Replies

1. 
   Samson | Sep 28, 2009 07:54pm | #1

   I very much like Pye's book, and his thoughts are useful, if for no other reason than they stimulate rumination and reflection on the part of the reader.

   I think the design/workmanship dichotomy, while perhaps useful in exploring the act of making, is confusing in the typical context of hobbiest woodworking, where risks in design are an even more daunting, equally crucial to success, and perhaps even less understood.

   In both design and workmanship risk is essential in that it leaves room for expression and orginality - both threshold issues for making a successful new piece of art.  Taking risks won't necessarily make the work good, but absent risks, there is little chance of doing something other than making reproductions of other's successful works. 

   Risk leaves room for individual expression, whereas certainty washes individual expression out.

1. 
   joinerswork | Sep 29, 2009 03:37pm | #5

   Sam,

   "In both design and workmanship risk is essential in that it leaves room for expression and orginality - both threshold issues for making a successful new piece of art.  Taking risks won't necessarily make the work good, but absent risks, there is little chance of doing something other than making reproductions of other's successful works. 

   Risk leaves room for individual expression, whereas certainty washes individual expression out."

   I believe you are using the word "risk" to mean something different from Pye's definition.  Pye's "worknamship of risk" is the risk of spoiling the job, ie having an outcome different from the makers design (intent, ideal).  So, there can be risk involved in making a reproduction if the outcome is less than certain that the copy will be a match for the original. 

   I would rephrase your statement about risk and certainty to read: Risk makes individual expression a matter of luck (to the degree that risks are taken), whereas certainty eliminates the intrusion of elements extraneous to the designer's ideal (to the extent that risk is eliminated).

   It seems that you are of the opinion that innovation occurs only as a result of accidental deviation from the maker's intent.  I disagree that such is always the case.

   It is certainly possible that a maker may have an original thought- conceive an original design- which may only be expressed by a close adherance to the ideal; think of the subtlety of the line of a particular cabriole leg, or the line of a Krenovian style cabinet's apron.  The nearer one approaches to workmanship of certainty,( either thru jigging of machine tools, or the interposition of skilled craftsmanship on workmanship of risk,) the less risk, and the greater certainty that the designer's original expression will be realised.

   Ray

    

1. 
   Samson | Sep 29, 2009 04:56pm | #6

   SH:  "Risk leaves room for individual expression, whereas certainty washes individual expression out."

   RP:  "I believe you are using the word "risk" to mean something different from Pye's definition.  Pye's "workmanship of risk" is the risk of spoiling the job, ie having an outcome different from the makers design (intent, ideal).  So, there can be risk involved in making a reproduction if the outcome is less than certain that the copy will be a match for the original."

   I don't think I'm redefining risk.  The ultimate riding the edge of risk to me is imagining Michaelangelo chipping away at David - one poor strike, and some necessary marble is gone that can't be put back.  I think I may be confusing things by talking about risk in design as just another form of the risks in making.  But even sticking to Pye's focus on the risk in "making,"  what I'm focused on is the same things as Pye - if you can ruin something, you by definition are making a choice or exerting skill that will result in some expression of the maker's will and hand.  It is these expressions - this evidence of will and hand - that leave room for the art Pye mentions in his title and elsewhere.  Indeed there is room for such evidence of hand in reproductions, and reproductions can be beautiful, but a reproduction, by definition took no risks in design; it was the "designmanship of certainty," to coin a phrase.

   RP:  "I would rephrase your statement about risk and certainty to read: Risk makes individual expression a matter of luck (to the degree that risks are taken), whereas certainty eliminates the intrusion of elements extraneous to the designer's ideal (to the extent that risk is eliminated)."

   I don't know if I'm following your thinking here.  While luck certainly plays a role as we can't control everything, success is not usually achieved without the exercise of will.  Again, I think Pye's dichotomy between designer and maker is tripping us up.  It gives us two separate wills and intents, that may or may not be in harmony.  The designer's ideal may not really be ideal, so to speak. 

   RP:  "It seems that you are of the opinion that innovation occurs only as a result of accidental deviation from the maker's intent.  I disagree that such is always the case."

   I don't think that's my opinion.  I definitely don't think that innovation is only ever accidental; evolution may be ;-), but not innovation in art.    I think creation is a complicated process where we ride the edges of a lot of things at once.  We certainly have intent, and intent is necessary, as well as the skill to realize those intentions.  But we also have luck, and that is often necessary too.  We also need attention so that if something goes other than intended, we can recognize whether it is indeed better than what we intended or not.  We have the ability to imagine the result and move towards it, but as soon as we start to move, we have to keep on reassessing and reacting. 

   RP:  "It is certainly possible that a maker may have an original thought- conceive an original design- which may only be expressed by a close adherance to the ideal; think of the subtlety of the line of a particular cabriole leg, or the line of a Krenovian style cabinet's apron."

   When I use the word "maker," I'm referring to the workman.  You seem to be using it to mean the designer??  Or maybe not; perhaps you mean that the workman is tweaking the design as handed to him? 

   RP:  "The nearer one approaches to workmanship of certainty,( either thru jigging of machine tools, or the interposition of skilled craftsmanship on workmanship of risk,) the less risk, and the greater certainty that the designer's original expression will be realised."

   I don't think that even the most skilled craftsman's product produced through the workmanship of risk would ever look like the same product produced through jigged machines - CNC etc.  Do you?

   Edited 9/29/2009 10:05 am ET by Samson

1. 
   joinerswork | Sep 29, 2009 09:10pm | #7

   Sam,

   "I don't think that even the most skilled craftsman's product produced through the workmanship of risk would ever look like the same product produced through jigged machines - CNC etc.  Do you?"

