How Much Skill Should Be Involved?
flairwoodworks
| Posted in General Discussion on
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about achieving a balance between woodworking with hand tools, hand-eye coordination, and experience and fully automated CNCs. The way I look at it, one requires a whole lot of skill to build something with and the other requires only understanding of a computer (ok, so that takes skill too).
Everytime we use a jig, a little less skill is required on our part. So where do we change from skilled artisan to labourer?
Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
– Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. – Albert Schweitzer
Replies
That's pretty much the topic of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Art-Workmanship-David-Pye/dp/0713689315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214712017&sr=8-1
One of Pye's main touchstones is risk. When you take the risk of messing it up out of the equation, you take away the chance of artful craftsmanship.
"When you take the risk of messing it up out of the equation, you take away the chance of artful craftsmanship."
Some people think that if you design something to be made via CNC, you eliminate the risks. But in reality, all you do is change them. Sure, the risk involved in making multiple copies of something is drastically reduced, but there is still plenty of risk involved in the design process.
Something like an iPhone is pretty much "untouched by human hands" as far as the manufacturing process goes. But there is an enormous amount of creativity and craftsmanship in figuring out what an iPhone should be and how to build one.
-Steve
I think you are confusing the product with the process, Steve. I think Chris is talking about the process. But your point is well taken and works both ways. I know guys who jig every hand tool operation till all risk is removed.For my part, I'm not so sure about the end product, but I know that there's a certain risk reward thing built into all of us. On a recent interview i jokingly suggested manufacturers make power tools much more dangerous so normites can get their share of the risk reward drug. Adam
"I think you are confusing the product with the process, Steve."
No, I'm not confusing them, just pointing out that risk manifests itself in multiple ways, many of them obscure. You have to train yourself to recognize risk in all of its manifestations.
One thing that people often have a difficult time coming to terms with is that risk and value go hand in hand.
-Steve
Steve, I personally think it probably takes a higher degree of skill to program the CNC, than it takes to do woodworking.
In woodworking you have the benefit of immediate feedback, in how the material is responding, and how what you are doing is progressing, plus the ability to modify things a bit on the fly.
With the CNC, there is very little feedback during the process, that would allow you to adapt or modify until the process ends. By then the stock is probably useless.
Here is what I am thinking, an example.Say I want a rectangle cut out of a board that is 6" x 12". I have never used a CNC machine, but I am an experienced computer programmer. My guess is that the procedure would go basically like this:CNC
1) Put the board in the machine.
2) Pick the starting point.
3) Tell computer to go 6" one way.
4) Tell computer to turn 90* and go 12".
5) Tell computer to turn 90* and go 6".
6) Tell computer to turn 90* and go 12".
7) Execute program.Handsaw
1) Put the board on the bench.
2) Draw the rectangle precisely on the wood.
3) Cut to each line precisely with hand saw.
4) Plane to line.Which sounds like it requires more skill? Yes, you have to learn how to program a CNC machine. Once you have learned that, a CNC operator with moderate skill could do this time and time again (from scratch) and produce a perfect 6" x 12" rectangle. There is very little skill involved with programming this.For the handsaw version, the craftsman has to draw a precise rectangle to start. