What You Should Be Learning

[george wilson]

There are endless threads about sharpening tools here. Every day it seems someone posts a new one. But,sharpening is not an end in itself. I have seen more convoluted ways to sharpen than I care to recall! The worst is BUFFING your edges.

Sharpening is important,and it was the first thing I taught to the dozens of apprentices I taught over the years in schools or in the museum where I worked for 40 years.

BUT,there is something even more important to learn: GOOD TASTE. And PERSONAL SKILL. The first of these is the more difficult to develop. There is so much JUNK out there,it is difficult,I know,for a beginner to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have been dismayed by the utter garbage I have seen shown in woodworking magazines over the years. It isn't getting any better,either. Certainly it is not ALL BAD,but some of it is terrible,and should never have gotten past the staff,HAD THEY KNOWN BETTER! Incorrect information in articles really irritates me also. I wish the editors knew enough to catch these errors. But,they do not seem to.

Beware of newly done WRITTEN material. Just because someone writes a book,or has a blog does NOT,by any means at all, insure that they are master craftsmen. I have met many authors,and I can tell you that some people like to make things,and some like to WRITE things. Every little project becomes an article,and they make money at it. OLD material is better to study as a general rule. Pre requisites used to be TIGHTER! There are modern masters,but sorting them out can be a difficult,if not impossible job for the beginner. I saw a young man at a gun show pick up a TERRIBLE hunting knife with a LARGE,FAT,MISSHAPEN handle,and declare that it was the most beautiful thing he had ever seen! My journeyman Jon and I just smiled at each other. But,mostly smiles of dismay.

How do you learn WHAT is good design? I recommend studying OLD books on woodworking,some of which have been re printed. The books written in the WWI period are good ones to study. They have representative prints of carvings which are good study pieces. You can even get MOLDED pieces of carvings that are sold to be glued to projects. These molded bits are at least taken from OLD and TASTEFUL original carvings,for the most part. I mean the ones with acanthus leaves flowing gracefully in C and S curves.

I have a craftsman friend who has GOOD TASTE. She bought a few odd pieces of brass parts from the 16th. C.. at a gun show. Picked up in the muddy banks along the Thames river in London. They were not very expensive,being just bits and pieces. But,the engraving on them was valuable as study pieces. These were also coined in places,and a study of how they were made was also valuable.

Another good way to learn good design is to visit museums where they have 18th. C. originals to look at. Frequently,they offer books with pictures of their collections. I will leave out 19th. C. work,because as far as furniture is concerned,it started to go in all directions,with smatterings of design from here and there. Those "gingerbread" decorated houses are ridiculous in my opinion. And,mine is a learned opinion,developed over a lifetime of woodworking and metal working. And,a talent for it in the first place.

My favorite period for studying tools ,however,IS the 19th. C.. This is when tool making reached its zenith. The most artistic handles for saws were developed in the 19th. C.,and the development of "stuffed" planes also reached its zenith. Some atrocious planes can be found,of course,but for the most part,you will find well designed planes and saws made in the 19th. C..

When I was in the 8th. grade,I use to go to the school library and trace ink drawings of historic sailing ships. My favorite book was by Gordon Grant. I recently found a copy for my home library,after an absence from it of many,many years. Tracing these ships allowed my brain to absorb details and curves so much better than just looking at the pictures because I had to carefully draw every little piece. I am sure the good designs found in these old ships helped me to develop taste,among other things. Indeed,in Alaska,there was not much available in the way of cultural things to study! I always lived in the most out of the way places all of my young life. It is a wonder I learned anything.

What I am suggesting is learning to USE your tools. Not just how to sharpen them.

Next,if you are LUCKY enough to have a worthy teacher,be prepared to receive constructive CRITICISM without becoming angry. DO LIKE ME,and find out what needs improving,and BUCKLE DOWN and MAKE IT BETTER. THAT is how you get somewhere.

[Stew Denton]

George,

I see articles in woodworking magazines where pieces are made that to my eye are gaudy. Proportions are strained, and inlays are "in your face" and seem like a gaudy end in themselves. Of course I like conservative well done simple lines.

Is this the kind of thing you are talking about? Please elaborate.

Stew

[george wilson]

This is a very difficult question to answer. Highly elaborate pieces need not be gaudy. It depends on how tastefully they are done.

This guitar I made is not gaudy,though a FEW(maybe 2 I know of) who need more education have branded it as such. It is mentioned in one blog,I know of. Out of jealousy. I made it because I liked the challenge,and it was made to order, though for my personal use, I prefer restraint.

[Curt Putnam]

What do you think of Sam Maloof's work?

[Jim Koepke]

Edited for brevity:

BUT,there is something even more important to learn: GOOD TASTE. And PERSONAL SKILL. The first of these is the more difficult to develop. There is so much JUNK out there,it is difficult,I know,for a beginner to separate the wheat from the chaff. I have been dismayed by the utter garbage I have seen shown in woodworking magazines over the years. It isn't getting any better,either. Certainly it is not ALL BAD,but some of it is terrible,and should never have gotten past the staff,HAD THEY KNOWN BETTER!

Just because someone writes a book,or has a blog does NOT,by any means at all, insure that they are master craftsmen.

I have written posts with pictures of my work with procedures and I can guarantee I am not a master craftsman.

One of the magazine articles that set me off a bit called for 6' long by 15" wide pine boards. I haven't seen any of those here on the west coast. Maybe it is common in the east, but it isn't something off the rack at any of the merchants in my travels.

A few years back there was a bit of controversy about someone suggesting one of the first things you do with your new premium plane is to lap the sole.

Years ago my position on lapping was rather indifferent, "go ahead, what can it hurt? Well, it can hurt a lot if done poorly. Now my position is that it is something one should only do if is possible to prove it is the sole of the plane being bad causing a problem. In other words only lap the sole if you can demonstrate lapping is needed.

Another thing that kind of turns me off to FWW in general is everything seems to be power tools and plywood. I am not much of a fan of either.

jtk

[george wilson]

I know that Maloof's work is very popular. It is not quite to my own taste,but I would not call it badly designed. What I have seen,I'd call a re design of Colonial period chairs,for example. I liked them better without being re designed!

If I am asked to critique well known woodworkers,it will only start a huge war,so I'd rather not.

Jim,we are going to be lucky if we can even get DECENT plywood in the future. Pieces of flattened soccer balls and wire fences have been found inside Chinese imported plywood. I suggest that EVERY piece you buy be gives a VERY CAREFUL check over!!

I hope that it does not become the only plywood that is made. We can only blame ourselves. The American public demands LOW prices,which leads to this sort of thing. The Chinese can make perfectly good products,but not for nearly nothing.

As an unusual fact,I have seen in an early 18th. C. piano,actual plywood. But,hand made! Made where strength in both directions was needed. And,not a large sheet. In a part about 4" x 12" in a rare, early,English,small piano.

[Andrew Hughes]

I have several friends that are artist.I know i don't have the eye they do.They just see things way different.
I believe some people are born with the eye for design other like me have to live a very long time to develop it.
Its just a really long road unless your just straight out copying work from a master.
Nothing wrong with that. Its not the easy way out.

[george wilson]

Copying is better than striking out and making something BAD,if this is your limitation. You are bound to have some design rub off on you by making copys. I HAD to copy tools when I was toolmaker. But,I really prefer to design on my own. I can use historically correct details that I designed myself,as on the marquetry guitar shown above. If you don't get the details correct,it is just so much garbage,really.

The trouble with only EVER copying things like furniture,is that you are forever only regarded as a copyist,not a creative artist.

[Phil Mueller]

I have mixed thoughts on this. I try to keep an open mind...beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

I enjoy a museum of classic art. However, I often find little to appreciate at museums of modern art. My parents hated the music I listened to in the 70s, and I'm not fond of the music my kids listen to today. Every generation brings changes with a touch of rebellion that creates the new "taste" for that generation.

I don't tend to call it bad taste, or wrong - it's just different - and while I may not like whatever it is, I can appreciate someone's' exploration into something beyond the status quo.

[Don Jarvie]

This good advice. The best way to learn is by making things. If you screw it up so be it you will learn from your mistakes. While I am far from a craftsman I like to incorporate ideas from other craftsman. I made an entertainment center and added some Krenvov design into it by adding some arches to the lower half. I also used his way of using dowels to have the top over hang. You could call it Krenvov inspired.

Use furniture in your house to help with proportions like chair or table height. Also full size drawings help you see how a piece may look before you cut any wood.

[Jim Koepke]

Its just a really long road unless your just straight out copying work from a master.
Nothing wrong with that. Its not the easy way out.

One of the ways we were taught when I was taking classes was to copy the styles of the masters.

As George mentioned, some of it rubs off on the student.

There was also a lot of discovery in class. Pencil drawing started off with drawing nothing but vertical lines. Some of the students just filled a page with lines all the same length from top to bottom. Others including my self would make spheres, triangles and many other shapes using only vertical lines. We were never told we couldn't use different widths of lines. As people had their personal epiphanies they were granted the use of horizontal lines.

A person may not be born with a design sense, but it can be learned.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

George, thank you for this thread. I know that there are those who enjoy a sharpening thread, but I find them frustrating since they really represent an elementary step along the way - important, but still elementary. My own interest lies with design and how to achieve this with sound construction. Technique in tool use and ergonomics of tools (part of design) are part of this picture.

I am dismayed when a thread begins about a piece of furniture, and a reader shows more interest in the tool than the technique of using the tool. Still, I strive to be tolerant (I could do with more practice) because this just illustrates that the range of interests on this forum are wide.

I would welcome a discussion on the design of contemporary furniture makers. That is one way to train the eye what to look for. I always look forward to something of yours posted here, since it generally comes with an analysis of the design. I learn something new each time.

And like yourself, I have been bemused at the gushings on some forums for shopmade or custom handplanes that I consider to have poor proportions and look clumsy. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or are some less blind than others?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

I have me own ways of working in the shop. Drafting class in the Ind. Arts Class was way back about 1968, in High School. Never claimed to be a Designer, and been told that more than a few times....

I do show with my projects, what works for me, and what I need the project to be when done. Long ago, I quit trying to sell my projects, the selling part was taking away from just doing something with wood. I mean, after about a 130+ chest-of-drawers sold, it was getting a bit old. Then, it was more about how FAST I could turn them out, rather than just doing things to relax after a long day at the "day Job" Scaled things WAY back. If someone would show me a picture, and a list of sizes, I MIGHT still be able to do that.

[Ryan Mooney]

The boat comment is interesting because you can't lie to boats, they'll tell you when you did it wrong in the most direct way possible.

[Jim Koepke]

And like yourself, I have been bemused at the gushings on some forums for shopmade or custom handplanes that I consider to have poor proportions and look clumsy. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder, or are some less blind than others?

I am more interested in how well a plane does the task at hand than its appearance. It should also be relatively comfortable and easy to use.

I am not interested in a plane that was made to be set on a shelf only to be held when it is being dusted or polished.

jtk

[george wilson]

Derek,I would not do well in a discussion of contemporary furniture makers because I never liked to make furniture(Though it seems that I have made quite a bit that is in our house!) Furniture is too DULL for my interest. I have made a lot of musical instruments and tools,even including an 18th. C. fire engine posted here before. Huge cider press and mill,lots of gifts for presidents and leaders,PGA trophies. All kinds of things. But furniture making I never got real excited over. It just sits there. And the only reason I made some of the things I mentioned was that it was part of my job.

[Patrick Chase]

This is a very difficult question to answer. Highly elaborate pieces need not be gaudy. It depends on how tastefully they are done.

This guitar I made is not gaudy,though a FEW(maybe 2 I know of) who need more education have branded it as such. It is mentioned in one blog,I know of. Out of jealousy. I made it because I liked the challenge,and it was made to order, though for my personal use, I prefer restraint.

Wow, that is a magnificently executed guitar.

It isn't to my taste, either, but you're right that that such variation in preference doesn't in any way justify a label like "gaudy". It isn't.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,I would not do well in a discussion of contemporary furniture makers because I never liked to make furniture(Though it seems that I have made quite a bit that is in our house!) Furniture is too DULL for my interest. I have made a lot of musical instruments and tools,even including an 18th. C. fire engine posted here before. Huge cider press and mill,lots of gifts for presidents and leaders,PGA trophies. All kinds of things. But furniture making I never got real excited over. It just sits there. And the only reason I made some of the things I mentioned was that it was part of my job.

George, you have "The Eye". My comment earlier about aesthetic of planes was not as a lover of planes, but as an student of aesthetics. The ability to recognise a line, a curve, whether a moulding is appropriate, proportions ... the list goes on ... does not require that you like furniture, or even that you like a particular style. For example, I am not a fan of ornate rococo furniture - that is gaudy to my eye. Nevertheless I appreciate what is done, and how it is done. I can still take in proportions.I am not even a fan of Queen Anne furniture, as I still find this too busy. However, I admire the elegance of many pieces, and took some inspiration for my Lingerie Chest from bombes of this period. My own taste runs to the lighter, cleaner lines of Danish/Shaker/Japanese furniture. I see a lot of cr@p built in their name. I ... you ... we ... can look beyond styles to explore and understand what makes good design.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Ray Selinger]

When I was in high school, I took Art, more girls take Art then Ind. Ed. The study of Japanese gardens which is what I did when not talking to girls helped in the carving of gun stocks more then any Ind. Ed. would have done.

[Brian Holcombe]

I don't know how my work is viewed. I like to think that I am continuously learning of how to apply a subtle touch.

Design remains the main interest in my professional life. I became a woodworker to see my thoughts come to life. Some basic training goes a long way but I was drawn toward art from as young as I can remember and have pursued it relentlessly. One of my earliest memories was of being in kindergarten class and making art, even then I enjoyed making compositions.

As I progressed through formal education, however, I found that I truly hated formal art education. In spite of excellent grades in school for architecture I abandoned formal study as I found it to be restricted by instructor taste. I decided that self study would allow me to read and understand the thoughts of other artists in my own interpretation rather than through the filtered interpretation of instruction. I felt that subjecting myself to peer review did much to improve my ability and maintain my spirits to the point where I could continue to pursue my passion with enthusiasm.

That said the most important aspect of art is a muse, someone who pulls the best work out of you. The work that I consider my best effort thus far has been work for clients who require my best efforts, shoot down what they do not like but generally allow free thought. Collaborative thought and problem solving creates good art once a basic framework of aesthetic taste is developed. This cannot be understated, at least in my case it has pushed my boundaries and created the subtle amount of pressure required for thoughtful creation to ensue.

For my work, as well, I feel that continuously revisiting and revising projects has made for worthwhile improvements. Your best work should be treated not as something to put on a pedestal but instead the penultimate design of something better. The process of continuously improving a work through to the point of shear exhaustion can truly bring out the best.

My interest in hand tools was solely to improve my art, putting myself further in touch with my medium through manual efforts has increased how much thought is applied to the work and how many improvements have been made. Doing something over and over and over again makes you think about it and get better at it.

I think viewing masterworks can be helpful and not necessarily viewing them in the same field. I like woodblock prints, I feel it is one of the least expensive ways to acquire and appreciate master work as the compositions are often those of the absolute best in their field at the time when the field was at its best.

I look toward the earlier work of people who I consider to be great as they were putting the most amount of effort into their work (in my opinion, there is no real way to know) when I see something like the Wishbone chair by Hans Wegner and all of incredible detail considered by Wegner and how well it works with the material at hand it allows long periods of contemplation. It is a chair that is completely taken for granted, since it is affordable and now ubiquitous but it remains an absolute wonder in my mind. That is something that did not happen all at once but with years and years of refinement and improvement, that is without a doubt the struggle to provide quality work for a demanding but highly encouraging client.

