18thc "Imperfections"

[john brenton]

That finial looks delicious.

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

[Adam Cherubini]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam

[Sean Hughto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My take. Happy Easter!

[Pam Niedermayer]

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

Pam

[Dave Anderson NH]

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

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

[John Coloccia]

re: making reproductions vs doing your own thing

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

[David Keller NC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roderick Gentry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Stram]

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

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

jtk

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

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

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

Could I make a period piece, not a chance.

Steve.

[Jon van der Linden]

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

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

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

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

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

[Charles Bender]

Derek,

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

[Charles Bender]

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

[george wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

[john brenton]

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

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

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

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

[george wilson]

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

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

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

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

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

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