18thc "Imperfections"

[greg Forster]

A friend of mine, a professional furniture maker- in the 18thc style- "We do a little bit of machine work, mostly hand work", is never at a loss for words.

One client, accustomed to modern sensibilities, disparagingly called attention to a handwork "imperfection".

My friend greeted this with unabashed enthusiasm, " Thankyou so much, I hadn't noticed that; do you know I charge $25 extra for each of those? Do you see anymore?"

[Sean Hughto]

Good response. The "imperfections" are where the soul comes from in hand worked items. The machines methods they've developed to mimic them, just can't pull it off. Have you seen "distressed" furniture ina store?? Ha.

[Matt Evans]

I tend to leave my layout lines on drawers, and often on boxes. I also leave the backs of most wall hanging cabinets rough sawn, or just smoothed a bit with the jack plane.

Some people understand, and they are the folks that come back and buy a second time.

Some people don't, and make me wonder why they want a handcrafted item in the first place. It also make me wonder if they have every seen a piece of older furniture. They would be happier with a veneered MDF piece, cut out on a CNC and finished by robots.

Your friend has the right attitude.

[Derek Gilmer]

Good response. The "imperfections" are where the soul comes from in hand worked items. The machines methods they've developed to mimic them, just can't pull it off. Have you seen "distressed" furniture ina store?? Ha.
My pet peeve is the "hand scraped" wood flooring. Lots of friends are raving over their new hand scraped wood flooring that looks like it was made in the 1700s!!!!! I cringe and try to be quiet. Until one friend mentioned he was supporting craftsmen, thinking it would impress me since I sometimes use handsaws? I pointed out how about every third board in his floor had the exact same "hand scraping" pattern. And suggested it wasn't really hand done but instead was ran through a machine to make it look like what he thinks hand work would look like. The blank stare I got back told me all I needed to know.

[Jon van der Linden]

LOL the hand scraped floor is a great example. I used to live in a house built in the 1500's, and the floors were near perfect - some of the marble treads had a bit of wear, but the wooden parts were perfect. I really detest the fake distressed/handwork stuff.

The idea that 18th c. furniture had "imperfections" is no different from buying lower quality items today - perfection was reserved for those that could pay for it. Have a look at French court furniture and the ebenisterie tradition.

Traces of handwork is different from sloppy workmanship. If you look at modern interpretations of Greene and Greene furniture for example, you see a kind of mechanical repetition with edges that are too hard and defined. Quality is sometimes in the subtlety of things, not in the "perfection" of surfaces or shapes.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

My pet peeve is the "hand scraped" wood flooring. Lots of friends are raving over their new hand scraped wood flooring that looks like it was made in the 1700s!!!!! I cringe and try to be quiet. Until one friend mentioned he was supporting craftsmen, thinking it would impress me since I sometimes use handsaws? I pointed out how about every third board in his floor had the exact same "hand scraping" pattern. And suggested it wasn't really hand done but instead was ran through a machine to make it look like what he thinks hand work would look like. The blank stare I got back told me all I needed to know.

Makes me think of the pre-distressed faux-vintage electric guitars that seem popular these days. Some folks actually do a decent job of it, but the large companies now sell budget priced student models like this; it's weird seeing the exact same wear pattern on every guitar on the showroom floor, regardless of color.

[Trey Palmer]

LOL the hand scraped floor is a great example. I used to live in a house built in the 1500's, and the floors were near perfect - some of the marble treads had a bit of wear, but the wooden parts were perfect. I really detest the fake distressed/handwork stuff.

The idea that 18th c. furniture had "imperfections" is no different from buying lower quality items today - perfection was reserved for those that could pay for it. Have a look at French court furniture and the ebenisterie tradition.

I'm far from an expert, but would hazard a guess that the state of the art in colonial American furniture and houses did not match the top level in
Europe in the 18th century. And many Americans are interested in replicating the look of early American furniture, sometimes quite crude versions.

The phenomenon of old rough things being more desirable reminds me of how, about 50 years ago, skinny and tan became desirable female
traits when before that they had implied poverty.

Until about the same time, I guess, "rustic" meant you couldn't afford polished. But now smooth surfaces and perfect angles are the norm, even in the cheapest goods if they're new. So to many people, things that look rustic or old have the opposite meaning -- that you can afford something that wasn't recently imported from a Chinese factory.

Of course because of that, then you get Chinese factories imitating that look. It's like if Lie Nielsen started making high-quality pre-weathered tools, and then the next thing you know Anant is making them. But you notice that all the Anants have the same "patina".

In cities the chic codewords are "loft" and "factory." In my neighborhood there are some brand new condo buildings with fake bricked-up windows. That just kills me every time I see it.

I love old things, but I don't care for a faked "old" look.

[john brenton]

Yeah, its like buying new "worn in" jeans with holes prefabbed in them. I really enjoy watching my home made furniture age the way it naturally ages from OUR use, not what someone thinks "use" looks like. I particualarly like the fretboard use on my guitars and my tools. It can't be duplicated.

[Kenneth Moar]

Taking it to a bit of an extreme, I gave my motorcycle a unique, totally custom look , by crashing it in a successful attempt to avoid a driver that cut me off. The way the chrome was scraped off the pipes, the torn saddlebags, the road rash marks on brake levers, throttle cables, front fender etc, give it a truly unique look that $1000's of dollars of chrome accessories could not duplicate. Some might see it another way, but to me it's a reminder of an important lesson, and a symbol of survival, hahha

[Mark Baldwin III]

Taking it to a bit of an extreme, I gave my motorcycle a unique, totally custom look , by crashing it in a successful attempt to avoid a driver that cut me off. The way the chrome was scraped off the pipes, the torn saddlebags, the road rash marks on brake levers, throttle cables, front fender etc, give it a truly unique look that $1000's of dollars of chrome accessories could not duplicate. Some might see it another way, but to me it's a reminder of an important lesson, and a symbol of survival, hahha
That reminds me of what one of the guys I buy parts for my Triumph from said once, "you don't build a rat bike, you sort of grow it." I'm building my second 40+ year old chopper right now. Lots of the old parts show the years of use/abuse, and it adds a lot of character to the bike and tells a story. Neither of the bikes look fresh off the assembly line, and the hand made nature shows through.
In all things, I like to see evidence of being hand made. Machine made or the straight off the catalog page look just don't do it for me. On REALLY well done hand made stuff, those signs are harder to see, but they are still there and they still add to the piece, whether it be a bike or a piece of furniture or a tool.

[Adam Cherubini]

Greg, I wouldn't confuse the character of hand tool usage with the real imperfections of 18th century workmanship. I think Trey is right that this reflects and esthetic semsibility.

To be 100% clear, we can do good work with hand tools, but it may never look as dimensionally "perfect" as a machine work. That aside, lots and lots of 18th c was fairly sloppily built by our standards. This may be true because the builders and buyers just didn't care. It could also have been the case that "better" was twice the price of "good".

I try to produce 18th c to their standards, not mine. I think this is fundamentally more difficult than following my inner muse. That's part of the fun and the challenge of making reproduction furniture.

Adam

[george wilson]

Like any other item that is or was made relying upon personal skill,the quality and general appearance of the finished product reflected the level of judgement and the skill that the maker was able to summon.

[greg Forster]

Adam, I agree with your comments on how acceptable quality changes with the times, locations and economic conditions. Somewhere, I read an article on early American architecture(pre 1700). There was some nicely done moldings pictured, for both interior/exterior trim work, but it started and stopped and intersected other elements with no rhyme or reason. I would venture our questioning this lack of "quality work" would be met with bemusement by our fore fathers and fore mothers.

Trey, you made me laugh. As project super for a G.C., I've renovated building in seven states, several ante-bellum, a post-1900 building is a "new" building to me. I've un-bricked alot of filled in window openings, but fake bricked up windows...too funny!!

[Sean Hughto]

I try to produce 18th c to their standards, not mine. I think this is fundamentally more difficult than following my inner muse.

I think maybe your muse is not hard enough on you. ;-)

I disagree about following one's inner muse being easier than working to someone's else's standards. While it might seem that unfettered discretion would be freeing, it's actually much more challenging to exercise creativity and come up with something original and good than to simply emulate an already known and accepted good. In short, breaking new ground is much harder than planting in already tilled and fertilized soil.

[John Coloccia]

I suspect that most people who want "old fashioned" woodwork has never walked through an antique store. Much of the craftsmanship was pretty poor by any standard, and that's just the stuff that hasn't fallen apart and made it to the fireplace. I think what most people want is machined furniture with a picture of a hand plane stamped on the back, and maybe a signature or two underneath the shelves. You guys who do predominantly hand work for a living are certainly working uphill, IMHO.

[george wilson]

There are always differences in hand work,depending on the skill of the workman. Also,there were different price ranges just like today.

In the 19th.C.,when machinery became available,often advertisements would state "machine made". At the time,it was actually considered superior to the shoddier goods generally produced by hand for public consumption. Of course,the very best things were,and still are hand made. The trick is for fine craftsmen to find customers who can afford their work,if they want to do hand work for a living.

The finer work has tended to survive better than the more common,less well made things. If they were expensive to begin with,fine goods were better cared for,and passed down in families,rather than ending up in junk shops,kid's rooms,etc..

[Zach Dillinger]

You guys who do predominantly hand work for a living are certainly working uphill, IMHO.

You said a mouthful there, friend.

[Jim Koepke]

You guys who do predominantly hand work for a living are certainly working uphill, IMHO.

Well, if we didn't work the wood grain going uphill with a hand plane, we would get tear out.

Seriously though, just like today there was the high end furniture, low end furniture and craft made furniture.

As someone else said, a lot of the low end furniture may not have survived. The high end items most likely got passed down with words to the effect of, "that cost grandpa a week's wages."

Some of the low end items that did survive may not have had much to distinguish them from other items. When you get to the household items like chairs or dressers they may have looked like any other inexpensive item. They may have had the story of, "grandma made me sit in a corner in that chair if I was bad," to keep them in the family for generations.

I saw an old plain dresser at an auction. My brother and I almost wanted to buy it. It was about 16" deep and was made with single boards top and sides. If we could have bought it cheep enough, it might have been worth more dismantled for the large pieces of unjoined lumber.

jtk

[john brenton]

I can't speak for anyone else, but high end furniture in my house would look like a gold plated rear view mirror in a Datsun. I have no use for high end stuff, and I think most Americans aren't really all that into either.....well designed, well made shaker-ISH furniture is still more of what your average American wants, and those aren't "feats" of hand tool skill. They aren't easy to make by hand, as nothing is "easy" to make by hand, but I've made a few pieces that sold at a price that everybody was happy with.



As someone else said, a lot of the low end furniture may not have survived. The high end items most likely got passed down with words to the effect of, "that cost grandpa a week's wages."
jtk

[Trey Palmer]

I think maybe your muse is not hard enough on you. ;-)

I disagree about following one's inner muse being easier than working to someone's else's standards. While it might seem that unfettered discretion would be freeing, it's actually much more challenging to exercise creativity and come up with something original and good than to simply emulate an already known and accepted good. In short, breaking new ground is much harder than planting in already tilled and fertilized soil.

We're talking about ground that was tilled and fertilized 200 years ago, but has grown into timber long since.
We know what it grew and what plow and harrow were used, but very little about techniques. Adam's woodworking is a form of historical research and has to require a great degree of discipline.

Following one's inner muse is pretty easy for many people. But, there's no correlation to design talent. I could have the most sadistic inner muse in history, and it wouldn't make me anything remotely close to a Nakashima, Steinbeck or Pollack! :-)

[Pam Niedermayer]

I can't speak for anyone else, but high end furniture in my house would look like a gold plated rear view mirror in a Datsun. I have no use for high end stuff, and I think most Americans aren't really all that into either.....well designed, well made shaker-ISH furniture is still more of what your average American wants, and those aren't "feats" of hand tool skill. They aren't easy to make by hand, as nothing is "easy" to make by hand, but I've made a few pieces that sold at a price that everybody was happy with.

I don't know, John, whenever I look through the "free" stuff on Craig's List I have to wonder, there's so much junk that these people can't find other homes for, even for free; so it's ultimately put at the curb for city pickup. And these are pieces the owners paid quality bucks for in the recent past. Money down the drain, particle board down the drain, and our dumps are filling up rapidly.

Pam

[Sean Hughto]

Adam's woodworking is a form of historical research and has to require a great degree of discipline.

I'm not saying historical research is easy. I'm not questioning whether it is worthwhile either. Learning to make something using precisely the same techniques as used 200 years ago may be very very hard, but if you succeed, you have a piece that is similar to and perhaps equal in quality to forms that have already been well established and accepted. It's a different quest than the quest to follow your muse and make something that has not been seen and the quality of which as an object has yet to be judged. And my meager point was that contrary to Adam's suggestion, that muse quest is really really hard too.

I disagree somewhat in your assertion that we know very little about the techniques. I think we know quite a lot.




Following one's inner muse is pretty easy for many people. But, there's no correlation to design talent. I could have the most sadistic inner muse in history, and it wouldn't make me anything remotely close to a Nakashima, Steinbeck or Pollack! :-)

Yes, meandering where our inner voices suggest may be easy, but is no guarantee of a quality outcome. A decent "muse" will demand that the artist strive for ever higher quality and originality. It is in that sense that I was suggesting that Adam's muse may be too easy on him. ;-)

[george wilson]

There is no doubt that we know quite a bit about early techniques. Yet,there are still a lot of things to be re discovered,a problem I often encountered working 39 years in a museum.

[Trey Palmer]

I'm not saying historical research is easy. I'm not questioning whether it is worthwhile either. Learning to make something using precisely the same techniques as used 200 years ago may be very very hard, but if you succeed, you have a piece that is similar to and perhaps equal in quality to forms that have already been well established and accepted. It's a different quest than the quest to follow your muse and make something that has not been seen and the quality of which as an object has yet to be judged. And my meager point was that contrary to Adam's suggestion, that muse quest is really really hard too.

I disagree somewhat in your assertion that we know very little about the techniques. I think we know quite a lot.

You're right, that was bad phrasing. I should have said, "there is a whole lot we don't know."

I think we just have different points of view on the "tortured artist" thing. In most fields I think there are some people so talented that they can meander along the paths suggested by their inner muses and produce outstanding original work without great effort and discipline. In fact the biggest difficulty for many such talented people, and their greatest expenditure of effort and discipline, is staying connected enough to mainstream taste to make a living. A problem they likely share with reproduction furniture makers now that I think of it, which brings us full circle. :-)

[Adam Cherubini]

I've been doing a little landscape painting. When I look at a scene, I can pretty much do what I want with it. Maybe my painting will be good or bad. Building reproduction furniture is like painting a scene in the style of XXXX. Not only must you be able to paint competently, you must know how XXXX painted, what he was after, who is customers were, how he was influenced by his time. Suppose the artist you are copying is someone very foreign, culturally, ethnically, religiously etc from yourself? That just makes it harder. My reproductions attempt to go beyond the simple reuse of structures and joinery.

Of course it's difficult to do good work. But that doesn't change whether you follow your inner muse or not. When you do reproductions in the style of XXXX, you must add a whole boat load of stuff you wouldn't have otherwise.

That's the way I look at it anyway,

Adam

[Sean Hughto]

Adam, my only point is that while it adds a whole nother layer of challenge in the replication of techniques and aesthetics, it relieves you of the challenge of developing your own succesful style. Making a good piece is hard whether you make it in an established style or an original one. The challenge in the established style is properly emulating the style to arrive at a piece that is already known and accepted as desirable, while the challenge in making the original one is making something original that proves to be good. I personally think successfully creating in uncharted territory is just as daunting as recreating from hazy old charts, that's all.

[David Keller NC]

Sean - I think you are spot-on when it comes to making exacting reproductions. It is far easier to copy a successful design than it is to come up with a new one "in the style of" that is successful. In fact, most of the "my own version of a period highboy" that I've seen have been absolute monstrosities - things with snake-skin carving on the cabiole legs, made of leapardwood, with modern-looking carved wooden pulls, or the like. This is why many like myself don't bother with original designs in the style of colonial American furniture, mainly because you must have a deep knowledge of how these original pieces were designed, a deep knowledge of why they were designed the way that they were, a deep knowledge of the artistic and cultural aesthetic of the day (as opposed to our current artistic and cultural aesthetic - they are very different), and finally, you must have a deep knowledge of the tools, materials and techniques of the day.

This last point is crucially important - I've seen many reproductions of 18th century colonial American furniture in walnut or mahogany where the widest board in the whole piece is 8" wide, and the fall-board to a desk is made of a 3-board glue-up. These pieces may well qualify as a nice piece of furniture, but as a reproduction, they're an abomination - they look very wrong to those of us that have seen a lot of antiques.

Having said all of that, there is one area of reproduction woodworking where reproducing a design is incredibly difficult, and making your own is far easier, and that's carving. Nevertheless, being able to closely reproduce the original is critical to the success of the overall piece. There's an excellent example in print right now - Tony Kubalak's Carving 18th Century American Furniture Elements. On the front cover is "his version" of a John Goddard newport desk-and-bookcase finial, and it's a 100% horror - it looks like dough that has been left in the rising space for way to long, and does not belong on a reproduction of Goddard's work.

[george wilson]

Sean,I agree with you that creativity is the most difficult part of being a craftsman. I was paid to exactly copy old designs of tools as toolmaker. As musical instrument maker,I was at least able to design my own decorative schemes,as on my inlaid 17th.C. marquetry guitar. I still had to use design elements that were in use during the period I was working in.

The most pleasure I get from a piece I am making is in designing it. This is exactly where so many craftsmen fall down. Even in the 18th.C.,otherwise fine craftsmen would very often use designs from books put out by Chippendale,for example,because they couldn't design on their own,or in some cases,of course,because the customer wanted those established designs.

I tend to use traditional elements in my own tools because I like them,but I do not wish to slavishly copy Norris,Stanley,etc.. Sometimes,if I have seen an antique tool I really like a lot,I will copy it,but most of the time my designs which were not made"on the job" as toolmaker,are not copies. For example,the bronze hand drill in the FAQ section is strictly my own design,but based on 19th.C. style.

[john brenton]

A good example would be the new dovetail saw handles presented here from time to time. The reality, or what appears to be the reality to me, is that the end result of the long curve of the handle's evolution was the simplest, but most comfortable and effective handle with just enough eye pleasing design to make it more than just something to hold with the hand. There may be slight embellishments or design changes, but in general a good saw handle is not going to be radically different. In my opinion, that is what they should look like. The fact that we've grown accustomed to seeing a particular design does of course play a part, but that doesn't negate the fact that the most common design is that way for a reason.

You can try to improve on it, but for the most part the "improving" will either be something that looks unnatural and modern, or something that looks over embellished and "fruity". There may be a market for people that want handles that look like they were made for dovetailing on the moon, or for cutting dainty morsels of bleu cheese, but those are outliers. Most people want something normal.

Every time I've really made an effort to go off the beaten path with furniture design I've felt a little empty. Yes, there is a warming up period and eventually you come to enjoy the design, but there is something that just isn't right about it. At this point though too, in our age of decadence, there isn't much off the beaten path. Off the beaten path at this point I think is no furniture whatsoever...or an unbearably uncomfortable piece of furniture that's meant to symbolize "manifest destiny" or the "horrors of water boarding".



I personally think successfully creating in uncharted territory is just as daunting as recreating from hazy old charts, that's all.

[seth lowden]

...and it's a 100% horror - it looks like dough that has been left in the rising space for way to long, and does not belong on a reproduction of Goddard's work.

LOL!!! Kind of the like Jim Rendi's windsor chair book, or that Heller and Clarkson book on making a piecrust table...ouch!

[john brenton]

That finial looks delicious.


LOL!!! Kind of the like Jim Rendi's windsor chair book, or that Heller and Clarkson book on making a piecrust table...ouch!

[Adam Cherubini]

Adam, my only point is that while it adds a whole nother layer of challenge in the replication of techniques and aesthetics, it relieves you of the challenge of developing your own succesful style.

The flip side is that the innovator always says "Oh that's the way I wanted it" "That was my intention". With reproduction work there's a clear right and wrong, good and bad. For example, I really don't care for Cezanne's work. I think the man was a fraud who couldn't paint. His work seems wholly unintentional. Only painting I liked in a huge exhibit at the PMoA was a gorgeous bowl of peaches, their and glow so warmly represented you could almost smell them. When I saw that the painting was entitled "Bowl of Apples", I was done with Cezanne. (And I like the other impressionists)

Innovators often free themselves of accountability. Frank Lloyd Wright made a series of unheatable houses with leaky roofs. His dabbling in furniture resulted in similar failures; uncomfortable chairs, awkward tables.


Making a good piece is hard whether you make it in an established style or an original one. The challenge in the established style is properly emulating the style to arrive at a piece that is already known and accepted as desirable, while the challenge in making the original one is making something original that proves to be good.

So if you are following me, I think this discussion is about how we judge "good" work. I judge "good" based on what a piece intends to convey, and what the artist intended. Not whether people necessarily like it or not. I agree that if popular acceptance were the measure, the reproduction artist would always have an advantage. But if we judge based on intentions (and we do or should), then trying to copy a given style is far harder. In this thread, I would say a good reproduction shouldn't seek to fix period mistakes but recreate them with honesty and authenticity (using hand tools versus distressing machined surfaces for example). Failure to do so makes the piece less "good" by my definition.

Sean, I appreciate your comments here. Believe it or not, I think we need to discuss this subject more often. I had the honor of judging the NWA showcase a few years ago along with Pat Edwards and Jim Tolpin. I know some folks were disappointed with our selections. We judged based on the artists' intentions, not the pieces we liked the best or that were the most popular. I naturally gravitated toward the reproductions. I enjoyed seeing the Shaker pieces. One piece, a magnificent N.E. highboy was a crowd pleaser. It was a beautiful piece of woodwork and featured gorgeous figured mahogany and hardware. But it was entirely machined, extremely crisp, and finished like a jewel. It was a gorgeous piece, but a terrible reproduction. As it's intention was clearly to be a repro, we couldn't give it top marks.

Adam

[Sean Hughto]

As a starting point for all that follows, I think we have a baseline disagreement as to an artist's objective. The best artists simply strive to make great art. They want to make art that will stand equal to the best of prior and coming generations. The quality of such art is judged initially by connoisseurs of a form, and later by the masses (excellent new art is often unrecognized by the masses in its time). To me, furniture is a type of art. Furniture-like objects that fail to meet their functions - a chair that is not capable of supporting a person comfortably- may still succeed as a sculpture I suppose, even if it fails as a chair.

So intent. Intent is pretty much meaningless when the quality of the object is the issue. Good intent will not save a poor piece, and conversely, poor intent will not take away from a good one. Intent may be useful to the artist in arriving at the piece, but once the piece is done, the piece is what the viewer has to judge not what the artist may or may not have intended. Your Cezanne story is weirdly backwards to my mind. You loved the piece and could smell the peaches until your read the title, which you took as a suggestion that Cezanne wanted to paint apples, but was so poor a painter that his apples looked like peaches instead. The painting pleased you, apparently the title and your conclusions about the artist's intent did not. I submit that the art is what should be judged, not the title and certainly not the artist's intent. Art's a funny thing; the artist may not even know his intent, and the viewer certainly knows far less. Moreover, the artist's intent may change as he creates and reacts to what he is creating; at what point in time is his "intent" frozen as a checklist for assessing his success in your view? In short, intent is not a useful touchstone for judging quality and even if it were, intent is so amorphous and changeable, it can hardly be known. The piece is itself is what fails or succeeds, and what the artist thought he was doing, much less what you thought the artist was trying to do, is beside the point.

And innovators. I hardly think they free themselves from accountability. Again, their work succeeds or fails. They can find no safe harbor in claiming that the did what they intended -- again, intent is beside the point. It doesn't help viewers in assessing quality and doesn't let artists off the hook if they have failed to achieve high quality.

As you've no doubt understood by now, I could hardly disagree more with your approach to judging work:

"I judge "good" based on what a piece intends to convey, and what the artist intended. Not whether people necessarily like it or not."

People liking something tells me a whole lot more than my intuitions about the artist's intents. Art to me is about our emotional response to the piece - does it please us? would we want to live with it? etc. Now certainly people will have different tastes, but that doesn't make a successful work outside that particular viewer's taste less good - a individual may hate Hamlet or Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, but generations have agreed that these are works of high quality.

We all would like checklists of concrete sorts to judge works. Unfortunately, it's harder than that because art isn't susceptible to premade punch lists of measurable or even tangible characteristics. Think about it. We don't know a priori what work will be a masterpiece. We cannot execute a predetermined checklist and know it will be a good original work. We never know until we see the work itself.

My take. Happy Easter!

[Pam Niedermayer]

Yes, and it's all wrapped up with discerning other peoples' motivations, which we all do day after day, but largely unsuccessfully, even with people we're ostensibly close to.

Pam

[Dave Anderson NH]

This thread has become far more interesting than when it started. What I see here is the classic disagreement between Sean and Adam that almost exactly mirrors the disagreement that caused the birth of SAPFM. Period furniture makers and period reinactors have a different aesthetic and a different set of values than those making modern furniture or studio furniture. In fact this is why many of the SAPFM members who made furniture professionally and started out as members of The Furniture Society started SAPFM. A similar disagreement occured in NH where the League of NH Craftsman juries artists in many fields. The League requires that all work be produced in the best possible manner and that all surfaces, whether show or not, be finished to the best level possible. A few years ago a friend of mine who does period reproductions and who was featured in the Taunton Press book on 300 furnituremakers was denied entry to the League. He does not finish the underside of tables and leaves the try plane marks, seledom apples any finish whatsoever to the inside of case pieces, and generally works in the 18th century style. This made his work unacceptable and violated League standards. He chose not to conform and remain outside the League.

To my mind neither Sean nor Adam is right and neither are they wrong. There are two entirely different motivations, goals, and aesthetic senses operating. Strangely enoough if you read carefully there is more agreement than disagreement in their stances. It is just expressed in different ways.

[John Coloccia]

re: making reproductions vs doing your own thing

"If you play a wrong note once, it's a mistake, but if you play it twice it's jazz..."

[David Keller NC]

This thread has become far more interesting than when it started. What I see here is the classic disagreement between Sean and Adam that almost exactly mirrors the disagreement that caused the birth of SAPFM. Period furniture makers and period reinactors have a different aesthetic and a different set of values than those making modern furniture or studio furniture.

This is spot-on. Many, many folks admire the design aesthetic of the furniture produced in America in the 18th century. Yet many of those same folks do not understand just how rough the insides of that same furniture is, and the fact that it was never intended to last 200+ years, nor be held up as art and displayed in a museum behind UV-protective glass. This is, in my view, where useful definitions can be made:

true reproduction: a piece that is made, as much as is possible, with the original materials, proportions, ornamentation, tools and techniques as the original. Except for the effects of 200+ years of wear and dirt, an expert should have difficulty distinguishing whether it was made in the period or not. Gene Langdon's work is exemplified by this category, as well as Mack Headley's at Colonial Williamsburg.

modern representation: these are pieces that are made, as much as is possible, with the same design, materials and proportions as the original piece, but are made with modern techniques, tools and finishing and to modern sensibilities. To an expert, these pieces can be identified as modern by a very cusory examination. Glen Huey's work is an example of this class - his construction methods will far, far outlast the original design, but often contain glue-ups & modern finishes. Some of Thomas Moser's company's efforts fall into this category.

"In the style of": these are pieces that deviate substantially in materials, design, proportions, finishing and surface ornamentation. This category includes some incredible furniture, but also the cheap junk that one might find in an Ethan Allen. In many cases, pieces that fit this last category have had their design modified to allow production by machine and to conserve materials - the grossly attenuated pad on a "queen anne" cabriole leg in many big manufacturer's catelogues is an example.

From the standpoint of commentary, I believe that there is a place for all three variations, and all three are legitimate pursuits, except, perhaps, the "Ethan Allen" pieces.

Yet, when we are talking about reproductions, there is a value hierarchy. It is entirely appropriate for a museum to seek out items from the true reproduction category, as are folks that are passionate antique collectors that know there is no possibility for them to ever own one of John Goddard's secretaries, or a John and Thomas Seymour work table. It is just as reasonable for a consumer to seek out modern representations and "in the style of" reproductions because of the circumstances of the piece's intended use or the person's pocketbook.

However, arguments that I've sometimes heard that the Norm Abram's Connecticut highboy qualifies as a reproduction just as much as the same piece produced by Gene Langdon are not, in my view, valid. That does not mean that Norm Abrams is not a master craftsman, or deserves a great deal of respect for introducing millions of us to the possibility that furniture can be made to much higher standards than one can find in the store in our own shop. But is not correct to call almost any of the pieces from The New Yankee Workshop "reproductions", any more than a "shaker reproduction" should have brass knobs, carving, leather linings, or any of the other accoutrements that I've seen over the years.

As far as SAPFM is concerned, my guess is that about 80% of the members are uninterested in duplicating the methods used to produce the original pieces, with the rest of us in various stages of learning.:)

[Roderick Gentry]

Innovators often free themselves of accountability. Frank Lloyd Wright made a series of unheatable houses with leaky roofs. His dabbling in furniture resulted in similar failures; uncomfortable chairs, awkward tables.


I don't know about that. He used some of the first radiant floors, and while they probably all failed relatively soon, that was true of most everything from that period. He didn't build the roofs, so perhaps the builder should take a bow, but in any case the failures I have heard of were flat roofs which are perfectly possible, but are certainly better today. The point is surely that people who bought his designs were not looking for the run of the mill so they accepted the risk, and he designed appropriately as regards that.

The same is true of the furniture, that I agree has many limitations. But in accordance with your claimed standard, it was perfectly succesful since it acheived his intent. The literature is full of examples of his not being willing to compromise features to provide for client's needs when he had a design in mind. If he thought the chairs should be square then he certainly was not going to change anything to make them comfortable if that required different lines.

Also, Wright designed a lot of furniture. Some of it is succesful, and one does not need very many succeses to add siginificantly to the pantheon, one chair can do it.



But if we judge based on intentions (and we do or should), then trying to copy a given style is far harder.

Harder than what, the alternative, the original piece? I don't want to argue words that already have an established meaning. But to me a reproduction would be recreating what the original was at birth. All the faux fakery to simulate wear is a worthy challenge, I supose, but it seems at odds with the original intent which was not to produce 200 year old furniture. To us an old piece that has stood up nicely is more valuable because it is 200 years old. It brings with it period and a piece of furniture. That can never be the case with a reproduction, it is a snapshot of what people thought was worth doing in 2011, which could be equaly true of a piece created as the original piece was at birth, or as it could be today with 200 years of further knowledge. One conceit is as good as another.

[Steve Stram]

As someone else said, a lot of the low end furniture may not have survived. The high end items most likely got passed down with words to the effect of, "that cost grandpa a week's wages."

I saw an old plain dresser at an auction. My brother and I almost wanted to buy it. It was about 16" deep and was made with single boards top and sides. If we could have bought it cheep enough, it might have been worth more dismantled for the large pieces of unjoined lumber.

jtk

There is so much "downsizing" and estate sales going on around me that some very fine old furniture is being refused by even resale stores. I met a person doing upscale estate sales who told me he had to make contact with a woodworker to dispose of many ornate dining room sets. Some of these sets have 12 chairs and four supporting cabinets besides the table. The woodworker only takes the sets made of single wide boards, leaded glass in the cabinets and bent wood chairs. This guy gets them for zero. He then dismantles them for the wood. The estate sales person avoids the dumpster charge.

