So tell me about your feet!

[Jamie Straw]

I'd like to know: What type of foot (or not) do you like on what kind of bowl? Proportions? Recess? Tips on how to form them? I'm all ears (and two left feet )

 

[john lucas]

I make all sizes of feet and some carved feet and even a few bowls without any feet. It depends on the shape, the wood, the size of the bowl, is it artistic or functional. I would suggest Richard Raffin's book on bowl design.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Turne...ZPSuC8L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR121,160_

 

[Jamie Straw]

I make all sizes of feet and some carved feet and even a few bowls without any feet. It depends on the shape, the wood, the size of the bowl, is it artistic or functional. I would suggest Richard Raffin's book on bowl design.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Turne...ZPSuC8L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR121,160_

Yes, definitely need that in my library. Used "Look Inside" at Amazon, and can see how valuable it will be. Thanks!

 

[hockenbery]

A foot should be one that fits the piece both in form and function and one that you like.

I do a lot of footless round bottoms on my hollow forms and natural edge bowls. I like them and the round bottom are often found in ancient pottery.

I have a dislike for a foot that is is exactly the size of a chuck or faceplate.

A lot of turners make the foot the same size of the chuck, the faceplate, or the glue block whether the bowl has a 6 inch diameter or a 12 inch diameter.
The proportions are all wrong. They usually look like extra wood that was not turned away as though the turner lost interest.

As a rough guideline the foot on a functional bowl looks good when it is a 1/3 of the rim diameter.

the raffan design book John mentioned is excellent.

Al

 

[John Tisdale]

One guy's technique that one guy thinks is best

I like a 4" diameter base or a bit less on all may pieces with diameters 16" to 21". To my thinking, a base cut into the fair curve is preferable over a foot (I'm guessing foot is defined as a base that is proud of the fair curve.
I always use a 6" faceplate - never a chuck unless it's a tall piece that requires a steady-rest. Typically the tenon is 3/4" to 1"
The following process has worked for me:
- on a 6" faceplate (I use a Oneway), use 1.25" #14 oval-heads in the inner six holes. Always predrill and use a depth stop. The tenon should be spot-on flat or slightly concave - if you do flat, you can always shift it a bit. If your log or blank is over 100-lbs, also use the outer holes - 1" screws with clipped tips - always predrill.
- after all cutting and most sanding is done, you can easily cut under the 6" plate and extend the sides of the piece to allow a 4" or less base - the reason for the 1" clipped screws is that the holes are not deep enough to show as you waste the tenon.
- Now, you have a 4" tenon. At this point, it will never go on the lathe again except when the base is cut and that is on the Kelton mandrel. I remove the faceplate and attach a 1/2" pipe flange - available at Home Depot and costing around $2. To that you can screw in a pipe nipple - I use 10" and have all sorts of fixtures for sanding, spraying, filling, etc.
- when all but the last coatings are done, I remove the pipe flange, mount it on the Kelton mandrel, and cut the base - generally I can cut a recess deep enough to eliminate the six inner holes from the faceplate - if not, I take a "maker's mark" and fill the holes. I can then sign and, on a umbrella fixture, mount the piece and apply last coats.
The above works for large hollow-forms and probably for bowls. The pipe-flange allows all finishing (spraying, filling, sanding) to be done off the lathe which, for the results I want, is necessary.

 

[Odie]

I'm one who believes it's in my best interest to develop a distinct recognizable style, and that includes doing a foot that is in the same general theme. My way of doing the bowl foot has evolved over the years, and I do the foot of every bowl the same way. It is all part of the plan, and is my "signature" style, you could say. Observers recognize my work instantly, and that is a part of my personal goal.........

I can do my foot differently, but after these years of evolving, I don't think I can improve on the visual aesthetic appeal. In a way, I suppose you could say I'm boring myself to death by doing it the same way each time, but from my point of view, the more I do it the same way, the better and faster I get at it.....and the more exposure I get, the more recognizable my work becomes to seasoned observers!

ko

 

[Raul McCai]

I'd think that function has a lot to say about it too.
If it's going to be a working piece, I'd default to a bigger foot than for something that will live on a display shelf.

