Contrasting Woods - questions of aesthetics regarding unusual woods

[Douglas Clark]

This is largely a philosophical question; if you are so inclined, please thoughtfully engage some or all of the points.

I just finished reading an article I came across on FWW online (article #211 ). This article is entitled "The Right Way to Use Contrast" by Garrett Hack. It raised a couple of issues/questions that I hoped maybe the forum would provide some feedback on. Now, discussions on aesthetics can produce strong responses in some and I'm not interested in a debate so much as hearing some different opinions, but even more than the opinions I'm interested in the reasoning behind those opinions.

The first issue is one of general philosophy regarding the title, it is probably a minor issue but one that frustrates me, at times. I mean, who am I to argue with Garrett Hack, right?! But the title "The Right Way to Use Contrast" (emphasis added) seems a bit presumptuous and suggests an orthodoxy of design that I'm not entirely comfortable with when it comes to judging certain aesthetic values. That said, I have enough of a design background to understand that there are basic principles of aesthetics that are generally applicable in mostly all of the projects we do because there is something about the application of those principles that appeals to the large majority of human beings. Things like, symmetry, balance, ergonomics, golden ratio and basic color theory are areas that are well covered by both philosophers and scientific study. It is not my intention to argue with promoting an understanding of these basic things. After all, they work for a great majority of people a great majority of the time. But... sometimes when you get into specific examples, these principles seem to have some gray areas, which there is not always general agreement. The article went on to provide an example of contrasting that seemed to be a bit of that gray area. But, maybe it's not a gray area, I don't know. So, I wanted to put a specific example before the forum to see if there's a general consensus on it or not.

The second questions is a more specific one resulting from the first issue. In the article Mr. Hack almost immediately wandered into what seemed like a gray area (at least for me) that by using a specific example of poor contrasting that didn't seem as obvious (to me) as he thought it was. He used an example of an Arts & Crafts style blanket chest that had been done in a frame of Purpleheart with "golden-blond" maple paneling. Now, maybe the chest doesn't look as good in person as it does in the photo, but I thought it looked rather nice and thought that, while bold, it was a very attractive contrast. Mr. Hack, on the other hand labeled it as "shouting" and gaudy (again, I saw it as bold but not obnoxiously loud) . Coincidentlally, he also had an overlay of that same chest done with a quartersawn white oak frame and beech panels, which he praised as subtle but very effective. Again, I found the subtle piece pleasant but not especially interesting. In fact, depending on the environment you but it in, it would have risked being a bit boring and easily overlooked. Anyhow... again, everyone has their own preferences and sometimes I like subdued sometimes I like bold. Honestly, I love such a broad range of design that I'm unwilling to label one piece as a "better" or "right" choice, particularly because environmental context must be considered, as well. Therefore, when pairing the title of "The Right Way" with that specific example, it seemed a bit like Hack was pushing his own stylistic preferences rather than providing an objective analysis of theory. What really frustrated me, is that he offered no critical insight into what would have been a "better" option. Purpleheart has a fairly bold aesthetic to begin with, and therefore one that is more challenging to be subtle with (unless only using it for accent, and even then it usually draws attention to itself). So, although Mr. Hack clearly feels that the golden-blond maple panel is a poor match, he provides no suggestions as to suitable alternatives, it's simply bad because it's too loud, in his opinion.

So... the million dollar question(s)!

Specifically, what do you think would have been a more appropriate match for the Purpleheart? Of course, some of you wouldn't even use purpleheart for a frame to begin with, but for those who would... do you agree with Hack? Why or why not? Is there a way to make certain exotic woods subtle? As a designer/woodworker do you generally seek to tone down bold woods as a general principle? Why or why not?

Also... do you believe that an orthodoxy should be promoted, in the sense of using terms like "The Right Way" when refering to specific examples. How comfortable are you in declaring certain aesthetics as right or wrong. Why or why not?

Maybe I should have taken a poll instead on what people prefer regarding purple heart, but it seemed like every question I thought of polling provoked 2-3 more and I couldn't decide what to focus on. That, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to set up a whole poll.

Anyhow... have fun engaging this, if you are so inclined. Please, though, try and keep it more reasoned rather than impassioned. Even though it's a discussion of aesthetics (which, admittedly is primarily a sensory-driven, qualitative topic) I'm more interested in as rational a discussion as possible. And... no offense intended towards Mr. Hack. Obviously, he's a much more accomplished builder and designer than I am, at this point. He's certainly entitled to his opinions, I'm just wary of opinions when they start to sound like they contribute to a sort of arbitrary orthodoxy (and if you knew me well, that would be quite ironic to most of you considering I'm considered quite orthodox about somethings in my life).

[Prashun Patel]

Doug- m
This comes up a lot in the Turners' forum.

I'm with you: I hate to see artists put in a box. However, my 10th grade English teacher once told me: you have to learn the rules before you can break them. That's always rung true to me. I mean, I think Picasso's later work is all the more impressive given his conventional beginnings.

I think one's appreciation and artistic sensibility develops as one's technical skill and experience develops. If the 'offending' purpleheart pairing is done as a result of inexperience, I guess I agree with Garrett. But if it's done with deliberation, experience, and full knowledge of why some may not like it, I think it makes it even more inspiring.

I am no where near an expert in turning, but I will say that my appreciation has developed and what I thought looked good at the beginning changed once I really started analyzing designs - using the 'rules' and guidance of experts like Richard Raffan. I have an evolved sense now of which rules make sense to me, and which ones I like to thwart.

I think Garrett's wisdom comes from making a lot of his own mistakes, client feedback, and watching others' work. There's always individuality in art, but there are some conventions and rules. Riding the edge of those rules is where IMHO true art really lies.

Descending from soap box...

[Michael Peet]

The first issue is one of general philosophy regarding the title, it is probably a minor issue but one that frustrates me, at times. I mean, who am I to argue with Garrett Hack, right?! But the title "The Right Way to Use Contrast" (emphasis added) seems a bit presumptuous and suggests an orthodoxy of design that I'm not entirely comfortable with when it comes to judging certain aesthetic values.

Hi Douglas,

Interesting topic. I haven't seen the chest in question, but I think your quote there is spot on. There are many other ways that title could have been worded that would have been a little less off-putting. I don't think it will ever be my place to judge aesthetics as "right" or "wrong"; rather I can only judge whether something is or is not visually appealing to me. Although as I sit here pondering, I suppose that certain color combinations can clash in woodworking, same as anywhere else, which could be considered "wrong".

I am not a huge fan of purpleheart, maybe because I don't particularly care for the color purple.

Mike

[Shawn Pixley]

In art and design, almost any "rule" may be broken and be aestheticly pleasing to some. There is no universal "truth". I saw the same article as you and to my taste, I didn't care for the purple heart / maple in that setting (specifically the door pictured). I am by no means color or purple phobic as my co-workers will attest. I have seen pieces that have combined purple heart and maple very succesfully.

To your larger point, does Garrett have the right to call something, "the right way..."? Of course he does, just as you and I have the right to disagree with him. The fields of art, design and aesthetics have only subjective truth (to the individual). I would not read anything more than this than his opinion. But I do appreciate that he made a "stand" with his article. I was not in any way cheesed off about his opinions. I would much rather have a straight forward expression of someone's viewpoint as long as it didn't attack or diminish anothers' opinion or work.

Celebrity gives a louder voice to opinions. It doesn't make them right. People that follow celebrity mindlessly are followers incapable of making their own decisions or thinking for theirselves. Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, Manet, Picasso, Warhol, and Martha Stewart clearly had different ideas of the "right way" given their own aesthetics. They would argue with each other in the same way you disagree with Garrett. Vive' la differance!

[Mike Henderson]

I haven't seen Garrett Hack's article but I've seen some God-awful combinations of wood in furniture, especially things built by beginning woodworkers.

Mike

[Shawn Pixley]

But if popularity is the measure of art, then Black Velvet Elvis' paintings are the zenith of aesthetics.

[Douglas Clark]

Yeah... It seems that many of you understand where I'm coming from and I was probably a bit more "cheesed off" than truly angry. But I still wonder about what most people would choose to pair with Purpleheart in place of maple. I guess the article left me feeling a bit insecure because I really liked the pairing and would probably have chosen a similar scheme (had I chosen to make purpleheart the frame, to begin with). So I was probably actually being a bit sensitive to the thought of having someone call my personal preference "gaudy". Having admitted that, I'm still at a loss at what else one would pair with the purpleheart.

So far, it appears that the most of you agree somewhat with Hack's assessment of the purpleheart/maple pairing being less attractive. But to the large point, Shawn, I always have a bit of difficulty completely buying into the "subjective truth" argument when it comes to aesthetics. Mostly because I guess I see there being very certain things that clearly resonate with a very large majority of human beings, and sometimes across cultural differences at that. As, I indicated initially, balance, symmetry, and certain ratios and color combinations seem to be almost innate to our sense of beauty. I guess "objectively speaking" some of this has been substantiated by studies that show that humans across a diverse spectrum of social and cultural differences have been shown to have similar responses to some of these things. But that's probably a deeper question than I'm prepared to really conquer at this time.

So, all that aside... is there a general consensus on Hack's, do a lot more people agree than disagree with him regarding that specific example? Does anyone have any preferences in matching and uses of purpleheart?

[Douglas Clark]

But if popularity is the measure of art, then Black Velvet Elvis' paintings are the zenith of aesthetics.

BTW, Shawn.... I hope not... I really hope not. But if so, I think this example may the best argument I've heard yet for encouraging the development of objective standards of beauty!