I think the market has shrunk considerably for custom "period" furnture, but those who desire it want it made in a manner consistent with the period. Proof of the human hand in the piece is expected, but not anything that would be considered an imperfection or lesser quality. In the cases I know of, the customers want a piece to fit a specific purpose and space and possibly match another piece species.

I see the simularities between people who want a family picture and a family painting. Digital clarity with opportunity for unlimited prints versus a single hand painted picture with brush strokes.

Could I make a period piece, not a chance.

Steve.

[Jon van der Linden]

This discussion has really turned itself on its head. Looking at people's intentions or motivations is interesting, but not particularly informative.

What is not being taken into account at all is more surprising. That is: how did people actually think about these objects in the eighteenth century? When it comes to design, the motivations could not be more different. The pieces we're talking about were made to be of the latest fashion and design, perhaps in the style of some more famous maker, but none the less pieces of current fashion.

I find one poster's allusion to eighteenth century bemusement at our questions interesting, because it implies that people then somehow knew more about what they were getting than today. That's simply not the case. There are always more informed and less informed people, and those that understand design and those that don't. It has very little to do with ones ability to pay for a product, which is why we see so many things in architecture today that make no sense at all, especially when it comes to applied mouldings, fake "handscraped" floors, and modules based on a sheet of plywood.

Comparing furniture to painting is a bit dangerous, but the example of Cezanne is a good case in point. Putting Cezanne in the impressionist camp immediately tells us something, which is that the poster doesn't understand impressionism, Cezanne, what came after, or Cezanne's place in history. While superficially similar to impressionism, structurally his work has more in common with cubism. What this illustrates is that it's easy to like or dislike things based on superficial appearance, but understanding what we see takes actual knowledge and discernment. People are fond of saying "I know what I like," but the reality is that they don't know at all what they like. They like or dislike something without knowing what it is or understanding it at a fundamental level.

As people engaged in making something, i.e. furniture, naturally we're interested in how people have made things. Understanding the visual culture of a period involves a lot more than just having read all the literature on "making." Regularly looking at many examples from the period is of course necessary to developing an intimate understanding of period style. In the case of eighteenth century furniture, it would also be important to know all of the period books on architecture as a start. To actually understand the visual culture it would be necessary to know much more, everything from handwriting styles to fashion, including local and regional preferences and prejudices. Simply reproducing what you see automatically limits what you can do because you can only see the kinds of subtleties you already know.

[Charles Bender]

Derek,

I have a friend that works for one of the largest flooring manufactuerers in the world. Their "hand scraped flooring" is actually hand scraped. To call the inmates who do the work "craftsmen" is pushing the definition of "craftsman".

[Charles Bender]

And the price the customer was willing to pay which translates into the amount of time the craftsman could put into the work and still turn a profit.

[george wilson]

Of course,we are only looking at the upper crust of society in the 18th.C.,when we look at their fine furniture. I really do think the best educated people at that time did have a better knowledge of good taste and design than our rich of today. Look at the stuff you see in the offices and home of Donald Trump!!!!!! You would not see that junk in a fine 18th.C. home.

On the Public Records Office's front door in Williamsburg,is much 18th.C. graffiti carved into the soft rubbed brick door surround. The initials and names before 1799 are beautifully done in very well executed Roman lettering with serifs. Many are as nice as you'd see on tombstones,done by professional stone cutters. After that date,there is a drastic drop in the quality of the lettering. Why? The seat of government moved to Richmond at that time,because the English ships could not get that far up the river to bombard Richmond as they could Williamsburg. With the government went the upper class population.

I submit that today,if you were to see graffiti carved by the best college students,you would not see remotely the same reflection of classical training in their artifacts.

Women used to have their paintings done standing in the first ballet position. How many of the rich today would know what position that is? Only those who had dance lessons as children. But back then,it seemed to be pretty universally known. Look at 18th.C. penmanship,compared to today's scrawl. I think they paid a lot of attention to classical education back then,and that included taste in selecting furniture,drapery,and colors. By the way,the man selected those things back then as a rule. Everything they had,their clothing,coaches,houses,guns,accessories,were much more artistic than we have today. Deportment was hugely more important. Even in the 20's and 30's,my grandfather would not answer the front door unless he was wearing a suit. Those earlier woodworking books we see re prints of always show the gentleman woodworker wearing a fine shirt and tie.

Remember,I am comparing our rich to their rich( or well to do,at least). From what I learned and saw working in Williamsburg,I am sure they had infinitely better classical educations. They did not have the huge amount of technical knowledge that we have today to fill their heads with back then. Today,we are even thinking about stopping teaching penmanship in our schools. Most of the arts has already been stopped. What's next? Literature?

[john brenton]

I don't know if our perpetual cultural revolution is the result of a sinister cabal, or just the result of a society persistently bombarded with the "new" and the "easy" made possible by our technological advances, but I do know that at this point we need not compare the "well to do" of yesteryear to the "well to do of today". My poor grandpa from Hell's Kitchen was much more educated than a privileged college student of today. Yes, in terms of plain common sense and class, but literally more educated in literature and the three r's. I was talking to a friend of mine's 19 year old daughter two nights ago and she told me she wanted to be a "Venerian". "Venerian?" I asked. She said "Yeah, I've always loved animals and I think it's something I would enjoy doing." I said it a few more times just to make sure that she wasn't just having a brain fart...she wasn't. I'm sure she could tell me everything wrong with the "evil, imperialist USA" and the imperative of "social justice" though.

Without direction and education, our technology has retarded the masses. Right in the middle of the new and the classical is where the neander resides. There is so much more that can be said about the issue, but for some reason there are those that will come out to defend the new and our "progressive" trajectory, and it's just not worth the argument.

[QUOTE=george wilson;1692226
1. With the government went the upper class population.
2. By the way,the man selected those things back then as a rule.

Even in the 20's and 30's,my grandfather would not answer the front door unless he was wearing a suit. . What's next? Literature?[/QUOTE]

[george wilson]

I do not understand what you are saying,John. I compare the high class furniture of the 18th.C. with the upper class 18th.C. consumers vs. today's upper class consumers because it is necessary since those of old times were the only ones who could afford fine furniture,not because I laud them.

I do think we today are bombarded with the new and easy.

I am by no means a member of the upper class. But,as a craftsman I have had to work for the rich on many of the finer objects I have made,just as any maker of fine objects would have had to do in the 18th.C..

I consider myself better educated than a lot of privileged students of today,taking it upon myself to become educated beyond what the available formal education offered me. I learned very little about design,craftsmanship,and the other things I care about from formal classes in college.

These days we have the opportunity to learn as much as we wish to. We are not bound by class structure,or held back by our positions in a rigidly constructed social order. The question is,do we take it upon ourselves to learn from the vast resources we now have,or just slide through life the easy way? It seems that most people do take the easy way.

P.S.: no agenda for mentioning that men chose the furniture,drapes,etc. in the 18th.C.,it is just a historical fact,which today has become completely reversed.

[john brenton]

I totally agree with what you were saying. Maybe my comment was too broad, but it's a broad subject to begin with. What I meant by not needing to compare the well-to-do of yesterday to the well-to-do of today is that we can compare the humble of yesterday against the well-to-do of today in almost everything....academia, common sense, style, class etc etc, and most likely find the more humble of previous generations superior. Of course that isn't entirely true, and I'm not trying to get into the Merv argument, but you know what I'm saying.

My comment was more geared, or spurred on, by your comments on society as a whole ie. your grandfather not answering a door without a suit, juxtaposed against people that go to mass on Easter Sunday in bermuda shorts. True story, just saw it on Sunday. I couldn't believe it, and I'm a young guy, so it's not like I'm easily shocked. But really? Bermuda shorts to Easter mass? Geez.

[george wilson]

I agree with everything you have said,then,John. This whole thread has gotten so wordy that I'm having trouble following it. Had a headache for the past 2 days anyway,which isn't helping. Pollen,I think.

