Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Age
    76
    Posts
    2,078

    Default Modern design vs reproduction

    The discussion that Derek Cohen started in the Tools forum on the subject of what turns you on in woodworking got me thinking a bit more widely. In particular, it got me thinking about design and even more specifically about furniture design. Here are a couple of thoughts

    • Reading Australian Wood Review and some UK and US magazines has convinced me that Aussie woodies are more inclined towards modern, contemporary furniture design than our British and American counterparts. The majority of the work in the overseas mags, well executed though it certainly is, is generally fairly dated from a design viewpoint. There seems to be an overwhelming emphasis on copying old and even antique designs. (That should stir up the septics! – or even the sceptics! – as well as the to-and-froms!).

    • This raises the issue of what our preferences are as individuals. I’ll state my case. I prefer modern design. To reproduce old furniture designs, it seems to me, is not creative. It ignores advancing technology and the influences of other aspects of modern design.

    • I like real antiques. Aside from their aesthetic appeal, there is something really impressive in the fact that a real antique has survived for a long time and still displays the results of the skill and patience of the original craftsman. (I wish I could afford a few more!)

    • That having been said, I can see that there is great merit in faithfully replicating some old work. I saw a segment on one of the US TV shows about a bloke who made faithful replicas of old furniture, using the original tools, even making his own nails in an old forge. Not for me - but I can appreciate the point of what he was doing. Another example: the replica ships - Cook’s Endeavour and the Duyfken, built here in WA - in Fremantle. They are genuine replicas, not mere reproductions. The craftsman who built the replicas followed the design and the construction methods of the original ships as closely as possible. This type of work is different from the production of something that merely looks like an old artefact but has been made by using modern tools and technology.

    What do you think? Let’s have some opinions. I’ll bet you don’t all agree with me and I’m really interested to hear what you have to say.

    Driver

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





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Drop Bear Capital of Gippsland (Lang Lang) Vic Australia
    Age
    74
    Posts
    6,518

    Default

    There is nothing new about reproduction/replicas and this can be the downfall of many an antique collector.
    Reproduction goes back several centuries and you can have a reproduction that is in fact a genuine antique, albeit a few years out.
    Having said that, a lot of crud was available and simply did not go the distance and only the better quality article survived which is now what collectors are seeking.
    Now, having said that, the opposite can also be true.
    I collect clocks and watches and I am amazed at the prices that Waterbury and Ansonia clocks command.
    In their day they were mass produced, throw away items, not worth repairing. Put out at the rate of some 5000 per day and today command a price of $500+ for a clock in fair condition.
    Ye Gods, they don't even keep accurate time.
    I have a few and will keep them but they are not on display as I do not think they are that good, so much for 1850's workmanship (Waterbury was originally owned by Remington and taken over by Timex, and we all know about Timex quality).
    I think there is a lot of quality furniture available today but it is not going to be found at the Hardly Normal or K Mart outlets and one has to look hard to find such an article, probably the same as our great great grand parents did.
    Stupidity kills. Absolute stupidity kills absolutely.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    16

    Default

    It is funny you should post this Driver. I was wondering what you Aussies prefer. I am trying to get a feeling from reading the posts here but it is not easy.

    There is a lot of copying over here in both the US and Canada. If you go to The Taunton press website www.tauntonpress.com I think and view some of the readers work you will also see a fair bit of modern design as well.

    I prefer the less is more approach to design. I prefer a flat panel as oppose to a raised panel for instance. I would prefer just a cove moulding instead of an intricate moulding design like Norn on The New Yankee Workshop would create. Ornate stuff like Queen Anne Furniture is just not for me. I can appreciate teh complexity of this type of furniture but there is something about Simplicity that gives a feel of elegance to a piece of furniture.

    IMHO the thing that matters the most is not if it is modern or a replica but is it made well. Did the person choose his wood properly. Does the grain pattern match throughout the piece? Are all the joints properly done. Did he choose the right joinery for the project? After all something that is poorly made is still ugly no matter what the design is.

