Turnings -- Copy or Invent??

[William Hutchinson]

I’m new to turning and excited about the endless possibilities of the art form. In researching and studying the subject I’ve come to the initial realization that the preferred path is to utilized the classical forms and concentrate on modifications in the areas of: material, surface treatment, piercing, carving and finish. The classical shapes and forms are visually pleasing and their longevity is proof of their enduring desirability.

Early masters like Rude Osolnik who pioneered artistic woodturning utilized the classic shapes, proportions and forms. Ellsworth, the father of thin-wall hollow forms, just forged the process and developed tooling but not the form. The wonderful work of Binh Pho’s paintings and piercing are utilizing classic forms. Maybe some of the pieces by Michael Hosaluk and Hans Weissflog are pushing the barriers of new acceptable forms, or are they transient anomalies? Are the works of segmented artist like Jerry Bennett, whom uses turned components and reforms them into sculptures, to be considered part of the turning genre?

I’m just curious of your preconceived thoughts when examining a chunk of wood before securing it to the lathe? Are you striving for something truly unique or tweaking the classics?

[Bernie Weishapl]

William when I do a HF, lidded box, bowl, etc I might copy a classic form but at the same time tweak them. I try not to copy them exactly especially if I am selling them. I also try at times to come up with something unique as my turning skills improve and gain more experience. Most times I have a idea what I want to do with the wood when I put it on the lathe. I try to orient the wood for the best possible grain, figure, etc. Sometimes though the wood will dictate what it wants.:D When that happens most times it calls for a design change.

[David DeCristoforo]

Now this is a question that will provoke a long and insightful discussion. I believe that each individual is just that... an individual. Unique and distinct. And so, each individual will express that in whatever he or she undertakes. We are invariably influenced by the work of those who have "been there". But, ultimately, the work will take on certain identifying characteristics. Just as you can identify a musician simply by listening to the music, so can you identify makers by looking at the work. It's very obvious if you look at one of Leo's pieces for example, that it was made by Leo. It has a quality that is unmistakable. OK, there are going to be those who do not create on that level but simply imitate what has already been done. But their enjoyment of the work should not be diminished by this. There will always be innovators, those who reach "outside the box" and create a truly unique body of work. But I believe we all have the capacity to do that. It's a matter of getting in touch with our unique selves. It's a lifelong goal even though some appear to reach it very early on. We need to follow our selves and not worry too much about where we are going. If we stay true to ourselves, we are all capable of reaching higher goals and that will be reflected in the work we produce along the way.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Here's a way to discover one answer on your own.

Take 8 pieces of wood, plane, joint and cut them so they are exactly the same in all dimensions.

Now choose a classic spindle shape and turn all 8 to the exact same shape and dimensions without using a copier.

After you are done, answer the OPs question.



I often strive for a classic form but because of differences in materials, tools and my abilities and inabilities, I doubt I'd be capable of making an exact copy.

[George Guadiane]

I’m new to turning and excited about the endless possibilities of the art form. In researching and studying the subject I’ve come to the initial realization that the preferred path is to utilized the classical forms and concentrate on modifications in the areas of: material, surface treatment, piercing, carving and finish. The classical shapes and forms are visually pleasing and their longevity is proof of their enduring desirability.

Early masters like Rude Osolnik who pioneered artistic woodturning utilized the classic shapes, proportions and forms. Ellsworth, the father of thin-wall hollow forms, just forged the process and developed tooling but not the form. The wonderful work of Binh Pho’s paintings and piercing are utilizing classic forms. Maybe some of the pieces by Michael Hosaluk and Hans Weissflog are pushing the barriers of new acceptable forms, or are they transient anomalies? Are the works of segmented artist like Jerry Bennett, whom uses turned components and reforms them into sculptures, to be considered part of the turning genre?

I’m just curious of your preconceived thoughts when examining a chunk of wood before securing it to the lathe? Are you striving for something truly unique or tweaking the classics?

In the end, "art"/beauty is in the eye of the beholder (IMO). As an artisan/observer (including observations of my own work), I think many of the classics have held up over time, because they have a pleasing (marketable) form. New forms evolve, like the work of David Elsworth's, because of his commitment to those forms. If I had never seen work attributed to him that certainly mirrored the classics, I might even try to make the case that these new "classics" were from an inability to DO the "standard" forms... Not the case - David Elsworth clearly has the skills to do other work, but believes in his perceptions enough to "force" them onto the marketplace, and they have clearly been accepted. That says to me, that one (you) can do whatever you like... Be prepared to be rejected, but be persistent if you truly believe).

You didn't mention Malcolm Tibbets, clearly an icon of segmented turning.
Segmenting has come a long way, but my personal opinion is that it still ha a LONG way to go. Materials, composition, orientation, dimensions and (re?)assembly all have a large role to play in forms yet to come.

In some cases, in my approach, that block of wood is what dictates the final form. I have surrendered the ideal form to preserve the (more, in my opinion) ideal value of the character in the wood... Usually with quite satisfying results. If the wood were colorless clay or something to be molded and colored, then any form might suffice, but the wood itself, the part we find and uncover can add a level of drama and beauty beyond anything we can imagine or reproduce.

I try to look at every aspect of every project with an eye to getting the best combination of elements and aspects to arrive at the optimum outcome.. .
Unless I'm just in the mood to "make a hole in something.":D

[Christopher K. Hartley]

William, if there are 100 different people there will be 100 diferent answers. Knowing that, ask yourself this...

When I finish a turning how do I feel?
When I look at a piece of wood what excites me?
When I look at anyones finished work what is stirred within me?

Some may say this is the way some may say that is the way. What you must find is your way.

I've turned pieces I know nobody else was wild about but to me they filled a special void.

Focus on the quality of the turning and let your way emerge.

Just my 2 cents.:)

[Tom Sherman]

Sound wisdom I think


William, if there are 100 different people there will be 100 diferent answers. Knowing that, ask yourself this...

When I finish a turning how do I feel?
When I look at a piece of wood what excites me?
When I look at anyones finished work what is stirred within me?

Some may say this is the way some may say that is the way. What you must find is your way.

I've turned pieces I know nobody else was wild about but to me they filled a special void.

Focus on the quality of the turning and let your way emerge.

Just my 2 cents.:)

[Jack Tyree]

After spending the weekend relaxing at the camper and reading [U]Ellsworth on Turning[U], I agree with David D, wholeheartedly, and I can hear some of what I read in his reply. I recommend this reading to you, it will answer all of your questions. His style of teaching is unique in that he does not teach you how to do it, but rather how to LEARN to do it. The chapter on Design is one of the best things I have ever read on the subject and it contains not one rule about design, except possibly to design and create what YOU like and don't worry about anyone else. The creative process will take care of itself when you learn to trust yourself.

I would also ask the following question (from the book) of others for further discussion: How do you know when you are finished with a turning project or piece?

[Curt Fuller]

Whether you knowingly copy or just coincidently copy, I think it would be pretty rare to create something that hasn't been done before. But the uniqueness of turning wood is that you could duplicate a form any number of times and the character of the wood would make each form appear different. A while back Keith Burns did a series of flat top hollowforms. All were pretty similar in form but the different woods made each of them were unique.

[David DeCristoforo]

"Whether you knowingly copy or just coincidently copy, I think it would be pretty rare to create something that hasn't been done before..."

You may have a point but I think it's more a question of influence than of imitation. You can look at the last piece I posted and see an influence that can be easily attributed to another well known member of this forum. And you can look at the work he is doing and see influences of even more "well known" artisans. Often, we end up "playing" off each other in the same way that players in a jazz band will do, swapping riffs and variations, each one attempting to find that place that no has ever been to before. Each of us is striving to express ourselves and our own unique identities will come through. Ultimately, we are all attempting to satisfy a need to create. Exactly what level of mastery and/or originality is needed to satisfy that need will vary from one person to another but the basic need is what drives up to do things like chuck up chunks of wood, get them spinning and stab at them with sharp pieces of steel.

[John Hart]

Here's my take, and I probably won't add much to what has already been said, except maybe that "Copying" is a great way to start out and get a feel for the art. The curves and nuances of other people's work, give the apprentice artisan some foundation that they can build on.

As we learn, we generally stop turning a piece when we feel that we've accomplished a new level (how ever slight) and don't want to go further, for fear that we might ruin that which we've just accomplished. (saying, "That's good enough for now")

As each piece gives us a little more experience and confidence, we continue to copy while we are trying to gain some fluency in the craft. Little pieces of our personality start to creep in, as we copy from those before us.

The transistion from copying to uniqueness is an evolution, not a conscious decision. The classic forms are classic, because of their appeal, so those basic tenents will exist as we express ourselves uniquely, and allow the beauty of the wood itself to guide us.