[Pam Niedermayer]

I agree with everything you have said,then,John. This whole thread has gotten so wordy that I'm having trouble following it. Had a headache for the past 2 days anyway,which isn't helping. Pollen,I think.

Austin Energy put two new coal scrubbers in operation this month, which apparently has eliminated my nose and eye irritations, no problems at all this year.

Pam

[john brenton]

Here in Savannah GA everything is covered in light green pollen throughout the entire month of March. You wash your car and end up with green sludge in your driveway and gutter. I had never had any allergy problems before, but my God I felt like my head was in a vise all last month.


Austin Energy put two new coal scrubbers in operation this month, which apparently has eliminated my nose and eye irritations, no problems at all this year.

Pam

[george wilson]

We have plenty of green stuff here,too. My wife is in Savannah today. She is on her way to New Orleans jazz fest to sell jewelry.

[Tom McMahon]

First let me say that I had to read this post twice to get the full gist of it. After reading it twice I have a few thoughts. First I am one of the guys that builds antique looking furniture and I try to make it look antique. I make it look old because most of my customers have a big old Victorian house filled with antiques and they want things that will blend in with what they have. I have also made craftsman and mid century modern pieces for customers and almost any thing they ask for. I do not make reproductions but I can work in many styles. I think we are putting way to much emphasis on the product as the end result of wood working. I think the process or the journey is far more important. It’s the learning along the way and the slide down the slop that counts. I can’t even remember many of the pieces I have built in my life, but what I build today is the total of what I have done before. As to perfection and Art, I have an MFA in art and design and I am not sure I could tell you what art is but I know what it is not. It’s not the ten thousandth take off of a Maloof chair or Krenov chest on stand, which seems to be were most modern work comes from. Those are learning exercises and therefore valid. The only art made in the Maloof style was made by Maloof. Nobody or thing is perfect but things are good enough. Enjoy the trip.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...I am not sure I could tell you what art is but I know what it is not. It’s not the ten thousandth take off of a Maloof chair or Krenov chest on stand, which seems to be were most modern work comes from. Those are learning exercises and therefore valid. The only art made in the Maloof style was made by Maloof. Nobody or thing is perfect but things are good enough. Enjoy the trip.

There is another way to look at this: Maloof wrote the score and there are thousands of performers. I doubt that you'd say Glenn Gould didn't create art when he played the Goldberg Variations.

Pam

[Tom McMahon]

Pam, You are right Art can probably be created through variations on a theme, in fact all Art may be created through variations on a theme. My real point was, for me, the journey is more important than the destination. I just got carried away.
Tom

[Jon van der Linden]

Tom, I don't think you're carried away at all. Designers and craftsmen have different journeys, as will anyone that lives with a piece of art. To divorce the journey from any idea of quality is a mistake, some journeys aren't worth making.

The examples of Maloof and Krenov are good ones. Most people that make works inspired by them are just copying the parts that they know and understand, which inevitably results in something less. If you compare that to the idea of say Rubens making a "Titian" as a gift, or any number of similar examples, we're looking at a different level in concept and execution.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...some journeys aren't worth making...

Yes, and one of these is trying to specify which piece is art or not, unless one is primarily a collector.

Pam

[Jon van der Linden]

Yes, and one of these is trying to specify which piece is art or not, unless one is primarily a collector.

Pam

That's an easy one. It's art. Whether the art is good, bad, derivative, or anything else, is an entirely different question. Calling it "art or not art" is evading the central question which is one of quality. Simply dismissing it it makes life easier by avoiding the question.

Aesthetic judgement is central to creating. Developing that sensibility is the journey, without it it's not possible to understand what you make.

[Tom McMahon]

Jon, I want to agree with you but I'm not sure I can, it depends on what the definition of quality is. I would contend that quality is not necessarily related to expertise in execution. There are lots of great pieces in museums all over the world that are constantly being band aided together by conservators.

[Pam Niedermayer]

That's an easy one. It's art. Whether the art is good, bad, derivative, or anything else, is an entirely different question. Calling it "art or not art" is evading the central question which is one of quality. Simply dismissing it it makes life easier by avoiding the question.

Aesthetic judgement is central to creating. Developing that sensibility is the journey, without it it's not possible to understand what you make.

Art is a commercial term, and not one that denotes craft or anything else that's useful for the craftsperson. It's a label that's convenient for critics. Of course one develops some aesthetic sense in the process of developing one's craft; but labeling a piece of work art or not isn't all that useful to personal development.

Pam

[Tom Vanzant]

About 50 years ago, the Houston Museum of Modern Art bought a piece of "sculpture"... in this case, several pieces of structural steel in a more or less vertical jumble, rust and all, and put it on display in front of the museum. This piece of "art" soon turned up missing. It seemed the solid waste department employees thought it was junk or scrap iron, and they hauled it off. I suppose art is in the eye of the beholder after all. BTW, it was recovered and restored to its place in front of the museum.

[Mark Baldwin III]

Modern art and modern sculpture bug the crap out of me. They seem to lack the skill and vision of many of yesteryear's artists. I especially can't stand the randomly welded steel "sculptures" with some stupid name that is meant to express the inner feelings of the "sculptor" who created it. Next bad one after that is splatter paintings, don't get me started on that crap! Give me Van Gogh!!! Nobody stands in front of a Van Gogh and says "oh, I could do that."

(starting to think about the european chair thread...)

[David Keller NC]

Modern art and modern sculpture bug the crap out of me. They seem to lack the skill and vision of many of yesteryear's artists. I especially can't stand the randomly welded steel "sculptures" with some stupid name that is meant to express the inner feelings of the "sculptor" who created it. Next bad one after that is splatter paintings, don't get me started on that crap! Give me Van Gogh!!! Nobody stands in front of a Van Gogh and says "oh, I could do that."

(starting to think about the european chair thread...)

There is a central, defining difference between "modern" art, particularly modern, abstract art, and the art of say, the 18th century. In the former case, the artist is attempting to express his/her emotions on an abstract form, as you say. In 18th century art, the artist was attempting to provoke an emotion in the viewer - typically one of awe.

And yes, I agree with you - navel gazing is almost never acceptable.

[Tom McMahon]

Mark, It's interesting that you chose Van Gogh. During his life time he was ridiculed for having no talent, the only support he got was from his brother Theo. He never sold a painting while he lived.

[Adam Cherubini]

Sean says my muse isn't strict enough. Obviously, he's never read my column! (I don't think that's true)

I feel most of my pieces have been failures. Never have I heard of another woodworker calling his furniture project a failure, let alone writing about it and photographing his failings for a national magazine. That I feel strongly about this issue is an understatement.

So just a couple more thought just in case anyone is interested. I'll use my own work as examples:

I used my fear of seating furniture to explore what I felt was good work. I fully accepted what Kaare Loftheim from CW warned me about; you have to make many chairs before you get one right. And I thought I would do what no one yet has been brave enough to do- to critique my own work strictly and showcase my errors in hopes of helping encourage and inform others.

My ladder back was a fairly faithful reproduction of a similar chair in Winterthur's collection. I used the materials of the original in their original form (i.e. started with logs). I used original processes, turning with a spring pole (using my Jet 1236 with a leather cord and 2 live centers), and boiling wood to be bent instead of steaming as was originally done. I had some period accounts of guys making these chairs VERY quickly, so i added speed as a build goal.

I missed a couple details stylistically. I felt my chair lacked the taper of the back posts. My center front stretcher wasn't quite large enough. But the joinery, all cut with a spoon bit, was divine. The problem was that the finished product was uncomfortable.

The point being of course, that my chair wasn't a work of art. It wasn't sculpture. It should be fit for purpose as a comfortable place to sit or it's a failure. I could have adapted the design, within the confines of the style, to produce a comfortable version of that chair. I built 3 of these chairs (not one as the articles suggested) and I intend to revisit the design and see if I can make it comfortable. The "they were smaller back then" stattements are largely myths. It's possible however that a small person would have been comfortable in such a chair.