I would like to note that is also, quite often, it is the trained but subconscious mind which produces good efforts. If you read Yanagi's book, The Unknown Craftsman, his interpretation of this effect and how it applied to items throughout history is truly interesting. I have looked at the work that he too finds enjoyable and feel that his discovery of that work and bringing it to the limelight was a service to the people who made it but did not think of it as art so many years prior.

Furthermore we're very lucky to have George pushing us to think about art! Look at that guitar and you see a composition thought about from not only a macro perspective but also a micro perspective. Compare to the compositions of someone like Sharaku or Yoshitoshi and you will see the same ability to see the macro composition without any lack of consideration or perfection in the smallest detail. I feel suspended in time when I look at George's work, it provides such wonderment.

[Bob Glenn]

I've recently been reading and mulling over "By Hand and Eye". Lots to think about and question in that book. Also been reading David Pye's work on design, but finding it a slow slog and a heavy read.

As discussed in Hand and Eye, the old guys didn't use rulers so much, as dividers and sectors. I am currently making a sector and looking forward to discovering what it will show me in use. I am some what upset that after considerable formal education in drafting and architecture, that I wasn't taught what I wasn't taught. Maybe I missed that day, but until recently, I didn't know what a sector was or how it was used.

I am also questioning Tolpin and Walker's thesis about design proportion. From what I understand, the ancients developed the classical orders (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, etc.)
with very specific proportions. Was it because there was some perceived proportional magic with these, or were they the result of using what they had at the time, IE dividers?

Lot's of questions. Bob

[george wilson]

Bob,in nature,you can very often see the proportions of the "Golden Mean" rectangle shown in the height and width of trees. This may be seen standing "on edge" in some trees. There are other rectangles they used also,such as the "Root 2". They used these rectangles in designing great buildings such as the Parthenon.

They had great concepts of how the eye beholds a building,and they made the base of the Parthenon with a convex curve. Their columns were not just straight tapers,they were also convex.

There is too much to go into here about ancient architecture. It would require studying a good book. Their sense of proportion was much greater than what we have today,though we are aware of their work,and sometimes employ it today. They employed it a lot more 200 years ago. At that time,people were much more trained in the classical arts. Chippendale used these proportions. So did Inigo Jones and Christopher wren when they designed structures. Inigo was the first to use Vitruvian rules in his work. You need to Google these men to see more about them. Too much to write about here. There is a World of knowledge about proportions to use if you study it.

The spiral of the chambered Nautilus shell is a very mathematically conceived form. Look it up. Much of nature's designs follow definite mathematical proportions.

Look up "Golden Mean rectangle",and Root 2 rectangle for an explanation with illustrations,and other classical rectangles. Apply them when you design a chest of drawers,or other things. A Colt Sheriff's model with 3" barrel fits perfectly into a Golden Mean rectangle. I do not know if this was intentional or not.

Somehow,I never use these rectangles consciously. I just design things that have their proportions,such as in dovetails. Don't ask me how. I just do it. I don't mean to sound braggadocio here. It is just something I have "built in". I certainly did not inherit it.

[george wilson]

Patrick: At the top of this page is "Neander sticky threads" go to it and select "FAQ" to see many pictures of various people's work and mine.

[Brian Holcombe]

How did the arrive at specific proportions, such as the golden ratio? I believe in viewing nature and deriving proportion from natural formations. Polykleitos' treaties 'The Kanon' provides what he surmises to be ideal proportion and it is based on the human form.

Fast Forward a number of years and we have Charles and Ray Eames, doing similarly excellent work based entirely on human proportion. Their molded plywood chair was designed based on ergonomic study.

So as humans we seem to relate well to works done in human proportion. :D We derive the best rectangle based in our own image and seem to like to seeing it applied to many things.

For this reason many cultures have derived the same set of proportions from their surroundings.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/22/f9/e6/22f9e6478369f883a6dba3fe40b6c749.jpg

[Brian Holcombe]

Sorry George, I see you had already written your explanation by the time I finally hit post on mine.

It seems it can be developed in intuition as well. I performed an experiment to judge the calibration of an experienced eye utilizing my father, formally trained in drafting and a lifelong metal worker. I asked him to help me set the legs of a cabinet to what he viewed as 'good'. We did so and it came out to golden proportion almost exactly.

[Jim Koepke]

In response to the 'Golden Ratio' or 'Golden Rectangle' my golden ratio dividers get used in designing projects at times:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?223546-What-s-in-a-Name

jtk

[george wilson]

A handy thing to have,Jim!!

In addition to learning how to design,which is a complex but sometimes intuitive field,you need to be learning how to use tools accurately. I suggest that you Google "George Wilson Harpsichord",and watch my film which is shown in 6 parts. Pay attention to the use of the tools in the film.

If you have seen my movie,in the part where I am sawing off the ivory tusk,you will see that my saw is moving in a perfectly back and forth motion. There is no wagging or wiggling about it. Absolutely straight line motion.

This straight line motion must be learned as the body's joints want to work in circular motions. I cannot tell you how I developed this straight motion. Again,it is intuitive on my part as far as I can tell. I can't recall ever trying to teach myself to saw with straight motions. I can only tell you that you need to learn how to use a saw like this. It will make for more accurate sawing. There must be no jamming of the saw from excessive force that is mis directed. Let the saw's weight do the cutting.

Keep your eye on how the saw is moving. A back saw is better to look at while you are sawing because it has a rectangular blade with a straight back,for the most part. Old saws often have a tapered blade,though not as tapered as a crosscut or rip saw. If you are sawing with a tapered saw,you can try to keep your eye on the cutting edge,rather than on the back of the tapered blade (which will not be helpful!) Once you master straight motion with the back saw,it should transfer to using the crosscut and rip saws anyway.

Let the weight of the saw do the cutting. If the saw is a decent one,with a heavy enough back(brass is best as it weighs more than steel.
The one I am using in the movie has a steel back,but thick enough to work fine).IF the teeth are sharp,AND OF THE CORRECT SHAPE!!,the weight of the saw will do the work. The saw in the movie was an old Disston that I made a better handle for.

I wish that I had had more authentic tools on hand. But,as in most things that happened in the museum,decisions from on high were suddenly announced,and there was no time to get better tools made. The shop was not very old and established at that time. It is usually all rush rush and a too close deadline.(That includes the special gifts we were asked to make). I used what I had on hand. The Woodcraft "registered chisel" I cut the dovetails is another example of tools I regret having to use. But,there it is. The important thing for you to take away is HOW the tools were used. The dovetails were cut with a few strokes of the back saw,and quickly chiseled on the correct angle. I tilted the non beveled chisel so I could clear the angled sides of the dovetails.I have seen old timers grind a tapered angle on the ends of their square edged chisels to make them clear dovetails better. The angled bevel tapers out in to nothing in about 1/2" This looks ugly to me,so I don't do it. But,I'll bet it was common back when bevel edged chisels were not common. The angle to fit the dovetails into the angular tail of the spinet cabinet was just done by eye. The dovetails pressed properly together when finished. They would be covered by a molding anyway,because in the 18th. C.,it was not considered desirable to see the joints. They were hidden whenever possible. Everyone made dovetail joints. Not an unusual thing to make. Today,they are sort of considered a novelty,a mark of good craftsmanship. Somehow considered hard to make and therefore must be seen. They really aren't that hard to do.

The plane I used right at the beginning,to plane the 4' long back section of the spinet's bottom did not tilt sideways when pushed along the cut. The plane did not take a downward DIVE as it exited the cut. I have seen people who consider themselves good craftsmen DIVE off the end of a cut. Wrong,wrong,wrong. Such "craftsmen" are deluding themselves. Period.

I have seen such a"craftsmen" push 2 boards through a radial arm saw as it cut the line where the 2 boards were pushed together,and consider the resulting cut suitable as a glue joint!! Somehow they think that the edges of the boards are going to fit together tightly just because they shoved them together through the saw!! Amazingly stupid thinking!!! In fact,these 2 silly processes were done by the SAME PERSON! This guy thinks he knows it all. He will NEVER learn anything better. But,I have seen others do it too.

He made a copy of the same spinet I made in the film,and they had it for sale at the Craft House(a retail outlet of the museum). The inlay over the keyboard,which I sawed out in the film,in 3 hours,while the film crew stood around and waited,was a PHOTOGRAPH on his spinet. Glued to the name board and varnished over. The lid of his spinet,if you laid a rule across it from front to back,had warped to more than a 2" deep hollow! I don't remember how they dealt with that defect in the store. The maker thought he was safe from warping since he made the lid out of an antique walnut door. WRONG: wood still holds stresses even when very old. I hope they sent it BACK!

But,I have digressed too much and viewers don't like to read very long posts. Enough for now.

[Jim Koepke]

George,

As usual good advise for beginner and advanced woodworker.

I recently watched a video of someone sharpening a chisel. They were trying to work a straight bevel, but the top of the handle was moving considerably up and down. Seeing this gave me a new insight on my own sharpening method.

I have made videos of myself to demonstrate one thing and learned more about what I was doing wrong than just showing a technique.

It may be good for 'modern' woodworkers with access to a video camera to watch themselves using a saw to find the room for improvements.

jtk

[george wilson]

An excellent idea,Jim! Watching a video WILL expose faults that people might never know they have when performing work that requires skill.

[Prashun Patel]

I very much appreciate this post. Thanks, george. Intuitive but overlooked advice.

[James Pallas]

George, Please keep going on this thread so I (we) can all learn something. By the way I can rub my chisel on my "smooth flat river Rock" and cut good mortises in white oak so I'm happy. I think the edge must be at least down to one atom, don't you think.
Jim

[Pat Barry]

I don't have a clue about the golden rectangle as it regards woodworking. I have only seen it as a mathematical approximation. Does anyone have an example of the golden rectangle in a woodworking project, for example a cabinet? Maybe a picture of something exhibiting the golden ratio would be helpful. Thanks

[Brian Holcombe]

Pat, all of my design work adheres as closely as possible to the golden ratio.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't have a clue about the golden rectangle as it regards woodworking. I have only seen it as a mathematical approximation. Does anyone have an example of the golden rectangle in a woodworking project, for example a cabinet? Maybe a picture of something exhibiting the golden ratio would be helpful. Thanks

Here is my first project built using my golden mean dividers:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?224747-Tea-Cabinet-Latest-Project

jtk

[george wilson]

Pat,if you can find studies of Chippendale's designs. (There are reprints of original works available. The Anthony Hay Cabinet Shop used his book all the time.) You will find out how these classical rectangles were used. And should still be used.



Regarding Should be used,it is appalling,with the entire history of furniture making available to those who would only bother to seek it, why it is nearly impossible to find decently designed commercially made furniture in the stores. So called professional designers are supposed to be the source of these designs,yet they are so lacking. I can't help buy wonder what these people studied in school.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that old designs should be slavishly studied. But,they can be a good basis for beginning to design even modern furniture.

[Pat Barry]

Here is my first project built using my golden mean dividers:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?224747-Tea-Cabinet-Latest-Project

jtk
Hi Jim, I like this project. The proportions are nice but where is the golden rectangle? Is it in the basic box size, or the door, or the floating panel in the door or the shelf spacings?

[george wilson]

I just Googled"Use of the golden mean rectangle in chippendale furniture images". There is a great deal of information at your fingertips if you care to look into it, Pat. Leonardo daVinci, Michelangelo and many other important artists and craftsmen used these classical proportions in their paintings,sculpture,architecture, and furniture design.

Leonardo was extremely mathematical in his layouts of paintings. He had what he considered the most perfect proportions for the human face and body very carefully planned out. There is so much to study I cannot begin to get into it or I'd be typing so much I'd never get finished! It is easily looked up these days.

[Brian Holcombe]

Pat,if you can find studies of Chippendale's designs. (There are reprints of original works available. The Anthony Hay Cabinet Shop used his book all the time.) You will find out how these classical rectangles were used. And should still be used.



Regarding Should be used,it is appalling,with the entire history of furniture making available to those who would only bother to seek it, why it is nearly impossible to find decently designed commercially made furniture in the stores. So called professional designers are supposed to be the source of these designs,yet they are so lacking. I can't help buy wonder what these people studied in school.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that old designs should be slavishly studied. But,they can be a good basis for beginning to design even modern furniture.

Not nearly impossible, just priced accordingly :D If you talking about period modern (Bauhaus school on through American Mid Century) then many of the architects who designed furniture worked in classical proportion.

The best example, of course, would be Le Corbusier whose furniture is produced by Cassina. Le Corbusier developed a system of proportions to apply to every aspect of design which were based on The Kanon.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/4f/9b/f94f9b7e538283c296a3e2a3a931a53a.jpg

[James Waldron]

George:

I like reading your posts, no matter how long or short. I read for the ideas, not for speed reading.

Jim

[Phil Mueller]

While spending a few hours researching the golden rectangle, there does exist an opposing point of view. I share this not to argue the point, but because I thought the research results are interesting.

YOU DON'T REALLY PREFER THE GOLDEN RATIOIn the real world, people don't necessarily prefer the golden ratio.
Devlin tells me that, as part of an ongoing, unpublished exercise at Stanford, he has worked with the university's psychology department to ask hundreds of students over the years what their favorite rectangle is. He shows the students collections of rectangles, then asks them pick out their favorite one. If there were any truth behind the idea that the golden ratio is key to beautiful aesthetics, the students would pick out the rectangle closest to a golden rectangle. But they don't. They pick seemingly at random. And if you ask them to repeat the exercise, they pick different rectangles. "It's a very useful way to show new psychology students the complexity of human perception," Devlin says. And it doesn't show that the golden ratio is more aesthetically pleasing to people at all.
Devlin's experiments aren't the only ones to show people don't prefer the golden ratio. A study from the Haas School of Business at Berkeley (http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/marketing/PAPERS/PRIYA/p22.pdf) found that, on average, consumers prefer rectangles that are in the range of 1.414 and 1.732. The range contains the golden rectangle, but its exact dimensions are not the clear favorite.

[Jim Koepke]

Hi Jim, I like this project. The proportions are nice but where is the golden rectangle? Is it in the basic box size, or the door, or the floating panel in the door or the shelf spacings?

The ratio of the height to width is where the golden mean was applied.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

And some still think it is golden:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lance-hosey/the-rectangle-is-still-go_b_8325280.html

It isn't an exactitude, it is a pleasing range of proportions.

jtk

[allen long]

George,

What exactly do you mean when you speak about someone DIVING the plane off the end of the board? Even more importantly, what is the correct technique?

Many Kind Regards . . . Allen

[John Kananis]

George: What an awesome thread, filled with more awesome - thanks for starting.

Jim: The advise on video-recording yourself is probably one of the best stitches of council I've ever done/did seen!

[Phil Mueller]

Thanks Jim, appreciate the "counterpoint"

An article in FWW indicates it can be used to help determine the proportion on table top to apron to legs. They didn't show how this is done. Does anyone know how it's applied? If a table top is 3/4" thick, does that suggest the apron should be 1 1/4"? Or if the legs are 30" that the apron should be 18"? Not sure how it applies.

[george wilson]

John: Some non skilled wood workers let the front end of the plane dive downwards as it reaches the end of the board. This can cause the end of the board to be rounded off by the plane's blade as it tumbles over the end. A VERY bad thing to do,and the mark of a truly unskilled worker.

