mean that hand sanding changes the object from a turned item to a hand-sanded item?

And finishing makes it a oiled/varnished item that is no longer a turning?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Missed it, did you? It's no longer turning. I suppose I should call it "stationary" at that point?

Only nitpicking differentiates carving from sanding, since both remove material, just as only nitpicking makes a distinction as to the kind of finish applied or the method of application.

Now, as an avowed (or no-talent, your choice) revealer rather than creator of beauty in turned objects, I find much of what appears in the magazine on a par with what appears on the side of boxcars. It might be visually interesting, but it's still an obscenity.

 

[john lucas]

I find it very difficult to call what Binh Pho does obscenity. Sure it's not pure turning and it's highly decorated wood, but obscenity, I doubt it. It's about his life, and it's incredible. I could name many other woodturners that fit that description as well. Thier work is highly embellished.
I strongly agree with the statement that the work selected was simply the best on that day judged by those people under the guidlines of the contest.
I enjoy seeing all the entries and even though I've only entered two of them it's still fun. I wish we didn't have to listen to all the gripes about why I didn't win each time. This is supposed to be a fun thing and when I go to the shop I try to have fun. I might have that fun by learning to sandblast a piece or trying out a new carving tool but I still consider myself a turner because the project almost always starts or ends on the lathe.

 

[Hugh]

Isn't turning just a form of power carving. We use gouges, skews, scrapers, etc. It is just that the wood turns while we are presenting the tool to the wood. What's the problem here?

Hugh

 

[George Guadiane]

Missed it, did you? It's no longer turning. I suppose I should call it "stationary" at that point?

Only nitpicking differentiates carving from sanding, since both remove material, just as only nitpicking makes a distinction as to the kind of finish applied or the method of application.

Now, as an avowed (or no-talent, your choice) revealer rather than creator of beauty in turned objects, I find much of what appears in the magazine on a par with what appears on the side of boxcars. It might be visually interesting, but it's still an obscenity.

Michael,
After looking at your work AGAIN, I think you must be fishing for compliments. I don't think that anyone could even call you a limited talent. Your work says you can do "it" if you want to.
How about this: Segmenters are compilers and revealers of the beauty in wood. Ancient Chinese and Japanese jade carvers would study a stone, sometimes for years to decide what it was that needed to be revealed, so I guess even carvers of wood could think of themselves in the same way. Now maybe if they only carved sexually explicit images they could be considered "obscene," but since even YOU have strayed from the path by combining woods and adding adornments (finials), I don't see your point. Is the boxcar the pure form?

 

[Paul Stolarik]

I can't speak for Rightuppercut, but I don't believe the intent of the thread was to question the validity of any of the contest entries. I read it as a more of a general philosophical question. Some of the entrants in the contest interpreted the rules differently than I did, but there are probably as many interpretations as there people who read the rules. For me, I enjoyed seeing the different methods people used to get to the finished product. I said earllier that I was a turner not a carver. This was not meant in any way to imply that my entry was more or less valid than any other. I simply meant that the whole time I was carving I was looking over at my lathe wishing I was turning instead. I will likely try more carving in the future, as I like the results you can get from it. I am new to both turning and carving, so I am continually learning for my experiences.

In referenece to the quarterly, I feel the editors do a nice job of mixing things up. It's not all for me, but I am sure that there are others who enjoy it.

It is only by seeing and trying new things that I can form my own views of what I like and dislike.

 

[MichaelMouse]

I find it very difficult to call what Binh Pho does obscenity. Sure it's not pure turning and it's highly decorated wood, but obscenity, I doubt it. It's about his life, and it's incredible. I could name many other woodturners that fit that description as well. Thier work is highly embellished.

Good for you. Beauty and the eye of the beholder, as they say. People do see things differently, even the same sort of things. I'm one of those partial to Goya over Picasso when it comes to seeing (and depicting) females. Some of those cubist chicks make you wonder how much Pernod he really drank.

 

[waltben]

The root to all of this

This thread isn't really about what is art and what isn't. It's more about what is turning and what isn't. Let's not get bent out of shape about the former and focus on the latter. We're supposed to be an organization of turners. I find that our organizational focus is more on the art part and not on the turning part. I do object to that, but no one seems to want to listen. I absolutely do believe that many carved, colored, burned, or whatever pieces that have been in our magazine are truly art. All I want to know is: Where is the TURNING part of what we're supposed to be about.