The chippendale chair i did was frought with technical problems. I have carved many many ball and claw feet for practice, realizing the carving would be very difficult. I enlisted the help of one of the best carvers in the US, an expert on 18th c Philadelphia carvings. While he was super helpful, I didn't feel I was going to be able to represent the carvings of a professional carver at the top of his profession (i.e. the original 18th c chair's carver(s).

One of my design goals was to represent the several hands at work on the original chair I was copying. I also attempted to stringly define the nationality and background of the leg carver(s) and tell their story (London carvers who moved to Philadelphia). Tho the joinery was a mess, tho i used scrap wood with greatly varying color and grain, the finished chair was elegant only because the design was so appealing. Unexpected but thrilled with the outcome, the chair looks pretty nice from far away, but on closer inspection reveals itself for the train wreck it really is.

I think the demands of good reproduction furniture far outweigh anything else you can do in wood. It's like painting a copy of the mona lisa. I have my own sense of taste and style. I have to put that aside if I am to represent someone else's style. I also have my own tools and techniques I prefer. Similarly, that must go.

I take Sean's point that to do good or great work, like am Maloof or George Nakashima for example, you have to work really hard. But a lot of that is self exploration, playing upon your own talents and strengths. I often must deal with my weaknesses, my lack of skill as a carver for example, or the multitude of experts and professionals whose efforts I must try to mimic. Can't think of anything harder. It's like a football player playing pro basketball. You have your own strengths

For the rest of us, just trying to wrap our heads around what is required of us is the trick of it.

Adam

[Pam Niedermayer]

Adam, the problems you're having relate to your trying to be someone else. Why not approach period furniture as yourself, place yourself back in the day and try to build a chair that you would have built? Aside from that, I don't think I've ever sat in an antique chair that was comfortable, so my advice is to find that original chair and determine whether it's comfortable.

And I also think a piece of furniture can be art, and its artness is separate from its utility, comfort, and the like.

Pam

[Vinny Miseo]

I think the demands of good reproduction furniture far outweigh anything else you can do in wood. It's like painting a copy of the mona lisa. I have my own sense of taste and style. I have to put that aside if I am to represent someone else's style. I also have my own tools and techniques I prefer. Similarly, that must go.

I take Sean's point that to do good or great work, like am Maloof or George Nakashima for example, you have to work really hard. But a lot of that is self exploration, playing upon your own talents and strengths. I often must deal with my weaknesses, my lack of skill as a carver for example, or the multitude of experts and professionals whose efforts I must try to mimic. Can't think of anything harder. It's like a football player playing pro basketball. You have your own strengths

For the rest of us, just trying to wrap our heads around what is required of us is the trick of it.
Adam

While I have never seen any of your work, I doubt people would consider your pieces to be failures based on the examples you have mentioned. The only inherent flaw is that they weren't created 200 years ago.

I think you are underestimating the "self exploration and hard work" aspects of Maloof's and Nakashima's style. While they have both been influenced by past aesthetic sensabilities, they have also created their own. I'd argue that creating a furniture style, which has been replicated by 1000'sis much harder than creating a reproduction piece.

Think about designing a piece of furniture which is different that all that has come before it, and have it be relevant 200 years later.

[john brenton]

There's a whole world out there. We can't dictate what art is or isn't, or what people should want out of it...but we can have valid opinions. EXCEPT in the case of reproductions, which is what the thread was about. What is art CAN be dictated when it's a copy, when there are set standards. The beauty and the beast of modern art is that there are no parameters.

We are suffering though from the residuals of the Dr. Spock "boomerism" philosophy of "everything is art" and "everyone gets a trophy". Just take a look at performance art, or "piss christ", or as another poster mentioned "splatter art". I have actually seen very resonant splatter art though!

We have to wade through lots of junk to see good stuff. That's the essence of life...I guess that what keeps the real gems at such a premium. If all that glitters was gold, what would that make gold? I think we are all capable of determining what art is to us, but perhaps better at determining what is not art.

[Sean Hughto]

Sean says my muse isn't strict enough. Obviously, he's never read my column! (I don't think that's true)

First, I was kidding in response to your specultation that good reproductions are harder than good originals. Second, I think of muses as encouraging original creations. But, of course there is lots of room for original creation in reproductions too, and I am sure your muse is very tough on you in that regard. Third, I've read every one of your columns; some more than once! I miss them by the way.


I feel most of my pieces have been failures. Never have I heard of another woodworker calling his furniture project a failure, let alone writing about it and photographing his failings for a national magazine. That I feel strongly about this issue is an understatement.

Well, the only folks who don't have failures are those who never do anything, as the saying goes, so I think we've all had plenty of efforts we would readily admit are failures - either partial or complete. Being publically open about where things went wrong is another story I suppose, and I give you big props for your openness in this regard. It is generous and a useful collaborative way to explore and teach.


I used my fear of seating furniture to explore what I felt was good work. I fully accepted what Kaare Loftheim from CW warned me about; you have to make many chairs before you get one right.

I'm about to go full on chairmaking myself. I think I'm gonna get Kaare's quote tattooed to my arm. ;-)


My ladder back was a fairly faithful reproduction of a similar chair in Winterthur's collection. I used the materials of the original in their original form (i.e. started with logs). I used original processes, turning with a spring pole (using my Jet 1236 with a leather cord and 2 live centers), and boiling wood to be bent instead of steaming as was originally done. I had some period accounts of guys making these chairs VERY quickly, so i added speed as a build goal.

Have you sat inthe Winterthur chair? Is it comfortable?

While these guys might have been real fast when they did it all day every day for years or some such, do you think they were fast on the first one ever? Fast comes with experience. Imposing fast on a beginner just invites mistakes.


The point being of course, that my chair wasn't a work of art. It wasn't sculpture. It should be fit for purpose as a comfortable place to sit or it's a failure. I could have adapted the design, within the confines of the style, to produce a comfortable version of that chair. ...
The chippendale chair i did was frought with technical problems. I have carved many many ball and claw feet for practice, realizing the carving would be very difficult. I enlisted the help of one of the best carvers in the US, an expert on 18th c Philadelphia carvings. While he was super helpful, I didn't feel I was going to be able to represent the carvings of a professional carver at the top of his profession (i.e. the original 18th c chair's carver(s).

I think the problem in all of this is that these were your first efforts. We would not judge an artist by his first work in art school. These are essentially exploratory works in a new form for you. Come back when you've made your fiftieth, and we'll see whether it is a success. We will judge it's quality - aethetically and functionally - at that point. A first draft of a novel, or the first chair Maloof made, etc. is not the "piece" to judge.


I think the demands of good reproduction furniture far outweigh anything else you can do in wood. It's like painting a copy of the mona lisa. I have my own sense of taste and style. I have to put that aside if I am to represent someone else's style. I also have my own tools and techniques I prefer. Similarly, that must go.

Good "counterfeiting" (thinking of Mona Lisa here) is indeed a hard won skill, but it is not really the skill of making new art. It's more like being able to play the piano so well that you can play a Mozart piece perfectly and beautifully. That's an admirable skill and the piece may be beautiful owing to the skillful execution of the artist/musician, but it'd not at all the same as writing an original piece of music that is of the same quality as the Mozart piece.


I take Sean's point that to do good or great work, like am Maloof or George Nakashima for example, you have to work really hard. But a lot of that is self exploration, playing upon your own talents and strengths. I often must deal with my weaknesses, my lack of skill as a carver for example, or the multitude of experts and professionals whose efforts I must try to mimic. Can't think of anything harder. It's like a football player playing pro basketball.

You seem to suggest that relying on your talents and strengths is some how a weakness - somehow taking the easy way out!? I think it would be perverse for any artist to intentialnally forego pursuing his or her talents and strengths. This point too, just shows the difference between mimicry and original creation. Mimicry requires us to take on things that we may not have talents in while original creation - where being the best and creating the highest quality art we can is the goal - demands marshalling every talent and strength we have and taking them to new levels.