To me,this sloppy planing ranks a few degrees below a trained beaver!:)

[Brian Holcombe]

George's Violin and Harpsichord video is a fantastic resource. If anyone has not watched or has only watched once or twice. I have watched it many times and continue to find new insights. It is certainly one of the most comprehensive videos I've watched. He isn't following along telling you how to do a certain thing, but as my skill improves I find I can continue to watch that video and new insight is provided.

Similar to watching videos of the sashimono-shi, where you see work done where both time and quality are high consideration and the approach to that work retains this aspect. The goal of working toward quality quickly puts more on the maker to build muscle memory and further trust upon that muscle memory.

Even as one who has a cabinetmaker's aspirations, there is much relevance to my work.

[george wilson]

Too bad the SEPARATE harpsichord and violin making videos were not offered for public sale. They are both much more comprehensive,since they do not share time. The individual videos are as long as the combined one.

For some reason my film was the last craft film made. I don't know why.

[george wilson]

Phil: Surveys also show that the average American has the intellect of a 13 year old girl,says my wife.Or is it 11 year old girl? So,I don't think the survey you mentioned is proof of anything.

Believe it or not,I FAILED an "art test" in college. When I told Will Reimann,my sculpture teacher,and one of the foremost artists in the country,he laughed loudly,and said "Good for you!!!!,those canned tests are : (unmentionable word!)

[Phil Mueller]

Ha ha, George, I suspect, sadly, that your wife is likely correct.

[george wilson]

I don't know where she saw the survey,but she is very smart and I'm sure her information is accurate. She was just here,and said it wasn't surprising that untrained people would choose different rectangles.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't know where she saw the survey,but she is very smart and I'm sure her information is accurate. She was just here,and said it wasn't surprising that untrained people would choose different rectangles.


Surveys also show that the average American has the intellect of a 13 year old girl,says my wife.Or is it 11 year old girl?

In a way that is almost a compliment as most girls at that age are known to have more intellect than boys at that age.

Maybe that is the reason there was some popularity of a program that asked, "are you as smart as a fifth grader?"

jtk

[Mel Fulks]

To me the extraordinary guitar George made is intended as a personal indulgence and sweetener to the necessity of practice. It would be possible for a guitarist to walk onto a stage and give a concert with it , without even one person ever seeing any of the embellishment. I don't find anything "gaudy" that is primarily intended for personal use; I think gaudy has to be intrusive and unavoidable ...and even then usually needs help from ugly.

[george wilson]

The guitar was ordered by a movie star who happened to be an 18th. C. enthusiast. His only instruction was "make it as fancy as possible"! I don't think he had much of a sense of TASTE!!!

I like instructions like that. They let me do whatever I want. I didn't make the guitar as fancy as I COULD. There is not much ornamentation on the front. But,at some point,I had to move on to other orders.

The whole thing was a challenge to saw all those thin elements without breaking them,and get them all assembled and glued down without breaking them.

i had to make a very deep throat saw that could encompass the length of the guitar body. I made it of yew wood. It was a challenge to hold up the saw without tilting it and breaking the tiny jeweler's saw blade I used. Someone bought the saw from me,so it is gone now. I have made the frames for 2 others,but not the handle and the chucks that can rotate.

All the designs on the back,sides,neck and peghead are the SAME design. The silver wire inlay is the same as on the back,only a bit less complex. The least complex is in the center of the peghead,since it is a much smaller space.

I made other marquetry guitars,but,unfortunately,did not take pictures. Nor did I get a picture of the nice case I made for this guitar.

[Phil Mueller]

I will also note that throughout my news editorial journalism courses in college, we were told to write to a third grade level. But, we digress from your thread intent, which as been very enlightening.

[george wilson]

Politicians make speeches geared to a child level all the time. They won't let you know this as it is insulting,but that is exactly what they do.

Your college journalism courses were made to be USED!!!:)

[Luke Dupont]

Derek,I would not do well in a discussion of contemporary furniture makers because I never liked to make furniture(Though it seems that I have made quite a bit that is in our house!) Furniture is too DULL for my interest. I have made a lot of musical instruments and tools,even including an 18th. C. fire engine posted here before. Huge cider press and mill,lots of gifts for presidents and leaders,PGA trophies. All kinds of things. But furniture making I never got real excited over. It just sits there. And the only reason I made some of the things I mentioned was that it was part of my job.

George, I'm exactly the same way. I like to make things that function and have some life to them; I initially got into woodworking after wanting to make a bow and a set of arrows, and since then, I've been pretty content with making a few simple instruments and tools. The closest thing to furniture I am motivated to make is a bench, because, again, it's so functional. Glad to know it's not just me.

Your work is really inspiring. That guitar is incredible, and definitely in good taste; ornate without being gaudy.

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

I'll come out and say that I think that the most *technical* hand-craftsmen to have ever lived are alive and working right now. The present availability of educational resources, quality tools (concerning functionality), and free time is absurdly high; and consequently so is the amount of people whose hobby consists of being practically obsessed with the most inane minutiae of the craft. I would not believe for a second that at any time in history there have been keener sharpeners, tighter dovetailers, or faster planers than there are right now. It's like music, or sports, or war. The old guys had technique, to be sure... but I'd bet the house on Marc-Andre Hamelin playing Liszt into the ground, any day of the week. And likewise, I'd bet that the highest level of craftsman working today--given his own toolkit, the same lumber, and an exact plan--would produce a better fit, better finished, and more durable piece of furniture than anyone at any point in history.

Whether or not that craftsman could be counted on to produce a decent looking piece of furniture from a blank sheet of paper is a completely different story. But that's a complicated issue. What culture could reasonably assess its position in history? Some think the past is unforgivable, and some think the past is full of superhuman wizards. I think the truth is, as with most things, somewhere in the middle. There are excellent designers today (probably as many per capita as ever), but they won't be revealed until history finds them preferable. Unlike the superhuman wizard sharpeners, who are more or less fish in a barrel around these parts.

As for the golden mean, its real value lies in its geometrical properties: being the [necessarily] only ratio where the smaller to the larger is as the larger to their sum. Meaning, it's not useful as a rectangle, it's useful as two or more rectangles. Use the second rectangle. I'm begging you.

[John Glendening]

A lot of what was known about design and building furniture in centuries past is being rediscovered, or at least re-appreciated. There are modern craftsmen who are learning about ways of making furniture - and other woodworking artifacts - that involve much less measuring and much more the use of proportions. Among those are the "golden rectangle", but there are other relationships beyond just that one. Many of those proportions can be discovered through the use of tools such as the sector. Look up "by hand and eye". It's not just a book, but is rather an approach, or philosophy (if you want to use that term). The approach has not been lost entirely from history, but it is being given another look. And it has absolutely nothing to do with current, mass-produced furniture - regardless of quality.

Paying close attention to detail, and actually learning about the craft of wood work takes time, and requires paying attention to well thought out experience and intuitive appreciation of history as well as technique.

Great thread!

[george wilson]

i really can't agree that the best craftsmen ever are living today. I have had the unique opportunity to see a great deal of 200 and 300 year old work. And,if you see the best of it,it is truly amazing.

One piece I am particularly fond of is a 17th. C. revolving shotgun. This was a revolving chamber like a revolver(pistol),which had a single barrel. But,the engraving and chiseling on that piece are remarkable. The barrel on this gun is about 3 1/2' long. down the top of the barrel is a "strip" of raised chisel work,divided into several sections. Every section is harmonious with the others,yet each section is different from all the others.

The engraving and low relief chiseling on the chambers and the lock are also amazing. The gun was fit for a king. A dangerous piece to shoot for sure!! I would never want to put my hand IN FRONT of the revolving chamber. A chain fire is always possible on early firearms using loose powder and ball(or shot,in this case). The technology wasn't much better 100 years later,when Samuel Colt managed to make revolvers popular.(He was not the true inventor by any means). But,the art work is just amazing.

The craftsmen who made such firearms were very compartmentalized. Probably about 17 separate craftsmen worked on a gun. The chiseling and engraving was done by a man who only ever did that work day after day,year after year,or STARVE. We do not find ourselves(for the most part) in that situation. If we did,no doubt our work would radically improve,mine included. It would be survival of the fittest.

Of course,fine firearms are just one illustration of ultra fine workmanship from the distant past. I have seen amazing hand made drafting instruments,furniture,fine musical instruments,and all manner of superb craftsmanship from the past.

We do have some pretty amazing craftsmen these days. But,I doubt that most of them have to work as hard as these of old did. I also know that educated people in the past had a much greater art education than most of us do today. We are attuned mostly to technology. In the past,when technology was limited,people who were educated got a much greater art education than we do today. And,to get their business,craftsmen had to strive VERY HARD to out do each other.

Just simple things like thread spools were quite difficult to make. They had thin,slightly convex discs on each end. The edges of those discs were quite sharp,and a real pain to make without pieces coming loose and ruining them. I have made several dozen of these,and I can tell you,they are VERY FUSSY indeed to make!! They were made of dogwood.

I have a patron who is wealthy enough to commission things like these spools and many other sewing and spinning items from me. She collects early sewing and spinning items. Some of the things I have made for her have been posted here. It has been a challenge making some of these things. I often make missing parts for spinning wheels that were owned by the super rich in the 18th. C..Women were expected to know how to spin as part of their education,even if they never practiced it! Their spinning wheels are unlike any you have ever seen. Inlaid mahogany frames. Brass rimmed wheels. Bobbins made of ivory and boxwood and brass. Level winding mechanisms similar in principle to old Singer sewing machines with the heart shaped cam. I really have enjoyed making parts for these spinning wheels,and aging them until they could not be distinguished from originals.

Here are pictures of thread spools I made for her. The acorns I made are thin steel. They hold thimbles I also made for her. These and many other things hang on small chains(Boy,did I get tired of making chains!) from what is called an "equippage",which held many sewing accessories. I do not have a picture of the whole equippage,as parts were made over a period of some years. There is a picture of a original and the reproduction ivory,boxwood,brass,and iron bobbin and flyer from one of those high class spinning wheels. She had to out bid the Victoria and Albert museum in London to get the spinning wheel. That is how scarce they are by now. And,when they are missing parts,the only to get them is to make them.

The smaller of the 2 thimbles is an exact copy of one excavated at the Geddy House site in Williamsburg(a very well to do family in the 18th. C.). Except,the reproduction is twice the size of the old one. The old one must have been for a young girl. It was very small compared to the one I made to fit my patron';s finger.

I did not have the long period of time to get whale oil to soak into the ivory,as seen on the old one. That would take many years (plus,I have no whale oil!) But,the aging has only to be a plausible looking process,not an exact copy of the old one. The actual work of constructing the parts DOES have to be perfect,though. A particularly tricky part of aging the ivory is that very old things have a microscopic layer of soot embedded in it. I have figured out how to do this after experimentation. The MOST tricky thing is making BOXWOOD look old! Staining just does not look like the tanning that sunlight gives old boxwood.

This lady is the most particular woman in the World. And,nothing gets by her examination. I do enjoy it when she has to ask"which one is the old one?" Most other craftsmen will not work for her. I enjoy the challenge.

These give you just a sample of the things that craftsmen had to compete with each other to make in the 18th. C..

WHAT you should be learning HERE is: If you are making a reproduction of something,learn to scrutinize the object with the utmost attention to detail. A reproduction that is not correct in every detail is NOTHING. I study guns for about 6 months before I make a flintlock reproduction. If I don't get every detail right,it's going to be junk.

[Robert Engel]

My wife and I like to stay in Bed and Breakfasts, especially in historic towns, mostly because of the architecture and furniture.

Of course within 5 minutes I'm pulling out drawers, examining carving, looking a the back of the furniture, etc.

As a newbie compared to many of you, I was initially surprised (shocked?) to find saw marks for 1/2 blinds extending 6" into the drawer fronts but this was a common practice the apprentice were expected to pound these out or hit the street. Also lots of nails (more than I ever figured), lots of plane marks on the show surfaces. Then I see Phil Lowe actually trying to duplicate this in a piece he demonstrates.

Its funny we obsess over dovetails when they were actually pretty sloppily done on most drawers, approved by a master.

I obsess over dovetails a lot less than I used to. My reasoning is I want it to look like a human did it, but not a caveman :)

Lots of info in this thread I appreciate it. I've found the golden ratio doesn't always appeal to me, especially with drawers. Thank you for making me aware of the root 2 square now if I can only figure out how to calculate the nth root.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Robert

That is fine for the time when you are attempting to reproduce a piece from that era, and want to be "authentic" in the build. The trouble is that some then take this as a rule about dovetails for all eras, and that introduces the notion that it is acceptable to be sloppy. "Sloppy" by the standards of those that aspire to create furniture as per current high end standards, that is.

Dovetails are not any more revered than any other joint, except they are visible where, for example, a mortice-and-tenon is not. I believe that we should aim to do the best we can, and this includes dovetails. However that applies to the type of furniture I aspire to build.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Mind you, there were fast builds at the time as well, so regardless of when it came from there were levels of quality. I have my doubts that having the cuts extend 6" into the drawer front happened on top end builds. I had the chance to inspect Louis XV's famous desk up close, with except to pulling drawers out and so forth, there is absolutely nothing slap-dash about a piece like that. I think there is a failure in assuming all things are done a certain way at a certain time period.

[Pat Barry]

I think there is a failure in assuming all things are done a certain way at a certain time period.
+1 - this is true regarding all forms of art, furniture, construction, etc. For example, I think America reached the (whats the term for opposite of pinnacle) in the early 70's in terms of quality. Everything seems to be junky from that era (that I lived through). For example houses - basically slapped together without thought for energy consumption. - lousy materials (particle board flooring), little or no insulation in walls or attics, crappy sheetrock and pebble sprayed ceilings - it goes on an on. But I'm sure that there were lots of nice homes, probably expensive, that were built well (not that I have seen though). Don't even start talking about cars and trucks quality. Everything plastic was junk from that period. Now quality is expected and products are better built, better engineered, better designed.

[george wilson]

Oh come on, Pat. You know you loved the leisure suit!! You were really into those bell bottom pants!!! I refused to wear those,or any of the foolish "styles" that have come along over the years.

In regard to building houses in the 70's, I thought that was the way houses were made today! There is a whole area,called "Newtown" here,made of cardboard houses. Chips glued together! It is depressing to drive through it,but many doctors have moved there to get lower rent,so I have to. It just keeps spreading and spreading. I wonder how long it will take for the siding on those houses to start coming apart.

Brian: I am sure you are correct. The illiterate country carpenter putting together a blanket chest from yellow pine (like the 18th. C. one in my bedroom,), and painting it green, could not be expected to know much, if anything about the finest cabinet makers. He did not have the Chippendale book to go by. Even if he did, (but even ordinary non illustrated books cost about $2,000 in today's money) the chance that he understood it was nil.

In fact, I'd bet that only the finest cabinet shops engaged in using classical proportions. Only they served the most educated and wealthy and DISCERNING class.

In Italy and Greece,there are plenty of very, very old houses In Venice, there are plenty of buildings that are very old. St. Michaels cathedral is 1000 years old. Most do not follow a classical plan. I'm sure that in ancient Greece, common dwellings or small shops were just built with no thought of classical proportions. But then, the cream of the crop, the parthenon, designed by the finest architect was built to the highest aspirations of great Greek thinkers, to show the World what Greece could accomplish. And,to please the God Athena, who it was dedicated to. This building was even astronomically aligned. BTW,the Greek government is trying to restore it. But,with their economy being in a terrible state,that restoration may take a very long time, if it is ever accomplished.