[Mike Henderson]

One problem with purpleheart is that it changes color quite a bit as it ages. It goes to a brown eventually (sort of a dark redish brown). The aged color is not bad looking but not what you started with. It's caused by UV light so doing everything you can to avoid UV will maintain the purple look longer. But eventually, it'll change color.

Mike

[Van Huskey]

The problem I had with the article is design factors into the equation in a very big way. Woods that would look "bad" together on a Federal desk might look perfect in a mid-century modern piece.

My personal pet peeve is when someone finds a stash of really highly figured gorgeous wood and makes the ENTIRE piece out of it. To me it often becomes a huge jumbled mess visually and you can't see any of the lines of the piece. A friend of mine built a large TV cabinet with large frame and panel doors from a few feet away you couldn't see where the frame ended and the panel began, even the doors melted into the entire piece, it looked like a huge monolithic chunk of dyed flame maple, gorgeous wood though!

[Shawn Pixley]

While there are many studies that demonstrate a common view of aesthetics related to symmetry, there are very notable examples of the opposite. For instance, while many peer reviewed studies show that a commonality of aesthetic beauty in human faces, the Mona Lisa is also held a a high standard of beauty and it is not symetrical at all. Another example might be Cindy Crawford's mole which many find enchanting (not me actually) which upsets the symmetry.

In fact, if you study greek architecture such as the Parthenon carefully, it is often not symmetrical. The column have entasis, the spacing tightens to create the illusion or idealized perspective.

Your point on the commonality of aesthetics is accurate, but I will argue not universal. For every example of a "rule" that can be made, one can find a notable counter example. Things are seldom single variable problems. The goldon section on some bricks are known to be of a "universal standard" of beauty and proportion. Yet we can find many examples of wonderful brick buildings where the bricks are not a golden section ratio. Maybe this is a poor example, but my point is that applying rules mindlessly does not equate to a more beautiful outcome. This is true in wood choices as well as styles of furniture. One is not better than another; you may prefer one to another.

My view is that you should do what you like. It can be successful or unsuccessful and you will have learned from the experience. I view this a journey, not a destination.

[Jerome Hanby]

Not to be flip (okay maybe a little), what I like is exactly right and what everyone else thinks is meaningless. That's not to say that I wouldn't build my wife exactly what she asks for or build something for a customer (if those actually exist, all I've ever encountered is folks wanting me to build something they saw at Pottery Barn, for free, in my spare time, and can I have it ready 2 weeks before Sissy's birthday) that implements what they ask for. I get a little tired of all these so called experts all regurgitating the same tired old "information" again and again. Of course, look at and read about as many different "styles" as you can. And keep looking at the same things again and again as time passes, you never know when a little perspective may change your "tastes".

Personally, my taste in contrast run to Maple and Walnut. My second, third, etc... choices would be woods that.....look like Maple and Walnut <g>

[Brian Kent]

There are two settings where I have enjoyed using purpleheart and maple together - maple boxes with purpleheart feet, and my workbench. I have never found a piece of furniture that begged for that combination. I can picture a personality where the colors would be delightful.

[Tom Scott]

I remember seeing that article by Hack and thought it was a good one. Why? Because I have come to the conclusion that there is a very high percentage of people that do not have a good design aesthetic and need the help. Sad but true. And perhaps I'm the one that is off, but I have seen way too much evidence of this...from houses to furniture.
One problem that, especially, new woodworkers have is trying to use exotic and bold figured woods without thinking about how it works in the overall piece. Too much of a good thing is not necessarily good. I think that Hack's article was good to help steer those that don't necessarily have a good design aesthetic away from making critical mistakes that can ruin an otherwise nice piece of furniture. There are a lot of different types of woodworkers...there are those that just like the process of building, some that like the idea of building heirloom pieces to be passed down, some that like collecting the tools, some that get into the engineering of pieces, and some that do it as a release for their creative side. Not everyone has a good grasp of what is good design and can use some guidance. I did not take his article as trying to stifle creativity, but rather as giving some guidance to those "less design-oriented" woodworkers of what generally looks good together.
As to your specific question about what purpleheart goes good with, it depends. In moderation, it can look really nice with maple or many other woods. But when it completely takes over a piece it can ruin it. One of my first pieces I made on my own (many years ago) was a Shaker-ish table with a purpleheard top and a painted black base. I still think it works after all these years because there is not tremendous contrast, but someone else may think it's God-aweful.

[Steve Griffin]

I like to employ contrasting woods and I often wonder why some go together better than others.

For example, knotty pine and hard maple=yuck
Or clear fir and quarter sawn oak=yuck

But cherry and hard maple=nice.
Or black walnut and quarter sawn oak=nice.

My theory is that contrasting woods need to be different enough to make it look like it's done on purpose, but similar enough to share some characteristics. But I could be wrong...