   Here we go.  I guess you are referring to that ineffable something that separates machine work from handwork-  I think that the difference in "look" is primarily a result of time constraints imposed upon the "risky" worker.  Just the sort of thing that Pye refers to in the huge upfront investment of time and effort in the machines that then proceed to $hit out, more quicky than the village tinsmith ever could, bottletops or tin cans.

   Pye as I recall (it's been some time since I've read Art and Nature of Workmanship) compares a piece of paper cut with a paper cutter (jigged to near certainty), a blade following a straightedge (rather more risk) a pair of shears (some higher degree of risk), and a blade freehanded to a line.  Given that the edge of the paper ends up being straight, does the edge of the paper look different being cut by any of the methods?  In what way does the freehand cut straight edge display more straightness for having been nibbled into perfection? 

   I'd posit that the difference in appearance you speak of varies only as does the "risky" workman's deviation from the ideal. 

   Now, if your (the designer's) ideal is one that envisions variations from perfection- the subtle variations that might occur from planing or scraping a table top somewhat out of flat, for instance, or leaving the furrows left by a foreplane on a drawer bottom, or the marks of carving tools on the ball of a ball and claw foot- I'd say that it might be possible to even program some (non-random) variations into that cnc. 

   Ray 

1. 
   Samson | Sep 29, 2009 10:17pm | #8

   RP:  "I'd posit that the difference in appearance you speak of varies only as does the "risky" workman's deviation from the ideal." 

   To quote Charles: I'm surprised.

   It depends upon what you are shooting for I suppose.   Do you think it would make sense for a painter to measure her success by how closely she can produce a picture that looks like a photograph?  Why is the photograph (machine jigged image producer) the "ideal?"

   At the end of the day, the piece in front of you is the thing - is it good or bad - quality or dreck - disappointing or delightful?.  You don't know how each bit and line was arrived at, and it doesn't matter.  That said, different processes tend to produce different results.  A person might strive to produce something that looks machined and a machine might be programmed to produce something to look handmade (I haven't seen it yet though - faux distressing from Ethan Allen etc.  comes to mind - yechhh!), but why?  Let the machine be the machine and man be the man.  I do think the man's work would have more soul and instill more delight.  --   Would you prefer to own such a highboy produced on a CNC machine or one made by William Savery?

   I get the sense you think of creation as a designer's vision being realized as perfectly as possible.  As I remember Pye, he thought of it as more of a collaboration.  An exceptional workman was not an automaton whose skill was measured by how little he deviated from the vision of the designer.  I don't think creation stops with the mind's eye of the designer, I think it necessarily keeps right on going through fabrication.  While fabrication can be automated through tons of front side work and expense, the more economical path to such french fit, hand-tuned quality is a skilled craftsman.   

2. 
   joinerswork | Sep 30, 2009 01:51am | #9

   Sam,

    "Do you think it would make sense for a painter to measure her success by how closely she can produce a picture that looks like a photograph?"

   Only if that was her intent.  If her intent was to produce a portrait that looks like a Picasso cubist creation, her measure of success would be quite different. 

   According to Pye, we are mixing apples and oranges, and further, I think you are trying to mix art and workmanship.  He distinguishes regulated vs free workmanship as separate from good and bad workmanship.  That is, if the intent is only an approximation of "square", as in a stone cobble in a wall, for instance, then close  is close enough.  Such would not be the case in a machinists tool. 

   Finally, he advocates (and I believe you and I, in our own ways are doing so as well) diversity as a good thing to have.  It is this diversity (revealed at many levels or scales, and separate from free vs regulated workmanship-indeed that is included in the diverse-ness) that gives good workmanship the quality of not being boring, and is what makes so called machine work so boring.

    

    "While fabrication can be automated through tons of front side work and expense, the more economical path to such french fit, hand-tuned quality is a skilled craftsman."

   I believe that in cases of "bespoke work" like custom furniture, tailored suits, or double rifles, that may be true, but if you are looking for quantities in the thousands, not so much.  There is where you lose some of that diversity, though.  There is little economy to be found in a box of french fit hand tuned wood screws :-)

   Ray    

    

3. 
   Samson | Sep 30, 2009 03:34am | #10

   Ray,

   Thanks for the dialogue so far.  Let me try again.

   SH:  "Do you think it would make sense for a painter to measure her success by how closely she can produce a picture that looks like a photograph?"

   RP: Only if that was her intent.  If her intent was to produce a portrait that looks like a Picasso cubist creation, her measure of success would be quite different. 

   In your post 8, I understood you to be talking about the product of risk based work(as opposed to machine based/ certainty work) to be full of imperfections that were driven by lack of time or simply incompetence  ["the difference in appearance you speak of varies only as does the "risky" workman's deviation from the ideal"].  Putting all that together, I took it that you were equating the "ideal" with the machine work (hence my use of the camera analogy).  Now you seem to equate the "ideal" with the designer's vision.  I don't think Pye agrees.   As he says: "the design is merely the first of the essentials, and can be nullified by the workman. .... Our environment in its visible aspect owes far more to workmanship than we realize.  There is in the man made world a whole domain of quality which is not the result of design and owes little to the designer."   

   RP:  I think you are trying to mix art and workmanship. 