The same thing really happens today: The great public buildings and monuments of larger cities are built to much higher standards of architecture and materials than the common dwellings.

BTW: I used to accuse the cabinet makers of making squirrel furniture(Chip and Dale).

[Joe Tilson]

Is this why some furniture is tipping over in today's world? I remember climbing such as a child and it didn't tip over on me.
Bad design or bad proportions? Hope this is in line with the discussion.

[george wilson]

Google "Z chair images" (ignore the ones with cushions) to see something famous and REALLY UGLY!! Just a letter Z with a vertical back. And,this was considered worthy of design awards? Some people need to have their heads examined!!

[Brian Holcombe]

People will have to retain higher standards. I walked through new high end home construction project recently and was impressed by comparison to the typical 'high end home construction' I had been used to seeing. There was actually metal ductwork (rather than long runs of flex-duct), the mechanicals seemed planned and orderly. The finish work was meh, but then the homeowners brought their own finish carpenter in to remove and replace all of it with good work.

So, it provided a little glimmer of hope that quality may be on the upswing in some pockets of the country.

There are always standouts, I agree George public buildings are a great example as they're usually built to high quality standards.

Pat, In this area most of the Mid-Century through even the 70's houses are quite nice, but they're not exactly Stahl House! In fact Koenig would probably think they are slap-dash, but I've seen I-beams spanning the length of plain mid-century houses, but never after that unless they were put there after the fact.

As a craftsman I think quality standards for items like tools are generally very high and accessible.

[Mel Fulks]

There are quite a number of those proportion systems. Even on things like "classical architecture" there are a bunch. Some insist on "comensurate" others "incomensurate" even though most of us would have a hard time seeing the difference. Over time some of the terms change. For example it's not unusual to see an architect describe something like a broken pediment as "Palladian". Palladio hated the idea and never used it. A basic idea can lead to seeing things a different way as when the Adam brothers brought big changes to interiors by pointing out that exterior architectural details had been inappropriatly used in interiors. What brought it to attention was the discovery of Pompeii. To me the most useful popular rectangle is the "golden mean" as it is the source of the drawer graduation of height times 1.273 to get next drawer height. Giving a double ratio. Consistant ratio with adjascent
drawers and a consistant ratio on even number drawers and uneven numbered drawers. Sometimes you come up with your own rules that clients all find agreeable. Once when I had to make some elliptical cased openings I noticed that the dimensions on one were flatter than what I had determined by experience to "work". Found out there were 2 more inches of room that could be used and prevailed on the boss to get owners permission to do so. After some weeks I asked him if the client had commented and thanked him. He said, "yeah,..twice". But many of you already know about bosses. Got to
add that the ellipse ratio was no flatter than many seen in "fine" homes....somebody else needs to fix them!

[Patrick Chase]

For example, I think America reached the (whats the term for opposite of pinnacle) in the early 70's in terms of quality.

I think the word you're looking for is "nadir".

[Pat Barry]

To me the most useful popular rectangle is the "golden mean" as it is the source of the drawer graduation of height times 1.273 to get next drawer height. Giving a double ratio. Consistant ratio with adjascent drawers and a consistant ratio on even number drawers and uneven numbered drawers.
Just to be nit picky, the golden mean / ratio is 1.618xxx. 1.273 is actually the square root of the golden mean. Now it might be that the square root of the golden mean is actually a better ratio for rectangles??

Just for fun, sketched up below are three rectangles, lets call them 1.273, 1.618, and 2. Which looks better? To me, they are all just rectangles and I can see no best one.

341780

[Mel Fulks]

Pat, you are right about the square root. I said source and did not elaborate. Even as I small child I recognized that graduation ,years before knowing anything about it.

[Jim Koepke]

Which looks better? To me, they are all just rectangles and I can see no best one.

341780

Often it isn't the knowing of why something appears to be better proportioned, it is just having a feeling for proportion.

All of these would likely work for a bookshelf, cabinet or dresser. The one in the center does look better proportioned to me.

To each their own. If the general public is paying big money for junk, then the business to be in is selling junk to the general public.

jtk

[Prashun Patel]

I think what's pleasing is culturally contextual. My Western ear, for example, likes music that conforms to certain interval rules, cycles of beats, and tension/resolution. Classical Indian music doesn't follow these patterns. Where a lot of that doesn't appeal to me, my immigrant parents and their contemporaries have a visceral connection to it.

I think what the mind likes is patterns. Our mind likes what's familiar. Patterns make things familiar. But what feels like a pattern to different groups of people may be different both with culture and time.

This is why (thanks Malcolm Gladwell) we tend to love the music when we were 19 and 20 and everything before and after sounds like c**p.

[Steve Voigt]

Just for fun, sketched up below are three rectangles, lets call them 1.273, 1.618, and 2. Which looks better? To me, they are all just rectangles and I can see no best one.

341780

This is a nonsensical question. It's like asking "what note sounds better, B-flat or F-sharp?". Notes only have meaning in relation to other notes, and proportions in furniture (among other things) only have meaning in context.

[george wilson]

Pat,you are an engineer,not an artist. Perhaps this is why you can see no difference. You have not spent your life dealing with aesthetics as far as I know. Steve is exactly correct. These rectangles have to be USED,not just judged by themselves.

Whether you see it or not,the classical rectangles were revered by many great thinkers ,craftsmen and builders. They were used in designing buildings,furniture,and in many other applications. Not just viewed as blank shapes.

This thread is about what you should be learning,other than how to sharpen your tools. I am trying to invoke something a little more enlightening to the group. Let's try to keep it there instead of arguing. If you don't see it,I can't make you. But,these classical means of proportioning things have been here for thousands of years. They are a fact which can't just be dismissed.

What other things do you think should craftsmen be learning?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

My wife is an architect. We were discussing design the other day in the context of looking at a table someone posted here. The design did not look "right" to me, but I could not tell you why, so asked her what she thought. I don't want to get into details because the person did not post it asking to have the design critiqued, but she was pointing out to me things like the placement of the legs in relation to each other and the overall size of the table, how the dimensions of the legs compared to the thickness of the top and other parts, and the spacing of the legs compared to their size. What Steve is saying is part of the point she was making to me. It does no good to ask if a 2" leg is appropriate or not without knowing the dimension of the other parts and how they go together.

I agree with George though that the golden ratio shows up everywhere in classic designs, and while I am not sophisticated enough to fully appreciate it the way a trained artist or architect can, I think if nothing else it is a good rule of thumb for people without "the eye" who need someplace to start.

I have one customer, who knows what she likes, so that makes my design decisions easy.

[Kees Heiden]

I am abouth halfway (then I got distracted) through the book from Walker and Tolpin, by hand and eye. They talk all the time about whole number ratios. A rectangle would be for example a 3:4 ratio. According to them these whole number ratios are what the old guys used to design furniture and everything else. Is there any connection to the golden rule? Did I choose the wrong book?

[Andrew Hughes]

I think some woodworkers need to spend more time learning about wood.None of you guys of course.
Every build I ask myself do I have enough wood to make this table for example.
Do I have boards to makeup a nice top.The most important part of a table.
Do I have wood to makeup nice rift sawn legs?
Other things I ask myself is this wood suitable for my jointery,If I plan on laminating something will this wood bend.Or carve.
So many more things to consider.
Nothing erks me more than a question for a new wood worker.I started this project last month and now my boards are warped.How do I straighten them out without making them thinner.

Aj

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I am not a design expert, but no, I don't think everything has to be the golden ration, and certainly I would not think a whole number ratio is horrible. The issues my wife was pointing out in that table were things like the legs being one size, the thickness of the top another, and that it would be more pleasing if they were in a consistent proportion to each other. In other words, think about what you are doing, and if the size of the table as viewed from the side is a certain ratio, it will be more pleasing if that same ratio is echoed in other choices.

[Pat Barry]

This is a nonsensical question. It's like asking "what note sounds better, B-flat or F-sharp?". Notes only have meaning in relation to other notes, and proportions in furniture (among other things) only have meaning in context.
FYI - The basic question is not nonsensical at all, in fact its pretty non ambiguous. It demonstrates that there is no inherent beauty in a golden rectangle. In fact, it was also mentioned that the only real beauty of it is in some mathematical geometric relationship which really doesn't carry forwward into any real world applications by itself. The fact that some people seem to have some mythical / mystical regard for the golden rectangle is what is truly revealing about this entire discussion. The fact that some studies have found some similarities between these so called golden proportions and some classical architecture as a 'proof' that there is beauty in this geometry is most likely a matter of "you find what you are looking for" because you are being ignorant of any thing else.

[Pat Barry]

Pat,you are an engineer,not an artist. Perhaps this is why you can see no difference. You have not spent your life dealing with aesthetics as far as I know. Steve is exactly correct. These rectangles have to be USED,not just judged by themselves.

Whether you see it or not,the classical rectangles were revered by many great thinkers ,craftsmen and builders. They were used in designing buildings,furniture,and in many other applications. Not just viewed as blank shapes.

This thread is about what you should be learning,other than how to sharpen your tools. I am trying to invoke something a little more enlightening to the group. Let's try to keep it there instead of arguing. If you don't see it,I can't make you. But,these classical means of proportioning things have been here for thousands of years. They are a fact which can't just be dismissed.

What other things do you think should craftsmen be learning?
I do agree with you and I have no strong conviction one way or the other, its just that our friend Steve ticked me off when he referred to my previous posting as nonsensical.

I never got the message to begin with that you were asking for us to contribute to the what we should be learning topic. I thought you were telling us. I suppose I should have read the first post more carefully. Sorry.

For me, what must always be learned, is what is the foundation for doing something. If that be woodworking, then we must be cognizant of the past, and we must give credit to those who came before us, but not be blinded by it. I say this because while we don't want to repeat the mistakes that have been well learned from in the past, we can't let that keep us from moving forward, because in every single thing that is done, there is always a better way. Worst thing is to work in a vacuum and after spending immense time and energy, find out that someone had already come up with your same solution far ahead of you're even starting. A bit of simple research, as you mention for example in your gun making studies, would have been far more worthwhile than for you to just go ahead without that detailed knowledge.

[Brian Holcombe]

I am not a design expert, but no, I don't think everything has to be the golden ration, and certainly I would not think a whole number ratio is horrible. The issues my wife was pointing out in that table were things like the legs being one size, the thickness of the top another, and that it would be more pleasing if they were in a consistent proportion to each other. In other words, think about what you are doing, and if the size of the table as viewed from the side is a certain ratio, it will be more pleasing if that same ratio is echoed in other choices.

Nicholas, I think we need more context.

Here are a few designs that are very simply executed and yet, look quite pleasing to my eye;

Poul Kjearholm, photo is from Christies Auction.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d55567/d5556757a.jpg

Finn Juhl, photo from Wright Auction
https://www.wright20.com/items/index/2000/123_2_scandinavian_design_november_2014_finn_juhl_ rare_judas_dining_table__wright_auction.jpg?t=1456 272010

Shaker (unattributed), Photo is from the Met Museum
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h5/h5_66.10.1.jpg

Ming Dynasty, Photo is from Bard
http://www.bgchistoryofdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/fig7_2.jpg

[Brian Holcombe]

In my opinion the first thing I notice about the above pieces are their proportions ahead of all other details. They are elegant however simple.

The details matter, but my opinion is that the overall design matters ahead of any of the components, however as that design becomes refined the detail begin to become very important.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I agree context is everything, and that is what I took from Steve's post. Looking at something specific and trying to identify what you find pleasing about it (or not) is much more helpful than discussing things in the abstract.

And of course a lot of it is a matter of personal taste. For example, I am not crazy about the second photo. To me, something about that base looks a little bit clunky in comparison to the very elegant top.

Of course my best customer and primary critic might disagree!

I like that trestle table very much. Do you have other pictures of it?

[steven c newman]

Perhaps one more example?
341785
Just a small chest, top is just over 33" long. Does this fit into the rectangles?

BTW, you might know this chest better, when the lid is raised..
341787
Those are full length saws.

[george wilson]

Actually,Pat,in a discussion,it is sort of expected for others to offer opinions about what we should be learning,though I did not say that outright.

Having other's opinions helps my old head to remember what I am forgetting that we need to learn.

[Glen Johnson]

Thanks for starting this thread. I would like to add my appreciation to those on this forum who pointed me to By Hand and Eye. It has changed and improved my work practices and design. I now have a bunch of dividers and a proportion stick that help me size all components for each project. I don't think I would have found this on my own without the suggestion from this group. I also enjoy the sharpening threads even if they are repetitive. I have been been googling ceramic stones after George's suggestion. I think people in the forum can figure out who the master craftsmen are. I am appreciative of their willingness to share their skill and miss those like Dave Weaver who have left.

[Steve Voigt]

FYI - The basic question is not nonsensical at all, in fact its pretty non ambiguous. It demonstrates that there is no inherent beauty in a golden rectangle. In fact, it was also mentioned that the only real beauty of it is in some mathematical geometric relationship which really doesn't carry forwward into any real world applications by itself. The fact that some people seem to have some mythical / mystical regard for the golden rectangle is what is truly revealing about this entire discussion. The fact that some studies have found some similarities between these so called golden proportions and some classical architecture as a 'proof' that there is beauty in this geometry is most likely a matter of "you find what you are looking for" because you are being ignorant of any thing else.

I'm afraid the basic question ("which rectangle looks better") is still nonsense. First of all (though this is not the main point), the Golden Ratio does have inherent beauty, as clearly demonstrated in this Handy Dandy Wikipedia diagram:

341788

However, just because it is elegant doesn't mean it is better than all other rectangles. I haven't read all of this thread, But I don't think I saw anyone say "the golden ratio is better than all other ratios," or "only the golden ratio should be used." In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Because it would be nonsense to say it's better, which is why your question is nonsense.

What people are actually saying, in this thread and elsewhere, is that the golden ratio is useful. Not better or worse, but more or less useful, depending on the situation. Mel gave the example of drawer graduation. I'm sure many other examples could be given. But in a Windsor chair, total height to seat height is generally 2:1. Not because 2:1 is better, but because it's more appropriate to the situation.

Big picture comment: Personally, I'm not that into the Golden ratio, or mean, or whatever one wants to call it. I tend to agree with George Walker that whole number ratios are much more important. But Brian Holcombe completely disagrees with me and uses the Golden Thingy out the wazoo, and is able to do fantastic design with it. Because Brian's designs don't get their beauty and integrity from the Golden Whatever: they get it from Brian's ability to juggle proportion and line, not to mention all sorts of other things (like color, grain, light, shadow, on and on). If I kidnapped Brian's J-nats and threatened to smash them with a D2 chisel unless he designed his next project using only whole number ratios, he would still come up with some elegant.

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

I am abouth halfway (then I got distracted) through the book from Walker and Tolpin, by hand and eye. They talk all the time about whole number ratios. A rectangle would be for example a 3:4 ratio. According to them these whole number ratios are what the old guys used to design furniture and everything else. Is there any connection to the golden rule? Did I choose the wrong book?

The whole number ratios that are promoted in that book are, in the geometric sense, arbitrary. There is nothing necessarily latent in a 3:4 ratio, other than 3 units and 4 units. In the golden ratio, there are numerous two-dimensional constructs and patterns *implied* in the shape itself, that are incredibly useful in design. The problem is, the golden ratio is an incommensurable ratio. Incommensurable means that you can't produce the ratio using two whole numbers, like 3:5, 5:8, or whatever. And that is a Giza Pyramid sized mathematical stumbling block for a book that is essentially telling you that design is easy, and you can learn it from a single book.