 

[robo hippy]

Well, I use a recess for my bowls and don't turn it off. On most bowls, I want a foot about 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter of the bowl, but I just eyeball it, so there is a lot of variation. I think in practical terms. Too small, and it looks like it will fall over. On plates and platters, depending on style, the part that sits on the table is generally in the 1/2 to maybe 2/3 of the diameter, again, just what looks good. I used to do a continuous curve from rim to base. I find I am doing more with a slight concave curve right at the bottom. I do operate on the 'simple' style. One pottery guy said to me once, 'All of your stuff is so utilitarian.' I said 'yup'.

robo hippy

 

[Hu Lowery]

Roger Miller had it right, "short but not too big around"

I'd like to know: What type of foot (or not) do you like on what kind of bowl? Proportions? Recess? Tips on how to form them? I'm all ears (and two left feet )

Some of my bowls are purpose built which defines shape and foot. My cat is on their second bowl and I need to turn another when I get time.

Recesses seem like they are going to kill two birds with one stone, hold the turning and have the foot. Instead I find the jaw marks a real pain to sand off and of course I want the recess perfectly round after some heavy sanding. Another issue is that I want most of my stuff to float just above the table or shelf it is sitting on, or appear to. A recess tends to give the opposite effect, setting the turning deeply into the shelf or table. Sometimes that is good, usually not.

I have tried decorative feet with pretty limited success. Turned wood no matter how dry may move a little bit from some stress relieved in the final turning. These two conflicting concerns have led me to favor feet like Roger Miller's stogies, short but not too big around. Most turnings appear not to have feet but to be floating just above the shelf. Usually a foot from about a tenth to an eighth of an inch tall works for that, maybe a little taller. This gives the appearance I want and if a bowl warps slightly I can usually hit a stroke or two across some sandpaper on a piece of heavy glass with the foot to relevel things without being obvious. Having to do the same thing with a recess hasn't worked well for me. A flat a lot further out to blend in, pretty easy to see the recess isn't round and equal depth anymore, and more to refinish.

My stuff is never finished with the intention of holding liquids, particularly hot liquids, so I don't worry if my feet are a little on the small side. I think that the current fad might be a bit much and if I turn the dime to quarter sized hollow vessel feet I think I'll include a separate contrasting base to display anything very large on.

Always exceptions, I just turned a vessel that is pretty much plain ugly as far as form. It will probably end up on a grave with a dry flower arrangement. Needs a lot of base because of wind.

Hu

 

[Gerald Lawrence]

Too much philosophy in this for me. I just try to turn what seems to be either pleasing to the eye or is appropriate to the intended purpose. I do like the idea of a small s curve top to bottom and have used that or a similar idea a good bit lately. As for Kelly's idea of the same on the bottom of each bowl I too have tried something similar,however no recent photos. I do add some decoration if there is room.

 

[Gretch Flo]

I try to be utilitarian with my bowls, and go to great lengths on the finish so they will stand up to SOME washing.
The 1/3 diameter base suits me for visual appeal. I don't like a bowl that will rock. The often end up a little bigger than that due to "eyeballing" I use the recess on most bowls. I find that after I turn them if they have black marks, I use lemon juice. If they have indents (which most do) , I use a Q-tip with HOT water that makes them expand. Will all woods do so? Probably now. But it improves the dents. I have a concavity above the base. Just my preference. I find that a larger than 1/3 diameter base just looks "clunky". I have some of my older bowls (8+ years ago) and they are just plain ugly. My house remodeler that builds houses bought a lathe 8-9 years ago to make columns for some of his houses, has seen my stuff and commented "I have come to appreciate the delicacy and artistic appeal of the narrower base."
My sister-in-law is an artist (oil paintings). I mentioned the Golden mean (1/3) and she got all huffy saying that artists don't need to follow the stream!!!!!(Odie(AKA KO) would appreciate that comment!!!!!Gretch

 

[robo hippy]

Steaming to remove bumps or dents is just about as old as dirt. The most interesting application of this is some thing called toad or frog skin. You take a form, use a round nose metal piece, and pound dents into it, then sand down till the dents are about gone. Then, get it wet again, and the 'warts' appear. Never tried it myself though, one of those 'round-2-it' projects.

As far as 'floating' so the piece does not look 'attached' to the table top and is 'lifted' that just goes right over my head... Kind of like the first time I saw Mike Mahoney turn a platter. It was when the Symposium was in Portland 2007, and I was admiring the shape of the platter, and on the inside curve, Mike added a rim while commenting 'this detail will draw the eye down into the form' and I was thinking, you had a beautiful line going there, and then you went and put a speed bump on it..... I still experiment on different variations of form. No matter how ugly it is, eventually some one will pick it up, hold it in their arms like a new baby, thinking it is the most precious thing in the universe...

robo hippy

 

[Odie]

My sister-in-law is an artist (oil paintings). I mentioned the Golden mean (1/3) and she got all huffy saying that artists don't need to follow the stream!!!!!(Odie(AKA KO) would appreciate that comment!!!!!
Gretch

Heh,heh,heh......you bet, Gretch! Your sister sounds like my kind of person! Although I do follow some self-imposed formulas, the 1/3 rule isn't one of them. I do agree that a foot that is too big, is definitely a detractor....and, a foot that is too small has stability issues. Al hinted at the waste block, or face plate determining the size of the foot, and it does to some degree, but not as restrictive as he indicated. My usual faceplates are 3", or 4 3/4", and the smaller FP is generally what I use, unless stability is a major concern.....such as a salad bowl. I can make the foot about 1" larger or smaller than the faceplate, which gives me a lot of leeway in design. "Utilitarian" isn't something I normally consider, because my bowls are mostly decorative, except for things like nuts and wrapped candies.......most are only to accent an elegant, or classic home décor.

No matter how ugly it is, eventually some one will pick it up, hold it in their arms like a new baby, thinking it is the most precious thing in the universe...
robo hippy

Exactly right, Robo!.......

I can't tell you how many times I've been unsatisfied with one of my bowls, but someone else zeros in on it with admiration. You just never can tell what others will, or won't like, and there is an overlap in individual tastes. This is strictly speaking of artistic design, and aesthetic appeal.......poor execution never goes over very well.

ko

 

[Jamie Straw]

Lots to digest....

Thanks to all for your perspectives. Lots to digest here, some of it a bit over my head, but valuable nonetheless. I'm having trouble getting in the shop this week (did spend a couple hours yesterday, though). Questions are sure to come down the road.....

 

[Hu Lowery]

give it a try

As far as 'floating' so the piece does not look 'attached' to the table top and is 'lifted' that just goes right over my head... Kind of like the first time I saw Mike Mahoney turn a platter. It was when the Symposium was in Portland 2007, and I was admiring the shape of the platter, and on the inside curve, Mike added a rim while commenting 'this detail will draw the eye down into the form' and I was thinking, you had a beautiful line going there, and then you went and put a speed bump on it..... I still experiment on different variations of form. No matter how ugly it is, eventually some one will pick it up, hold it in their arms like a new baby, thinking it is the most precious thing in the universe...

robo hippy

Reed,

Obviously something a newcomer to turning like me read somewhere and gave a try. Take a basically half round bowl with a recessed bottom and using paste board cut small enough you can't see it or playing cards start adding layers raising the bowl up. The curve of the bowl and the foot too small to see will give the illusion that the bowl is floating above the shelf or table. Put it on a shelf with bowls that people can see the entire bowl and see which one people reach for. The eye following the curve of the bowl makes it seem that the bowl should be sitting a little lower on the shelf. Why isn't it? Idle curiosity as much as anything else makes people pick up the floating bowls.

I have a simple theory about selling anything fairly small. If someone picks up something you are halfway home. The hidden foot makes them do that. Also pleasing to my eye when the bowl is turned over. It is pretty much the opposite of the speed bump effect you refer to. When the bowl is turned over there is a tiny radius out to a foot that is maybe three times wider than it is tall. The wide foot lets me radius where it sits on the table too. Very unobtrusive foot. It doesn't fit every bowl but for those it does it adds a little, . . . at least in my opinion.

