Perfect Proportions for the NooB

[GeorgeH]

My introduction to bowl turning included an explanation of the “Golden Ratio” and how it could be used in planning the form for the finished piece. I wondered, initially, why anyone would want to remain true to a “standard” for bowl turning. It is certainly clear to even the casual observer that not every beautifully finished turned bowl holds true to the golden ratio principal. But I recognize now that, by studying and applying the golden ratio to my first turnings, I now better understand how far to push the limits of proportion while maintaining visual interest in the objects I turn. Not that everything I turn has exceptional visual interest. Some of the stuff I turn is obviously unattractive; that’s what the kindling box is used for. What I’d like to offer to the NooB is a suggestion to review the concept of the Golden Ratio and try applying it to their initial practice sessions in turning bowls. Here are a couple of links that can get you started

http://goldennumber.net/goldsect.htm

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=51778

 

[Mark Mandell]

My introduction to bowl turning included an explanation of the “Golden Ratio” and how it could be used in planning the form for the finished piece. I wondered, initially, why anyone would want to remain true to a “standard” for bowl turning. It is certainly clear to even the casual observer that not every beautifully finished turned bowl holds true to the golden ration principal. But I recognize now that, by studying and applying the golden ratio to my first turnings, I now better understand how far to push the limits of proportion while maintaining visual interest in the objects I turn. Not that everything I turn has exceptional visual interest. Some of the stuff I turn is obviously unattractive; that’s what the kindling box is used for. What I’d like to offer to the NooB is a suggestion to review the concept of the Golden Ratio and try applying it to their initial practice sessions in turning bowls. Here are a couple of links that can get you started

The ratio works in some things but not in others, so don't let'em pull the Phi over your eyes with a bunch of psuedo-math statements. The ratio was/is applied to width vs length of an entire object, not to make nice colored lines of it's internal measurments.

For instance, it has no application to the human body as that site trys to allege. The human figure is proportioned based on head size as a unit. "Normal" is 7-1/2 heads, "heroic" is 8. The first head is, of course, top down to the chin. Next one winds up through the nipples; 3rd is at the navel; 4th is at the crotch; 5th is just above the knee; 6th below the knee, 7th at the ankles; and the 1/2 gets you to the sole of the foot. Heroic proportion (used by some Ancient Greek sculptors) with the extra 1/2, adds a quarter head to the thigh and shin sections.

I also had to laugh at the site trying to use Michaelangelo's "David" as some example of their "truth." That piece uses very serious distortions of actual human anatomy, with an overinflated head and its acromegalic hands. The reason it was done that way was that it was commissioned and designed to be placed on the colonade at the Vatican's St. Peter's Square where viewers would look up at it as if it were atop a 3 story building. From that angle the head and hands "appear" in proper classic proportion to the rest of the body. It was never placed at the Vatican for other reasons not important here. The piece is presently placed on a 7-8' pedestal to help with the viewing angle and other issues.

To break it down further. The human head is proportioned by thirds, NOT the Golden Ratio. The measurement from the bottom of the chin bone to the tip of the [unfixed ] nose is the unit. The head is three units high. That unit is also the exact distance from the tip of the nose to the corner of the eye and from the nose tip to the point of the cheek bone, as well as from the corner of the eye to the entrance to the ear, and also matches the width of the mouth which is also the distance between the centers of the eyes. The eyes are set 1/2 unit up from the nose tip. You can confirm this by using your thumb and index finger as a divider to swing from one reference point to another on your own face and head. My students got to use a real divider on the model.

Now, I actually use the "Golden Mean." When I make furniture I try to incorporate the Golden Rectangle in table tops and height vs width designing. It's use is not a guaranty of a good design, but it's certainly a starting point.

BTW, if you take the distance from the knee to the bottom of the "tail" bone and multiply it by 1.618, it'll give you the height for the back of a rather comfortable chair that meets the shoulders nicely.

Have fun.