[charlie knighton]

I’m just curious of your preconceived thoughts when examining a chunk of wood before securing it to the lathe? Are you striving for something truly unique or tweaking the classics?


in form i strive for the golden triangle, for content i merely release what mother nature has painted and am pleasantly surprized more often than not :D

[David DeCristoforo]

"The classic forms are classic, because of their appeal, so those basic tenents will exist as we express ourselves uniquely, and allow the beauty of the wood itself to guide us."

OK... now that's a profound statement. Did I tell ya? I knew this was going to get deep. This would be a great time for a cold beer. Too bad I don't drink beer. Sockrats said "I drink... therefore I am..." So where does that leave those of us who don't drink? Now I'm getting worried...

[David E Keller]

I'll weigh in for what it's worth... I try to turn things that I like, and sometimes I succeed.

I think it is impossible for any person who frequents online forums, watches DVDs, or participates in a turning club to avoid being influenced by the works of others. My skills are not such that I'm able to copy forms that I enjoy, but I do try to make my versions of things that I've seen and appreciated. Sometimes while turning a piece, I'll have an idea that takes me in a new direction(new for me). More often than not, the new direction fails to stimulate me, but I enjoy the process.

I took up painting for a little while about 12 years ago mainly because I couldn't afford to purchase the works that I enjoyed. I never duplicated the Kandinsky that I was after, but I ended up with some respectable works that my wife still allows me to display in our home. I approach wood turning the same way... I may never be an international sensation, but I derive a great deal of pleasure in producing the occasional piece that pleases me or someone else.

Thanks for starting this thread, Hutch... It's an interesting topic.

[Jon Lanier]

Wow, do I feel inferior, no classical studies in form for me. All I do is put a piece of wood on the lathe and start turning it. Whatever happens, happens... :o

[David DeCristoforo]

"All I do is put a piece of wood on the lathe and start turning it. Whatever happens, happens..."

Well that works too! Lots of "well known" artisans work that way, letting instinct and the material guide them. Nothing inferior about that...

[Don Alexander]

i've heard about this "golden triangle " quite a bit never paid much attention to it, don't really know for sure what it is and don't really want to spend any time finding out................................ not that i think its bad or wrong or anything else its just that when i make something whether its turned or not, i want it to be me and my idea of what looks good; not because i think i'm better than anyone, but because thats what gives me the motivation and the satisfaction in making things.
Do i ever incorporate other peoples ideas ???? OF COURSE but its not ever a copy , its always a collection of bits i liked about multiple things i have seen since nobody exists in a vacuum with zero outside influences i rather suspect that everything thats ever been made has been influenced by many people,things and ideas both positively and negatively. the individuality of this obsession of ours is what made and keeps it interesting to me. After all "me" is the only person i can really speak for :)

[William Hutchinson]

From a childhood friend, I realized that there are phenomenally gifted individuals that grace this earth. Prodigies born with astonishing endowments that defy explanation. I would agree that these people could instinctively produce outstanding forms without preconceived notions. However, for people to recognize virtuosity it has to be within generally acceptable paradigms, albeit at exceptional extremes. Often is the case, societal acknowledgment and acceptance of conceptually altering artistic vision occurs after the lifetime of the genius. On the other hand, if brilliance can’t be comprehended it plummets into the eccentric bizzaro realm.

When talented turners offer critiques, they say something vague about the ‘form’. I don’t know if this because of format brevity, lack of descriptive vocabulary or, as I like to think, their discerning sense of shapes that work or not. Is it a herd mentality that has a checklist of acceptability or is it the pleasing quality of classic shapes that have a universal appeal that is easily recognized? The critical eye will discern subtleties of arch variation, component integrity and quality as judged against current benchmarks. Most would agree that Ms. Drozda set the present day yardstick for small finial pieces.

All that long winded harangue is to say, I don’t believe that the wood “speaks for itself” or people throw a tool to wood, close their eyes and hope for the best. At minimum, the rough dimensions of the material will govern the selection of form and grain/feature orientation are conscious decisions. Our physical body will not operate without nerve impulses directing our muscles. If extraterrestrial stimulus generated the origin of the creative impulses, then I stand corrected. I have to believe that some artists have inculcated design/form concepts to subconscious levels that guides their creative process almost automatically; just as experienced pianist don’t consciously think of positioning fingers to form chords, it has become intrinsic.

