Mike Darlow

[Mike Darlow]

Originally a civil engineer, I moved from UK to Australia in 1969. In 1976 I commenced the three-year trade course in woodturning at Sydney Technical College. The teaching was excellent. In 1979 I started a woodturning business which employed 7 turners and 21 lathes, many special purpose. I've written six woodturning books, made three DVDs and had about 200 magazine articles published. Because of the long lag times with American magazines, most of my recent articles have been published in Australia. I'm currently writing two new woodturning books.

My main focus is to provide the best information I can for other turners. Many of my writings are therefore detailed and analytical, and sometimes disagree with advice by other turners and with the promotions by manufacturers of woodturning equipment.

I believe that there is too much focus of non-functional turning. Most turners would, I believe, prefer to focus most of their turning on producing function items for family and friends. As Mike Dunbar correctly states this involves more turning of multiples. It therefore involves more spindle turning, more pre-turning design, and more disciplined techniques. This in turn requires both sound teaching and commitment by pupils (something which I fully accept many aren't willing or able to give). This approach of mine seems to be unpopular, and may explain why I have only been invited to demonstrate at an AAW Symposium once (in 2006), and that only if an enquiry was held.

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Mike welcome to the pages of wisdom or questions about it anyway. We will talk about functional later.

 

[hockenbery]

Welcome to the forum,
Your vast experience is a great addition.
I appreciate the techniques and philosophies shared here.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Mike,

Looking forward to your contributions to the forum, I enjoy turning various items and many times turn multiples to give away to co-workers and family and friends. I have read a number of your published articles and books over the years and enjoyed them all.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Welcome, Mike. I agree with Al Hockenbery's comments. I have read several of your books and look forward to your valuable contributions to this forum.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you all for reading my introduction. My point is illustrated by the "Recent Additions to the Gallery" at the top of the Forums page. No functional turnings among them. I can admire the skill and care which has gone into producing them, but what happens then? Certainly in Australia the market for items pitched at collectors is tiny, and it isn't long before spouse and friends say "No more thank you". I'm all for turners turning what they want, and adding what ornament and decoration they want, but they are inevitably influenced by the woodturning media. And especially since the advent of colour media, the media wants bling. Non-functional turners are better able to supply that bling, and therefore get more exposure. This especially influences those new to turning. It influences the things they make and the skills they seek. I wonder whether this approach is wise for the long term.

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Thank you all for reading my introduction. My point is illustrated by the "Recent Additions to the Gallery" at the top of the Forums page. No functional turnings among them. .

.


I can see your point and there is a reason. When we as turners post something on this forum there are so many professionals on here anything posted seems to need bling and have appeal. Now Functional items , thinking spoons and cereal bowls and other kitchen items, do not have that bling and you just do not see that here. Not meaning we do not make that in the states just that in my opinion most do not feel this is the place , gallery that is. There are two other forums on which I do see that kind of post, in addition to Facebook. Hope that clarifies my thoughts and maybe someone else will have a better idea. Still good to have you here added to the brainpool.

 

[David Hill]

Hi Mike,
Welcome!
I appreciate the approach to functional turning--most all of my turnings are functional in one way or another, sometimes as pretty firewood. I like to make things that can be used but also may employ some "bling" to fill in voids or cracks. I don't do this as my avocation--more as relaxation from my "real life" as a physician. I see and enjoy the amazing art pieces that are turned or at least partially so, that often make me wonder "How???" . Then when I read or watch the process, I can pick up tidbits or learn techniques that benefit me. I believe that this hobby (for me) is one that has room for both functionalists and artists---if it was all about "function", most would lose interest---"Is that all there is?" This brings to mind a compare and contrast of "painters" and "artists who paint", another discussion.
I've not read any of your work, but will look for it.

 

[Bill Boehme]

I would say that the situation for woodturners over here apparently is much better than it is in Australia. While I would agree that high end gallery art isn't what it once was it is still alive in some areas. I believe that the accelerating growth in woodturning over the last two or three decades is due to going beyond purely functional turning which in turn has been responsible for the growing interest in woodturning by the average hobbyist woodturner and hence the growth in new equipment such as lathes, chucks, turning tools and many other accessories.

Craft shows are a great venue for the average woodturner who is interested in doing that. Most of the woodturners who I know turn purely as a recreational pastime and I doubt that they will run out of people interested in turned items as gifts. I donate most of the things that I turn to various charities such as the Empty Bowls Project and Beads of Courage.