   You say that like it's a bad thing!  ;-) Let me just quote Pye:  "Unless workmanship comes to be understood and appreciated for the art it is, our environment will lose much of the quality it still retains."  I'd further point to the title, not mention Pye's own works, many of which are far from strictly utilitarian or, if you prefer, merely "craft."  I read Pye as seeing the art in things like well made furniture produced through the methods of risk.  While we can point to wood screws and bottle caps, I think that for purposes of this woodworking board, it makes more sense to think of Pye and his theses in the woodworking context.  I admit, some of us don't aspire to make art.  Arguably, many of the maker's of the masterpieces in Sack's books didn't think of themselves as artist either, but the pieces are what they are - beautiful objects that evoke positive emotional aesthetic responses from us, i.e., art.

   RP: Finally, he advocates (and I believe you and I, in our own ways are doing so as well) diversity as a good thing to have.  It is this diversity (revealed at many levels or scales, and separate from free vs regulated workmanship-indeed that is included in the diverse-ness) that gives good workmanship the quality of not being boring, and is what makes so called machine work so boring.

   Of course I agree on all counts with you here.

   Diversity kicks as$; take contiuous arm windsor chairs.  They are a well known form, but every maker seems to have slightly different methods and prefences such that Curtis Buchanan's chairs have a different look than Mike Dunbar's, whose are different from Drew Langsners and on and on.  Machine are truly inferior here as, of necessity, they employ dried and cut wood as opposed to green and riven, as well as spitting out spindles and assembling without regard to grain etc. to produce something that is hardly in league with the best of the workman.  Go John Henry!

   Edited 9/29/2009 10:43 pm ET by Samson

4. 
   9619 | Sep 30, 2009 05:05am | #14

   Sean,

   Enjoyed reading the interchange between you and Ray. 

   I have a brother who considers himself an artist.  He uses the word "art" and "artist" a lot.     I like Richard Jones' discussions of "design".    IMHO, he is an artist, yet, there is a down to Earth quality in how he looks at his creation of new designs.  I really really like that.

   I remember once, I complimented you on your ability and willingness to take risks in the design of a cabinet you were posting photos of.  You might have thought that I was overstating the case, but I wasn't.  

   It doesn't matter how an person talks about his work, I am interested in the outcome.  If I like it, and it is a new design, then it is art to me.   Art, like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.   

   Have fun. Keep posting. 

   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

5. 
   Samson | Sep 30, 2009 05:11am | #15

   Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mel.  I think Ray has forgotten more than I'll ever know about any of this, so I'm thrilled he shared his perspectives and tolerated my blather. 

   As for my cabinet project, here a shot showing some of the design iterations and the final.  I think the workman met or exceeded my expectations, I'm less enthusiastic about the designer's contribution:

   View Image

   View Image

6. 
   9619 | Sep 30, 2009 06:10am | #16

   Sean,

   That is ART to me.     Very very nice.  Thanks for the pics.

   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

7. 
   roc | Oct 01, 2009 12:19am | #25

   >beautiful objects that evoke positive emotional aesthetic responses from us, i.e., art.<I say we need a way to educate the buyer to the quality that is there, art or workmanship what have you.We on the inside appreciate it but lets insert Pye's voice subliminally into the environment of the buyer. Not literally but . . .Here is an illustration. This is the level of workmanship/art I grew up with in STEEL bicycles. http://www.llewellynbikes.com/thegallery/album03/aalNow the following is what the new person to high dollar custom bicycles is putting up with. They are not even aware of the former because the latter ( Ti and Carbon ) are so over advertised. Profitable and easy to make. Yes it is light and efficient and fits well and gets a person's hiny down the road but is it on par with the first example ? The price is . . .Some may say " Ti and Carbon are lighter ". We in the mid eighties we were riding all steel 15 lb daily use road race bikes. Not far off from ( usually lighter than ) any of the modern boring smoothies of today.Click the first postage stamp pic to enlarge it.http://www.roarkcycles.com/gallery.aspSure they are nice welds and titanium doesn't lend it's self to all that fluffy jewelry detail but honestly the ti frames look like prototypes that never made it to the finish stages. Just selling the prototypes. Where is the "art".I am just old fashioned ?. . . and we liked it that way ! Why I remember walking thirty miles to school in three feet of snow. And we liked it that way . . .rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )Edited 9/30/2009 5:27 pm by roc <!-- ROC2013 -->Edited 9/30/2009 5:28 pm by roc <!-- ROC2013 -->

   Edited 9/30/2009 5:31 pm by roc

8. 
   Lataxe | Oct 01, 2009 01:09am | #27

   Roc,

   Both those frames (and the modern carbon type you mention) have an aesthetic that looks for and more or less finds "perfection".  There is none of what Pye would call "rough work" and I doubt if tool marks could be found.  In all cases I confess to liking that aesthetic for bicycle frames.  The ugly welds of certain marques are not for me.

   In fact, it's the "art" of those curly lugs on the first example, along with the paint and chrome, that perhaps attracts your approval?  Personally I prefer the clean swoops of designed & molded titanium or carbon.  The reason is mostly that decoration on a highly functional object like a racing bike seems superfluous.  The swoops and bulges on a frame designed to cope with cycling forces has a gorgeous appeal of its own - one emerging from high utility made evident by an "unadorned" design

   Not that its "wrong"; I would happilly ride that Llewd bicycle - as long as it doesn't twist about on the hairy descents and go all floppy in the bottom bracket when I give it a few 400 watt thrusts.  Fancy lugs and chrome really don't count then.

   I confess to being suspicious of artifice that is merely decorative.  In fact, I get so suspicious that I tend to believe it might well hide a defecit in the functional attributes, rather than being a pretty overlay on top of a well-made thing.  In short, I like the kind of artifice that pleases the sensibilities because the beauty or other attractive aspect lies in the message it conveys about its fundamental funtion and meaning.

   Bike frou-frou.  Hmmmm.