PS: That bowl shown ain't all that perfect, either. The guy could have done a lot better by the wood if he'd pulled his head out of the geometry book. If you give over your natural creativity to somebody's formula, you hobble yourself with their limitations. There are those who draw perfect comfort from rigid formulas and standards; so much so that their efforts never break out of being stale and pedantic. Avoid the "what" in favor of the "why" and adopt the simple rule that "It's better to be clearly wrong than unclearly maybe."

 

[Max Taylor]

perfect proportions

Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[hockenbery]

a super form for a bowl is the catenary curve.
this is the curve formed by a hanging chain.

picture each end of the chain at the rim of the bowl and the lower part of chain passing through each side of the foot.

when I turn bowls. I establish a notion of the rim and a notion of the foot early in the roughing process. I refine these a bit and connect the rim and foot with a pleasing curve.

happy turning
Al

 

[Mark Mandell]

a super form for a bowl is the catenary curve.
this is the curve formed by a hanging chain.

picture each end of the chain at the rim of the bowl and the lower part of chain passing through each side of the foot.

when I turn bowls. I establish a notion of the rim and a notion of the foot early in the roughing process. I refine these a bit and connect the rim and foot with a pleasing curve.

happy turning
Al

Very good reference Al. Keith Tompkins actually uses catenary theory when he teaches design. It sort of builds a "fair" curve into the equation from the start.

For anyone who hasn't seen a catenary curve, the St. Louis Gateway Arch is built on that exact principal.

 

[GeorgeH]

Wow!! I see some of you folks REALLY take this stuff religiously. I didn't mean to imply that you had to live your wood turning life by these principals. It's a guide for heavens sake.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Wow!! I see some of you folks REALLY take this stuff religiously. I didn't mean to imply that you had to live your wood turning life by these principals. It's a guide for heavens sake.

George,

My simple point is that it's a "guide" that will lead you estray. You'll do better to look at the work of others and other arts, like pottery, to see how designs are carried out. Close the geometry book, and open the art history book. As Bob Stocksdale commented, "The Chinese have been copying my work for hundreds of years."

Peace

 

[hockenbery]

George,

IMHO the curve is what make the bowl or the hollow form.
I do strive for a perfect curve every time out.
I guess I do live my woodtunring life by that.

Wow!! I see some of you folks REALLY take this stuff religiously. I didn't mean to imply that you had to live your wood turning life by these principals. It's a guide for heavens sake.

 

[George Guadiane]

George,

My simple point is that it's a "guide" that will lead you estray. You'll do better to look at the work of others and other arts, like pottery, to see how designs are carried out. Close the geometry book, and open the art history book. As Bob Stocksdale commented, "The Chinese have been copying my work for hundreds of years."

Peace

I don't know if you will hear this the way I'm saying it, but:
It's clear that you have a STRONG opinion, I'm not sure that you realize that you are stating it with such authority. In light of the fact that there are other (varying - contrasting - opposing) opinions, your opinions might be more easily accepted if couched as such.

If you were to compare and contrast the first two posts, you may understand what I mean...

In your most recent post you said "My simple point is that it's a "guide" that will lead you estray (astray)." If you had used the word might in it's place, you would have made much the same point without sounding like the only word on the subject. Your initial post had the same kind of tone (IMHO).
I don't think you intended to be insulting, but...
I got the impression that NutTurner felt denounced and/or offended by your dismissal of his idea and intent. It's not like he was telling people to stick their hand in a turning fan or anything. And not to speak for him, I felt that he was slapped down by your post for offering what is for some/many pertinent information
Maybe it's not my place, but it's what I saw. Reading this thread, if I were new to the site, I might not want to post an opinion or suggestion, no matter how valued I believed it to be when I might be responded to in this manner.
(IMHO) Another George

 

[Mark Mandell]

It's clear that you have a STRONG opinion, I'm not sure that you realize that you are stating it with such authority. In light of the fact that there are other (varying - contrasting - opposing) opinions, your opinions might be more easily accepted if couched as such.