I looked at the most recent galley items and saw some things that I would consider functional such as boxes, a peppermill, and toys. Also, many woodturners use kits to turn pens, canes, and handles for various items and while such things may require only very basic skills they are what some people enjoy doing. Nothing wrong with that and they are functional items. You won't find many turners doing architectural turning because machines have taken over most of that. I suspect that most people who buy bowls want them as decorative items and not to eat their porridge.

Woodturning, like so many other things in life, evolves over time. I wonder what the bodgers using spring pole lathes would think about woodturning today.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

As for me, wood turning is an outgrowth of my background in oil painting and flat work. I care a lot more about turning because it's fun, and if it happens to be functional great.

But for the most part function is secondary to me. Much like a 3 dimensional piece of sculpture, rather than something with a specific purpose.

I've sold only. A few pieces however, as opposed to a large body of furniture and such, which of course was functional in design.

But I'm just a hobbyist.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

My apologies for typos, miss Billings, bed grammar. But I am using my phone and it's dictate function, which clearly is not much more literate then am I.


LOL

 

[john lucas]

Welcome to the Forum. I have all of your books and study them from time to time. It seems like here in the US that most people make bowls and pens. I wonder if they just don't have the imagination or simply don't know what else to make. I make Christmas Ornaments and hand mirrors as my main production items but that's simply because in my local market that's what sells. As far as all the surface design, well it's just plain fun which is why I do it and teach it. Other turners seem to enjoy adding these decorations to their pieces.

 

[hockenbery]

My guess is more people want to dabble in fun artistic projects than pure functional.

Woodturners in North America are distributed across the skill level spectrum and the expectation spectrum.
AAW affiliated wood turners are roughly 30,000 with 15,000 being full AAW members. There are probably another 70,000 out there that do some turning who have never heard of AAW. The professionals, who make their living woodturning mostly do so either in the art world or production world. The art world turners are much more visible to the public and new turners. Art world professionals do the bulk of videos, teaching, demonstrating.
The production side fills customer orders for architecture parts, furniture parts, bowls, bottle stoppers....

The art side is unlimited some folks are selling pens for tens of thousands of dollars to a niche market of millionair pen collectors. Also the art side has a bigger public presence in craft shows, art shows, videos, tool sales, classes, demonstrations.

About 1 in 5 of the Woodturners coming into the AAW family last 5 years but once the stick with it that long they seem to stay with turning.

The turners the public and AAW affiliates see are by my rough estimate:
200 tier 1 turners in terms of international recognition or income.
Another 300 tier 2 turners in terms of national recognition or income.
The numbers of production turners working in anonymity could be another 300.

Those aspiring to reach the tiers are relatively few since just about anyone can get there with 3- 5 years of persistence. The vast majority of turners just want to have fun, learn a little, turn, and or watch others turn.
What happens to what they make is not as important as the doing.

Bottom line is all types up turning are appreciated by someone here.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you all those who have responded to my introduction. I was, as is clear from my statement, not seeking to restrict turners producing from non-functional items, but to expand the horizons of the majority of the 100,000 Mr Hockenbery refers to into the functional. John Lucas confirms that bowls and pens are what most make. It's much the same in Australia. Why? I suggest that reasons include that turning pens doesn't require much turning skill, and most of the bowl turning similarly is poorly skilled. While pens are functional, and many bowls are, they barely scratch the scope of functional turnings.

American economist Paul Krugman in an article on English food stated that "a free-market economy can get trapped for an extended period in a bad equilibrium in which good things are not demanded because they have never been supplied, and are not supplied because not enough people demand them". Could this apply to woodturning? For example, I joined this Forum because of the topic of the Oneway outboard facility. What became clear was that many turners were not aware of the benefits of turning bowls, including small ones, outboard. Why? possibly because they had been influenced by all the adverts and articles showing bowls turned inboard.

However to be able to turn functional items for family and friends, turners need a much wider range of turning (which I differentiate from decorating and ornamenting) skills. They also need to be exposed to the potential range of functional turnings. In my judgement American Woodturner and Woodturning fall short in this. But then I might just have become an old reactionary. Anyway at least I have an opinion.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

I would say that this represents a larger societal failure, in that there are only pockets of education in, well let’s call them skilled trades.

The past three decades have seen the rise of tech and the associated focus on STEM curricula, at the expense of many other programs that were available to teach even fundamental shop skills. The rise of tech is not in and of itself a bad thing, but humans seem to prefer binary choices and so up with tech and other education possibilities? Meh.

One is either college bound or, as a generalization, disenfranchised by the education system. And, given that there is no meaningful tradition of apprenticeship such as other countries still have (I am given to understand), this seems to relegate arts such as wood arts to a near niche-like existence here in the U.S.

So it is in my view the distribution model at issue with respect to education and , therefore, exposure and appreciation. This is a limiting factor that could be more dire but for those who are passionate about this art. As a consequence, membership decides to ban together and produce a publication, the mandate of which is to produce content that is well-received by readership.

Are these publications falling short? Only if the readership believes this to be so. Yes, they do have a responsibility to push and advance the craft, but they have an equal if not greater duty to provide content that its paying customers prefer.

For my education I’ve gone to symposia, watched dvd content like Richard Raffan’s, you tube videos purchase books and more. Because I know that no one source will suffice.

By the way, I like Krugman. He did an interesting podcast this past year with Tyler Cowan, an economics at George Mason.

 

[hockenbery]

I remembered this survey Question to AAW members in November 2017.
Bowls and functional objects had the highest interest
Hollow forms, boxes, vases, and nonfunctional and sculpture all had strong interest.
2.5 is sort of and average interest

We also need to be mindful that furniture and architectural are important to those who selected it 4,5....

 

[John Torchick]

Welcome. Looking forward to your contributions here.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

I remembered this survey Question to AAW members in November 2017.
Bowls and functional objects had the highest interest
Hollow forms, boxes, vases, and nonfunctional and sculpture all had strong interest.
2.5 is sort of and average interest

We also need to be mindful that furniture and architectural are important to those who selected it 4,5....


View attachment 29136

Thanks Al. This is really interesting to know. A quick bit of math shows that about 49% of those responding had an above average interest in embellishment, and 44% above average in non-functional items. Glancing through old issues of American Woodturner, my impression is that it skews in the general direction of member preference, and considers other areas of interest while pushing out into broader areas. And then the significant preference for hollow forms, bowls, and platters.

In thinking about my own area of interest, I've turned maybe half a dozen platters, a few hollow forms and lots more "whimsical" and pointless things. Glad to know that "my" niche is still heavily weighted in the poll results!

 

[Mike Darlow]

I thank Mr Hockenbery for the table. It surely confirms that most turners favour non-functional turning, but doesn't answer why.

I'm currently teaching a class of five with seven 3-hour weekly lessons. The students are typical club members: been turning several years, sell occasionally at markets. The classes have been revelatory to them. They've realised just how ill-founded, inefficient, and limited their techniques were, and have had to totally rebuild them. I suggest that 90% of turners are in the same boat, some because they've been unwilling to commit to learning properly, some because they weren't aware they had to if they were to really progress. It is this lack of turning competence which in many cases leads to the focus on non-functional, and on decoration and ornament which doesn't always add appeal. Thus much non functional turning is the result of sensibly producing within known abilities. I believe we should be aiming to improve them.

My view, and this is probably why I'm not on the glitterati circuit, is that there are optimum techniques (although they will advance over time), that they should be the same for everyone, and that much of the teaching is suboptimal or incomplete and is a disservice to those it's supposed to help. Consider these statements:

David Ellsworth: "If we all followed the same path [I assume means were taught the same techniques] I suspect our work would end up looking very much alike and we'd all be bored with turning wood instead of being excited". This statement is illogical. Turning is essentially turning convex, concave and straight profiles. There are an infinite number of ways to assemble them. The sounder your technique the wider your vocabulary of possible forms and the greater the variety of items you will have the confidence to produce.

Dale Nish: "The cutting method can be learned only with much practice and patience on behalf of the learner . . . mastery of the cutting method is enjoyed only by a few master woodturners". This grossly overstates the difficulty of becoming a competent woodturner. English turner Stuart King has shown that woodturning has been practiced for about 4,000 years. We know by now how to turn optimally. If committed students are taught those techniques and practice them genuine competence will be achieved by most in weeks.

I stated earlier that techniques will advance over time. I have continued to refine my own, hence one of the new books.

Mark Hepburn discusses magazines. They publish what their editors choose. We don't know what they reject. An illustration: several decades ago the UK magazine The Woodworker published an article by me. In a subsequent issue two readers letters were published, one agreeing with me, one not. Many months later I happened to meet a new editor. He revealed that the magazine had received more than 400 letters in response to my article. A record. And is a magazine always going to publish content which proves that the product of a major advertiser is a waste of money?

I don't think I've much more to add on this topic. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Each year I try to find several new items to turn and learn the process and techniques for turning these items in a production style method. I enjoy sharing these items with people I work with along with family and friends. If I had to turn the same items all of the time it would get boring, turning new items helps to continue the learning process and different tools and techniques required for these different items.