   Lataxe

9. 
   flairwoodworks | Sep 30, 2009 03:54am | #11

   >"Do you think it would make sense for a painter to measure her success by how closely she can produce a picture that looks like a photograph? Why is the photograph (machine jigged image producer) the "ideal?"<Sean,That is an excellent question, and one that I have asked myself over and over regarding smoothness of surfaces. Should we use planes and scrapers to produce smooth, flat surfaces that are so easily made with power planers and sanders? Or should we aim for slight undulations? That could translate to lack of refinement, though. Is that bad?Smooth, highly polished surfaces say refiniment, sophisticated, high-in-stature, perfect.What do hand-worked surfaces say?Chris @ http://www.flairwoodworks.com and http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)

    - Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

2. 
   Lataxe | Sep 30, 2009 02:33pm | #19

   Ray & Sean,

   Rather than enter your dialogue, may I point out a couple of apparent Pye contradictions and also ask a question about one of his propositions concerning workmanship and tools.

   ***

   Mr P says that workmanship is the skill and knowledge that cannot be transmitted in the design.  Yet he says that the "workmanship of certainty" is at it's purest when the production process is wholly automated - when there is no diversity between the produced items.  This seems to suggest that workmanship is almost in opposition to certainty and therefore to design, rather than complementary to it.

   He seems to suggest that "workmanship" is really "art" - the production of some kind of personal and special features in an object that gives it a unique meaning relating to the workman and his production-process, which in some way transcends any intended design elements.  The mere "ideal form" of a cabinet becomes a special and unique cabinet only via workmanship of risk - the addition of unintended and/or unforseen physical qualities that add "diversity"........?

   Yet Mr Pye is anxious to promote the role of the designer also.  At times he portrays the workman as secondary: 

   "The workman is essentially an interpreter".   "...in principle it is possible for the designer to prescribe quantitatively all the properties by means of which any given object is judged to have the qualities of a work of art".

   The workman then must strive to acquire technique "by the exercise of care, judgement and dexterity   .......   since the quality of workmanship is judged by reference to the intended design".

   The lad, at first reading, seems to want it both ways.......?

   ******

   And now, a simple question:

   The workmanship of risk is all about allowing and making something of mistakes and technique-variations.  The evidence of mistakes and techniques is one contributor to "diversity" - mistakes such a tool marks, non-idealised profiles or shapes and so forth.  But, if (as Mr Pye insists) the type of tool is irrelevant to workmanship of risk, why is it that we tend to accept "diverse" tool marks and profile-variations from hand tools but not from tools that have electric motors?

   What is it that pleases us about plane-track shadows, not-quite linear reeding and marking-knife lines on DTs but makes us shudder when circular-saw marks, RO sander whorls and slipped-router gouges are evident?

   Lataxe

1. 
   joinerswork | Sep 30, 2009 03:54pm | #20

   Lataxe me duck,

   Why are you asking these questions of Sam and I?  You are not separated from Mr Pye by your common language, as we are!

   As I read him, The dichotomy you have pointed out is resolved in Pye's mind by the workmanlike operations of the "risky" worker.  Somewhere (Y'all are gonna make me read the whole dam thing again, aren't you??) he references that in successful work, the level of diversity (deviation from ideal) ought be in scale to the range of vision that the object is taken in at.  So that, a subtle tool mark in a tabletop is acceptable but a deep tear out, or a slobber of varnish is not.  In a garden gate, a bit of out of square might be acceptable (next to a leaning gatepost) but not so much in a cabinet door. Giving a nod to Sam, might not part of the risk taken by the workman be in allowing a certain level of deviation from the ideal- whether because of time/budget restraints, artistic expression, or "that's just the way the tree grew" (an excuse used once in my earshot for a gross flaw in a surface)- which might or might not be successful in the eyes of the critic.

   I'm not sure that Pye would share your abhorrence of machine marks on works of certainty, if they are not being passed off as antiquities.  I recall a photo of a concrete lintel over a doorway frankly showing the marks of the form-boards where his criticism is not of the presence of tooling marks, but of the gross flaw in one corner which is not in scale with the form-marks.  Could it be that your own ppreference in this matter is one wherein the scale of such planermarks is what is bothering you--eg, they aren't objectionable on the clapboards of your house, but are when seen on the face of a cabinet?

   Ray

    

    

2. 
   Samson | Sep 30, 2009 04:38pm | #21

   "What is it that pleases us about plane-track shadows, not-quite linear reeding and marking-knife lines on DTs but makes us shudder when circular-saw marks, RO sander whorls and slipped-router gouges are evident?"

   The same thing that makes us view a mole on the cheek of a model as a beauty mark and a pimple, not so much. 

   View Image

1. 
   Lataxe | Sep 30, 2009 06:35pm | #23

   Sean,

   "The same thing that makes us view a mole on the cheek of a model as a beauty mark and a pimple, not so much." 

   Indeed; but when does a mole become an unfortunate wart!?  :-)

   "Taste" must play a part, no doubt.  For example, I have developed a distaste for face-clag, hair-goo, lip-clart and eyelash-grease.  For some reason unadorned nature attracts my eye; also there is the stuff inside that forms the momentary arrangement of the outside, which definitely affects the overall aesthetic.

   Anyroadup, here is a prime example of the unadorned beauty I prefers.  It is Colleen posing as Eve having just got rid of the snook.  That Keswick Codling she clutches does indeed represent the many knowledgeable thangs she has imparted in my direction. 

   As you may notice, a sometimes risky life has imparted various marks of diversity upon her personage, which definitely makes her not just unique but most attractive to all my attractor-organs.

   View Image

   I am yet pondering your Pye-stuff.

