Thread: American woodworkers

Originally Posted by Lignum

Exactly my point, whats your point. [?]

my point is that personal insults are uncalled for when opinions don't coincide. And bieng that Ross is my friend, (and he's probably too big of a person to respond to you in kind), i'll be the one to have his back.

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Well I would have given you maximum green points Mr Boban, except I couldn't,

'Tis okay Midge I did Nice to see someone has a sense of humour.

This whole debate has been most enlightening. I hadn't realise the absolute depth of passion there was for all things wood on this site. Its really good to see.

As to the debate on what styles are passe' and what are cool , current or plain or avantgarde...well beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. What one woody like isn't necessarily gonna turn another woody on, so to speak .

As it would seem that the debate has now wandered off topic somwhat....lets keep it going ...BBQ at my place NEW Years...all invited ...plane tickets not provided.

Please state liquor or non liquor preference for seating purposes.

Private message me all interested and we will continue this debate over a steak and a beer

Originally Posted by ryanarcher

my point is that personal insults are uncalled for when opinions don't coincide. And bieng that Ross is my friend, (and he's probably too big of a person to respond to you in kind), i'll be the one to have his back.

Get a life.... If you assume it was a personal insult id hate to see your reaction if i realy did insult him.:mad:

Is "get a life" a personal insult?

Seeing Ryan is my friend, and if he responds that'll bring on a whole new wave of Seppo bashing , and seeing it's Saturday and I've just layed another few fillets inside the canoe so I've got an hour or so to kill:

You seemed to swerve away from my wondering at what qualifications you had for speaking on behalf of the "that the absolute majority of learned designer/historians all over the world" though.

I don't imagine you consider when you replied to my post: "hope ur not feeling yourself" it was a personal insult either, so I made light of it, but it really didn't answer the question.

Now through this thread you've made a whole heap of statements on behalf of the world's learned people, and instead of backing them when challenged, you seem to be resorting to personal nonsense.

Please don't.

P (professional designer/amateur historian)

It seems to me that this thread has degenerated to the point where an axe, or, better still, a guillotine is called for.

I personally tend to have a catholic taste in woodworking styles, with the result that my place is filled with a hotch potch of furniture. I tend to make pieces that I will find interesting or challenging rather than because they correspond to my aesthetic preferences. Thus, I made a couple of zigzag chairs to see if it was feasible rather than because I liked the design. But I would balk at making a bombé chest of drawers, because I don't think the result would justify the effort. But if someone gave me one, I certainly wouldn't burn it.

It seems to me to be futile to rubbish a style like Shaker, Federal, or Arts and Crafts, since, even if you don't like it, lots of other people do. Incidentally, I am having a go at making the Federal card-table featured in FW #180. I shall probably pass on the stringing, though. Again, I am making the table primarily for the challenge that it presents, since I have no particular need for a card-table, and I have no other pieces of furniture in that style.

Rocker

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

You seemed to swerve away from my wondering at what qualifications you had for speaking on behalf of the "that the absolute majority of learned designer/historians all over the world" though.


P (professional designer/amateur historian)

I have to be carefull how i write this as you seem to be a very sensitive fellow, so ill try to keep this free of any percieved insults

I have agnowledged on numerous occasions that we have/had so many remarkable maker/designers, truly world class. My original point is we havnt a readily reconisable style of our own. Someone who i realy admired was Krimper, who i never said was "timeless" and incedently, his biography staits his influences were Biedermeier and that of Central European folk furniture, not Scandinavian Modernist.

You said Scandinavian Modernist hasnt been mentioned, not so. Andy Mac staited "more pared-down style (laidback?) which combines Shaker, Arts & Craft, a little bit of Scandinavian cool with Japanese Zen" I also posted the Pritman & Eames site, and the influence of Scandinavian Modernist is very evident in the work shown. Some people in this forum think that modern American designer/makers are along with their designs stupid, but they also have embraced aspects of the scandanavian style, which shows in so much of their contemporary offerings. Obviously Krenov has played a great part in that as he is reviered in the States, and his style owes greatly to his mentors Carl Malmsten (who was also later on inspired by the Barnsley's ) and George Bolin who were both fine examples of their craft.

Your discussion of Scandinavian Modernist followed quickly with that of Mackintosh and Guimard, that may have given some the impression that they are connected, as we know their was no conection between the two. As Mackintosh was a combination of Arts and Crafts and Art Nouveau, in some ways he can be seen as timeless, He had only a brief period of succsess and was almost totaly ignored in the latter part of his life, it wasnt till the seventys that he was "Re-discovered" And Guimard was known more for his architecture than his furniture. For mine Majorelle was the finest exponent of Art Noveau furniture, but thats just my thoughts and naturaly you will disagree with all i have said.

You did state that "their work two centuries ago still fills a gap in the common perception of contemporary" Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that another way of saying its timeles. You may not think so, but in my mind it sounds like it. But thats neither here nor their, as at no stage have i staited that design is timeless. Re-read and you will see i refered to Ruhlman as having timeless Qualitys, big difference.