[Roger Chandler]

From a childhood friend, I realized that there are phenomenally gifted individuals that grace this earth. Prodigies born with astonishing endowments that defy explanation. I would agree that these people could instinctively produce outstanding forms without preconceived notions. However, to recognize virtuosity it has to be within acceptable paradigms, albeit at exceptional extremes. Often is the case, societal acknowledgment and acceptance of conceptually altering artistic vision occurs after the lifetime of the genius. On the other hand, if brilliance can’t be comprehended it plummets into the eccentric bizzaro realm.

When talented turners offer critiques, they say something vague about the ‘form’. I don’t know if this because of format brevity, lack of descriptive vocabulary or, as I like to think, their discerning sense of shapes that work or not. Is it a herd mentality that has a checklist of acceptability or is it the pleasing quality of classic shapes that have a universal appeal that is easily recognized? The critical eye will discern subtleties of arch variation, component integrity and quality as judged against current benchmarks. Most would agree that Ms. Drozda set the present day yardstick for small finial pieces.

All that long winded harangue is to say, I don’t believe that the wood “speaks for itself” or people throw a tool to wood, close their eyes and hope for the best. At minimum, the rough dimensions of the material will govern the selection of form and grain/feature orientation are conscious decisions. Our physical body will not operate without nerve impulses directing our muscles. If extraterrestrial stimulus generate the origin of the creative impulses, then I stand corrected. I have to believe that some artists have inculcated design/form concepts to subconscious levels that guides their creative process almost automatically; just as experienced pianist don’t consciously think of positioning fingers to form chords, it has become intrinsic.


Nicely put William, I'm up with that! :D

[John Hart]

Good points William...and maybe you're right. But I wonder...who is to say for sure? Why is it that a hundred people can pass in front of you...but you only find 20 to be attractive...and what is it that determines that attraction? Can you verbalize the attractive qualities of those 20 individuals, in a way that is so consistent, that those 20 single observations will be interchangeable with all the individuals you noted? Or are the attractive qualities of an individual actually a composite of smaller facets combined....or a single overwhelming facet that negates all other facets?

Is it possible that the shape of a vessel will cause an emotional, unexplanable response....much the same as the architecture in a building that you find especially intriquing? Is it extraterrestial? I don't think so. Although it may be primal. Perhaps genetic....embedded for eons, going back to natural formations. Sources of comfort, or beauty, or food. Who knows?

But then....the ability to explain "Why" you like something, might be so abstract and personal that you can't adequately inject that observation into another person's brain.

Those 20 attractive people on your list are likely not the mirror of the list of another observer...nor can they be adequately explained to another individual, whose perception is totally different.

And perhaps Cindy Drozda sets some kind of artificial bar of achievement...so why is that? Is it genius? Attention to detail? Beauty? Or just really cool small stuff that most people don't have the patience to achieve?

Are complex segmented pieces really beautiful? Or are they just amazing for their geometric intricacy and color? Awe inspiring for their engineering?

When turners resign themselves to "who sets the standard", there's a possibility that their own personal advancement is stagnated somewhat.

Perhaps "Copying" is a way to get your foot in the door. And then from there, you become yourself.

[Cody Colston]

There was a mid-Easterner who lived a long time ago that wrote, "there is nothing new under the sun."

I doubt if there is a form by anyone, past or present, that didn't "borrow" from an existing form by someone else. In that regard, we are all copying. Steve Schlumpf is known for his Southwest forms but those came from the Pueblos, the Anasazi and "The Ones Who Came Before." Steve didn't invent the form but he certainly does it justice.

Turn what interests you and don't worry about it. No two pieces of wood are going to be identical so therein lies the newness in each piece.

[George Guadiane]

From a childhood friend, I realized that there are phenomenally gifted individuals that grace this earth. Prodigies born with astonishing endowments that defy explanation. I would agree that these people could instinctively produce outstanding forms without preconceived notions. However, for people to recognize virtuosity it has to be within generally acceptable paradigms, albeit at exceptional extremes. Often is the case, societal acknowledgment and acceptance of conceptually altering artistic vision occurs after the lifetime of the genius. On the other hand, if brilliance can’t be comprehended it plummets into the eccentric bizzaro realm.

I had a friend in Jr and high school who was the best, most natural artist I have ever seen... He could draw, oil paint, water color, build model cars (sculpt) with skill beyond any of the art teachers we knew... Last I heard, he was a tree surgeon with no artistic outlet (really sad).

I'm not sure that I could go with brilliance going uncomprehended. I would think that a part of artistic brilliance would be an ability to share your vision. Is it brilliant because a thing is different or difficult or complicated?