   Lataxe

3. 
   Samson | Sep 30, 2009 04:50pm | #22

   He seems to suggest that "workmanship" is really "art" - the production of some kind of personal and special features in an object that gives it a unique meaning relating to the workman and his production-process, which in some way transcends any intended design elements.  The mere "ideal form" of a cabinet becomes a special and unique cabinet only via workmanship of risk - the addition of unintended and/or unforseen physical qualities that add "diversity"........?

   I think "ideal" is perhaps a misleading word to use in describing the designed form as it suggests a quality judgment has been made.  The design may be thought of as an "idealized" version, but I think a more appropriate word would be "abstracted." 

   I also think "diversity" while a helpful shorthand, perhaps leaves out an aspect - one word can only carry so much meaning after all.  I think that diversity may also be thought of as the language or pallette for self expression by the workman.  You cannot communicate without a language - you cannot paint without a pallette.  The diversity is the result, but an equally useful thought is that the variances inherent in the WoR are the vehicle for self expression, and it is the expression that we are recognizing and appreciating. 

3. 
   roc | Sep 30, 2009 11:19pm | #24

   >I believe you are using the word "risk" to mean something different from Pye's definition. Pye's "worknamship of risk" is the risk of spoiling the job, ie having an outcome different from the makers design (intent, ideal).<I was searching for a Krenov quote to put up when we were looking at those. I failed to find it though his intent was clear in my mind.He was talking about how he made the piece that he is talking about. It came out well. It was enough of a combination of luck in materials, inspiration on how to use those specific materials, serendipity while he was making ( things may have taken a different direction than he intended ) and stamina to see it through.He says " I hope some day to try again to make a similar piece if conditions are right " Not his words but mine; I couldn't find the paragraph in his book.So the point is even if he is willing to " risk " or " be in the comfort zone because he has already made this thing " doesn't mean it is going to happen because there are other factors, wood ( colors in the wood, grain, flaws ) his mental energy level etc., that may not cooperate.Seems like on Pye's level and Krenov's luck plays a part.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )

1. 
   joinerswork | Oct 01, 2009 12:53am | #26

   roc,

   In making commissioned pieces over the years, there have indeed been several instances in my experience where "the stars aligned" or something, to result in a particularly felicitous outcome of a project.  Somehow though, my customers have never been inclined to accept a piece that failed to meet their expectations as ok because of bad luck.  Poor workmanship is just that, and hoping for good luck to make up for it is workmanship of risk, indeed.

   A "low mental energy level" is in my humble opinion a phrase that may be replaced with "lack of discipline".  Having bills coming due at the end of the week is a remarkably effective means of raising my "mental energy level".

   Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

   Ray

1. 
   9619 | Oct 01, 2009 02:18pm | #29

   Ray,
   "Having bills coming due at the end of the week is a remarkably effective means of raising my "mental energy level".You have a way of bringing reality to a discussion of philosophical points by hobbyists. The interesting thing about Roc and Lataxe and myself is the strong personal feelings we bring to our hobby. I enjoy reading Roc's and Lataxe's and my (ha ha ha) posts because they come from such STRONG personal points of view -- quite different from each other, but nonetheless strong. Unfortunately strong points of view tend to melt when faced with weekly bills. (that is what is so nice about being a wealthy retired guy who enjoys woodworking as a hobby). I notice that a recurring theme in your missives is "The primary role of the client" in the woodworking business. You know, if we could eliminate this distracting parameter, we could all build even stronger personal viewpoints on what constitutes art and beauty in woodwork. But if one is dependent on income from clients, their ideas, no matter how silly, stupid, or random, are central to maintaining a woodworking business. I am coming to believe that a good book could be written by a wizened professional to help wannabees see the reality of the woodworking business, and it would be entitled "Seeing through the eyes of the client". I am reminded of great impressionists, who can impersonate one person impersonating another. eg Rich Little doing John Wayne doing Richard Nixon. The impersonator has to become lost and unnoticed, and pass the spotlight to the person being imitated. What the woodworker must do, in creating "art" (whatever that is) is to develop pieces that the client thinks are "art" -- to pass the spotlight to the client. If the woodworker also thinks the pieces are art, that is nice -- not necessary, but nice. But these are problems only for "journeymen professionals". They are not problems for highly established woodworking personalities such as Maloof and Krenov were. At that point, the clients want whatever the maker makes, and BOTH ARE HAPPY with the outcome. Therefore, the way to pure happiness in woodworking is to become Maloofian or Krenovian, and enjoy the status of having moneyed clients rush to throw there largess at the woodworker to make whatever the woodworker would like to make. There, it is now figured out. There is nothing more to say about any of this. I think if Pye were still writing, he would have realized this and added it to the final chapter, especially the part about Rich Little, John Wayne and Richard Nixon.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

2. 
   joinerswork | Oct 01, 2009 04:41pm | #30

   Mel,

   I am going to pull aside my well-crafted facade of being the pragmatic, client-oriented furniture maker, and share somethnig with you.  Don't let it get around, or it will ruin my reputation.  I have been known occasionally to spend time on details that I don't expect the client to notice, purely because I felt the piece deserved the extra attention.  Call it pride of workmanship (to salve my pragmatic bluster) or art pour l'art,  ultimately it comes down to working for someone, maybe a future owner yet unborn, who is not paying the bill.

   It can be something as simple as timing the screws on the hinges of a door, to ending a chamfer with a lamb's tongue insted of a simple cove, stop-fluting instead of reeding a corner column, putting a husk below that shell carving, or inlaying a string of droplets of diminishing diameter below the bellflowers on a table leg.