[john brenton]

Adam,

I understand your world, and the period reproduction craft in general, much more after having read this thread. The question I have is to how strict the standards were in that period. Clearly "letting your spirit soar" just ain't what's being aimed for and given your exposure to modern furniture and design would be a horrible idea for period work...but I believe that your wiggle room should be at least as spacious as the worker of the period. Do you think that's a fair statement, or how you see it?

[Dave Anderson NH]

I'm not Adam, but I wanted to throw this coment in here, particularly about the carving. I consider Adam's effort to have been exemplory and the carved results pretty darn decent. The point I make is that the period reproducer is often working in areas where they have limited skill and experience such as carving, upholstery, gilding, etc. Each and every one of these areas was a well defined specific trade during the 18th century. Few, if any, craftsmen in the major population centers like Philly, Boston, New York, Charleston, etc even attempted to work in these areas. This was work sub contracted out to specialists. Many of those folks served full apprenticeship in England before emmigrating to the new world and were quick, cost effective, and efficient. Adam has a better knowledge of Philadelphia furniture than I do, but if I remember correctly most of the high end carving work there was done by a couple of Englishmen. As for sitting in the ladderback he tried to copy... try that in almost any museum in the country and you'll be looking for a bail bondsman.

[Sean Hughto]

As for sitting in the ladderback he tried to copy... try that in almost any museum in the country and you'll be looking for a bail bondsman.

That may be true in many museums and galleries, and with respect to average vistors, but special access to works and other exceptions to ordinary rules are often granted to folks involved in education, research, etc., especially if it will not harm the work.

[Adam Cherubini]

Adam,
but I believe that your wiggle room should be at least as spacious as the worker of the period. Do you think that's a fair statement, or how you see it?

I tend not to do that. When I do design something original-ish, I do it within certain confines. That was the point of my standing desk series. I likened this sort of work to speaking a foreign language. What I built (said) was my own creation (thought), but it was built with someone else's sensibilities (words, grammar etc etc), or at least that was the goal.

Actually, I think this is what they did also. I think the average builder was looking to copy someone else. There were notable exceptions, of course. In another thread (I think it was my blog) Gary Roberts said something about the books period cabinetmakers had and that fact that we don't know what they had. That isn't entirely true. We know what books several key Philadelphia cabinetmakers had and had access to thru Franklin's "Library Company". The books they had were entirely pattern type books, design books, not "how to's".

Adam

[Adam Cherubini]

While these guys might have been real fast when they did it all day every day for years or some such, do you think they were fast on the first one ever? Fast comes with experience. Imposing fast on a beginner just invites mistakes.

This is true. However, there are techniques that can be fast and techniques that will never be fast. When picking a choosing, I pick the ones that can/will be fast and I try to push them.



Come back when you've made your fiftieth, and we'll see whether it is a success. We will judge it's quality - aethetically and functionally - at that point. A first draft of a novel, or the first chair Maloof made, etc. is not the "piece" to judge.
Sean, this is what David Salisbury said (not to discourage anyone). I think David made well over a hundred formal chairs. They knifed the plans onto their benches in CW.



You seem to suggest that relying on your talents and strengths is some how a weakness - somehow taking the easy way out!?
Right. I think it can be. If you are good at landscape paintings, all of your work looks like landscapes. I think there are reasons why the old masters copied. I think it's how we learn and grow.

This has been fun. You guys are smart. I think this is an important thing for guys to think about.

Adam

[Shawn Pixley]

Modern art and modern sculpture bug the crap out of me. They seem to lack the skill and vision of many of yesteryear's artists. I especially can't stand the randomly welded steel "sculptures" with some stupid name that is meant to express the inner feelings of the "sculptor" who created it. Next bad one after that is splatter paintings, don't get me started on that crap! Give me Van Gogh!!! Nobody stands in front of a Van Gogh and says "oh, I could do that."

(starting to think about the european chair thread...)

You're certainly entitled to your opinions about art. From a technical perspective, there are few artists with the technical abilities of David or Ingres. But art is more than technique. I doubt any of us are intersted to hang one of their works in our homes.

It is also about rebellion and evoking emotion. The Realists and then the impressionists were rebelling against the Salon painters of the age. They were ridiculed by the authorities of the day. Jackson Pollock, Jasper Johns, and Calder were about expressing their views of art and the rejection of the trends of the past.

Art (and by extension woodworking) is a subjetive media. Anyone is capable of judging it by their own sujective viewpoint. That is their perogative. If, in art, popularity was the criteria for "value", then black velvet elvis's would be the highest form. Happily, that is not true. An artist gets to create what they want, the way they want.

I approach woodworking in the same manner. If it isn't for commission, then the only person I need to make happy, is me. I don't do reproductions any more. But I repaired antiques for many years. I am done with that. I don't care for Chippendale, Federalist or Shaker pieces particularly. But I do appreciate others that do this work. If they are happy and proud of their work, I can appreciate that. I care not whether they build with rough backs or with highly finished backs, if they are happy, I am happy.

Be true to yourself.

[Mark Baldwin III]

Mark, It's interesting that you chose Van Gogh. During his life time he was ridiculed for having no talent, the only support he got was from his brother Theo. He never sold a painting while he lived.

He just happens to be a painter that I have great respect for. I was lucky to see many of his early paintings on display in Atlanta when I lived in Georgia. Outside of that, he was an interesting personality, though that has no bearing on how I feel about his paintings and drawings.
Poor workmanship hidden behind the guise of "art" is still poor workmanship.
I have the utmost respect for anyone that can create something new, or create something that mimics the style of 100 or 150 or 200 years ago. To me, art is in execution. If it is executed well, it will evoke any number of feelings/emotions/etc in the beholder.
I just hope one day I will have worked up to the point that I have the skill to create what I call art!!

[Zach Dillinger]

I think we are putting way to much emphasis on the product as the end result of wood working. I think the process or the journey is far more important.

Tom, I respect what you've said here, but I look at woodworking the completely opposite way. I don't love to plane wood, cut dovetails or chop mortises. However, I do love the final result of that work, the finished piece that's in my home or a customer's home. I work in the fastest way possible that allows me to complete the task and still accomplish the required level of accuracy / neatness / etc. Some people choose to smooth plane every surface and relish in the micron-thick shavings. That's their prerogative, but I much prefer to complete the piece and enjoy the piece as a finished result.

[Zach Dillinger]

I've been studying Wallace Nutting to prepare myself to build a "quick and dirty" tavern table for my wife. In "Furniture Treasury Vol. 3", I found an interesting and relevant passage:

"It is a curious commentary on every human production that it inevitably reveals character. Either when the work is new or when it is old it writes a history of its nature, hence the more handiwork in it the more eloquent it is. We may even love it for its imperfections if we see in those imperfections an eager effort to reach an ideal. It is what the man is trying to do rather than what he does that excites our sympathy and admiration".

[george wilson]

I'm not sure I can agree that it's what a man is trying to do. His effort may fall miles short of a decent job that he might have intended to do! I believe in real results myself.

[Jim Koepke]

Some people choose to smooth plane every surface and relish in the micron-thick shavings. That's their prerogative, but I much prefer to complete the piece and enjoy the piece as a finished result.


Guilty as charged. There is seldom a reason to hurry in my shop. There is also usually plenty of time to enjoy and take pride in the finished result.

If I had to make a living of wood working, then my methods would likely change.

Currently I am thinking about making somethings for money. I may have to speed up some operations. Hopefully tasks can be done quicker without removing the pleasure of the creativity and the reflective contemplations.

jtk

[Zach Dillinger]

Guilty as charged. There is seldom a reason to hurry in my shop. There is also usually plenty of time to enjoy and take pride in the finished result.

If I had to make a living of wood working, then my methods would likely change.

Currently I am thinking about making somethings for money. I may have to speed up some operations. Hopefully tasks can be done quicker without removing the pleasure of the creativity and the reflective contemplations.

jtk

Jim,

No guilt to be assigned. Everyone has different goals when working wood. I make and sell pieces for customers so speed is a priority.

Z