When talented turners offer critiques, they say something vague about the ‘form’. I don’t know if this because of format brevity, lack of descriptive vocabulary or, as I like to think, their discerning sense of shapes that work or not. Is it a herd mentality that has a checklist of acceptability or is it the pleasing quality of classic shapes that have a universal appeal that is easily recognized? The critical eye will discern subtleties of arch variation, component integrity and quality as judged against current benchmarks. Most would agree that Ms. Drozda set the present day yardstick for small finial pieces.

Kelly Dunn commented on a couple of my turnings on another site. He talked about form, but also specifically gave comparisons and/or aspects that could be improved. I have to say, in spite of the sting of recognition ("you're really not as good as you think George" he says to himself), his have been the most helpful with improving my form, and more importantly, my EYE. Had I not heard his critique, those little flat spots would have been acceptable, the height of the wide spots in my calabash would have been "acceptable." Some of us, when we see these things are reluctant to be specific or criticize honestly because we don't know "you" and don't want to offend.


All that long winded harangue is to say, I don’t believe that the wood “speaks for itself” or people throw a tool to wood, close their eyes and hope for the best. At minimum, the rough dimensions of the material will govern the selection of form and grain/feature orientation are conscious decisions. Our physical body will not operate without nerve impulses directing our muscles. If extraterrestrial stimulus generated the origin of the creative impulses, then I stand corrected. I have to believe that some artists have inculcated design/form concepts to subconscious levels that guides their creative process almost automatically; just as experienced pianist don’t consciously think of positioning fingers to form chords, it has become intrinsic.
You're right, wood alone grows or falls and rots or burns. On the other hand, the wood does "sing." But so do the tools and the hands that hold them and the eyes that see it all and the brain/heat/soul that guides the chorus... I've turned a few pieces of "plain"/"ordinary" wood to see if I could get beauty out of that as well. To my pleasant surprise, I have been able to get attractive pieces out of whatever I put on the lathe (most of the time).

But remember, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, and as I have evolved as a turner, there have been moments when all of the elements came together to produce a finished piece far beyond my skill at the time... Something about a monkey and a typewriter - am I making any sense?

[Leo Van Der Loo]

I like to think that we all came in this world with a blank slate so to speak, saw nice curves very early :D but then what did we see ??,would a person in the arctic draw or make (however done) the same shapes as a person born and living in the Jungle ??
My thinking is that your upbringing and surroundings that you came in contact with and the things that interest you do influence what you will use and combine in what you make.
The other thing is that some are born with a talent, some with more than one, for some it is, singing, painting, speaking, writing, mechanics, mathematics, feelings for shapes and balance, or whatever, and if you don't have a talent for something, you will do poorly in that field, with a talent you will do better and are able to go past that by practice and learning.
So yes I think we all copy, some draw onto a piece of paper and copy turn from that, others copy from a picture, and others from whatever is in their head, and yes, with turning the physical size of the wood does influence of what you can do with it, you can't make a long thin spindle from a short block, or a big bowl from a skinny long piece of wood. Or so I believe.

[neil mackay]

I guess for me its the influence of others better than me that effects what I do.
So its not a case of copy or invent ,but rather one of evolving from others as my skill grows and my eye for shape and form develops.

[David Woodruff]

There is no shortage of forms running around in my head, and no doubt influenced by all I have seen, studied, and turned. I don't deliberately copy anything and I can't go back to the place where I had little knowledge of form. So I often put a chunk of wood in the lathe and let the form come to me as I knock off the bark. Eventually I will create a new form, new to me, without thought as to "has this been done before". I find I don't really care. What I do care about is have I utilized all my knowledge, my creativity, the full potential of my equipment in creating a piece I am pleased with. That done, I am happy.

[David Woodruff]

"The classic forms are classic, because of their appeal, so those basic tenents will exist as we express ourselves uniquely, and allow the beauty of the wood itself to guide us."

OK... now that's a profound statement. Did I tell ya? I knew this was going to get deep. This would be a great time for a cold beer. Too bad I don't drink beer. Sockrats said "I drink... therefore I am..." So where does that leave those of us who don't drink? Now I'm getting worried...

Who is Sockrats? Sounds like I should know him.
David Woodruff

[David DeCristoforo]

"Who is Sockrats?"

So... not a Monty Python fan, hey?

[Joe Shinall]

I'm with Jon Lanier. Usually I just start cutting, and whatever catch I get...I mean, whatever shape starts forming, just forms it from there.