   Ruskin wrote something about the workers building a cathedral finishing the stonework on the top sides of ceiling ornaments where no-one would ever see (obviously erroneous or Ruskin wouldn't have known), which writing probably led me astray back when I was young and impressionable enough to try to read Ruskin.

   Ray

3. 
   9619 | Oct 01, 2009 06:14pm | #31

   Ray,
   I promise not to tell anyone about that extra work pour l'art.
   Don't want to ruin your rep.Art is as art does. I enjoyed reading Pye but I didn't stop and pour over every word. Some of it was a bit thick, but in general, it was good thinking. It makes you stop and think about some things. HOWEVER (and there is always a "however") I don't go back and reread it. It is a similar thing with the golden rectangle (or triangle, if you are from Bermuda). I was amazed when I first learned about it, and it comes up now and again when I am designing a piece, but it is not something that I spend an hour a day meditating about. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. I am out of good ideas. Actually that happened a while back. :-)
   Have fun.
   Are you going to Waterford this year, just to visit? Mary Beth and I are going on Friday. We will visit your old spot, and remember the old days. Then we will get some food.
   Enjoy.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

4. 
   joinerswork | Oct 01, 2009 07:28pm | #32

   Mel,

   No visit to Waterford this year.  We've been invited to both a friend's pig roast/b'day party and Debbie's neice's 40th b'day celebration.  Must decide soon what it'll be.

   Tell the squirrels on the village green I said hello.

   Ray

5. 
   9619 | Oct 01, 2009 07:51pm | #33

   Ray,
   Darn. Wish you were going to be there. Oh well. Have fun at either of the festivities you have to choose between. Meanwhile, what did the fish say when he swam into a cement wall?Dam. Have fun,
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

6. 
   joinerswork | Oct 02, 2009 03:43am | #34

   Mel,

   Dam, I like that one.

   Other fish stories: 

   Oh, I wish I was a fishie in the sea. 

   How I'd swimmie and I'd scootie, without no bathing suitie,

   Oh, I wish I was a fishie in the sea.

   And:

   Did you ever go a-fishin' on a bright and sunny day,

   And see the little fishies in the pool at play?

   With their hands in their pockets, and their pockets in their pants--

   See the little fishie-wishies do their boogie-woogie dance!

   Finally:

   Down in the meadow, in an itty-bitty pool,

   Swam three little fishies, and a Mama fish, too.

   "Now, swim!" said the Mama fish, "Swim if you can."

   So, they swam and they swam, all over the dam.

   "Now, stop," said the Mama fish, "Or, you'll be lost."

   But, the three little fishies didn't wanna be boss'd.

   So, they swam and they swam, right out to sea.

    

   All fished out,

   Ray

    

7. 
   9619 | Oct 02, 2009 05:53am | #35

   Ray,Uncle.
   Uncle.
   Uncle.You win.
   I give up.Damn, I haven't cried "uncle" since junior high school. Gotta get to bed early. Got a lot of walking to do tomorrow at Waterford. Have fun.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

8. 
   DanCC | Oct 02, 2009 07:47pm | #36

   Good discussion -- you have started the wheels turning a bit.  I think some of the issues can be looked at a bit differently.  In my days at university, I recall much discussion in philosophy classes about tables and where the form was for a table.  Depending on the school of thought one took on, the form was an ideal type that was external to the table, or it was in each and very table that preformed the function of a table.   The workman that strives to free the ideal form by his endeavors is engaged in a search for truth and beauty, while the  machine is without soul and can not make the search; it just does what it is told to do.  I submit we poor humans appreciate the search for beauty as much as the beauty itself and therefore have an instinctive appreciation for the marks of  human labor in the table and are repulsed to a greater or lesser degree by the machine made.   At least this is what my poor brain came up with while working in the garden this morning.  Another day, I may have a completely different take on this.   DanC

9. 
   joinerswork | Oct 03, 2009 04:18am | #37

   Dan,

   In another book, The Nature and Asthetics of Design, Pye argues that form does NOT follow function.  I disagreed with his argument, but then, I've only read that book once.

   Ray

10. 
    DanCC | Oct 03, 2009 05:28am | #38

    Form follows function is a modern short hand for the true discussion of the theory of the forms as Platonic  and Aristotelian schools of thought looked at the issue.  The very short hand of the modern theories diminished the argument.  Form follows function is an over simplified Aristotelian argument without any of the richness and detail.  Form follows function is a bastard.DanC

11. 
    Lataxe | Oct 03, 2009 04:46pm | #39

    Dan,

    Ah, the infamous ideal Platonic table!  Like all ideals I repudiate the concept as unreal and therefore a poor, er, ideal to aim for.  But, like unreal numbers, the concept might serve the purpose of defining one end of a range - in this case, the range of attributes in a work-product from perfection (tending to ideal) to "rough" (as Mr Pye calls it).

    There is certainly some human attraction to the notion of a perfected albeit real object.  Consider the Apple design ethos wherein ipods and similar are made to look simple and pure.  Buyers and reviewers complain about things like the relative softness of the ultra-shiney surface, as they want no differentiating scratches (patina, we might say) to spoil the perfection of their ipod, which must ideally always look new and identical to everyone else's.

    Also, there seems to be some connection (in this age at least) between such perfect manufacture and the "form follows function" design paradigm. 

    Consider the (normally invisible to humans) design of the logic-paths inherent in a microchip.  It's design is now almost entirely automated via design-rules within another computer, which design rules themselves may well have evolved via automated evolutionary processes rather than via direct human input.  Such designs are near-pure "form follows function".  Again, deviation from an identical and near-perfect ideal in the millions of chips produced to a particular design is not wanted.