And as for "I did wonder at what qualifications you had for speaking on behalf of the "that the absolute majority of learned designer/historians all over the world" --- At which point did i state that i was speaking on behalf of the majority of designer/historians? I didnt. I stated that the absolute majority would not agree that Ruhlman is "Ho-hum".

You seem to be a learned one when it comes to design, i to follow it, and i have NEVER ever read anything to the contry. Have you? if so share it please. Id be interested for you to let me know who it is that thinks that way regarding Ruhlman. I agree with Rocker. This thread has been facinating and why should we as woodworkers bag styles. If we dont like them so what. Why carnt we just apreciate them for what they are. Good woodwork. This thread has degenerated, shame as it was interesting

No Rocker, it's just diverted temporarily, but we're used to that!

Is there a difference between "catholic" and "eclectic"?

I don't think that one should be wedded to one particular style, eventually every designer develops his own pallette of ideas and details, as do most craftsmen.

What the end user does with the product is another topic again. Surely it is no less valid to decorate with an eclectic mix of styles than it is to use a single consistent one?

Your own furnishing is even more "valid" in one sense as it shows a real journey of both style and workmanship. It tells a story and also reflects yourself, and stories are what homes are about.

On the other hand, I think the only times I've seen a consistent furnishing style used are in museums, and national heritage buildings. Even palaces were often (mostly) furnished with eclectic collections of work of renowned artisans. Each piece stood alone.

It was really only the advent of historians, who realised after the fact that the utilitarian peasant styles (including Shaker stuff) did in fact present as a consistent "style". Consistent style was in my thesis, born out of having a lack of resources to buy something more decorative!

I suspect that it was not until the late 19th century, with the advent of the Art Nouveau, Art Deco and Modernist movements, that any intellectual consistency was sought.

Mass production eventually led to further consistencies, and made "reproduction" furniture available to the masses.

If you want to see a great example of how money doesn't buy good taste, pick up an edition of "Florida Lifestyle" magazine one day. In those pages you will see the most exquisite workmanship, but not many of us could live with the product!

Anyways, if my point is lost on anyone... well I have no idea what I was trying to say anyway, and the epoxy is getting close to the time when I can put another coat on!



cheers,

P

Well I just finished a job in a style best described as "Traditional English". It is a quite plain style, everything straight and with a round profile. The finish was sanded to 120 grit, 1 coat of 50% diluted white shellac, and finished with a coat of UBeaut Traditional Wax buffed with a swansdown mop.
The owner of this commisioned job was so excited and pleased with the project that he threw his arms around me and said "Thanks Pa".

Yep, a set of cricket stumps and bails for my young grandson.
That "Thanks Pa" was worth a million bucks.

Afternoon, all (well, it's afternoon for me, anyway);
Please forgive me for barging in, particularly since I have nothing to add to the topic. I'd just like to respectfully ask that this thread not be closed- sometimes stuff needs to work itself out.

BTW, what's a Ruhlman? Is it like a Walkman, but for measuring?

Peace and blessings, it's that time of year...

Rusty
(Back to lurking, now).

P.S. This has been one of those pathetic posting-to-say-that-I've-nothing-to-say-posts, hasn't it? Darn.

Lignum, now THAT's more like it!!

Originally Posted by Lignum

Your discussion of Scandinavian Modernist followed quickly with that of Mackintosh and Guimard, that may have given some the impression that they are connected,

not intended but you are right about the impression

but thats just my thoughts and naturaly you will disagree with all i have said

Not at all, I am pleased to have something other than unsubstantiated guff, and pleased that you "took the bait" and responded.

You did state that "their work two centuries ago still fills a gap in the common perception of contemporary" Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that another way of saying its timeles.

Well it was late at night! No, people label it as timeless, but if you look at the Mackintosh knock-offs or any of the other "classic' knock-offs, you will see an evolution of form, proportion and detail. The fact that there hasn't been any mainstream advance for 150 years doesn't make something timeless.

It's easy to spot the era, it's just that some mistake stuff for being "modern" when clearly it was designed in Scotland in 1895 or whatever.

I stated that the absolute majority would not agree that Ruhlman is "Ho-hum".

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that!

You seem to be a learned one when it comes to design, i to follow it, and i have NEVER ever read anything to the contry. Have you? if so share it please.

Well there's : http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...2&postcount=87

Id be interested for you to let me know who it is that thinks that way regarding Ruhlman.

Ross and I do.

I agree with Rocker. This thread has been facinating and why should we as woodworkers bag styles. If we dont like them so what.

'Cause this is a discussion. That's what you get when TWO differing opinions are presented. DISCUSSION. No need to get uptight because someone has a different view. NOTHING you have read on this thread is wholly correct anyway!!

We only learn by talking and getting a reaction, perhaps I should have just taken your word for it, and bought a heap of Ruhlman masterpieces.... nah we've both had to think a bit..isn't that why you posted in the first place?

Why carnt we just apreciate them for what they are. Good woodwork.

Isn't that the point I've been trying to make..."Good WOODWORK is what they are!!!! Ruhlman is a GREAT woodworker probably, but is he a great designer???