Your point is well taken, George. Unfortunately my writing style has been forged by 25 years as a "hardball" litigation attorney, and I naturally tend to put things out in an authoritatively supported style because I expect opposing views to be done the same way. That style can, I suppose, lead to an interpretation other than what I actually wished. Your post tells me that I've been a bit too forceful in my "advocacy" for the point of view I expressed. My apologies to all [especially "Nuturner George"]. I'll try to tone things down a bit.

In your most recent post you said "My simple point is that it's a "guide" that will lead you estray (astray)." If you had used the word might in it's place, you would have made much the same point without sounding like the only word on the subject.

I understand your view here. The problem is that attempts to reduce creative activities to a "formula" are a hot button issue with me. With a "prior life" as an art historian, practicing [read "starving"] artist, and art teacher, I get pretty exercised by such things because they seem to invariably result in a lessening of creativity, aesthetic exploration, and personal progress of the person using them. When I went to that website that George [innocently] linked to, I started to get a bit angry over the misinformation I was seeing. My button got pushed, not by George, but because I knew others would be going there and, as the result of a very slick presentation, being mislead into making erroneous value judgments on their own work as well as that of others. That got me into "Full Litigation Mode", and I felt compelled to refute the stuff in a very forceful manner so that readers on this board would not be "lead astray" by the misinformation. My refutation was not aimed at George, but rather at the site's misinformation. Unfortunately, I didn't do such a hot job of making the difference clear. Sorry again, George [Nuturner]. My intention was to steer you and others away from the misinformation.

Without getting into the whole Art vs. Craft thing again , I recognize that there are many people who seek to use formulas and rules, and who simply enjoy making shavings and items without seeking to "advance the cause of woodturning as an artform." When I taught ceramics, I had students who, notwithstanding my best efforts, simply enjoyed playing in the clay and didn't care whether they were giving Ming Dynasty vases a run for their money. While they weren't "A" students in the class, they didn't fail either. In the world of woodturning there is more than enough room for the creators and innovators as well as for the casual hobbyists. As an artist posing creative "problems" to myself to "solve", I tend to forget that others have a different focus, and it's a bit elitist of me to ignore their point of view. I'll try to do better.

Lastly, George ["Another"], thanks for calling me on this.

 

[MichaelMouse]

What is art, imitation or innovation?

It's sort of neat to discover research saying folks favor a certain proportion or a certain curve, but I always have to ask why. Is it because it's familiar or because it's in our genes?

Note how we lionize those who outrage convention in art.

Or how we praise not the original soup can, but Andy Warhol, for instance.

 

[George Guadiane]

Your point is well taken, George. Unfortunately my writing style has been forged by 25 years as a "hardball" litigation attorney, and I naturally tend to put things out in an authoritatively supported style because I expect opposing views to be done the same way. That style can, I suppose, lead to an interpretation other than what I actually wished. Your post tells me that I've been a bit too forceful in my "advocacy" for the point of view I expressed. My apologies to all [especially "Nuturner George"]. I'll try to tone things down a bit.



I understand your view here. The problem is that attempts to reduce creative activities to a "formula" are a hot button issue with me. With a "prior life" as an art historian, practicing [read "starving"] artist, and art teacher, I get pretty exercised by such things because they seem to invariably result in a lessening of creativity, aesthetic exploration, and personal progress of the person using them. When I went to that website that George [innocently] linked to, I started to get a bit angry over the misinformation I was seeing. My button got pushed, not by George, but because I knew others would be going there and, as the result of a very slick presentation, being mislead into making erroneous value judgments on their own work as well as that of others. That got me into "Full Litigation Mode", and I felt compelled to refute the stuff in a very forceful manner so that readers on this board would not be "lead astray" by the misinformation. My refutation was not aimed at George, but rather at the site's misinformation. Unfortunately, I didn't do such a hot job of making the difference clear. Sorry again, George [Nuturner]. My intention was to steer you and others away from the misinformation.