[Steve Voigt]

I am abouth halfway (then I got distracted) through the book from Walker and Tolpin, by hand and eye. They talk all the time about whole number ratios. A rectangle would be for example a 3:4 ratio. According to them these whole number ratios are what the old guys used to design furniture and everything else. Is there any connection to the golden rule? Did I choose the wrong book?

Kees, I didn't see your post until now, but per my last post, I tend to sympathize with this view. But it's a little bit like arguing about whether we should flatten our oilstones, oruse single or double irons, BD or BU…you get the idea. :rolleyes:

[Steve Voigt]

The whole number ratios that are promoted in that book are, in the geometric sense, arbitrary. There is nothing necessarily latent in a 3:4 ratio, other than 3 units and 4 units. In the golden ratio, there are numerous two-dimensional constructs and patterns *implied* in the shape itself, that are incredibly useful in design.

Joel, I agree with you that the self-replicating qualities of the golden ratio are unique and very useful, a point I tried to make earlier. But I disagree that the whole number ratios cited by Walker/Tolpin are "arbitrary." They are not arbitrary; they are based on the requirements imposed by the human body, and more generally on what humans find comfortable and useful. If we were building cat furniture, we might use other ratios, commensurable or not.

[Mel Fulks]

As I wrote earlier , a lot has been written about comensurate and incomensurate. I think the the current book mentioned in this thread probably concentrates on comensurate simply because it's easier and can produce good designs. I tried slogging through the arguments; I think the main benefit of comensurate is it's easier to do working with dividers. But I'm gonna go way out on a limb and bet everyone reading this owns a "tape rule" and "calculator".

[Christopher Charles]

Hello all,

Late to the party and haven't had time to ready through what looks to be a great thread. Thanks to George for pushing us all.

As a practicing scientist in my day job, I'm constantly confronted with what makes 'useful' or 'good' contributions, what serves as honoring past knowledge, and what truly constitutes a novel and important discovery. Interestingly, this set of ideas has been really useful both professionally and personally. I first saw as a blog post, but looks to have turned into a book, which I suggest for anyone involved in creative work or even anyone interested in reading about creative work. Not exactly on topic, but not exactly not....

http://www.austinkleon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/poster-0.gif

[Kees Heiden]

I am absolutely not a designer, allthough I designed a few things. Some turned out better then others. I know nothing about formal design. Maybe I should study up a bit to make my guess work a little smarter.

To answer my own question about the link between whole number ratios and the golden rule: I just found out about the fibonacci sequence 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21..... When you take two of those numbers and use them as a ratio, like 2:3 or 5:8, then you get quite close to the golden rule (especially when the numbers are large) while still using whole number ratios. So, my example of 3:4 would be a poor ratio, 3:5 would be better.

But there are always complications of course. For example when determing the size of a crown moulding on a large case. You would get a weird cabinet when you use the golden rule to calculate the height of the moulding as a ratio to the height of the cabinet. That's something where I need way more study.

[Robert Engel]

Hi Robert

That is fine for the time when you are attempting to reproduce a piece from that era, and want to be "authentic" in the build.
Regards from Perth

DerekThis is precisely what I was trying to illustrate. I think we tend to look at all furniture over 100 years old as "built by an old master" when, in reality, the local cabinetmaker could, quite honestly, be a hack, or less severely, churning out as much furniture as needed to make a living.

Just pointing out oversawing and loose pins could be today's version of mass production furniture.

What I wish was the general public had SOME knowledge of what quality furniture was.

And oh, was willing to pay for it!!

To the original intent of the thread, I have tried several methods of figuring pleasing drawer heights. I've tried using the GR and a drawer layout formula (a bit complicated for this simpleton).

Can anyone give me their method? For example, next up for me is a dresser. Double drawers, 40H X 52W.

[Warren Mickley]

A Fibonacci series is a series in which a given term is the sum of the two previous terms. For example, 7,5,12,17,29,46,75. . .. For any Fibonacci series, the limit, as n approaches infinity, of the nth term divided by its preceding term is the golden ratio. The golden ratio is also a solution to x^2 -x -1=0.

You can use all the golden rectangles you want, but if you don't have good taste it won't help. For example you can make cubby holes for a desk that are very nice golden rectangles, but if the dividers are too fat, the work will look clumsy.

Much more helpful is when Brian posts pictures of furniture he appreciates, and even more helpful when he makes comments. When George says something is good or bad or elegant or clumsy, stylish or whatever, try to see it as he sees it. When you look at a work, pay attention to your own impressions and solicit the impressions of others. It takes a lot of experience and a lot of mental work to develop good taste.

[Prashun Patel]

Nicely put, warren. Try to see it as those with experience see it. Taste is a muscle to develop not just something that you are born with. It is also something that evolves in us.

I look back at my earliest work and am appalled at most of it. If it turned out well it was largely luck or because I was copying.

Having the humility to admit that taste is a skill as much as cutting a dovetail is, is the first step in developing it. It also makes one realize that design is well learned from those with significant experience.

[Derek Cohen]

I agree with Warren. One cannot simply apply a mathematical formula and expect that will do the job of determining either a design or dimensions.

I have never designed a piece using a golden section or ratio. Instead, dimensions are adjusted until they "feel" right to my eye. Out of curiosity, as a result of this thread, I decided to examine the Lingerie Chest. This is a trapezium, which complicates measurements a little. I did find a reference on the 'net ...

Scott Beach (http://personal.maths.surrey.ac.uk/ext/R.Knott/Fibonacci/phi2DGeomTrig.html) has invented the trisoceles trapezoid (or trapezium as we say in the UK). It is a tall isoceles triangle with its top part cut off to form a quadrilateral with the following properties:

the top and bottom edges are parallel
the angles at A and B are equal as are those at C and D
all the sides except the top are of equal length (hence trisoceles in Scott's name for this shape)
the top and bottom edges are in the proportion of the golden section: the top edge is phi=0.618... times as long as the base or, equivalently, the base is Phi=1.618... times as long as the top edge.
So we could call this a traphizium or, in the USA, a traphisoid!

It has the interesting property that the diagonals bisect the top two angles - the yellow angles in the diagram are all equal.

http://personal.maths.surrey.ac.uk/ext/R.Knott/Fibonacci/traphesium.gif


What occurred to me was that the Golden Ratio appears to ignore the height of the trapezoid. Or perhaps (very likely!) I do not know how to apply this to the shape.

Here is the chest in front elevation ...


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/LingerieChest1_html_m6aed2301.jpg

Now, when I designed the chest, and decided on the dimensions, I went through a process of making mockups of varying widths at top and bottom. The first series had straight sides. Here is one ...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/3_zpsec46d87a.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/7_zps1bcc87a9.jpg

Using the ratio Phi = 1.618, based on the 25" width of the bottom, the top should be 15 1/2". The top is, in reality, 19" wide. The model I made with 16" (I did not try 15") just appeared too narrow to my eye. The chest I built is wider at the top than "perfect", yet it looks correct in my eyes.

How does one factor the height into these figures? Surely higher and lower change the proportions and need to be reflected in the calculation? Perhaps one has to sub-divide the whole into parts.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Of course Warren. But that doesn't say a little help from some 'rules' wouldn't be usefull.

[Bob Glenn]

George, instead of bell bottoms, I suspect you were wearing knee breeches! No problem here, I enjoy donning my knee breeches and waistcoat at eighteenth century reenactments. Bob

[george wilson]

I was PAID to wear the costume. Not voluntary!! I never liked having those hose rolled under my knee and having those breeches tied beneath the rolled hose. I'm sure it wasn't good for circulation. Curiously,the tight hose did keep my lower legs warm in Winter.

[Mel Fulks]

Agree that you can't simply apply a formula ,but you can turn successful designs into formulas. Of course there's an ellipse story for that! I designed a stock elliptical cased opening and sold a bunch of them. A client who bought three of them told me that he had been noticing them in pics and such since he bought his. Said some were too flat and others too tall.
"mine are just right!" I politely agreed.

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

Joel, I agree with you that the self-replicating qualities of the golden ratio are unique and very useful, a point I tried to make earlier. But I disagree that the whole number ratios cited by Walker/Tolpin are "arbitrary." They are not arbitrary; they are based on the requirements imposed by the human body, and more generally on what humans find comfortable and useful. If we were building cat furniture, we might use other ratios, commensurable or not.

I think the link between proportion and the human body is completely tenuous. The diversity of human anatomies constitutes variations on the scale of furniture so much larger than the difference between say 5:8 and phi. The concept of an ideal anatomy ala Vitruvius, subsisting in perfect whole number ratios is--to my knowledge--completely imaginary. We're talking about meat and bone here. It's squishy. The Tolpin and Walker book states "Also connecting the human form and the classic orders is the idea that all parts are connected by simple proportions." It provides absolutely no evidence or argument for this idea that I could readily find. In fact, the book is riddled with statements about certain parts of the body existing in ratio to others, and thus determining the module as if by divine ordinance; followed by something like "the x dimension is 2/3 of the module". For absolutely no reason. That is what I mean by arbitrary. If you draw phi on paper, you necessarily produce multiple other points from which to carry on your design. If you step off a 3:4 rectangle using your module on a grid, you've got a rectangle. Incommensurable ratios require you--as long as you're drafting by hand--to outline countless potential forms and lines from which your design could spring. If nothing else, incommensurable ratios--again, when drafted by hand, with shapes--make it so much easier to make things up. Which is all that design is, and the last thing you can tell people if you're trying to sell a glossy book.

[Brian Holcombe]

Rather than trying to pull something from the primordial soup and have it fit a ratio or promotion perfectly, you would be better served to simply design, solve the problem at hand, then work the design into a more ideal state through working with these ratios and proportions.

[Malcolm McLeod]

...

the top and bottom edges are in the proportion of the golden section: the top edge is phi=0.618... times as long as the base or, equivalently, the base is Phi=1.618... times as long as the top edge.



... the yellow angles in the diagram are all equal.


http://personal.maths.surrey.ac.uk/ext/R.Knott/Fibonacci/traphesium.gif


What occurred to me was that the Golden Ratio appears to ignore the height of the trapezoid. Or perhaps (very likely!) I do not know how to apply this to the shape...

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Furniture/Linergrie%20Chest/7_zps1bcc87a9.jpg


It doesn't ignore it (exactly), the specified length of the top and bottom line segments, coupled with the specified equal 'yellow' angles, results in only one solution for the height (relative to the width).

But before we and this thread disappear down an inverse, reciprocal, golden rabbit hole, maybe something else we should be learning is better grain matching and material selection skills? I know my early efforts were just fancy firewood in this regard. Hopefully I am improving.

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

How does one factor the height into these figures? Surely higher and lower change the proportions and need to be reflected in the calculation? Perhaps one has to sub-divide the whole into parts.


Definitely have to sub-divide!

341816

(Hope I didn't take this one too far.)

[Pat Barry]

Rather than trying to pull something from the primordial soup and have it fit a ratio or promotion perfectly, you would be better served to simply design, solve the problem at hand, then work the design into a more ideal state through working with these ratios and proportions.
I agree with this of course since it is the sort of iterative process that I think all design projects should follow. Start with a sketch or a dozen sketches to address the basic concept, then pick one or two and tweak the proportions and details to get a better, more complete design, then finally, when the design is well thought out and planned, go ahead and manufacture, at which time, the rubber hits the road so to speak, and further in-process tweaks will be necessary, because the paper design is never fully capable of modelling the finished project.

For you recent Butler Cabinet, did you actually incorporate the golden ratio / rectangle? If so, I'd be curious as to where because I'm not seeing it clearly.

[Patrick Chase]

I think the link between proportion and the human body is completely tenuous. The diversity of human anatomies constitutes variations on the scale of furniture so much larger than the difference between say 5:8 and phi. The concept of an ideal anatomy ala Vitruvius, subsisting in perfect whole number ratios is--to my knowledge--completely imaginary. We're talking about meat and bone here. It's squishy. The Tolpin and Walker book states "Also connecting the human form and the classic orders is the idea that all parts are connected by simple proportions." It provides absolutely no evidence or argument for this idea that I could readily find. In fact, the book is riddled with statements about certain parts of the body existing in ratio to others, and thus determining the module as if by divine ordinance; followed by something like "the x dimension is 2/3 of the module". For absolutely no reason. That is what I mean by arbitrary. If you draw phi on paper, you necessarily produce multiple other points from which to carry on your design. If you step off a 3:4 rectangle using your module on a grid, you've got a rectangle. Incommensurable ratios require you--as long as you're drafting by hand--to outline countless potential forms and lines from which your design could spring. If nothing else, incommensurable ratios--again, when drafted by hand, with shapes--make it so much easier to make things up. Which is all that design is, and the last thing you can tell people if you're trying to sell a glossy book.

I agree completely. I would personally categorize most of that as "numerological drivel".

Certain ratios are aesthetically appealing in various cultures, though I think that appeal has as much to do with conditioning (a point somebody else raised in the context of Western vs other musical scales) as with any sort of innate goodness.

Note that I'm not saying that it's all conditioned, though. Human preferences for symmetry and certain forms of "balance" are stunningly consistent across cultures.

[Kees Heiden]

But before we and this thread disappear down an inverse, reciprocal, golden rabbit hole, maybe something else we should be learning is better grain matching and material selection skills? I know my early efforts were just fancy firewood in this regard. Hopefully I am improving.

Oh yes, grain matching! I try very hard to get a decent match, always within the constraints of the material at hand of course. I learned first about this from the early videos from Tommy Mac, when he was still posting them on the internet for free.

[steven c newman]

Grain matching...sometimes I can get it to go around a box....
341832
Little box to hold a Stanley No.45
341833
Helps IF it is from the same board..
341834
This was built to match the original Roxton Pond, Que, Canada box. Finger joints were hand cut.....
341835
Thought I could add that dust seal lip....wound up planing most of it off. OEM box didn't have one. Lid fits better now, without the lip.

[Reinis Kanders]

I like that tiny little circle to make things right:)


Definitely have to sub-divide!

341816

(Hope I didn't take this one too far.)

[Brian Holcombe]

I agree with this of course since it is the sort of iterative process that I think all design projects should follow. Start with a sketch or a dozen sketches to address the basic concept, then pick one or two and tweak the proportions and details to get a better, more complete design, then finally, when the design is well thought out and planned, go ahead and manufacture, at which time, the rubber hits the road so to speak, and further in-process tweaks will be necessary, because the paper design is never fully capable of modelling the finished project.

For you recent Butler Cabinet, did you actually incorporate the golden ratio / rectangle? If so, I'd be curious as to where because I'm not seeing it clearly.

Not on the Butler cabinet, I had practical constraints which did not allow for it, so I used 2:3 on the front for the cabinet face, and the break between the desk and drawers. 2:3 is a very common ratio to Asian aesthetic. I set the height so that the desk drawer would end up being 28.5" from the ground, when dealing with a cabinet that has a skirt, I need knee clearance so I made the knee clearance 24.25"~ which works well with the chair height that this cabinet was designed for (I designed it to work with a Moller 62).

[James Pallas]

I don't believe that use can use golden ratios or other design rules when you add constraints to the process such as Derek and Brian had to do. In other words it would be difficult to build a baby grand and make it sound like a concert grand or a bugle sound like a French horn. You can reduce the size but the grand design will be different or in some cases not practical. The piece then becomes a model or in the style of work. In these cases you have to adjust to make the piece usable or convenient for use.
Jim

[Malcolm McLeod]

.... Human preferences for symmetry and certain forms of "balance" are stunningly consistent across cultures.