    And these chips have a certain beauty when magnified so that they can be viewed.

    ************

    The other human attraction is to the "roughness" or "diversity" that Mr Pye puts at the other end of the scale from perfection.  He compares unperfected and highly diverse differences between manufactured objects of the same type (same design) to "... dichotomy between idiosyncrasy and conformity to the pattern of the species"  evident in natural objects, including plants and animals. 

    Workmanship of risk, he proposes, results in "free workmanship" in which the initial design is diversified by the actions and decisions of the workman.  Such freedom tends to produce manufactured objects that are more natural because they reflect the kind of diversity across the ranks of any specific class of things found in nature.  Workmanship of certainty, especially the fully machine-automated kind, produces exactly-similar objects that we can easily recognise as unnatural.

    ***

    At present there seems, in woodworking, a pronounced tension between what is often called "traditional woodworking" and the "wood engineering" aesthetic of many studio or contemporary makers.  This tension does seem to reflect the differentiation between Wor and Woc (that is, between "rough and perfect"; "diverse and identical") that David Pye describes.

    Like Mr Pye, I don't think that this tension is really beween "made using only hand tools" and "made using some powered tools".  This differentiation seems irrelevant and something to do with the need of various fellows to achieve some sort of imaginary "purity" that in fact reflects only a historical change concerning technologies rather than a change in aesthetics.  (I except those other fellows who simply prefer an absence of machine motor noise and a less frantic pace).

    And yet there is (despite what Ray Pine says) that point about us usually not liking machine-tool marks left on furniture wheras we tolerate the marks left by hand tools.......

    ****

    What I want to know is, can these "perfect verses rough"  or "identical versus diverse" aesthetics be synthesised into a "higher" aesthetic that includes both; and if so how?  What would the furniture look like?  How would we workmen produce it?

    Lataxe

12. 
    DanCC | Oct 03, 2009 05:48pm | #40

    I am not sure the focus should be on the final product, but on the process of getting there.  If the journey taken to produce the object is based on the workman/engineer/designer seeking truth and beauty, the product will have an honest appear that on some level will be appreciated by others.  This allows the beauty to be seen in the microchip, in the various styles of design etc.  The final product however it looks will have a beauty derived from the honest search that made it.DanC

2. 
   RalphBarker | Sep 28, 2009 07:59pm | #2

   Does a discussion of Pye's book require a verb shift, such as replacing "sawing" with "slicing"? ;-)

3. 
   flairwoodworks | Sep 29, 2009 09:17am | #3

   Lataxe,

   I like how the only part of your message truncated was your name. I have Pye's book and have read it once, but didn't get much out of it except bored. I would like to read it again, but among the 13 or so other unread books I have, plus all the back issues of Woodwork minus 3.5, it may take a while to get to. Hopefully I'll be able to better comprehend the subject better now (but not at 11:15pm).

   EDIT: Yes, I am very much interested in this topic;

   Chris @ http://www.flairwoodworks.com
   and http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)

    - Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

   
   

   ---

   Edited 9/29/2009 2:18 am by flairwoodworks

4. 
   9619 | Sep 29, 2009 02:57pm | #4

   David,
   Pye's book is a masterpiece of insightful thinking. Unfortunately I agree with his weltanschauung. In looking for things to read, I search for things that are not in line with my way of thinking. That makes me think harder, and put my ideas to an acid test.

   Reading things which I agree with is too comforting a thing for me to do. Reading things which are revolutionary to my approach to woodworking makes the blood flow and the brain work overtime.

   Every summer, when I go to the beach for a week, I take a few books. This year, one of the books I took was Christopher Schwartz's book on workbenches. The thing that I like about Schwartz is that his very way of thinking/writing is a bit disconcerting to me. He seems to try to sould like he is the Pope, speaking ex-Cathedra. He also loves contradiction. For example, he visited a highly successful woodworker whose workbench consists of two sawhorses and a door, and he concludes that what you need is a "proper workbench".

   He comes up with a list of requirements for a proper workbench and he give a long list of "requirements". He lays down "laws", and I find that I disagree with most of them. But this tension between his approach and mine really causes me to think things through.

   Schwartz does something else that the other two workbench books fail to do. He starts out with a list of requirements for a bench -- what you need to do on a workbench. Great idea. It really helps focus thinking. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book and thinking about workbench design for a dozen hours this summer.

   Am I comparing Schwartz and Pye? No, not at all. Schwartz will never be in Pye's league. He doesn't aspire to be. I was merely pointing out something that I have found to be surprising and interesting -- that I enjoy reading things which challenge my ways of thinking more than I enjoy reading things which are in line with my ways of thinking.

   With computers, folks have learned how to "zoom in" and "zoom out", and see things at different levels of granularity. All levels are valid. One needs to be able to understand the details at the "zoom in" level, and to be able to understand things at the "zoom out" level. The "zoom out" level is what Pye describes so well, and which is more ignored than the detailed descriptions of woodwork at the "zoom in" level, which we are all so familiar with.

   I hope your thread works out. Pye certainly causes one to stretch. Write to Ray. He is a real Pye afficianado.

   Have fun.
   Mel

   Measure your output in smiles per board foot. 