And, as a minimalist, I've been juried into several top end shows. I'm not concerned when I'm not accepted, but I do avoid 'contemporary art' ones.

 

[George Guadiane]

This thread isn't really about what is art and what isn't. It's more about what is turning and what isn't. Let's not get bent out of shape about the former and focus on the latter. We're supposed to be an organization of turners. I find that our organizational focus is more on the art part and not on the turning part. I do object to that, but no one seems to want to listen. I absolutely do believe that many carved, colored, burned, or whatever pieces that have been in our magazine are truly art. All I want to know is: Where is the TURNING part of what we're supposed to be about.

And, as a minimalist, I've been juried into several top end shows. I'm not concerned when I'm not accepted, but I do avoid 'contemporary art' ones.

There are things that I see (PERSONALLY) as over the line, outside my interest, ugly if you must. Some of those things are only poorly turned (some of my early work included), some are ordinary in shape or out of balance (some of my early work included), some from uninteresting materials (yep, some of my early work included). My first look at the work of Malcolm Tibbits was beyond my ability to comprehend, until I sat in on several of his demos in October. I now understand that virtually every piece of wood he uses has been turned on the lathe at some point. He turns, chops and channels most of his biggest pieces, but he definitely knows how to turn.
Rolly Munro makes my favorite hollowing tools. His work is ALSO beyond my understanding (and taste - for now), but I would love to see a demonstration on his process.
Whether it's boredom or a need for a new challenge or... Really, if it's turned at some point, isn't it a turning? It's not like these are rare antique cars that have been "destroyed," it's wood that is worked on to the taste of the (artist) turner.
Does turning really need to be so pure that nothing else is allowed? If so, why? Seems like everything evolves or dies off... And at the end of the day, I still think there is room for all of us at the table.

 

[Brian Hahn]

And at the end of the day, I still think there is room for all of us at the table.

My feelings exactly!

 

[john lucas]

I apologize if I sounded course. I wasn't trying to step on anyone's integrity I simply don't understand the argument about is it carving or turning. As I see it almost everyone starts out turning. eventually they want to add some neat little detail be it paint, woodburning with a wire, dye, bleaching, or carving a detail into the rim or carving feet. Once you do that you see other possibilities and try those. Then you might decide to cut the bowl up and reassemble it. This may lead to offcenter work and then maybe more carving. If this process carries on your vision may lead you to carve and shape the piece more and more off the lathe. This is all part of the enjoyment of the hobby.
I certainly don't look down on purely turned pieces. I see incredible work every day that is purely turned. I also think there should be some division when it comes to competition but that should be left up to the judges or the curator to decide what is appropriate.
I think Brian said it well. There's room for us all at the table.

 

[C Edward Moore]

Turned?

I recently saw a piece on another turning forum that showed evidence of an incredible amount of carving and sanding and no clear indication of turning. Reference was made to a bowl, but it was not obvious visually to me. The tremendous amount of work involved was obvious and I was left with an overwhelming reaction which is best summed up with one word, "Why?". In the eye of this beholder, the piece was absolutely devoid of beauty and I was left with a strong feeling that someone was trying too hard to embellish and "do art".

I was reluctant to write this note because I really do not wish to attack someone else's work and I certainly am not attacking the individual. But this piece certainly crossed over the line for me and does not fall under the broad category of "turning" in my opinion. I love the work of the late Frank Sudol and of Binh Pho - their pieces are beautiful. I find the incredible mineral inlay of Stephen Hatcher to be art at its best. The beautiful painting that Susan Rosand does to Bob's ornaments and bowls is outstanding. Some of the color work by several folks is just fantastic. So I like beautiful embellishments. And I am well aware that the piece that I did not connect with may sell for much more than anything I will ever produce.

 

[GA Darling]

So, with all this chatter as to what is or isn't a turning, have they announced who won the contest? I've been looking for it but haven't seen it yet. I don't think I missed it.

GA Darling

 

[robert davis]

my bowl was obvoiusly turned.feet were created bu offset turning then carving..someon could probably create the feet totaly by turning.

 

[Steve Worcester]

I've been looking for it but haven't seen it yet. I don't think I missed it. GA Darling

No, you haven't missed it. It should be announced by Sunday

 

[william holland]

freedom of expression

When man tries to limit the freedom of expression in whatever form he limits us all!!!!