I have read that the human eye is generally incredibly sensitive to symmetry, or at least deviations in it. The explanation was that it is something that has been conditioned thru the millennia as a visual test of genetic health in a potential mate, and this talent is most notably applied to another human face. Those we find most beautiful, have near perfect symmetry in their facial features. (Those in denial cite that Diana married a Checker cab with the back doors open...):confused:

In woodworking, I would offer that this is not so much a stylistic requirement, but more a quality statement. If a pair of doors or drawers are even slightly askew, we can easily see it. And adjust our opinions accordingly.

If a piece is intentionally asymmetric, our eye can be fooled (and I should try this more often!).

[Jim Koepke]

(Those in denial cite that Diana married a Checker cab with the back doors open...)

But was it symmetrical? Maybe she was looking at something else beside his visual appearance.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I have read that the human eye is generally incredibly sensitive to symmetry, or at least deviations in it. The explanation was that it is something that has been conditioned thru the millennia as a visual test of genetic health in a potential mate, and this talent is most notably applied to another human face. Those we find most beautiful, have near perfect symmetry in their facial features. (Those in denial cite that Diana married a Checker cab with the back doors open...):confused:

Yep, I've seen that explanation several times before. I'm not particularly qualified to evaluate the underlying research, though, so I stuck to what I know (that there is a demonstrably strong preference for symmetry).

[Mike King]

Those of you advocating for the Golden Ratio ought to know that some claims about buildings/architecture that purportedly are based upon it are demonstrably false. See http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.com/2012/02/applications-of-golden-mean-to.html

The Golden Ratio and rectangles are convenient design aids. They might even be understood as a vernacular in popular culture, implicitly if not explicitly. But do they represent "good" taste? They might represent popular taste. Particularly amongst some cognoscenti who claim to set or judge taste.

But what does that have to do with you (or I) as craftsmen or artists? It seems to me that there are different answers to that question depending on your position or objective. If you are looking to sell your work, then by all means it is important to be in touch with current "taste." Perhaps a bit avant garde, but not too much. Not too mainstream as that might result in competing in a commoditized market.

On the other hand, if you are working for yourself, then explore. Try things out. Find out what you like and what you don't. Try to understand why you have those reactions. Experiment. Evaluate. Learn. Evolve.

What will kill your work is to execute by rote. Don't follow design rules, but be informed by design guidance.

My 2 cents. But what do I know? I do know that if you are paralyzed by having to perfect sharpening as originally pointed out by George, or by having to learn good taste before making anything, you will never develop skills or product that pushes you forward.

Mike

[Patrick Chase]

But was it symmetrical? Maybe she was looking at something else beside his visual appearance.

jtk

Perhaps she was admiring the symmetry of the crown jewels?

[liam c murphy]

I think what's pleasing is culturally contextual. My Western ear, for example, likes music that conforms to certain interval rules, cycles of beats, and tension/resolution. Classical Indian music doesn't follow these patterns. Where a lot of that doesn't appeal to me, my immigrant parents and their contemporaries have a visceral connection to it.

I think what the mind likes is patterns. Our mind likes what's familiar. Patterns make things familiar. But what feels like a pattern to different groups of people may be different both with culture and time.

This is why (thanks Malcolm Gladwell) we tend to love the music when we were 19 and 20 and everything before and after sounds like c**p.

That podcast is really great.

[Brian Holcombe]

Those of you advocating for the Golden Ratio ought to know that some claims about buildings/architecture that purportedly are based upon it are demonstrably false. See http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.com/2012/02/applications-of-golden-mean-to.html

The Golden Ratio and rectangles are convenient design aids. They might even be understood as a vernacular in popular culture, implicitly if not explicitly. But do they represent "good" taste? They might represent popular taste. Particularly amongst some cognoscenti who claim to set or judge taste.

But what does that have to do with you (or I) as craftsmen or artists? It seems to me that there are different answers to that question depending on your position or objective. If you are looking to sell your work, then by all means it is important to be in touch with current "taste." Perhaps a bit avant garde, but not too much. Not too mainstream as that might result in competing in a commoditized market.

On the other hand, if you are working for yourself, then explore. Try things out. Find out what you like and what you don't. Try to understand why you have those reactions. Experiment. Evaluate. Learn. Evolve.

What will kill your work is to execute by rote. Don't follow design rules, but be informed by design guidance.

My 2 cents. But what do I know? I do know that if you are paralyzed by having to perfect sharpening as originally pointed out by George, or by having to learn good taste before making anything, you will never develop skills or product that pushes you forward.

Mike

There is something called making the good the enemy of the the great. No one is saying that a project is a failure unless it adheres exactly to the golden ratio, instead the general suggestion is that it is a tool which can be employed and the result is a greater chance of success. The conversation is not really about making everything with the golden ratio, but rational planning of design, and prior to that the study of appealing design.

Appeal is in the eye of the beholder, if you are looking for the appeal of the masses then it would be worth studying up on designs which have successfully appealed to the masses, in my opinion, but what I think most people in this thread are wondering about is how to go about refining their work to appeal to themselves. If you have built many thing over a period of years you'll find that you can build something which somehow misses the target. Unless you have your eye quite well trained you will never know why that is. Driving at the 'why' is an honest question and has nothing to do with appealing to cognoscenti or mass appeal or anything else.

Artists much later in their careers work in an assured fashion because they have refined their eye and they know what appeals to them.

[liam c murphy]

George, In your first post you mention that there are "modern masters". I assume you're considering multiple types of crafts. Would you mind naming a few of these masters for our benefit?

[Mel Fulks]

Agree with Brian. There have always been competing systems. The old books are full of reasons explaining the need for their new book. Things like "I revere Palladio, but he was building in a warm country and I'm building in a cold country. So I'm changeing some stuff" . You don't have to like all the systems or even any of them.

[george wilson]

Definitely my sculpture teacher William Reimann is a modern master. You can google him. I spent 3 years working in his lab every extra minute I could spare in college,as well as in the actual classes I took with him.

I will try naming some names that you might have heard of, or at least people I know myself: Peter Ross is a modern master blacksmith. I know him as he was the Master Blacksmith in Williamsburg for several years.

Mack Headley,the now retired Master Cabinet Maker in Williamsburg is a modern master. He may have been on Roy's show. I don't know if you can Google information about him and images of his work or not.

Wallace Gussler,another person who was the Master Gunsmith and later the curator of furniture is a modern master. We both worked in Williamsburg at the same time period. He is retired too.

I would be much amiss if I didn't also name my late master engraver friend Lynton macKenzie. If you don't know him,google him. He was a true master.


These are a few of my contemporaries that I know,and consider modern masters.


I like Brian's post #121 above. I think he has a good grasp of the matter at hand.



As I mentioned in the beginning of this now lengthy conversation,I do not personally use the Golden mean rectangle consciously. I seem to somehow have proportions "built in",and have been cited by some important artists as having it instinctually.

I must go to an appointment now.

[Patrick Chase]

There is something called making the good the enemy of the the great.

Other way 'round: "Don't let the perfect/great be the enemy of the good", i.e. don't refrain from doing anything because you can't do it perfectly.

[Brian Holcombe]

Thanks Patrick!....when they are enemies it doesn't work out :D

[Don Orr]

Wow, another thought provoking, mind expanding educational thread. This site is fantastic.

Thank you George! Your knowledge and experience are vast and your eagerness to share them to help the rest of us is incredible. I also believe we can learn good design and construction if we want to but we have to really WANT to as it is neither fast or easy. With extensive study, training, experience and trial/error I think most of us would do well. Unfortunately since most of us are probably hobbyists and have never been through any apprenticeship, the time and effort it would take to truly do the work necessary is beyond what many of us are willing or able to put forth. Discussions like this thread sure make me want to learn more about design and proper, effective tool use beyond sharpening. (Although I could still use work on that as well.)

Thanks again for an educational, motivational, and inspirational discussion!

[Mike Cherry]

What I am suggesting is learning to USE your tools. Not just how to sharpen them.


I am very much a student in this craft and thus cannot offer anything to further the conversation. I would like to point out, though, that doing this was the single most important thing I have done for my woodworking. Let the material tell you when the tool isnt sharp enough. Your ability to sharpen better will grow over time. I spent my first year of woodworking chasing the perfect edge and nearly became frustrated enough to give it up. It wasnt until I focused on the projects before I actually started improving. When you think your tools are sharp, pull out a piece of white oak and try your tools in that!

[george wilson]

As I have said several times,sharpening was the first thing I taught my apprentices.

The next thing is learning to make things.

The next,and hard part hard part is learning good taste. Some of my longest serving apprentices and subsequent journeyman never could learn to draw past a grade school level. If you can't learn to draw,you are stuck following plans that someone else drew. Or,putting together projects that you cobbled blindly(in an aesthetic sense) together.

[Kees Heiden]

Those of you advocating for the Golden Ratio ought to know that some claims about buildings/architecture that purportedly are based upon it are demonstrably false. See http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.com/2012/02/applications-of-golden-mean-to.html
Mike

This was a very interesting link Mike!

As I understand it, according to this author those golden mean rectangles are noncense. What he does advcate is using components in one object on various scales and those scales should relate to each other with a fixed ratio. He advices a ratio around 3 (actually he recommends 2.7 or the irrational number e) So for example the smallest elements in your design are size 1, then the next sized elements are size 3, then 9 etch until you reach the total size of the object. When you take the fibonaccy oreder and take every other number, you wil get a reasonable sequence. So for example, the fibonaccy order is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,44,65 so take the numbers 1,3,8,21,65 or 2,5,13,44 and these are the sizes of the various elements in your design. This actualy represents the typical grow paterns in nature and you can find sequences like that in many natural objects. That makes it instinctively balanced and nice looking for us.

Of course I explain this pretty badly, so you should read the articel yourself.

Another interesting article from the same author, he obviously is no fan of many modern architecture and explains why modern glass and steel buildings are so ugly.
http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.nl/2011/09/why-monotonous-repetition-is.html

BTW, I absolutely know nothing abouth these things so everything I read is a revelation, while I of course can't put anything in perspective yet.

[Prashun Patel]

There's a wonderful book by Richard Raffin called the Art of Turned Bowls. Prior to reading that and trying to turn a couple hundred bowls, I would have certainly dismissed a lot of the 'rules' of design as mathematical drivel too. However, having immersed myself in the minutae of curves and returns, and ratios, all I can say is that I drank the Kool Aid. I understand what he means now. There was something that is instinctively distasteful to me that aesthetics has any kind of science or rigor to it. But I now believe that to be true.

It's not that I think rules need to be followed, but I do believe (hat tipped to my 9th grade English teacher) that rules are there for a reason, and we become better writers when we learn to appreciate them before breaking them with deliberation, not negligence.

The work of Dali and Picasso is all the more incredible when you consider the conventional greatness of their early work.

[Mike King]

There is something called making the good the enemy of the the great. No one is saying that a project is a failure unless it adheres exactly to the golden ratio, instead the general suggestion is that it is a tool which can be employed and the result is a greater chance of success. The conversation is not really about making everything with the golden ratio, but rational planning of design, and prior to that the study of appealing design.

Appeal is in the eye of the beholder, if you are looking for the appeal of the masses then it would be worth studying up on designs which have successfully appealed to the masses, in my opinion, but what I think most people in this thread are wondering about is how to go about refining their work to appeal to themselves. If you have built many thing over a period of years you'll find that you can build something which somehow misses the target. Unless you have your eye quite well trained you will never know why that is. Driving at the 'why' is an honest question and has nothing to do with appealing to cognoscenti or mass appeal or anything else.

Artists much later in their careers work in an assured fashion because they have refined their eye and they know what appeals to them.

I think this was my point.

Mike

[george wilson]

Refining your work so that it IS relevant to the "rules"of good design is exactly what this thread is partly about,as Brian has rather elegantly written. What are those rules? They are often unwritten,undefined. But,they exist. And using tools like the Golden Mean rectangle,or other classical SUGGESTIONS (I will call them) is one way of improving your work,if you just don't have the eye for it inborn.

These posts that try to discount the use of the classical rectangles are just muddling the whole purpose of this thread. The fact is,these classical rectangles WERE used by many of the greatest designers of their time. daVinci used them. He had everything down to a science. The distance between the eyes,length of the nose,height ,etc. of his ideal person were well defined in his surviving works. Chippendale definitely used them. So did Christopher Wren,Inigo Jones,and a host of other important designers throughout history.

I don't think some of us , who just might be the least qualified to try discrediting these tools (I mean the authors of some of the works cited),should try discarding the usefulness of these design aids(to put it simply). Those who need help can use the suggestions set forth by great thinkers,and borne out by their observations of nature.

As practical aids that are very useful beyond straight lines and basic proportions,I suggest that a good set of French curves is something that are worth acquiring. French curves were used ,for example,in the designing of the shapes of Fender guitars,which have some of the most perfectly drawn and aesthetically pleasing cutaways I have seen.(I hope this reference proves that I am not stuck in the 18th. C.!!):) So should the pictures I have posted in the past of electric guitars I have made.

Whether it is the Parthenon,or a modern sailing vessel,or a guitar,widely different applications can be well served by the use of rectangles and French curves,just to name a few design aids. But,French curves can only help you to draw nice curves. They cannot help you to keep your designs from being too extreme. I cite some of the planes made by Bridge City. I KNOW that many of their designs are way too extreme,and have mentioned it before. Some of their other designs,like their small,angular brace,are BIZARRE. This ought to stir some controversy,and possibly some anger too!! But,I swear what I have said is true. And yet,there are many who collect these tools(and seldom seem to use them). And,they pay big money for them.

There are plenty f bizarre looking cars on the road,too. Some very ugly designs that were passed by board rooms full of supposedly educated people. But,perhaps,not educated in the right subjects.

Oh,another modern master: Reginald Mitchel,designer of the Spitfire fighter plane.

[Patrick Chase]

These posts that try to discount the use of the classical rectangles are just muddling the whole purpose of this thread. The fact is,these classical rectangles WERE used by many of the greatest designers of their time. daVinci used them. He had everything down to a science. The distance between the eyes,length of the nose,height ,etc. of his ideal person were well defined in his surviving works. Chippendale definitely used them. So did Christopher Wren,Inigo Jones,and a host of other important designers throughout history.

To be clear, I personally was not trying to discount their usefulness. I was discounting the claim that they originate from some constant proportion of the human body or other underlying numerological "source of truth".

Regardless of how or why they came to be used, or whether our preferences for them are conditioned or innate, the fact is that they ARE empirically useful in some circumstances as you say.



Oh,another modern master: Reginald Mitchel,designer of the Spitfire fighter plane.

I personally prefer Ed Heinemann and Kelly Johnson :-).

[george wilson]

Kelly Johnson was a great designer. He and his team overcame very large technical problems when designing the Black Bird. Especially problems with extreme heat.

The P 38 is one of my favorite designs of his. But,for pure beauty,the Spitfire is very hard to beat,all other issues aside. It and the Hurricane(basically a single wing development of the Fury biplane) saved England from a German invasion. The Hurrican was for shooting down bombers,and actually did shoot down more planes than the Spitfire. Bombers were easier targets. But,Hurricanes also outnumbered Spitfires,too,being easier to make.

Heinemann designed useful aircraft,no doubt, but I would not put the beauty of his creations in the same class as Mitchel or Johnson.

What! No scathing denouncements of my Bridge City remarks yet?

[Patrick Chase]

Kelly Johnson was a great designer. He and his team overcame very large technical problems when designing the Black Bird. Especially problems with extreme heat.

Indeed. I always loved how they dealt with the issue of sealing the fuel tanks (short version: They relied on thermal expansion, and the thing leaked like crazy when cold. Every mission started with a supersonic dash to heat the bird up, followed by aerial refueling). The idea of a Mach 3 aircraft with corrugated skin (again to accommodate expansion) also cracks me up.



The P 38 is one of my favorite designs of his. But,for pure beauty,the Spitfire is very hard to beat,all other issues aside.

Yep, a beautiful plane for sure. It's unfortunate that they didn't know about compressibility when they chose the wing shape. I think the Starfighter was also aesthetically appealing on some levels, though it had some serious limitations as a fighter. IMO it and the English Electric Lightning were "jet-age intellectual heirs" to the Spitfire in the sense of wrapping the smallest, lightest, cleanest airframe possible around the most powerful engine[s] they could cram in.


It and the Hurricane(basically a single wing development of the Fury biplane) saved England from a German invasion. The Hurrican was for shooting down bombers,and actually did shoot down more planes than the Spitfire. Bombers were easier targets. But,Hurricanes also outnumbered Spitfires,too,being easier to make.

Yep, and that's a big part of my reservation w.r.t. the Spitfire. It was/is an incredibly beautiful plane, but also an "inefficient" one on a couple levels IMO. It's interesting to compare to what North American were able to achieve using the same powerplant in the P-51.



Heinemann designed useful aircraft,no doubt, but I would not put the beauty of his creations in the same class as Mitchel or Johnson.

I think the Skyhawk was perhaps the best example of his aesthetic. An extremely light, simple, efficient design that ran rings around most of its contemporaries. It's mind-blowing that the Blue Angels were still flying a "pure ground-attack aircraft" almost 30 years after its service introduction.


What! No scathing denouncements of my Bridge City remarks yet?

Not from me. I basically agree on all counts.

[Malcolm McLeod]

I'd go with the F-4. Proof that with enough horsepower a brick will fly!

(Sorry, but y'all took the turn. I'm just following along.):)

[george wilson]

IIRC,they designed a little flap to deal with the issue of compressibility on the P38.

Yes,the P-51 was the most aerodynamically efficient fighter and was a great high altitude fighter AFTER they stuck a Merlin in it. The Allison was a very smooth engine to fly behind,though. But,I am only concerned about design and aesthetics in this thread,so I'll stay with the Spitfire. Remarkable,though,that a company which had never designed a fighter could come up with the P-51,and in quite short order,too,to fill an urgent British need. It has been said that their lack of history in designing fighters actually made them more free to think up the P-51.

I have just never been able to get that excited over the P-51 from an aesthetics viewpoint. Certainly it is a beautiful aircraft,though. Just not as beautiful as the Spitfire. Too"squared off" in places. And,a lot of flat sheet metal could be used on the P-51,which helped the manufacture,of course,if not the aesthetics.

Packard actually improved on the Merlins they manufactured. Parts interchangeability was apparently never perfect on British made engines. That includes tank engines. The parts required some filing and hand fitting. Mechanics liked working on American engines better because of this.

Do you know that the P-51's that were shown flying through the POW camp near the end of "Empire of the Sun" were models? They had 3 large model airplane engines in a row powering them,and an animatronics pilot waving to the boy.I knew one of the guys who helped build the models. I have a picture somewhere of the unfinished planes. I think they were about 3' long,if I recall correctly.

[Patrick Chase]

I'd go with the F-4. Proof that with enough horsepower a brick will fly!

(Sorry, but y'all took the turn. I'm just following along.):)

Truly "a triumph of thrust over aerodynamics".

[Patrick Chase]

No doubt the Spitfire is a beautiful aircraft. I think my aesthetic views are somewhat colored by my engineering sensibilities in this case.


IIRC,they designed a little flap to deal with the issue of compressibility on the P38.

Waay OT, but: The dive flaps fixed the issue where the plane would "tuck" into an unrecoverable dive (with controls locked up) above a certain speed. Nothing could fix the fact that wings with high thickness-to-chord ratios create a lot of drag as you approach the speed of sound. Despite having a high level speed the P-38 had a lower limiting mach number than competing designs, which meant that opponents could dive away from it.

[Curt Putnam]

A musical analogy for this thread. To play jazz well one must have 1st learned the classics and mastered an instrument.

[Brett Luna]

I'd go with the F-4. Proof that with enough horsepower a brick will fly!

I have a soft spot for the F-4, having maintained them (avionic sensors, F-4D/E) for about 10 years of my USAF career after starting out on the A-7D. And this brings to mind a thought about how strongly our perception of a design's form can be influenced by our admiration (or not) of it's function. The Phantom isn't one of the "sexy" fighters. It's got a few nice curves but overall, it's solid, utilitarian, "big boned", and even brutish...albeit not so much as the A-10! I think designs like this, coupled with performance, historical events, and other non-design-related dimensions can sort of create their own aesthetic niche.

[george wilson]

Good stuff,but this isn't helping woodworkers find out what they need to learn!:)

[Malcolm McLeod]

Good stuff,but this isn't helping woodworkers find out what they need to learn!:)

I dunno... My designs can look solid, utilitarian, big boned, and brutish. At least the historical ones. I'd like to think I've picked up a little 'Spitfire' along the way.

[Luke Dupont]

I revisited this thread to discover... Fellow WWII aviation aficionados? Awesome!

Fan of the Gloster Gladiator here. Yes, I know - a biplane with limited service in the war, but something about it strikes me as very stylish - harkening back to WWI, whilst still being of more modern design, at least by the beginning of the war.

It's kind of the same appeal one finds in transitional planes. Wait, no, it *is* a transitional plane :D

[James Pallas]

Does using the golden ratio or rectangle give a starting place to work no mater what distance the object is viewed. I'm thinking we all have worked on something and than stepped back and said "Oh, those legs are too narrow" or something similar.
Jim

[Ray Selinger]

It isn't learning to draw, or more correctly, draft. Nor is it the ability to think in three dimensions, even two is a rare skill. Rather it's the understanding of the relationship of shape or line.

[Joel Thomas Runyan]

Does using the golden ratio or rectangle give a starting place to work no mater what distance the object is viewed. I'm thinking we all have worked on something and than stepped back and said "Oh, those legs are too narrow" or something similar.
Jim

Not necessarily, no. I think the key to eliminating those sorts of surprises is drafting an entire project before you ever touch a piece of wood. It's a lot of work, but really smooths out the construction process. And the only thing a golden rectangle guarantees is that if you cut a square off of it, you're left with a smaller golden rectangle.

[John Glendening]

It isn't learning to draw, or more correctly, draft. Nor is it the ability to think in three dimensions, even two is a rare skill. Rather it's the understanding of the relationship of shape or line.

Yes. One can draw, draft, blueprint a piece until they have a perfect rendering of what is to be something that is still not pleasing in shape or line. Understanding proportion is most important and is something that can be learned - like everything else in the craft, including drawing.

[Kees Heiden]

After studying this for a couple of days I am not convinced that the golden ratio is any better or worse then for example a 2:3 or 3:4 or 3:5 ratio. The golden ratio theory seems to be a typical romantic 19 th century invention and any proof that it was used by the great antique masters seems contrived.

[george wilson]

Thank you.Kees,for trying to destroy my efforts to help woodworkers design things. Your observations are misguided. I don't know where you are getting your information.

Further study on your part would lead you to realize that these forms have been around since classical Greek times,and the Golden Mean rectangle was discovered by Greek intellectuals by observing natural forms.

If you Google "Golden Mean Rectangle",the first site that comes up states that the golden mean rectangle has been known and studied since EUCLID.

Also google "Golden mean rectangle in ancient Greek architecture". Information there will confirm that the golden mean rectangle was used in designing the Parthenon and other structures in ancient times.

You can also see that Pythagoras was the discoverer of the Golden Mean Rectangle. He did it from studying natural forms.

Later,in 1202,Leonardo of Pisa,who was educated in North Africa by Moors,introduced the 10 digit system,with a decimal point and a symbol for zero. He put 2 rabbits in a field where they could not be killed or escape. He studied the numbers at which they reproduced. These numbers were: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55. The ratio after 3 is 1.618,which is the golden ratio.

I have taken the trouble to Google this information for you in case your computer in the Netherlands works differently.:)

By Googling these places I outlined for EVERYONE,it can easily be seen that the Golden Mean rectangle has been in use for thousands of years and is based upon natural things which I doubt that we really understand today. But,there it is. And a lot of masters way beyond our skills have indeed used it as a basis for their design work.

[Mel Fulks]

The unique features of the golden mean have been described at least three times in this thread. Since it was used on the drawer graduation of most 18th century chests the 19th century invention theory faces some hurdles.

[Kees Heiden]

First, i am not destroying anything. A discussion is usually fruitfull to understand things better.

Euclid indeed described the ratio but didn't say it was a ratio amy better then other ratios. It was an interesting mathematical issue. No direct evidence that any of the ancient Greeks or Romans used it purposely in architecture. There is no written evidence they did. Ratios, yes, for example in the classical orders, but not the golden mean per se.

The name golden mean and the greek letter phi were 19 th century inventions to describe the ratio 1:1.6108....

[george wilson]

It would be helpful if you would not just come out with unsubstantiated claims like you just did.Sorry,it's true. Kees,I have gone to the trouble of citing places to Google. You need to do more study. There is PERFECT evidence that the Ancient Greeks used the Golden Mean. The Parthenon's length and height to the peak of its roof is a perfect golden mean rectangle. It was also used by other great designers throughout history.

There is no need for me to waste my effort re stating the things that you can find for yourself if you Google the sites I mentioned.

[Joe Leigh]

"First, i am not destroying anything. A discussion is usually fruitfull to understand things better."

Of course you weren't. You were just stating your opinion, which has as much value as any other here, including that of the self proclaimed "masters"

I found this this particular statement, written in an earlier post, to be quite telling:

"...guitar I made is not gaudy,though a FEW(maybe 2 I know of) who need more education have branded it as such."

The inference, of course, is that any critique or disagreement is obviously the result of a lack of education, and therefore invalid.

It appears not much has changed here.

[george wilson]

Well,Joe,I haven't heard from you in a long time. Your statement about the guitar is true. And,I do not say that out of ego. I am educated in good taste. I had the finest teacher,and a natural disposition for my work to begin with.

And now,I am trying to help others by giving a few basic design tools that are indeed tested throughout history. This can be substantiated by Googling the sites I have provided.

To understand my 17th. C. guitar,you have to view it in the context of when it could have been made: 17th. C. Italy.

[Joe Leigh]

Of that I have no doubt. I would be greatly disappointed if it weren't.

Glad to see you are well and still tirelessly helping others.

[george wilson]

Yes,I am helping others,thank you. I don't need to learn these things we are discussing. I already know them. So,I am trying to introduce them to others. I have over 55 years of wood and metal work behind me. 40 amongst other master craftsmen.

[Mel Fulks]

Well........the use of "inference" instead of "implication" COULD be a lack of education.

[Brian Holcombe]

George, I for one very much appreciate your help and guidance. The information you provide here on the forum has proven itself invaluable.

[george wilson]

Thank you,Brian. Sorry Joe doesn't feel that way. And,I have always felt,and still do,that I have a friendly relationship with Kees.

The trouble with offering education to others is that while some,like you,will appreciate it. Others will think you are being superior. For example,my friend David Weaver appreciates my woodworking and design advice and uses it. He does good design work.However,I would not even ATTEMPT to get involved in his line of work,being an actuary. We all have our skills. This is mine.

At least we have so far,a long discussion of something other than sharpening. A FEW.Possibly VERY FEW,will take this information and use it to their advantage.

Good one,Mel!:)

[Phil Mueller]

George, I worked in the advertising business for decades and was constantly surrounded with art directors, designers, illustrators, film directors, etc. The guidance of the golden proportion was clearly followed by these folks. No matter how out of the box a piece of communications appeared, there was always a presence of golden proportion. More evident in print, but also very much considered in video.

It does a couple of things. First and foremost, it invited the viewer to want to spend some time with it. Drew them in, so to speak. It helped focus the main message of the communications...lead the eyes if you will. And third, it "organized" the various elements (art, copy, open space, logo, theme line, etc) to, again, put focus on main message, and then guide the viewer through the secondary information.

It was always interesting to me that during ad concept reviews, some layouts just seemed perfect, and some seemed off for some reason. The good art directors could point out the issues immediately. Like many of us, I couldn't tell you why it seemed off, just that it did. It's the same for me with furniture at the moment. I appreciate your help and experience.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I like and respect Kees. His observations and insights are consistently useful.

I live with a trained architect, and the golden ration and Fibonacci series are things she was taught when she was getting her degree. Maybe she was taught wrong, I don't know, but the fact it was taught in a five year architecture program at a major university suggests to me it may be useful, regardless of where it comes from. Having spent a comparatively small part of my life looking at these things, I am not going to presume I have some insight she does not. After all, she has studied them in depth for years, and then applied them in practice. I just think about these things on the odd hours my brain is not taken up with my own profession.

I personally don't know why George keeps posting here, but am glad he does. I appreciate and value his insights.

[george wilson]

Nicholas,Phil,Brian,and others: I like Kees too. We are both friends with David Weaver,who I wish would return. As to why I stay here; I am teaching the FEW. This is the way it has always been. I taught high school shop for 6 years when I was fresh out of college. Five in Western North Carolina. I always found that there are a FEW who appreciated my efforts to teach them. Most of them went on to study architecture and other subjects requiring brains.

There were some who resisted all efforts to get them to do anything. I found out they were staying up all night cutting wood,sitting up in trees as lookouts and hauling moonshine(I was in the moonshine capital of North Carolina at the time). They were probably in and out of jail,and who knows what became of them. The mass of students did their assignments,but went on to mundane occupations.

So,this is the same thing. I am teaching the FEW. That is why I post here while guys like Joe try to shoot me down,and accuse me of being completely selfish. I don't do much any more in my own shop. I have 2 worn out knees,a worn out thumb joint from playing finger style guitar since 1952,and now a broken foot. I am 75 years old and am tired out. What I do here is physically easier than working in the shop. I made a guitar recently,and have made missing parts for some members here,for which I have not charged if they are odd threaded nuts for a hand grinder or the like. I intend to make saw nuts for another member when I get better.

I am not a "self appointed master".The museum found out about me in 1969,and contacted me to come visit,bringing work and pictures. I was appointed a master by a large group of people who judged my work at the museum. Other craftsmen who were already masters and curators were in the group. In 1970 I arrived after spending the Summer teaching at Penland Craft School, to set up the instrument shop from scratch as none existed before.

[Kees Heiden]

About the parthenon.

Usually an image like this is used to prove that is conforms to the golden mean.

342033

But the choice of the position of the rectangle is a bit arbitrary. Why include some of the steps at the bottom but not all of them? Why is there nothing about the columns, their length, width, spacing and their relationship to the pediment or the overall size of the building? Those columns are pretty vital to the overall look and feel of the building.

Whenever you see one of these proofs of use of the golden mean in antique architecture or art, it often is a bit contrived, as if someone bend himself in all positions to find something, whatever to suit his theory.

Another example, the Vitruvian man from Leonardo Davinci is always mentioned in combination with the golden mean. But in fact there is not much precisely matching the golden mean in this drawing. And the text accompanying the drawing isn't mentioning this ratio either. It's about how various parts of a human body relate to each other in what kind of ratio and 1:1.6108 is not one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man

[Kees Heiden]

From wikipedia (OK, ok, not the most reliable source, but her I think they are correct)

Architecture
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/7234014_Parthenonas_%28cropped%29.jpg/371px-7234014_Parthenonas_%28cropped%29.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:7234014_Parthenonas_(cropped).jpg)

Many of the proportions of the Parthenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon) are alleged to exhibit the golden ratio.