Cheers,(and thanks for getting back!)

P

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

It was really only the advent of historians, who realised after the fact that the utilitarian peasant styles (including Shaker stuff) did in fact present as a consistent "style". Consistent style was in my thesis, born out of having a lack of resources to buy something more decorative!

Actually, I think you may be mistaken there about Shaker style. Based on the photos I've seen (I've never seen the originals in real life, more on this in a minute), style seems to have been thought out if not from the outset, then not long after. As I understand the Shaker movement, there were rules about almost everything, including colour, hardware and other ornamentation. I'm still trying to track these down and I will report back when/if I find them.

Now, seeing things in photographs and seeing them in real life are not the same. I've spent a lot of time looking at antique furniture in museums and in auction rooms.

If anyone here hasn't seen good late-Georgian/Regency (English), American Federal or First Empire (French) period furniture, you really should take the opportunity when you can. Even if you don't like the style, it's still worth a look.

Originally Posted by markharrison

IEven if you don't like the style, it's still worth a look.

Absolutely agree. I'm amazed with the results those old crafsmen got with just a few simple hand tools.

Far better woodworkers than I'll ever be.

Although they did have a lifetime to spend on it I suppose.

[quote=bitingmidge]

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

'Cause this is a discussion. That's what you get when TWO differing opinions are presented. DISCUSSION. No need to get uptight because someone has a different view. NOTHING you have read on this thread is wholly correct anyway!!

Having a different view in all things is esential in all matters. How boring would the world be if we all had the same thoughts. I get uptight when people needlesly rubbishes something with out giving it much thought. As pointed out before Shed bagged over the top American federal ornait stuff, then went on to bag Shaker. How silly is that. If we carnt embrace as many styles as possible how can we efectivly develope our own. You can, but not as effective.

I recently had a bit to do with a young woman who graduated from RMIT with a good reputation as an emerging designer, but she only had eyes for what is comming out of Europe that has strong over tones of Bauhaus. She hated all other styles. I quized her on her thoughts of so many of the great designers of years gone by, and it astounded me that as a graduate of design she hadn`t heard of any of them! (Also thought Golden Mean was what you put on pancakes) What do they teach them. So she realy struggled to design anything that didnt have chrome or glass or plastics. Anything to be designed and made totaly out of wood, was way beond her abilities.

My point being, if she dosnt like other styles, thats ok, but as a designer if she had taken an interest and studied up on Art Deco, Arts & Crafts, Edwardian, Regancy, Sheridan or Shaker etc, then their would have been so many styles and influences buried in her design subconcious, and it naturaly would have moved her closer to being a more complete student of her craft.

Its the same here in this thread. Instead of people needlesly bagging a style, why not look and learn from it. If you dont like ornait carvings and gaudy fixtures of American Federal, fine, instead of rubbishing why not mentaly strip away what you dont like and learn to apreciate its form. You may see a curve or an edge or detail of leg or the particular way a panell intersects another. Its all about storing knowledge in ur nut. One day it will pop out and add an extra dimention to what you are making. And that has to be a possitive thing

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

NOTHING you have read on this thread is wholly correct anyway!!

:confused: Could you please elaborate on this piont!

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Isn't that the point I've been trying to make..."Good WOODWORK is what they are!!!! Ruhlman is a GREAT woodworker probably, but is he a great designer???

Cheers,(and thanks for getting back!)

P

Other way round He probably never picked up a hammer in his life. But yes he was a superb designer. I know its all subjective, but the numbers of admirers " in the business' are to many to dissagree with that.

Frank lloyd Wright hasnt been mentioned yet. He was without doubt one of the truely great designers of modern times. Mainly known for his architecture, but he also left a legacy with some great furniture.

And for the curious out their, check out the history of his "Taliesen" house that was the sceen of an horiffic murder by their hired hand. LLoyd Wright was late for a dinner party at the house, and in the mean time the crazy hired hand poured petrol around the parimiter of the house, leaving just the entrance to the house then setting fire to it. As the people inside fled he greeted them at the door with an axe. Killing Frank`s mistress and her two children and three other guests...ouch:eek: What a nutter.

Originally Posted by markharrison

Actually, I think you may be mistaken there about Shaker style. Based on the photos I've seen (I've never seen the originals in real life, more on this in a minute), style seems to have been thought out if not from the outset, then not long after.

Not mistaken, but taking liberties! I am not really into broadly misquoting, but shooting from the hip tends to cause that to occur in the spirit of an argument!

Grab a hold of a couple of books on the Shaker movement rather than the furniture per se, the furniture histories rarely tell the whole intriguing storey!

Nonetheless, the style did grow from the original (English) roots, and as I recall the style rules evolved to prevent decoration occuring as the communities "prospered". I have a feeling in the back of my scone that there was some Dutch influence as well in te traditional design, but can't recall why: it's been a while since I knew that stuff!

This has all prompted me to pull out some old books and go and study again!

and once again... a lot of what I have vomited in the last half dozen posts is even more useless than my usual drivel, so any knowledgeable expansion/discussion would be welcome!
cheers,

P