Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dundowran Beach
    Age
    76
    Posts
    19,922

    Default Philosophical points of view

    We all all in awe of and inspired by the brilliant work and WIPS of WW. We all admire the history lessons, the detail and the generous feedback to our enquiries.

    WW has very strong views on reproduction, modified copies of designs and the like. Just read the thread on WW´s Irish Elm Dressing table.

    I am interested in the points of view of others regarding this area of woodwork and would like to see contributions to this thread.

    This could be a lively and interesting discussion, so over to all the Anzac and lamington eaters, the armchair and rocking chair observers and the wheelchair philosophers.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Of The Boarder
    Age
    68
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    I feel honoured artme.

    I feel tho you should be leading the charge, your thoughts being your in aprt of the world where antiquities and fine timbers & furniture are held in high regard. Maybe some photos even

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Vic
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Challenging subject Artme but i'll give it a try.

    Personally I think if one is going to be true to a passion for a particular style or period it's important to pay attention to detail.

    Also personally, and unfortunately, I don't have skills that WW exhibits so frequently, so my interest in a particular style or period might be transferred into my woodwork but not reproduced with the detail or skill of the original. In those circumstances I might call something "inspired by" or "an analogy of" or maybe just not mention it at all.

    When WW describes something as a "George II" that period/style had a start and an ending date so the detail in his work should reflect the detail prevalent at the time.

    My thoughts

    col.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dundowran Beach
    Age
    76
    Posts
    19,922

    Post

    Have to agree with both Col and WW.

    I have to agree that lack of skill, and more often than not, lack of information leads to personal modifications that are a least pleasing to the maker, if not the expert.

    I would never attempt the sort of authenticity achieved by our esteemed master because of factors mentioned above.

    What is galling is that people produce replicas and don't have the fortitude or courtesy to make acknowledgements about their work.

    I once had an argument with a dealer about a piece of Australian Red Cedar ( modern ) furniture that I knew to be veneered and not solid. I offered to settle the dispute by drilling a hole through it and paying for the piece shoul it prove to be solid.
    Her response told me I was correct but she still had it for sale as solid.

    I make objects for myself that are insped by other pieces and would not dare to call them copies, let alone reproductions.

    Where or when then does a piece become original?.

    If I make a pen styled because of Art Deco Influences is it an original? Or is it an Art Deco styled / Inspired orignal? Is it Art Deco if it is not made during the acknowledged period??

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Vic
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artme View Post
    Is it Art Deco if it is not made during the acknowledged period??
    I suppose in philosophical terms, no it isn't

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artme View Post
    Where or when then does a piece become original?
    The original is the only original, but you could make an original 'in the style of'. Auctioneers and dealers have recognised this avenue for some years, for example 'after Constable' and 'Chippendale period' etc.

    The reproduction furniture manufacturers have been using terms like 'Sheraton style' for a long time, but as they continually erode Sheraton's style, the phrase has become meaningless, or at best, refers to any redish-stained furniture. I think for the sake of your discussion you could omit factory made 'reproductions'.
    .
    I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you just read is not what I meant.


    Regards, Woodwould.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    3,191

    Default

    When talking of 'authenticity' I often think of art forgery. Many forgeries fool many experts when they first come on the market yet seen decades later their lack of authenticity stands out like a sore thumb. I think much of the answer is that we tend not to notice elements of contemporary style in a work whereas later they become obvious.
    If you are happy with a piece of work you have make "in the style of" fair enough but people like WW go that extra distance and you end up with not only a beautiful piece of furniture but also one that pays homage to the original maker.
    Cheers,
    Jim

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Of The Boarder
    Age
    68
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    Arthur I have been through similar discussions years ago when doing restoration of vehicles.

    "At what point is an auto still original" ??
    " Depends on the level of work required to bring it to showroom condition" !!

    My view is a damn good clean up, service, new tyres, battery and turn the key. Yes I have seen a few like this.

    In doing a full restoration where you have just chassis and running gear as original and everything else needs to be made new. Yet I could produce with in reason like Master WW a very worthy reprodcution, fame, body, interior etc

    The same situation applies as WW has stated a good reproduction is classed as original in many circles.


    Bit like V8 Supercars only thing Aussie is they race here.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    3,191

    Default

    Now cars are really complicated. It can be incredibly difficulty getting the panels not to fit especially if you're wanting to copy a Friday model BMC.
    Cheers,
    Jim

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Of The Boarder
    Age
    68
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbur View Post
    Now cars are really complicated. It can be incredibly difficulty getting the panels not to fit especially if you're wanting to copy a Friday model BMC.
    Cheers,
    Jim
    Jim that would go for any manufacturer back in those days.

    Come to think of it it would go for anything made after lunch time pay day and a counter lunch back then.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dundowran Beach
    Age
    76
    Posts
    19,922

    Post

    As WW says we need to omit factory reproductions, but then I thought that was a givrn.

    As for cars, its abit like Paddy's axe.

