Which Design Book?

[Grahamshed]

I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?

Same here, I let the wood dictate the shape, as often you don't know what's inside until you start cutting. I find it very intuitive.

 

[Grahamshed]

I normally just chuck up the wood and let it tell me what shape it should end up. Am I doing something wrong?

Same here, I let the wood dictate the shape, as often you don't know what's inside until you start cutting. I find it very intuitive.

But what if you don't find out whats inside until after you have chopped its head off ?? :evil:

 

[finneyb]

A couple of articles that I found useful
http://www.woodcentral.com/russ/russ2.shtml
http://stwt.org/tompkins_design.pdf

The secret answer for the shape is the Golden Triangle and Golden ratio

I've never tried this software http://www.phimatrix.com/quick-start-guide/ it may be useful to you - my view was its too complex.

HTH

Brian

 

[Bodrighy]

Seeing 'what is in the wood' is fine but when you have to do commissioned work you have to do what people require and you need to have some idea of good design or you would never get anything done. I use a lot of wood that many would reject as useless but I rarely start without some idea of what I will make. Design may change as I work the wood but even so the end product will hopefully still have some aesthetic appeal. I, like most of us, have plenty of pieces that just didn't work but each one is a learning process that hopefully increases my awareness of what is or isn't good design.

Pete

 

[Spindle]

Hi

For me 'Working with the wood' has two aspects:

Selecting a piece of material and allowing it to guide the design

Selecting a piece of material who's characteristics compliment the intended design.

Each has it's place.

Regards Mick

 

[dickm]

if you can stomach his arrogant style, Mike Darlow's book on Woodturning design has some useful rules in it. Does do something to explain why some designs look "right" and others don't. But have to confess to still being unable to come up with a design except while wielding the tool on the actual wood.

 

[Bodrighy]

As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL

Pete

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Many thanks for the numerous responses. I've literally just come back in after turning since lunchtime to this veritable cornucopia of possibilities.

I also have been of the chuck it up and see what the wood sprites deliver school of design to date, with a few exceptions. I think the reason I'm scratching my head a bit is that I want to go beyond that. I want to be able to control the design so I can start with an idea and then make it rather than start with a piece of wood and then have it "make itself". When I look in my back catalogue, there are maybe one in ten pieces I like and the rest are immature and amateurish. I'm reasonably competent with basic technique and finish now, whats letting my work down is the actual finished shape. That was what drove me to enquire about design books, would they perhaps teach me to better understand and apply the golden ratio for example. I'll give an example:

This is an oak vase I turned yesterday. It's OK but somehow its also wrong. But I don't really know why?? Hence I'm looking in the design domain to try and improve.

 

[Spindle]

This is a bad design

Hi

Is that statement based on your opinion or generally accepted design principals?

To me, it's not at all 'bad' - not ideal but could be rescued with minimal effort - but hey, I'm no expert.

Regards Mick

 

[Spindle]

Hi Bob

To me it's another good piece - where it falls down for me is trying to combine the flowing base with the more rigid neck, if the transition were smoother I think it would work well. Alternately make more of a feature of the transition by cutting a trench and maybe colouring it to represent a tube within a vase.

Regards Mick

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL

Pete

I know exactly what you mean Pete. That's precisely my problem, it just look wrong. I would venture (don't take offence as you know you're awesome )

The finial is not delicate enough and the body needs to follow the golden ratio a little better. It reminds of the cartoon people off the album cover of Another brick in the wall! Sort of fat.

I also have the same criticism of my oak vase, it's fat. Should have slimmed it, again probably in line with the golden proportion. So its that kind of rules of design I'm trying to bring to the work. No idea whether I'm barking up the wrong tree or not.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

There you are Mick...that's spot on. The transition is wrong. The neck doesn't belong on that body does it. You see if I could visualise that before turning it I could probably avoid cocking it up.

 

[Bodrighy]

Too many variations i the shape. You have a straight neck then a convex curve which becomes a sharp concave curve. It feels uncomfortable at the bottom with it ending abruptly. If the curve flowed more gently and you tucked the base in so that it didn't just stop it would look a lot better. When you make something, before taking it off the lathe close your eyes and run your fingers along the shape (with the lathe stopped LOL) and see how it feels. A trick I learned from a blind turner. What you are aiming for is to make something that makes people want to pick it up and feel it.

You did ask LOL

Pete

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

That's a cracking tip. In fairness, I abandoned any thought of the base after I'd lost the will to live looking at the "fatty" sides so that is actually unfinished. But I completely buy the criticism. So what you're saying is keep the style the same throughout the piece or at least, as Mick says, if there is a transition, manage it carefully somehow so it doesn't jar from one idea to the next.

Design rules you see, that's what I need to learn more of

 

[Jacob]

Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.

Maybe you just need to keep things strictly pure and simple - think "sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, ovoid" etc and avoid deviations. If it's nearly a sphere make it a perfect sphere, if it's nearly a cylinder make it a perfect cylinder, etc etc

 

[Dalboy]

As an example. This is a bad design. Something i did some time ago that just isn't right. See if anyone else agrees with me. LOL

Pete

Turning is up to your normal standards as for the shape I can't put my finger on it but me eye keeps getting drawn to the top of the form as well as the finial which does not look right in my eyes. I will have to keep coming back to it until it will probably hit me

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

There probably is not one book that will answer all the questions you might want to ask. I can, however, suggest a couple of books that may be helpful if you can describe what type of turning you are currently trying to improve e.g. bowls, spindles boxes etc.

Thanks Dalboy for noting my free publications.

I had the intention to produce a whole series of free publications for turners but received little feedback on what might be helpful so stopped a couple of years back. Maybe that's the problem of 'free' there is no way of judging what other people conceive as helpful unless they say. By that I mean there are no sales records to be able to judge popularity. For instance I started producing a publication on profiles and a publication on practical design methods for beginners but stopped. I don't think people who use free resources understand the amount of work involved.

Design for woodturning seems to come low on many turners' lists of priorities and for this reason publishers will always concentrate on the 'how to' with tools an equipment where sales can be more or less guaranteed. They pay the writer and production costs and have to make a profit so are mostly targeting beginning turners or those interested in following a particular technique, method or style of work produced by established or popular turners.

I am aware I am probably expressing a jaundiced view from an isolated standpoint.

Philip

Bob, I always seem to create problems when I contribute on Forums so if you either email or PM I will gladly help you further.

That's kind of you Philip. I read various facets of your free publications. Interesting, thanks for that. I can imagine the effort that went into those documents.

 

[Dalboy]

Bob I think most things have been covered with the neck and also loosing the foot when adding a neck to a form try to take it from the same piece of wood and where it joins us a small bead which will help to hide it. Another distracting thing is the shoulder it is too bold or even better get rid of it

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Golden ratio is a red herring. I wouldn't pay it any attention.

Maybe you just need to keep things strictly pure and simple - think "sphere, hemisphere, cylinder, ovoid" etc and avoid deviations. If it's nearly a sphere make it a perfect sphere, if it's nearly a cylinder make it a perfect cylinder, etc etc

I think that's good advice too Jacob. I often find with turning that less is more and the classic shapes need careful attention to make them stand out.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Bob I think most things have been covered with the neck and also loosing the foot when adding a neck to a form try to take it from the same piece of wood and where it joins us a small bead which will help to hide it. Another distracting thing is the shoulder it is too bold or even better get rid of it

Like the bead idea Dal. But the neck is from the same piece? Does it look like it was stuck on after then? It's just a continuous turning from one solid block of 4" square oak.