Further information: Mathematics and architecture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_and_architecture)
The Parthenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon)'s façade as well as elements of its façade and elsewhere are said by some to be circumscribed by golden rectangles.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#cite_note-25) Other scholars deny that the Greeks had any aesthetic association with golden ratio. For example, Midhat J. Gazalé says, "It was not until Euclid, however, that the golden ratio's mathematical properties were studied. In the Elements (308 BC) the Greek mathematician merely regarded that number as an interesting irrational number, in connection with the middle and extreme ratios. Its occurrence in regular pentagons anddecagons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decagon) was duly observed, as well as in the dodecahedron (a regular polyhedron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_polyhedron) whose twelve faces are regular pentagons). It is indeed exemplary that the great Euclid, contrary to generations of mystics who followed, would soberly treat that number for what it is, without attaching to it other than its factual properties."[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#cite_note-26) And Keith Devlin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Devlin) says, "Certainly, the oft repeated assertion that the Parthenon in Athens is based on the golden ratio is not supported by actual measurements. In fact, the entire story about the Greeks and golden ratio seems to be without foundation. The one thing we know for sure is that Euclid, in his famous textbook Elements, written around 300 BC, showed how to calculate its value."[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#cite_note-27) Later sources like Vitruvius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius) exclusively discuss proportions that can be expressed in whole numbers, i.e. commensurate as opposed to irrational proportions.

[george wilson]

Kees: the steps were considered not as part of the aesthetics of the building,but as a pediment that the building sat upon. Just as I made a mahogany base for a bust of Jefferson for the American Embassy in Paris,the important thing was the bust,not what it sat upon.

[Steve Voigt]

I definitely don't see how it is "destroying" anything to write, as Kees did, that "I am not convinced that the golden ratio is any better or worse then for example a 2:3 or 3:4 or 3:5 ratio." As I wrote before, it is a subject of some debate and controversy, and there's no harm in debating it. Further, I think a number of Kees' specific observations are correct. I spent a lot of time working through Euclid's Elements a number of years ago. My memory is a bit fuzzy but I don't remember that he prioritized the golden rectangle over whole number ratios; rather I remember that the latter are pervasive throughout the book. Euclid was influenced by Pythagoras, and a major basis of Pythagoras' cult was was whole number ratios as instantiated in music (2:1 = octave, 3:2 = perfect 5th, etc.). It's also true that much of the evidence for the use of the golden section and the Fibonacci series in antiquity is circumstantial rather than direct.

It might be worth stepping back for a little perspective and asking what people want to design, and how such things have been designed in the past. I assume the majority of people here want to design furniture, and maybe some joinery stuff like doors and windows. A minority of us are toolmakers, instrument makers, boatbuilders, etc. And most people here, as opposed to the power tool forums, are interested in making and designing stuff the way it was done before the 20th c.

Now, there is some evidence that architects before the 20th c. used the golden section or the Fibonacci series in their designs, though again a lot of that evidence is indirect. But I have never seen any evidence that the great and famous furniture makers of the 18th and 19th c, not to mention all the anonymous makers who produced excellent work, used these ratios in any systematic way. On the other hand, I have seen evidence, including in Walker/Tolpin's book, that they used whole number ratios.

A few posts ago, a guy wrote that "the key to eliminating those sorts of surprises is drafting an entire project before you ever touch a piece of wood." If that works for him, fine, but the evidence is that most furniture makers in the hand tool era never did this. They didn't make drawings at all, or if they did, they were the equivalent of napkin sketches. They didn't make detailed measurements, either. What they did was use dividers and a few basic measurements, the latter often with story sticks rather than numerical dimensions. And this again tends to lead to simple whole-number ratios.

I don't think it's bad though, to argue about what ratios to use. Probably for most people who lack design experience, using any ratios, and thinking in any systematic way about how the parts complement the whole, would be a step in the right direction.

[Jim Koepke]

After studying this for a couple of days I am not convinced that the golden ratio is any better or worse then for example a 2:3 or 3:4 or 3:5 ratio.

2:3 and 3:5 are part of the Fibonacci sequence, which is the sequence of the golden ratio.

3:4 is interesting since a right triangle with sides of 3 & 4 will have a hypotenuse of 5.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Later,in 1202,Leonardo of Pisa,who was educated in North Africa by Moors,introduced the 10 digit system,with a decimal point and a symbol for zero. He put 2 rabbits in a field where they could not be killed or escape. He studied the numbers at which they reproduced. These numbers were: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55. The ratio after 3 is 1.618,which is the golden ratio.

A very technical nit-pick: The golden ratio is an irrational number, while the Fibonacci sequence consists of integers. As such the ratios of successive Fibonacci terms are inherently rational numbers, and can therefore never be equal to the golden ratio. Instead the ratio of successive terms in the Fibonacci sequence converges to (1 + sqrt(5))/2 as it approaches infinity.

Just using the examples you posted, the ratios (to 5 digits) are:

1.0, 2.0, 1.5, 1.6667, 1.6, 1.625, 1.6154, 1.6190, 1.6176

It oscillates over/under the golden ratio starting with the first ratio, and does so ad infinitum. There's nothing special at all about the ratio "after 3".

[george wilson]

The ratio of the golden mean is well documented in use throughout history I wish some of you would Google around more,truly.

I am not trying to force anyone to se the golden mean rectangle,the root 2,or any of the other classical rectangles. I offer them only as a suggested aid to those who may want help in designing things.

As I mentioned in the first post(I think),I haven't used them myself. But,I seem to have a natural ability to design. The Master Cabinet Maker,Mack Headley used the golden mean all the time in his design work. He studied Chippendale's book a lot. On a daily basis,as far as I could tell. Every time I saw him,he had that book(when he was in the shop).

I don't make much furniture,and the things I make do not usually involve rectangles anyway. I don't know how I'd work the golden mean into the bronze drill,for example.

Take the information I have made available and run with it,or ignore it. You are free to choose. I tire of arguing with those who discount it. It exists,and was and is used,period.

[Kees Heiden]

I did google quite a bunch, but of course it depends on your search criteria what you are going to find.

There were three important points in history where something was written about the golden ratio. Euclid, we allredy discussed. He was probably the guy who invented the ratio, and gave it the unromatic name "mean and extreme ratio". BTW, he lived about 100 years later then the build of the Parthenon.

Then we have the book Divina Proportiona from 1509. Written by Pacioli and brilliantly illustrated by Leonardo Davinci. It's about geometrics, not aesthetics. The second part of the book about architecture is following the traditional whole number ratio system from the Roman architect Vitruvius. This part of the book really is not much more then his view on the famous book from Vitruvius, De Architectura, the book every architect and artist from the Renaissance knew by heart (probably).

Finally we have Adolf Zeising (1810-1876) who thought the golden ratio was operating as a universal law. He studied the branching of leaves from the stems of trees and similar the branching of skeletical parts, geometry of chemicals and crustals and thought everything was according to the golden ratio. The name "golden ratio" is from this time. He really kicked of the whole golden ratio thing.

I am certainly not saying that golden ratios can't be used with good effect, leading to good designs. It's just not the only way to design and it certainly has been hyped up a bit.

[george wilson]

That's daVinci. I've said my piece.

[Joe Leigh]

"......I tire of arguing with those who discount it. It exists,and was and is used,period."

This is really the point I was making. The minute there's a dissenting opinion, you start using words like "attacking" and "destroying" and "arguing". Kees is certainly not arguing, he is simply and respectfully presenting a different opinion.
98% of the posters in this thread have agreed with you. Does everyone have to agree?

You said you were 75 years old, is this the way you act when someone disagrees or sees things differently?
I hope not. Seems like a long time spent making sure everyone sees things your way.

Other than that it's an interesting thread and I've enjoyed reading it.

[Jim Koepke]

Dang, I spent a bit of time on a response and it disappeared.

What happened to the auto save feature?

jtk

[David Carroll]

Back in Art School, (1978) in our intro to drawing and design class, the instructor asked each of us in the class to draw a rectangle in which the long sides were six inches in length. The short sides could be whatever yielded a rectangle of pleasing proportions to the one who did the drawing. Once the 12 or 15 of us did this, the instructor measured each and took an average of the lengths of the short sides all of us had come up with. He drew a rectangle using this average and compared it to the "Golden Rectangle" and it was remarkably close.

We talked about it quite a bit, it's history and use. During the discussion we debated whether we thought that the sense of proportion was hard wired into us (nature) or whether we all have been exposed the to use of the golden mean so much that our idea of correct proportion was influenced by its ubiquity (Nurture). I find it a fascinating subject and I am thrilled that George and everybody are discussing it.

The folks who were on the side of Nature pointed out the natural occurrences of (approximate) golden ratios, (cell division and embryonic growth patterns) and the Nurture camp pointed out that even in the classroom example, our rectangle was not exactly the golden section, it was off a bit (more square) and could've been influence by a rectangle we (in those days) were intimately familiar with, TV screens.

We were shown the same examples posted here, and adherence to the golden mean is most always approximate, but if you were to change the proportions of the Parthenon much, it would look wrong, in terms of pleasing proportions.

It's a great starting point in design work, practical concerns will often necessitate deviation from the golden mean, but it's a solid base to start upon to find pleasing proportions. It's discussion and debate is a great way to fill time while one waits for stain to dry enough to apply a finish (What I'm doing).

Thanks to all for the discussion!

[Paul McGaha]

Thank you George, for taking the time to post here and sharing your thoughts and experience.

It really is very nice of you.

PHM

[Pat Barry]

Enough has been said about the golden ratio / proportion / rectangle, both factual and fictional, and everyone is never going to agree about it. Lets just drop it before tempers get too high and agree to disagree and move on.

[george wilson]

Well,Joe,if you have computed that 98% of members agree with me,then perhaps I have reached more than a few. I hadn't done the math. We do seem to be stuck on the golden mean rectangle,and I too,would be glad to move on to other things that designers and woodworkers might find useful to know. I have said my piece about it.

Does anyone have suggestions as to what other things those would be that should be learned? I'm opening this up to creative suggestions.

[steven c newman]

Maybe how to not only read a wood's grain, but the best way to make use of the grain. How to make a few boards seem to flow together?

[Pat Barry]

Material selection is highly important in order to serve the function required and for optimal appearance. For example, I used to take great trouble to select wood for table tops. I would spend a lot of time laying out pieces side by side in order to orient the boards for best appearance and best grain match. Shuffling the order of the boards, flipping them end for end and top to bottom, getting them arranged just so. Then I would come back a day or two later and see if I liked the way it looked. FInally, I would perform the glue-up and then process the top for finishing. The thing is, my methods back in the day were built around the tools I used and one important tool was my random orbit sander. I loved that tool as it helped overcome many issues with the wood and get a nice finish as I sanded through the grits from 80 to 120 to 150 to 180 to sometimes 220. Now as I do more hand tool work with planes I realize that I needed to also consider the direction that worked best for planing and to account for this in my lay up because this is what makes the planing process way simpler. Having eh grain all oriented in the same direction basically eliminates tear-out potential and therefore makes the entire planing process so much simpler. Of course, even with optimal grain matching you sometimes still can get tear-out, but accounting for the grain direction and planing with the grain and not against it makes planing so much more satisfying and less stressful.

[Warren Weckesser]

George, back in the very first post, you said "I recommend studying OLD books on woodworking,some of which have been re printed." Can you recommend specific titles?

[Brian Holcombe]

Pat,

That has been an obsession of mine as well, recently doing my best to minimize grain runout. Often grain runout makes for unpredictable results when working with a chisel, so I've been going to greater lengths than usual to eliminate it.

My personal crusade in that regard has altered my perspective. I still find many types of wood grain to be beautiful but I've come to a certain appreciation of vertical grain and rift/quarter orientation. It seems that it takes a lot of consideration on the part of the sawyer to minimize runout and further consideration in the rough cuts and part layout, and finally a slight consideration in the dimensioning process.

[Mel Fulks]

It seems strange that some who say the old rules don't have merit are sometimes the ones who say something like, "I don't like these maple cabinets, dark woods are in now". If they bought them they might be less vehement ...but just as determined to buy something else. Ive seen houses that had 20 different sized windows,just on the front facade which had a total of 21 windows! ....advertised as "fine traditional home". That's a lie ,not a difference in taste. In the old books formal rooms had specific proportions that varied according to author ,but they were all FORMAL in that they were symmetrical. A room is not formal because "it's got that very fine reclining chair". One thing a thread like this does accomplish is some challenge to totally "gotta stir the pot to make some money" tastemakers.

[george wilson]

I agree,Mel. The latest thing seems to be designing a house that has so many gables, VERY out of symmetry and of all sizes,it seems like the designer is trying to make a single house look like a whole village. It has gotten pretty ridiculous. It must be hard on the roofers!!

Warren,I am in pain and on pain killers,and can't think of an old book author except for Hasluck right now. I have read a number of them,though. The ones where the woodworker is wearing a suit and tie at the workbench!!

[Patrick Chase]

2:3 and 3:5 are part of the Fibonacci sequence, which is the sequence of the golden ratio.

3:4 is interesting since a right triangle with sides of 3 & 4 will have a hypotenuse of 5.

jtk

The Fibonacci sequence isn't "the sequence of the golden ratio". It's a sequence that has the property that the ratio of consecutive terms converges to but never equals the golden ratio as it approaches infinity. 2:3 and 3:5 are very early term-pairs in the sequence and are nowhere near converging, and their link to the golden ratio is tortured at best.

[george wilson]

I guess you'd better re write Google. It seems full of mistakes. Every time I seek medical advice,even on the most seemingly reliable source,doctors tell me that the info is incorrect.

Pat: I have a broken foot and don't want to walk out to the shop and get a dial caliper and other things. Why don't you draw for us and post a few rectangles constructed with some of the "off ratio" Fibonacci numbers,compared with a golden mean rectangle? It might be possible that he felt that the numbers he got were close enough to the golden mean to still make a pleasing rectangle.

[Frederick Skelly]

"......I tire of arguing with those who discount it. It exists,and was and is used,period."

This is really the point I was making. The minute there's a dissenting opinion, you start using words like "attacking" and "destroying" and "arguing". Kees is certainly not arguing, he is simply and respectfully presenting a different opinion.
98% of the posters in this thread have agreed with you. Does everyone have to agree?

You said you were 75 years old, is this the way you act when someone disagrees or sees things differently?
I hope not. Seems like a long time spent making sure everyone sees things your way.

Other than that it's an interesting thread and I've enjoyed reading it.

George, I say again as myself and others have said before - thanks for hanging out here and teaching us. Another GREAT thread. Lots of information, lots of viewpoints.

Myself? I'll probably never develop the eye someone trained in design has. But I use the golden ratio and I use George Walker's book. When I use either, my projects look noticeably better.

Keep the good ideas coming guys. This is all helpful to this "design novitiate".

Fred

[Curt Putnam]

Photography is one of the more visual arts and the "rules" of composition include the golden spiral, ratio and square. It also comes up in books of furniture design. I have not studied, nor will I in the near future but I accept, lacking evidence to the contrary, that pieces built upon the golden ratio will look just fine.

[Prashun Patel]

this thread has run its course. I hope others have found it as thought provoking as have i.

[george wilson]

Thank you,Prashun. Go ahead and lock it please.