Without getting into the whole Art vs. Craft thing again , I recognize that there are many people who seek to use formulas and rules, and who simply enjoy making shavings and items without seeking to "advance the cause of woodturning as an artform." When I taught ceramics, I had students who, notwithstanding my best efforts, simply enjoyed playing in the clay and didn't care whether they were giving Ming Dynasty vases a run for their money. While they weren't "A" students in the class, they didn't fail either. In the world of woodturning there is more than enough room for the creators and innovators as well as for the casual hobbyists. As an artist posing creative "problems" to myself to "solve", I tend to forget that others have a different focus, and it's a bit elitist of me to ignore their point of view. I'll try to do better.

Lastly, George ["Another"], thanks for calling me on this.

Mark, I didn't intend to "call you out," but you're welcome.
I understand your concerns about curtailing creativity by getting stuck in the "formula... I think it's a phase that many/most of us go through.

As a point of interest, you mentioned Keith Tompkins as relates to the catenary curve, I heard him talk about that and about his theory of form he calls the Tompkins Triangle for bowls. I also got my first taste of the Golden Rectangle and Golden Triangle from him in other demonstrations here in the Albany area.

In terms of creativity, I fully agree that rules for art are nothing more than a means of explanation, a jumping off point, not necessarily confinement.

 

[Mark Mandell]

"Golden" Design

Since ByGeorge expands on my Keith Tompkins reference, I'm posting a link to Keith's website where his use of the Golden Mean in woodturning design is clearly charted without a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

His use of the "Golden Triangle" has been questioned, since we can draw a triangle around any object. The difference is that Keith then also uses catenary curve construction inside the triangle to design a bowl profile in a given triangle. He will also tell you that this method of teaching design "mechanics" is to get students thinking and visualizing fair curves and flow. It's less of a formula and much more of a teaching tool.

Those who may be interested may click on the link and then go to the demonstrations section.

http://www.keithtompkins.net/

 

[underdog]

Mark Mandell,
Thanks for you well reasoned pitch. I had looked at the "Ratio" and compared it to all my turnings, and even the best of them did not come anywhere close to it. So I have been wondering about that ever since.... consequently your first post made a lot of sense.

 

[George Guadiane]

Since ByGeorge expands on my Keith Tompkins reference, I'm posting a link to Keith's website where his use of the Golden Mean in woodturning design is clearly charted without a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

His use of the "Golden Triangle" has been questioned, since we can draw a triangle around any object. The difference is that Keith then also uses catenary curve construction inside the triangle to design a bowl profile in a given triangle. He will also tell you that this method of teaching design "mechanics" is to get students thinking and visualizing fair curves and flow. It's less of a formula and much more of a teaching tool.

Those who may be interested may click on the link and then go to the demonstrations section.

http://www.keithtompkins.net/

That link is already on my favorites (he doesn't update his images often enough for me )! I didn't look at the links that NutTurner posted because I THINK I already have a fair grasp of what those tools/methods have to offer.
I really like the way that Keith thinks and how he demonstrates, he is concise and methodical - essential in teaching IMHO.

 

[Mark Mandell]

I didn't look at the links that NutTurner posted because I THINK I already have a fair grasp of what those tools/methods have to offer.

George,

Since you already have a sense of how the "Mean" is properly used, go back and click on that site. You'll get a better idea of why I got so up about it. I half expected Edgar Cayce and the Lost Continent of Atlantis to pop up at any minute.

 

[George Guadiane]

George,

Since you already have a sense of how the "Mean" is properly used, go back and click on that site. You'll get a better idea of why I got so up about it. I half expected Edgar Cayce and the Lost Continent of Atlantis to pop up at any minute.