 

[John Van Domelen]

Turning- Carving

I consider myself first an artist, second a craftsman. Some of the works that I create are turned, carved, charred and textured pieces. Some of my work is quickly made production style runs of craft pieces. The lathe is just a tool I use in the process of either.

Like it said in the contest - I thought the object was to have fun.

Some of the comments sound like sour grapes. If you don't like certain work, don't buy it, but don't belittle it either.

Some plain woods beg for enhancement, others stand on their own merits.

Andi Wolfe said at SWAT last year in one of her demos of surface enhancements - 'Get over it - Its just a piece of wood' - or something similar - what a freeing idea to impart. I soon after made up my mind to just go out into the shop and play. Its been way less stressful and much more fun - I make work that I like - to heck if anyone else likes it or if it sells - I'm just having a blast.

I saw this in one of my old back issues of the the AAW mag - I really like the quote:

“For the mystic what is how.
For the craftsman how is what.
For the artist what and how are one.†-- William McElcheran

Namaste

-- john

 

[MichaelMouse]

Easy to confuse sour grapes and pretense sometimes. Both are, however personal.

 

[John Van Domelen]

Some good info in this thread

I just re-read it ...again

I love this: 'When I'm in a gallery looking at turnings the few I've come home with are always the ones I couldn't of made myself.' - Brujo

I am starting to collect deep hollow forms - I respect the work that goes into these pieces and I suc at making them. - LOL. :cool2:

Cheers!

-- John

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Bylaws

One thing I would like to point out is that the AAW is governed by a set of Bylaws (a copy is in your Resource Directory). The following is stated:
______________________
Article II Purposes

The Association's purpose is to foster a wider understanding and appreciation of lathe-turning as a traditional and contemporary craft and a form of art among the general public, hobbyist turners, part-time turners, and professional turners.
________________________

With the above stated purpose designated by the bylaws - is the Association in compliance with the bylaws when they put on demos, print articles, etc. on carving, burning, painting, etc? This has been one of the best discussions on this topic and I would really like to know your opinion as to whether the bylaws allow the Association to promote woodworking with the wood not turning on a lathe. If not, is it time to amend the bylaws to include these activities or should the Association follow the bylaws as written. I look forward to the discussion!

Wilford

 

[George Guadiane]

One thing I would like to point out is that the AAW is governed by a set of Bylaws (a copy is in your Resource Directory). The following is stated:
______________________
Article II Purposes

The Association's purpose is to foster a wider understanding and appreciation of lathe-turning as a traditional and contemporary craft and a form of art among the general public, hobbyist turners, part-time turners, and professional turners.
________________________

With the above stated purpose designated by the bylaws - is the Association in compliance with the bylaws when they put on demos, print articles, etc. on carving, burning, painting, etc? This has been one of the best discussions on this topic and I would really like to know your opinion as to whether the bylaws allow the Association to promote woodworking with the wood not turning on a lathe. If not, is it time to amend the bylaws to include these activities or should the Association follow the bylaws as written. I look forward to the discussion!

Wilford

In MY opinion, EITHER we have to accept the fact that wood turning is not now (nor never really has been) a pure form... or allow for enhancements.
Once you use a stain, for instance, you have eliminated the "pure form." If it was/is OK to compile pieces of wood to turn (segmenting?) and or to use stain (or paint, I mean REALLY, laminations, milk paints etc., have been used for CENTURIES on what are clearly turnings), then where do you draw the line? My guess it is at your own comfort zone.
There are pieces that (to me) have no relation to turning in the "pure" sense that I still find quite attractive, that I still admire and still ask the question "HOW DID HE DO THAT???" By the same token, there are pieces that I see that had, at least, been near a lathe that I just don't "get," don't like. That's the "art" part. If they have a PRIMARY turned element, then IMHO they could/should be considered as turnings.
Besides, what is the problem with knowledge? AND, if we boiled down the articles and demos to JUST PURE WOODTURNING, how long would it be before we start repeating ourselves? How soon before many of us would become bored? Even those who would then have nothing to complain about or rail against would become bored.
If ANY finish is an acceptable application, then who gets to say which "improvements," aesthetic enhancements, techniques are NOT acceptable and why?

 

[almather]

By-laws or what I like or don't like?

These last couple of posts have touched upon an important point - lathe-turning crafts or art. I understand these word to be somewhat restrictive. This organization is about what people do (or would like to do) on (with) a lathe. It doesn't say if the wood has to be in one piece or a thousand pieces glued together - it just says "lathe-turning".

The issue, as I see it, is not whether we like or appreciate the art work, i.e. carving, for example, that someone has added to the lathe-turning, but what is the meaning of the words in the by-laws.

So, in my opinion, the articles in the magazine and presentations, etc. ought to be screened to the extent of compliance to the by-laws. There has to be a stopping point somewhere or else we could skip the lathe entirely! Or, as suggested, re-work the wording to clearly accept the embellishing aspect of some turnings.

In conclusion: the by-laws as stated were written to both be inclusive (lathe-turnings) and exclusive (not your typical non-turned furniture, for example). Re-working the words might be a good thing to do, but then we will have another boundary to content with. A boundary will always be there, somewhere. It is up to the trusties, and to all of us, to work with the words that we have chosen to use to identify ourselves as an organization.

As post-script: in my opinion, adding a layer of paint is not much different from adding a layer of poly-wipe-on, and so with burning, or even carving to some extent. I think the discussion is more along the line of - some people are altering their turning by post-turning methods to the point that even turners don't 'easily??' recognize that there is (or was) a turning in there some where.

Al

 

[waltben]

By the by laws . .

If strict attention was paid to the by laws, it would all depend on how strict an interpreter you are as to if we've been rigidly following them or not. As someone who turns items to sell, and has sold them fairly successfully for many years, I know what the general public wants in their homes - and it's not something they need a glass case and humidity controlled environmets for. It's also very seldom a salad bowl. My continued concern is the AAW and our magazine's very tight focus on niche highly manipulated wood art and very little on the basic to intermediate techniques of turning, unbiased reviews of products, etc. I obtain more real turning information from chat rooms, forums and YouTube than from our magazine. It's really no wonder my club has only 50% AAW membership, as the ones that aren't mostly say they can't see any advantage to joining. One of these makes and sells several hundred pens a year. Another produces pieces that would hold their own against just about anyone. If people like these don't find membership worthwhile, then we'll stay the size we are and continue down the same road we're on today.

 

[George Guadiane]

I think the discussion is more along the line of - some people are altering their turning by post-turning methods to the point that even turners don't 'easily??' recognize that there is (or was) a turning in there some where.
Al

Are we to be limited by the abilities of the observer to recognize the process used to arrive at the final product?
Malcolm Tibbits turns virtually every piece of wood he touches (except for the veneer maybe). Should my inability to recognize that (without his having explained and demonstrated it to me) disallow some of his most important works from being considered as turnings?
In truth, almost everything we do as turners could be done by properly programmed computer run CNC machines, with or without a lathe. If it looks like it was (could have been) turned, is it still a turning? How a piece appears to have been made isn't as important as whether the "artisan" knows it.
I see computer cut marquetry all the time... Is it still "art?" I don't think so, but who am I?

 

[Steve Worcester]

Should my inability to recognize that (without his having xplained and demonstrated it to me) disallow some of his most important works from being considered as turnings?

I will soon be expunged I am sure for adding glass work to my turnings even though the molds are turned for the glass fabrication. The wood portion takes about 3 hours and the glass about 10.

In truth, almost everything we do as turners could be done by properly programmed computer run CNC machines, with or without a lathe. If it looks like it was (could have been) turned, is it still a turning? How a piece appears to have been made isn't as important as whether the "artisan" knows it.
I see computer cut marquetry all the time... Is it still "art?" I don't think so, but who am I?

I was in a juried show where the winner of the wood category has been denied jurying in the following years because his marquetry (beautiful work none the less) was all laser cut.

 

[George Guadiane]

I will soon be expunged I am sure for adding glass work to my turnings even though the molds are turned for the glass fabrication. The wood portion takes about 3 hours and the glass about 10.

Can't happen! Who better than you to be the keeper of the gate?
Besides, I really think that the weight of public opinion falls on the side of the experimentalist. Otherwise, there would only ever have been a small handful of books, videos, DVDs... After all, how many times can we learn how to use a skew?

I was in a juried show where the winner of the wood category has been denied jurying in the following years because his marquetry (beautiful work none the less) was all laser cut.

I would think of that as fair (personally). I realize that the materials used, the alignment and orientation are still in the hands of the artist, but the necessary care and precision are virtually eliminated. Even if the original design is done in a more conventional way, most of us are not "John Henry" and it doesn't seem fair that we should have to compete against a steam hammer.

 

[Ed_McDonnell]

In my opinion, a laser cutter is just another tool. It takes skills and talent to create something with it. Some of the skills are different than have been traditionally applied to the same task in the past, but they are skills none the same. The fact that it makes some things eaiser shouldn't matter. If "easier, faster and expensive" were criteria for excluding tools and techniques, how would we ever have advanced past rubbing rocks against a log to create something?

What about the use of a laser pointer on a hollowing rig? Should hollow forms created using one be viewed as somehow inferior to one produced without? I don't think so.

Is it fair that someone who developed the skill to turn thin walled hollow forms without a laser pointer (or captive hollowing rig) should have to compete against those that have spent the money to acquire them (rather than the time to learn how to do it without)? Maybe, but that's life. Tools and techniques improve and evolve.

Ed

 

[Brian Hahn]

... a traditional and contemporary craft and a form of art ...

Is this a trick question?

It says "a form of art ".

Art is a pretty wide-open area. As in "art has no bounds".

QED

 

[Brian Hahn]

The maker's touch

In truth, almost everything we do as turners could be done by properly programmed computer run CNC machines, with or without a lathe. If it looks like it was (could have been) turned, is it still a turning? How a piece appears to have been made isn't as important as whether the "artisan" knows it.

Right now the conventional wisdom is that a turning must look perfect, as though it had been molded from an exotic plastic by some machine.

Potters have long faced the problem of differentiating hand made pottery from machine made (i.e. department store) pottery. Their solution was leave traces of its hand-made origin. Maybe a swirl in the center of a bowl or platter or an errant finger print or a mottled glaze.

Maybe there is a good reason that some turners that I highly respect don't sand the insides of their hollow forms (pots).

 

[Jake Debski]

................................. Maybe a swirl in the center of a bowl or platter or an errant finger print or a mottled glaze.

Johannes Michelsen, deliberately puts a swirl inside each hat he turns. It is more his signature than an attempt to identify it as hand turned.

 

[George Guadiane]

First I wrote:

In MY opinion, EITHER we have to accept the fact that wood turning is not now (nor never really has been) a pure form... or allow for enhancements.

THEN I wrote:

I realize that the materials used, the alignment and orientation are still in the hands of the artist, but the necessary care and precision are virtually eliminated. Even if the original design is done in a more conventional way, most of us are not "John Henry" and it doesn't seem fair that we should have to compete against a steam hammer.

I guess I want it both ways.
I give up! As I said FIRST, we either have to accept the "enhancements" or not... Even laser and CNC. I enhance, no laser no CNC (yet) :cool2:

 

[Steve Worcester]

In my opinion, a laser cutter is just another tool. It takes skills and talent to create something with it.

True, it is just a tool, but about $10,000 and is computer controlled. I would think differently about it if he had to hold the laser in his hands to trace the lines.

Is it fair that someone who developed the skill to turn thin walled hollow forms without a laser pointer (or captive hollowing rig) should have to compete against those that have spent the money to acquire them (rather than the time to learn how to do it without)? Maybe, but that's life. Tools and techniques improve and evolve.

In my opinion, the only thing the hollowing rigs and lasers do is cut down on the learning curve and like a grinding jig, allow you to focus on the form.

I have turned both ways, but I use the lathe as another tool in the process for some items and spend more time in the embellishment process than the turning.

When a hollow form is sitting on the self, your eyes don't know how thin the walls are. Woodturners I think are about the only ones who care or judge by this. In contrast, you can make a form a 1/2mm thick, but a crappy shape is a crappy form.

 

[hockenbery]

metal, plastic, stone, resin, glass, palm, pinecones, sea shells

where does woodturning meet mixed media?

Is a resin bowl with a few sticks embedded in it "wood" Turning?
is a pen woodturing? or metal work?
One might argue the most work is in the parts.

Are man made materials wood? Nuts, pods and palm are not wood, stone is not wood.

turning,
woodturning,
wood art,
sculpture,
fine art.

does it matter?

happy Turning
-Al

 

[George Guadiane]

We Should All REALLY Read This!

This is a new thread about "When Is It Turning..."
http://www.woodturner.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=3570
Take a look!

 

[waltben]

How true, how true

When a hollow form is sitting on the self, your eyes don't know how thin the walls are. Woodturners I think are about the only ones who care or judge by this. In contrast, you can make a form a 1/2mm thick, but a crappy shape is a crappy form.

I've found that the buying public prizes form much more than technical virtuosity. It doesn't matter how difficult it was to complete a piece, it matters how pleasing to the eye it is.

 

[Vernon Oberle]

Eye for form

I believe that no matter how restriced you make contest or whatever, the same people will still win. They are the ones with the eye for shape, form, and relative dimension. Let's face it, now matter how much some us want to reach that level we just don't have the enate talent (myself especially). But that dosen't mean we should quit trying or not venture out and not try new things. I wish I had the eye and imagination, I don't, but I sure as heck enjoy trying to create nice pieces and sometimes get lucky.

Its kind of like golf. There are hackers and pros and all sorts in between. The hackers will never make it to the tour but probably have more fun with what they accomplish.

We have people in our turning group that also belong to the woodworkers and carving clubs. It seems natural to combine what talents you have.

Vernon

 

[robert davis]

I usually don't comment on the contests because I don't enter into them. In this case I looked at each object and wondered how they could have put them on the lathe for more than just a few minutes. I thought that they were very nicely done. The other question was in the rules. Maybe what they should have said was they must start on the lathe and be able to be chucked back into the lathe when done. I know that any piece that I would have entered would have met this rule. ( but it would not have been near as nice)
ken

MY FOOTED BOWL WAS 99% TURNING ! BOB DAVIS

 

[robert davis]

OK, but can you tell me, in this particular contest how the feet could be crated without carving?

i wondered when someone would say this.

 

[Angelo]

Turning?

Well, when it spinning, it's probably turning. When it is not spinning, you could call it carving!

A

 

[Wilford Bickel]

Let's go further!

Angelo,

I appreciate you coming onto the forum and participating in this discussion. I totally agree with your definition of turning in that the wood must be spinning to be called turning. Now to take this one step further, with the bylaws stating that AAW is to promote "lathe-turning" why is so much of the Journal, galleries, demos, etc. spent on work that is NOT done with the wood spinning?? We are the "American Association of Woodturners" not the "American Association of Carvers"!

Seriously, I would appreciate hearing your comments on this matter. As others here know I believe it is time for us to get back to our purpose as stated in the bylaws and to our "roots" of turning!

Thanks in advance for your continued participation.

 

[Angelo]

Ok one step further

I have heard it said, by Graeme Priddle, that we spend more time sanding a piece than we do turning it! So, with that in mind should we be the American Association of Wood Sanders?

All kidding aside, I can tell you that when I started turning, (in 1991 +/-) having the ability to turn a natural edge bowl was enough to set yourself apart from most of the other work.

Now-a-days, with over 13000 wood turners selling to the same market I see carving as just another tool in the turners repertoire to help set themselves apart from the pack.

There is room for everyone. I, myself, still prefer a nicely shaped bowl, vase or box with a knockout piece wood the accentuate the finished shape. When I view the pictures in the gallery That is STILL what gets my attention. See if you can find the bowl I called the most beautiful I have ever seen. That one has fallen into second place with the new picture of the day WOW! What a pretty bowl.

The fact is that there are as many styles of woodturning as there are woodturners. The work of one does not negate the work of the other. It only enhances it. In fact if you look carefully, you can follow the development of one style into another.

Our editor, Carl Voss, is in a constant battle with himself when he considers which articles to include in the journal and which to put into another. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. So you will see content vary according to two things,

First: Carl can only select articles which have been submitted to him. When he sees a theme developing within any journal he may call on his contributing editors to round out the issue.

Second: When he receives a lot of flak from one camp or the other he makes a concerted effort to include more articles from the “squeaky wheelâ€Â. The problem is he may not have the articles on hand to satisfy that group.

Our journal is a publication of articles from our membership. Don’t see one you like? Try writing one. There are many mentors within the AAW that can help with ideas and input.

John Jordan uses a phrase “the fair curve†when he speaks, or critiques, wood turning. I think it is a good idea for an article. Are you game?

Angelo