 

[Zach LaPerriere]

Mike, I for one appreciate your perspective greatly. This is a forum, and we should welcome different opinions—and especially those from seasoned turners, and even more so those with decades of experience like you.

May I ask what book you recommend we start from in learning more about your more recent advances in technique?

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Interesting perspective on what turners like to turn. As a club officer we see many varied favorites among our members and as we have show and tell maybe 20 to 40 percent of members never bring in anything.
Now as to the origin of our favorites I believe we all like varied techniques:
For ease of production
For favored appearance
Just because some demoed or showed the technique.
Because we either have a lot of the wood used or like or have never used that species.
I know all this is a little off the top of my head with no background research but these are things we have talked about in executive committee meetings and at least a few of these are my reasons. I think there are very few of us turners who come up with a truly original idea or technique, but that is also true in everyday life also. There are the movers and shakers and then there are the followers. We have all applied our turning abilities to a item in the shop or home such as vacum collars, chair legs or spindles but that stuff is not FUN. Now we have reached the key word "if it ain't FUN it ain't happening" that would be work if the f word was left out.
So @Mike Darlow that could be some of the reasons we Americans do everything differently than the rest of the world. Jimmy Clewes clued me in that Australian zippers are backwards inherited from England so I can see the logic in some different thoughts and as an American we will listen but maybe not be won over to all ideas.

 

[hockenbery]

David Ellsworth: "If we all followed the same path [I assume means were taught the same techniques] I suspect our work would end up looking very much alike and we'd all be bored with turning wood instead of being excited".

I agree with what you say about having the basic skills.
But
I have a very different take on the Ellsworth quote. I think It has almost nothing to do with tool techniques but more to do with life experiences and how we project them into our work.

My most influential classes were five days with Liam O’Neil 1994 and then 5 with David in 1995.
My tool usage is very much a product of both of those classes. I also know a half dozen well known tuners who have had a lasting influence from David. They have all taken diverse paths with their work using the side ground gouge with a grind similar to Ellsworth’s.
I’ve also had the experience of assisting in quite a few classes with David and with two folks influenced significantly by David.

We learn to how to shape wood in a class. How we choose to shape it comes from us.

In beginning classes I stress surface far more than shape. If my students can get a good surface they will be able to get a good curve.

 

[Bill Boehme]

Statistics don't lie, but statisticians do.¹
That is one of the first things that I learned when I got out of college. The data can be true, but wrong. The analysis can be valid, but misleading.

I thank Mr Hockenbery for the table. It surely confirms that most turners favour non-functional turning, but doesn't answer why.

That might be true, but the table condenses the data quite a bit, so before I would draw too many conclusions I would want to see the raw data. I could speculate that of the twelve categories some people rated all of them a "5" and maybe a few curmudgeons rated all twelve categories "1". I would guess that maybe a third of the approximately 1400 respondents gave a top rating to both "Bowls and Platters" and "Functional objects". I also think that individual interpretation of the meaning of some categories muddied the waters quite a bit. I think that it's pretty clear cut on the meaning of the last five categories, but depending on an individual's thinking, not thinking, or over thinking, deciding what a category means gets fuzzy. For example the categories "Hollow forms" and "Vases". That's as bad as defining the difference between art and craft. And then somebody who likes to turn bowls and platters for actual use at the table might wonder why bowls and platters arren't considered functional. If you are very interested in embellishment then step one is to turn something to embellish, but maybe you don't really care much about the turning part.

My guess is that the survey was intended to help guide the AAW in making decisions on symposium demonstrations and possibly also help decide what topics to publish in the journal and online. I'm not sure that we can glean any more than that from what's presented in the table.

¹Probably a corollary to "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Mike,

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts. Like Zach, I appreciate your thoughts and certainly your experience. If I seemed less than welcoming I apologize.

This forum should be a place for a free exchange of ideas and yours are no less welcome than anyone else's - including mine. Our thoughts regarding functional vs. merely artistic work diverge and that's fine. My formal education background is in fine arts - primarily oils - and my vocational training is as a chef. I say this only to inform, because both require a long slog through the fundamentals and lots of repetition, like woodturning in which we share a common interest.

A quick quote of your earlier posts:

"... turners need a much wider range of turning (which I differentiate from decorating and ornamenting) skills. They also need to be exposed to the potential range of functional turnings."
​

Agreed, especially with respect to the use of ornamentation to cover over lesser quality work (mea culpa).