1. 
   flairwoodworks | Sep 30, 2009 04:01am | #12

   Mel,I am a big fan of Schwarz's Workbenches book. So I am biased. I see his contradition as giving both sides of the issue, saying "I like this, but he prefers this". Kind of like that saying we hear so much - there are many ways to do the same task.As with you, I do enjoy reading and listening to very opinionated people. Some people can't stand them. While I don't always agree with what they say, I find that hearing what they have to say and thinking about it makes me think about whether I agree or not, so I come away being more sure of my beliefs.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodworks.com and http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)

    - Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

1. 
   9619 | Sep 30, 2009 04:07am | #13

   Chris,

   Did you read Schwartz's redo of the Moxon book?MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

1. 
   flairwoodworks | Oct 01, 2009 05:07am | #28

   Mel,Yes I did. Probably not of interest to the average home-workshopper, but I found it interesting.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodworks.com and http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)

    - Success is not the key to happiness.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

5. 
   roc | Sep 30, 2009 06:26am | #17

   Lataxe,

   Can you say your woodwork is better for having read/applied what you have read in David Pye's text ?

   I love reading. I am a bit bored by " Philosophy ". I suppose the flaw lyes with me and not the text. Edie Brickell in her song What I Am called this stuff the smile on a dog or a light in a fog

   Well I decided to put the lyrics here so you can see for yourself:

   Lyrics to What I Am :
   I'm not aware of too many things,
   but I know what I know if you know what I mean.
   Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box.
   Religion is the smile on a dog.
   I'm not aware of too many things,
   but I know what I know if you know what I mean.
   Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep.
   What I am is what I am.
   Are you what you are - or what?
   I'm not aware of too many things,
   but I know what I know if you know what I mean.
   Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks.
   Religion is a light in the fog.
   I'm not aware of too many things,
   but I know what I know if you know what I mean.
   Choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep.
   What I am is what I am.
   Are you what you are - or what?
   Don't let me get too deep.
   [ What I Am Lyrics on http://www.lyricsmania.com/ ]

   I have looked at his book but I just get kind of glazed over reading it.
   Glad there are those that can appreciate it perhaps you can edgumicate me.

   Kind of like the book Ulysses by James Joyce. Intellectually I know it is a great book; "they" say the most influential book of the twentieth century and all that.

   Every time I sit down to make a determined effort to read it , a few pages at lunch every day I tell my self, I have the same reaction as Pye's book except Pye's book didn't have the green snotty bits. Didn't work for me at lunch so had to give up reading Ulysses once again as a bad job.

   Queenmasteroftheuniverseandbabybunnytrainer loves philosophy but then she says if any wood working had to get done by her then it simply would not ever get done.

   Perhaps when I have mastered the craft and sit back with my pipe and my slippers and say ahhh yes I have done it all and more times than I can count. Perhaps then I will have the perspective to look at the WoR the WoC and all the rest of it.

   Right now I just want to learn things that help me make a prettier table or chest of drawers.

   Call me cantankerous,

   PS: Hey I about got JohnSolomon convinced to bring you the bike in his underwear/suitcase as long as you can get him a table saw like your'n.

   . . . do I get a finder's fee ?

   : )

   roc

   Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )

   
   

   ---

   Edited 9/29/2009 11:41 pm by roc

1. 
   Lataxe | Sep 30, 2009 01:44pm | #18

   Roc,

   Sophistry - a good or bad thang?  A necessary or superfluous practice?

   Well, I know what I know about ideas which is that they are what make us the fantastical kreetures we are.  The genes make us animals of the mammalian kind. The language and concepts make us able to create, understand and communicate "what we know", including the categories of "mammal", "gene", "language", "knowing" and "idea".  And all the others.

   So, if you admit to knowing at all (and transmit the concept to other knowers) you are already dealing in philosophical terms.  As with woodwork, it is no bad thing to get familiarity and competance with the tools, patterns, practices and traditions of "knowing" et al.  The best tools are philosophical ones.  "Light in the fog" is mostly about the fog.

   ***

   Well, I suppose highly analytical books like that of Mr Pye can be a brain-strain, especially if compared to alternative and entertaining modes of idea-transmission such as novels, filums and musically-accompanied lyrics.  Still, the more formal theoretical and philosophical modes are rather like learning to use a musical instrument - the initial learning is very tedious at times; it takes ages; but on the day a piece is well-played (understood) there is great elation.  Three chords aren't really enough.

   I learnt to apply the highlighter to such books as that of Mr Pye.  Long ago, when in the halls of academe, the merciless tutor required one to read and understand all sorts of learned tomes, in short order.  I abused the printed items by learning to wait for the essential passages then scrawling under them.  You end up with 10% of the book - a summary but one you understand because you had to read the whole thing to identify and select the summary.

   If you prefer them succinct songs, so be it.  But it's can be exciting swimming in the deep end, away from the inchoate shouts and splashes of the unruly crowds in the shallow end.  Down in the deeps there are strange and beautiful things.  One learns to swim with all sorts of fish and also the odd mermaid.

   Lataxe

2. 
   WillGeorge | Oct 03, 2009 08:48pm | #41

   I hear you but I just found..

   http://stlyrics.com/songs/e/emmabunton1372/whatiam64386.html

   Not sure what it has to do with woodworking but she is a very pretty woman!

    

1. 
   roc | Oct 04, 2009 03:26am | #43

   >very pretty woman!<Steady on William.Think about your wood.I mean . . . think about your tools.Your woodworking tools.I better stop now.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )

6. 
   WillGeorge | Oct 03, 2009 08:56pm | #42

   Etymology: Middle English, from Latin succinctus having one's clothes gathered up by a belt, tightly wrapped, concise..

   I for one think applies to a wood project!

1. 
   roc | Oct 04, 2009 03:39am | #44

   Will,Here is the originalhttp://www.mtv.com/videos/edie-brickell/96079/what-i-am.jhtmlShe is more my style than the blond person.OK this has gotten down a rat hole but there it is.rocGive me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe. Abraham Lincoln ( 54° shaves )