    Mark

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Osaka
    Posts
    909

    Default

    I think the fashion has changed somewhat. Once upon a time it seems that intricate designs were in vogue and craftsman showed their skill by producing work to suit. Now it seems that the "skill" is in letting the wood speak for itself - choosing an understated design that lets the wood show its qualities.

    Have a look at these places:

    http://www.tessa.com.au/
    http://www.designmobel.co.nz/

    You will notice a simplicity of design that will outlast fads and trends. Tessa for example still sell the same model (T21) chair that my parents bought in the late '60's/early '70's! Some of the design mobel bedroom furniture is equally time resistant - the designs are mostly simple and elegant with not a lot to get sick of.

    I have never been attracted to overly ornate designs - too much like my grandma would have - puke!

    So to get back on track - I prefer to go for something with simple elegance rather than trying to reproduce something whose time is past. I do not feel creative when copying something so I would rather design and build from the ground up something that doesn't yet exist.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Drop Bear Capital of Gippsland (Lang Lang) Vic Australia
    Age
    74
    Posts
    6,518

    Default

    And having said that, I have an absolute hate for anything shaker, too simplistic and crude. My opinion only as I am aware that a lot of people love it.
    Stupidity kills. Absolute stupidity kills absolutely.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    I have enjoyed the responses so far and find that I can identify with parts of all.

    I find it impossible to separate out good furniture design from art. While furniture is primarily about function, which is often easily overlooked in the need to find a desirable form, it is the way that this is realised that often excites me. I love wood, for its texture, smell, colour, grain, and every piece has a unique quality that just begs to become a show piece (I find myself quite unable to paint the pieces I make). Good furniture enables this process. It may combine wood with other materials, such as steel or leathure, but the object of wooden furniture is to portray the unique qualities of the wood itself.

    I find that I am drawn to simple lines as a result. Not simple furniture, per se, but rather that which conveys the message of the wood in an uncomplicated way. Thus ornate designs (eg Queen Anne) are overwhelming, complex mouldings can be too busy, and constructions that ignore the flow and patterning of the grain create a sense of conflict. None of those are either relaxing or art. On the other hand, I like the lines of the Shaker movement. I am not mad about many of their actual pieces, however, since I am not drawn to rustic furniture. But the Shaker concepts have a lightness and purity about them. Similarly, Japanese designs have this elegance, and a combination of form and function. I am reading and re-reading James Krenov at present and find his philosophy of design so appealling.

    I also enjoy building Mission-inspired pieces. I will post pictures (once our camera is repaired!) of a kingsize bed in Jarrah that I have recently completed, and of which I am very proud. I am now working on the bedside tables. Some of Frank Lloyd Wright's furniture is just plane creative.

    Although it may appear that I'm showing a preference for more modern designs I must explain that this is not so. The styles I mentioned before have in common an emphasis on balance. I suppose other words used here are line and proportion. One of the favourite pieces of furniture we own is a 200 year-old dining room table that was originally a common kitchen table built to seat 6. I bought it 25 years ago in South Africa, where it had been made by refugee French Hugenots. It combines a light top (Yellowwood, a silky and warm, almost grainless wood) with dark, turned legs (made from Stinkwood, dark light Ebony). The turned legs have a simple, delicate line, quite unlike their stout and heavier English counterparts, and it is this aspect that makes a classic and timeless design in my opinion.

    OK, I think I have rambled enough. Forgive my verbal diarrhoea. I look forward to reading the thoughts of all others.

    Warm regards from Perth

    Derek

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Brisbane, Qld.
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    What are we talking about here? design styles or the argument about the pro's & con's of reproductions?

    Just cause a piece of furniture is built to replicate older design styles dosn't mean its a reproduction.

    I've built many reproduction pieces that have been placed next the original and out of a panel of expert (or so called! haha) antique dealers havn't picked the reproduction pieces as being repro....But I have also designed and built pieces of furniture for clients based on older design styles, I believe the two are different.

    Its a bit like the FORD vs HOLDEN arguement really. MODERN vs OLD...

    Personally I like both. That is FORD & HOLDEN... oh and MODERN & OLD....

    If I can find some pics of some reproduction pieces I have made I will post them. but I don't think I do anymore...

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
    Posts
    161

    Default

    hi all,
    i like the modern furniture style, well designed to highlight the charachter of the wood and well made.
    antique furniture to me is to busy with moldings etc . but i do appreciate the effort these craftsmen put in.
    the other style i deffinantly dont like is this artsy stuff, 1 piece of ply bent into a shape that looks like a seat and a $1000 price tag.
    seeyasoon mik.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Tolmie - Victoria
    Age
    68
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    Interesting thoughts, probably like most people, I agree with parts of all replies.

    I think design encompasses the style, aesthetics, mechanical stability, the place or person for where or whom the piece is being made and functionality if necessary or perhaps a theme in the example of a competition. Selection of timber should be made taking these factors into account. Quite often though I have found time and cost to be big factors in a design.

    Just like music, I find all styles of furniture have a place and time which also depends on my mood. In most cases I am not asked to design/make/select a piece that will be in isolation. So a style for a piece to be surrounded by antiques doesn't have to be a copy, it can be unique but in harmony with the other furniture.

    Antiques - there are some antiques with terrible workmanship that have somehow stood the test of time. Some I have seen have nailed joints and drawers constructed not using dovetails. Surely this is inexcusable as the knowledge of the functionality of dovetail drawers is not new. I have heard some people say junk has always been made and generally junk doesn't last long so the general standard of workmanship in surviving old furniture is good, otherwise it would not have lasted. Many antiques are brilliantly designed crafted and have stood the test of time with durability and style.

    Perhaps we have our favourite styles rather than a favourite style. Most of my designs are additional pieces to an existing environment so my likes/dislikes do not have a major influence on the style.

    - Wood Borer

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Donvale, Vic
    Posts
    148

    Default Reproduction Furniture

    Most of the people ( mainly friends, acquaintances etc) for whom I make furniture pieces can't afford originals - but have a preference for older styles which must be copied or reproduced. Earlier, I posted in the "Picture Gallery" , a Refectory Table - the style is centuries old. And altho' the timber used is re-cycled, in this case, 70 yr old, it is still a "reproduction"
    As a hobbyist, I can't make "modern" furniture at the same cost as the "big guys"
    However, I can make a traditional reproduction from re-cycled timber in the same style, ( if you will forgive the Phillip Head screws hidden& covered in the carcass, rather than slot-head screws) & similar finish , far cheaper than most of your "modern" styles.
    mick

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rosebud Vict AUS
    Age
    83
    Posts
    437

    Red face Design in the 21st Century

    As an "old codger" I have seen fads in design come and go. There was the Swedish/Nordic phase, Queen Anne etc. etc. However there are two basic criteria that, in my most humble opinion, creates what i term "timeless design". Elements have been touched on by various contributors, but here is my "two penneth" (dates me doesn't it!)
    * Criteria 1 The design must be functional, comfortable, useable. Simplicity tends to be the hardest thing to create at the same time as fulfilling this criteria. Ornateness (probably not in the dictionary!) has tended to be used to cover poor underlying workmanship.

    * Criteria 2 The design needs to have structural integrity. By this I mean the dsign elements that create strength, stability, durability (Like raised panels and breadboard end table tops to compensate for wood movement)

    Overall appearance tends to follow these two elements, however some issues that the old masters discovered that tend to be ignored by the mass producers include tapers and curves that are invisible to the eye, but compensate for optical illusions in e.g. cabinet legs. Curves need to be both good in a tactile sense as well as optically. These elements , if used today with 'modern" design" will be just as valid.

    Modern (current) technologies can lead to design possibilities that just were not possible in older times, and the environment influence design as well, furniture that was made to suit a room with a 3.6 m ceiling just doesn't look good in a jennings hut.
    I believe that Australian furniture design is evolving into it's own identity, and even Bungendore creations that are by definition, extreme, are part of the scene and while autre, are still a positive contribution to the total scene.
    Finally, I do not consider that recreations (as in total look-alikes, or copies, fakes, counterfeits) have any place in the serious woodworkers portfolio, but using the traditional design elements to create a new peice is a totally valid way to express creativity.
    Jacko, his word

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
  •