Anyway, welcome you to the forum, and if we disagree, please know that it is not that I do not respect your body of work or your expertise. And again, my apologies if I seemed unwelcoming.

Mark

 

[Bill Boehme]

Sharing of different perspectives is always welcome and desired ... not to mention that being willing to listen to different points of view is how we expand our horizons. I appreciate @Mike Darlow nudging me out of my comfort zone. Other forum members here also do that as well from time to time.

If I thought that everybody should think the way that I think then we would be stuck in one place with no path forward.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Sharing of different perspectives is always welcome and desired ... not to mention that being willing to listen different points of view is how we expand our horizons. I appreciate @Mike Darlow nudging me out of my comfort zone. Other forum members here also do that as well from time to time.

If I thought that everybody should think the way that I think then we would be stuck in one place with no path forward.

You're right Bill. And if everyone thought like I did, well, things could become catastrophic quite quickly!

And that's a cool photo. I still struggle mightily with stationary objects and a white background.

 

[Mike Darlow]

Thank you Mark and Bill for your responses.

Mike Johnson's remarks are of interest. He doesn't clarify the types of new techniques which he learns each year. And of course if we're not continually learning, there's something wrong. But I come back to my earlier point: woodturning is essentially turning convex, concave and straight profiles into axially and transversely grained workpieces. You can't get very far until you can do that, but when you do the horizons are open. For example, and relevant to Mark, I've recently be turning rows of 25 identical adjacent beads for picture frames. The only tool to do this efficiently is a chisel. Yet a recent series of articles on techniques for beginners omitted the chisel because it's harder to learn. I agree that it is, 40% of my basic course which covers spindle, cupchuck, faceplate and bowl turning is devoted to chisel usage. But if you don't achieve competence with a chisel, your vocabulary of turning profiles and efficiency are restricted. Much of the instruction in the media is compromised and less than rigorous to make turning easier. This is a valid approach, but it ain't mine. Mine is to try and explain techniques clearly and in detail so that those who are prepared to apply the needed commitment will be more certain of achieving competence.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Mike,

When I started turning materials on the wood lathe I had prior experience working in an engineering and design facility that had a machine shop and tool room that we used to build tooling, jigs, dies and molds for various production lines. One of my hobbies over the years involved the Pyrotechnic Guild which I started turning wood tools for a number of the guild members that needed these tools made for the different types of items we were making. The tools used in the Pyrotechnic Guild need to be non-sparking so you use wood and polymer when possible and brass and aluminum for others. Turning multiples of an item usually provides an incentive to learn quickly and adapt to using the lathe and accessories in a method which simplifies the process and each new item turned usually provides experience to streamline the process. Repetition also develops the muscle memory and proper technique required to make an item worthy of using, selling or gifting. Having a background in tool making it is second nature for me to turn items that have a functional purpose, I also enjoy the learning process in planning the easiest, efficient, productive method for turning each type of item. Production turners know their equipment limitations along with the tools they use for the items they turn, if you turn bowls you usually end up wanting to turn larger items or segmented pieces or pieces with texture, designs or other artistic accents. Most people are usually trying to improve their skills and artistic expression in the hobby or profession in some manor, other people are in it for the knowledge, learning and developing skill sets. There is broad range of people that take up wood turning, it is difficult to provide an analysis of what makes all of them tick.

 

[Mark Hepburn]

Mike, no question about the chisel being tough to learn and master. I've a long way to go, but it produces beautiful finishes and can be very rewarding to use. One of the most informative lessons I've had is just watching Allan Batty's videos over and over, then attempting to repeat his work. And Alan Lacer too.

Speaking of repetition, I worked in the kid's classes at a couple of the AAW symposia a while back both for Joe Ruminski and Al Hockenberry. Al took some time to give me some great advice and one of the things that has stayed with me is pretty much what you have mentioned. Practice turning beads and coves, over and over, every day, until you can duplicate them at will.

I did this until my hand surgeries required me to stop, and will be returning to that when I begin turning again (very soon). And yet, for all that, I'm still amazed every time I recall standing there in the trade show section at Pittsburgh talking with Al as he turned a perfect sphere (he was in Don's Rubber Chucky booth and while we talked, my beloved was busy surprising me with 50 clarinet bells Don had stashed under his table for sale!).

Anyway, notwithstanding all the projectiles thrown around in the shop, I do enjoy learning the chisel. On the other hand, I've taken classes with David Ellsworth and it's strictly the bowl gouge (and a chain saw for prepping the blanks).