You know.. .
I tried to spend some time on that site, but it looked a little all encompassing to me. I don't see anything as the answer to everything.
The site looked like either a religion-like sales pitch or an understanding beyond my ken. Either way, it either didn't have the information that I need in a way that I can absorb it or it was so convinced of itself that I couldn't plug in (but it didn't really p*ss me off as it seems to have for you). There is information that is easier for me to digest out there.
Having looked at it, I would agree that it isn't the site that I would have picked to demonstrate MY understanding of the "Mean," but it really is a different strokes thing for me.
As Homer Simpson said of roads, for me, the "mean" is "just a suggestion, like pants."

 

[hairfolicle2]

I hope I am not about to step on toes here but sometimes it seems to me that folks get way to caught up in determining the 'right formula' for a turning. It is my belief that this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience, and one for self expression. If we all followed the same formula, where would the variety be? I'll hush now.

 

[George Guadiane]

I hope I am not about to step on toes here but sometimes it seems to me that folks get way to caught up in determining the 'right formula' for a turning. It is my belief that this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience, and one for self expression. If we all followed the same formula, where would the variety be? I'll hush now.

I think your post pretty much sums up the ultimate germ of truth about turning (for me at least).

The other stuff, in my mind, helps me understand WHY some things please me more than others, and perhaps what the history of artistic form has been, and how it has been applied and ignored to the success and failure of "art" as a whole.
If there were only one "perfect" formula, there would be only one piece and everyone would be trying to copy it.

I see LOTS of turnings that I admire, and want to pay my respects to by using them, not to duplicate, but to see if I can find a way to put my personal stamp on, to make it unique to me, in spite of whatever initial influence there might have been.

 

[Odie]

Wow!! I see some of you folks REALLY take this stuff religiously. I didn't mean to imply that you had to live your wood turning life by these principals. It's a guide for heavens sake.

Don't worry about it, nuturner.......

Make your own rules, and you'll be happier about what you do.

Try to follow the rules others make, and you will likely never have the kind of satisfaction your artistic instincts are capable of giving you.

otis of cologne

 

[Angelo]

Artist

The best artists spend a lot of time learning the rules of good design and the mechanics of technique. Then they turn around and create the best work that breaks all the rules!

So learn the rules first

A

 

[Brujo]

method to the madness

All this talk about formulas and means begs a question.

Are most of you designing a piece than searching for the "right" hunk of wood or do you get a piece of wood and find the shape that works with it?

On the rare occasion when I design a piece before pickling out the wood I always end up needing to change it do to a crack, void, or in order to keep some particularly pretty grain/figure in the wood.

Perhaps it is because I generally like to turn things with knots, voids, or natural edges but I find my best work comes from letting a piece of wood sit on my table for as long as it takes for inspiration to catch up to me.

 

[George Guadiane]

All this talk about formulas and means begs a question.

Are most of you designing a piece than searching for the "right" hunk of wood or do you get a piece of wood and find the shape that works with it?

On the rare occasion when I design a piece before pickling out the wood I always end up needing to change it do to a crack, void, or in order to keep some particularly pretty grain/figure in the wood.

Perhaps it is because I generally like to turn things with knots, voids, or natural edges but I find my best work comes from letting a piece of wood sit on my table for as long as it takes for inspiration to catch up to me.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the short answer to your question is:
YES!
ultimately, I look at a piece of wood for a while as well, however, the conversation (for me at least) is really about preparing to look at the wood, not necessarily to apply a specific set of parameters or limits to the design.
When I very first started turning, I "knew everything." I made some really ugly stuff as a result. As I accepted the fact that I know nothing, and took in more information and considered it before starting, my turnings got better - Having said that, I'm betting I haven't hit ONE turning with true "Means" proportions, but I'm thinking I manage to get a good result none the less.
NOW, I don't just consider proportions/dimensions, I consider form, orientation of the turning for things like which end up shows the character better, whether or not and/or how much of the blank to "waste" to get the best looking, no the biggest, piece. Wood, as a material is like a rough diamond to me. There is an ideal proportion to get maximum brilliance, but that is far from the only consideration. If you have a big, misshapen crystal, you might want to use slightly different dimensions to maximize the appearance or weight.
ANYWAY, dimensions are not my only consideration when deciding what to do with a piece of wood.

 

[GeorgeH]

Are most of you designing a piece than searching for the "right" hunk of wood or do you get a piece of wood and find the shape that works with it?

Pieces I design ahead of the turning experience are usually created on blanks of segmented or laminated material. But I really don't like creating a design and then turning to achieve that predetermined value. I prefer to grab an interesting piece of wood and let it tell me how it wants its features to be celebrated.

 

[Angelo]

Yes to both questions

That's a really loaded question. The answer to both parts is, "yes".

When I turn for fun. Design is fast and loose. I put a piece of wood on the lathe for a bowl a box or a hollow form. I take what I can get out of it. I have a strong sense of design and a number of shapes that I like to turn so that's what I turn and the result is a "happy accident" more or less.

However, when I design a piece (say a spindle or a Magic Trick), I actually draw it in AutoCad, create templates from the drawing and adhere closely to the design. An old friend, Bob Campagnone, taught me that, "The designer (in this case me )creates the design and my job is to execute the design. When I am planning these turnings I shop for kiln dry wood that will fit the pieces.

A

 

[Odie]

The best artists spend a lot of time learning the rules of good design and the mechanics of technique. Then they turn around and create the best work that breaks all the rules!

So learn the rules first

A

This is a very subjective statement, Angelo......

It may be true to some degree, but doesn't encompass all great artists. Matter of fact, some of those who are now considered some of the greatest artists of all time were barely able to feed themselves, and shunned by those who were considered to be the "art experts" of their time. Some had minimal, or no formal training at all......but had burning desire.

It is this "burning desire" I speak about......the art that comes not from training, but inspiration and.......heart!

Just about anyone can get some formal training and succeed somewhat in an art......but those who have that special something, get it from spiritual sources, inborn talent, internal fortitude......whatever you want to label it.

otis of cologne

 

[Keith T.]

We all have our own unique approach to our craft..A one-size-fits-all formula just won't work. My biggest problem with formulas such as the golden rectange is they force turners to think in constrained terms, ultimately becoming self-imposed limitations if we are not vigilant. Yet, we have to start somewhere if we strive to improve. I came up with the Tompkins Triangle as a more flexible method of introducing design concepts to my turning students. It helps students gauge good proportions that aren't tied to a set formula. The golden rectangle used alone deals with only a narrow view of proportion, but what about balance, emphasis, or flowing lines? Here, it contributes nothing. I can spot a turning that adheres strictly to the golden mean instantly....it often appears contrived and lifeless, revealing nothing about the turner that created it.

Broken down into its simplest terms, a bowl is merely a cone. The triangles I use to teach are simply a two-dimensional representation of conical forms. The ability to stretch or compress these forms helps expand the concept that the golden rectangle just begins to touch upon. The AAW website's resource page contains my demo outline from the Louisville symposium, where I go into a bit more detail. Notice how the catenary effect ties in nicely with the triangle method.

I find nothing wrong with the turn-on-the-fly approach, but applying just one approach will certainly inhibit growth and exploration. The beginner with little or no understanding of design will usually feel completely lost and frustrated with this approach; a trial-and-error approach to turning is a long, winding road. A design goal to strive towards will certainly benefit them.

Yes, we all have different abilities and skill levels. Some of us are may not have an inborn sense of design, but we can all certainly improve, and unlock our potential.

 

[Malcolm Smith]

If you do a fair amount of turning and don't follow the golden rule, which will defeat you, eventually the bowls you turn will start to look like you turned them. Every time I turn a bowl, it is a little different. I study what I've done and make small changes, often based on the material, but in good part, the changes are the result of what I have done before. I'm barely aware that I'm doing this.

If you look at the work of very good turners who have done years of work the pieces are recognizeable as being by that turner. That's mostly the result of this process.

Malcolm Smith.