    Our local doctor, when I was a kid had a beautifully restored 1920 something Rolls Royce. He did most of the restoration himself and was very fussy. The fuel tank ran across the back of the car and had a cracked fuel gauge glass as it was the original. No replacement was going to be made unless he could find an original from the same model..

    OK., back to my Art Deco. Napier in New Zealand is an Art Deco city. After it was destroyed by an earthquake in the thirties a concious decisio was made to build everything in that style. If a new building is erected to fit the style to fit the style of the rest of the city, is it any less Art Deco??

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,094

    Default

    Artme - not sure what you are looking for from this discusion, are you after arguments for & against reproductions/forgeries/bits of furniture that owe no allegience to any period? Original methods of construction using only materials and/or tools available at the time the oiginals were made? We need some clearly-stated premises to debate!

    Aesthetic merit is the most difficult topc of all, since it's all in the eye of the beholder. Does a forgery have any less aesthetic merit than the original if it can fool even an expert? (No, but it sure affects the auction price!). The very word 'forgery' implies it was meant to deceive, and it's not nice to profit by deceit, or so my mum always told me, so p'raps the downgrade is justifiable on those grounds. But if you are just making something for your own use, with no intention of deceiving anyone, where do you draw the line at 'originality'? It's easy enough for someone with a modicum of skill to make it look like the real thing, and if the original construction was based on sound joinery principles that have stood the test of time, why not follow these to the letter? But some older methods do not suit modern heated living spaces. It makes sense to me to 'fix' such 'problems', but to others, that's anathema. Each aproach can be justified. Some pieces of useful furniture (e.g. "coffee tables") didn't exist until the 20th century - is it legitimate to make one in a style to match your other, strictly period-correct stuff? I say 'yes', some say 'no way!'.

    I like what William Morris once said, which was something like "Keep nothing in your house unless you know it to be useful, or believe it to be beautiful" which leaves us plenty of scope, and doesn't preclude mixing & matching. There are folks who are passionate about one period or other, and some who like elements from many periods (I do) and many who don't have a clue about any particular style (& who perhaps should be envied). But is any one group really more worthy than another?

    Every art form evolves. Every twist & turn it takes is necessary, but not necessarily enduring. We can argue & debate tools, construction methods & materials with (some!) objectivity, but aesthetics is a nebulous topic, IMO, and while it's useful to yourself to figure out why you do or don't like something, we have to be careful how we expres that to others, lest fearful wars break out!

    Furniture history is fascinating, and perhaps should be a compulsory subject for anyone using our diminishing stocks of wood, but at the same time, we shouldn't feel too constrained about putting something of ourselves into a piece if we so wish. 'Quirky' is good, too......

    Cheers,
    IW

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Of The Boarder
    Age
    68
    Posts
    16,794

    Default

    Arthur the NZ situation gives rise to such questions like Soveriegn Hill and the like period style settings on scales set to give public a perseption of life as it was. Yet look at many of these situations and you'll see modern day right there. The thought of using a drop box toilet to many is vile. Shops lit by fluro's not candlel light or oil lamps. Pa systems with piped music, machinery well advanced for whats being portrade.


    IanW good points. The thought of going to see a full period workshop of hand tool tradesman creating fine works as they were done in years gone by.

    Just think in 50+ yeras will we others be saying such as "I have just made a table in the style of Claw Hammer/Wongo/Pat of Woodwork Forum Fame"?

    I look at new ideas often, my own as well as a mix of past ideas of others, if we continue to make just old style what have we gained in allowing our minds to expand and grow using imagination?

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dundowran Beach
    Age
    76
    Posts
    19,922

    Post

    Ian, I wasn' looking for anything in particular but I did expect some more lively discussion. Looks as if we must all be of pretty much the same mind,and therefore what WW had to say was really beyond debate.

    What you say in your second last paragraph is basically where I was heading.

    I think the exploration of style boundaries is a most interesting topic. Did Georgian style style die with the Georges?


    Over to WW.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artme View Post
    Did Georgian style style die with the Georges?
    Fashions and fads come and go in all aspects of life from attire to music to architecture to cars to furniture, but with all, certain looks, sounds and genres endure.

    Art Deco and Arts and Crafts have lasted well and enjoyed brief revivals, but Georgian furniture styles are some of the most frequently copied of all.

    It's no surprise that Victorian and Edwardian tastes have not made a comeback.
    .
    I know you believe you understand what you think I wrote, but I'm not sure you realize that what you just read is not what I meant.


    Regards, Woodwould.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophical conundrum
    By Johnnz in forum WOODWORK - GENERAL
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 3rd August 2010, 06:42 AM
  2. converting Flv to view on tv
    By BernieP in forum COMPUTERS
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd August 2008, 06:46 PM
  3. What the .... is going on with the view?
    By DanP in forum FORUMS INFO, HELP, DISCUSSION & FEEDBACK
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 16th May 2005, 11:00 PM
  4. Waxing Philosophical to take license
    By John Saxton in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19th December 2002, 11:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •