Thread: Rietveld

Originally Posted by silentC

No, it's just meant to resemble a house...

My point was not the words, but that there's no escaping what the words mean -- if that makes sense. The chair and your shelves were doing similar things: making something that looks like something else as a form of expression beyond absolute functionality. Rietveld may have set out to do so, and you did not conciously do so, but I don't think that matters. Personally I find it interesting that the Rietveld minimalist 'art' provokes remarks about "form following function" from someone who unconciously designs a set of shelves that include a roof and decorative roundels, dentilles, etc.

I like Kayu's reproduction of this famous piece of furniture, sorry, sculpture!
To try it without the colour would have been pointless. As Zenwood pointed out, the colours were intentional, well considered and carefully executed. Combined, the whole thing is a like three dimensional De Stijl painting.
Was it meant as chair? Maybe no more than a painting of a chair.
I can see the validity in what the critics have to say...nothing better than a comfy chair , but I don't think that was its intention. If it was simply meant as an exercise in chairness, in provoking others to debate "what is a chair?", it certainly succeeded. I reckon its worked here!!

Chairs,

Not wanting to be accused of being a waffling philistine.
I agree with Zenwood on this one Silent. It matters little what your conscious intentions were with the design, and I doubt we will really know the real thing of MrRietveld. You and him are like "that" brother.

I like Andy MAcs observation about it being an exercise in chairness.

P.S. I saw a pic of Rietvelds Z chair today. Hell they look great for a chiropractors waitng room.

I could not disagree more. Rietveld has deliberately set out to design a chair that 'challenges' what people think about chairs. His intention was to stir people up. My humble teddy bear shelf was just an attempt to make an otherwise plain rectangular box look a bit more interesting. I'm not attempting to do something arty, just having a bit of fun with a mundane object. It is also not anywhere near an original concept - it is a very common form. People have been making things just like this ever since they started collecting teaspoons. I am just following the fashion. I did not do it unconciously; I did it thinking "let's make it look like a house" - not "I am creating a space that is an abstract of the concept of a house".

What I rail against is the gibberish that surrounds the 'art'. If you want to say to me that my teddy bear shelf is not suited to it's purpose, or that it looks silly, or that the bears look uncomfortable, then by all means do so. I will not defend it by saying that I was trying to create a space for teddy bears to come to life or some other waffle, I will say "well, I have failed to make a suitable shelf for teddy bears".

Rietveld and his supporters on the other hand, would say that the problem is that I do not understand his message. This is elitist crap.

My final commne ton this, cos remember we don't want another heated debate, is simply this.

Your rebuttal of my argument sounds just like a Rietveldism.

I fear a lot of the elitism, artycrafty crap comes from pelicans who understand chairs, art, and wood one hell of a lot less than yourself.

This thread doesn't seem complete without the Z-chair, as well as an example of Piet Mondrian's Red Blue and Yellow.

(See

http://www.mukogawa-u.ac.jp/~suzuki/...zig-zag-chair/

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian.)

Originally Posted by zenwood

This thread doesn't seem complete without the Z-chair

The latest Australian Wood Review has an article describing in detail how to make one, for anyone who's interested.

Gonna hafta get me a copy of the AWR then; for the life of me I can't see why the Z-chair wouldn't instantly transform into a flat-pack should someone dare to actually use it as a chair... :confused:

Saw that article, JB. I'm thinking of adapting the design to make a couple of z-style side tables. Should be strong and they also nest: way cool.

Today, I tried out a test of a hand-cut dovetailed z-joint. Wasn't too complicated but marking out and clamping the piece while cutting is awkward. I may decide on the mitred option, as in the chair, and do mitre keys. I want to avoid the supplementary block inside the corners: they spoil the design (to my eye), and would also interfere with the nesting.

Skew: those joints are mighty strong. The author has stood at the rear of the chair, and just got a little bit of flexing due to the natural spring of the wood.

I wonder if mitre joins with angles adjusted appropriately reinforced with biscuits and then dovetail keys using a jig similar to rockers in the link below would give enough strength to the joint to do away with the braces? The dovetail keys (splines?) should tighten the joint as it tries to separate as downward force is placed on the joint. Might have to try a scale run and see how it works once my other jobs have made some progress of course

http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=17974&highlight=blanket+chest

Originally Posted by zenwood

Skew: those joints are mighty strong. The author has stood at the rear of the chair, and just got a little bit of flexing due to the natural spring of the wood.

You've read the article? Good, maybe you can clear up a few things for me. I'm only going by the photo in this thread and can't see how the front edge is joined. I was assuming 'tis similar to the way the base is joined, which appears to be simply mitred but may be a fancy compound blind dovetail? :confused:

The way I see it, the corner block in the angles would act as a fulcrum so any weight put onto the back of the chair would tend to "seperate" the front joint, making it more a test of faith in the strength of the adhesive than joint design. If the front is dovetailed, instead of a plain mitre or being finger-jointed like the back-rest, this'd alleviate the problem but still wouldn't solve it.

I really can't see where any joint strength comes from besides the glue! Unless he's cunningly bored it out and fitted a subframe of concrete-reo.

Not that I disbleieve what you say about the strength... I'm just trying to understand how & why it works.

Hang on...I'll go get the article...

OK, on the original Rietveld chair the foot, leg, and seat "were joined at 45° with mitred butt joints, each held together with a row of bolts through a triangular wedge. These bolts also served to clamp the joints if glue was used".

The author's (John Winder's) redesign "has only three countersunk screws coming though each mitre joint, with the wedges simply glued in place at the time the mitres are glued and screwed."

Concerning the joint strength, he says, "the zigzag chair seems unable to support its user, as both lean into open space--an intriguing prospect for new users. However, even standing on the seat at the back edge doesn't tip it, because the centre of gavity is within its footprint. As the chair flexes a little in use, it's more comfortable than one expects..."

(Later he mentions that the screwheads are countersunk from underneath and plugged for concealment.)

Have tried experimenting with dovetail and mitred z-joints, and have discovered that shifting to the the universe of 45° is very different from 90°-land. Clamping the workpieces is quite awkward and requires some specialised jigs. I didn't have a jig for the dovetails: claming them in the vice and sawing 'uphill' while crouching on my knees led to some severe overshoot in sawing.

Anyone got any suggestion for holding such a piece at 45° in the vise?

The mitre is certainly easier to cut, and may be just as strong by the time I put a few keys in along the joint.

Someone help me decide which way to go...

(PS Is it time to start a new thread?)

Ah, I see. Thanks Zenwood, that clears it up. Personally I'd prefer the added security of knowing it was bolted rather than screwed, but if it works...

I've also made a jig that may give you some ideas for holding your work. It's not elegant but it works for my purposes. Sorry, no pics but I'll try to give a brief, concise explanation.

Basically it's a 90x45mm pine stud some 2' long that had been ripped lengthwise @ a 45o angle. I clamped the two pieces back together and at each end I drilled a pair of holes, sized for dowels, a bit further apart than the width of the vice's' jaws. Unclamping the pieces, I glued dowels into one piece then redrilled the holes in the other slightly larger, so the dowels'd slide freely. The dowels are simply to prevent the pieces from slipping along the board when clamped.

The workpiece is simply clamped between the two boards, with the vice between the dowels at one end and a g-clamp (or similar) between the dowels at the other. When heavy clamping is needed I'll add offcuts slightly thinner than the workpiece between the clamping points, just so's I don't snap the beast.