Hu

 

[john lucas]

People always talk about the golden mean or rule of thirds but in turning seldom does anyone talk about negative space. The is the space your eye sees outside a vessel. The Columns in the Greek structure The Parthenon are the most noted example. The space between the columns forms a Vase. the space outside a bowl is important in how it pulls your eye in, or gives a bowl lift. Another good example is the Face illusion. I played with this years ago and created a piece I called Just another Face in the Crowd. It's a complicated piece but had the goblet/face as the main part of the piece. Don't know if I can find a photo of it after my big computer problem. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. http://brain.mada.org.il/goblet-e.html Shadow lines like Mike Mahoney mentioned are often used to help your eye either flow through a piece of give your eye a place to stop. These are often use in spindle turning by simply putting a flat (we call them a fillet) inbetween a cove and bead. If a bead flows directly into a cove your eye just runs through it. With a fillet in the middle, even a very small one, your eye has to stop.

 

[Gretch Flo]

Here is an example of what I'm talking about. http://brain.mada.org.il/goblet-e.html

Took me a minute to see the faces.. Good example of what you were talking about. Gretch

 

[Raul McCai]

My sister-in-law is an artist (oil paintings). I mentioned the Golden mean (1/3) and she got all huffy saying that artists don't need to follow the stream!!!!!

LOL. I have a niece who graduated RISD and Chicago Art Inst for her masters. She's a fine artist and paints.
She'd probably say the same thing. A lot of fine artists are offended when one calls a utilitarian object "art" and the notion that one might apply a formula - - oh well - - just be glad they don't have the death penalty.

 

[Jamie Straw]

Owed to the greatest mother of all, Mother Nature

LOL. I have a niece who graduated RISD and Chicago Art Inst for her masters. She's a fine artist and paints.
She'd probably say the same thing. A lot of fine artists are offended when one calls a utilitarian object "art" and the notion that one might apply a formula - - oh well - - just be glad they don't have the death penalty.

I'd be tempted to show these young and impetuous artists the thousands, often spectacular, examples of the Golden Mean in nature. After all, that's where it came from! Not to say it has to apply everywhere all the time, but many of nature's examples are beyond breathtaking.

 

[Malcolm Zander]

Jamie, I second John Lucas's recommendation. I have over 100 books on woodturning or related art and Raffan's book is the most valuable of all. I have re-read it many times. Buy it, read and re-read it, let the information go into your brain, and later it will be expressed, often without your even being aware of where the form came from. You won't have to ask anyone whether a foot works or not - you will eventually know just by looking at it.

 

[Odie]

LOL. I have a niece who graduated RISD and Chicago Art Inst for her masters. She's a fine artist and paints.
She'd probably say the same thing. A lot of fine artists are offended when one calls a utilitarian object "art" and the notion that one might apply a formula - - oh well - - just be glad they don't have the death penalty.

Those traditional artists use formulas, or they couldn't develop their "style". Some formulas are learned, such as basic mixing of color, and some are personal formulas gained by individual effort, but learned, remembered, and applied. You can take any artist, whom has a recognizable style, and it's obvious they are applying formulas to achieve their results.

It does bug me a little when artists cannot see any artistic effort in other forms of visually appealing individual expression. I guess it helps them feel "special" with the idea that art is an exclusive concept that only they, and some of their peers (not all, of course) can define. When I was young, I was a very dedicated and enthusiastic oil painter, and student of art.....so, I can now see this from a perspective of having once mingled with these people, and seen this from a traditional artist's point of view.

Jamie, I second John Lucas's recommendation. I have over 100 books on woodturning or related art and Raffan's book is the most valuable of all. I have re-read it many times. Buy it, read and re-read it, let the information go into your brain, and later it will be expressed, often without your even being aware of where the form came from. You won't have to ask anyone whether a foot works or not - you will eventually know just by looking at it.

I have Richard Raffan's original "Turning Wood" book and VHS video. He put a lot of effort into producing them, and it's a good source for learning the basics.

ko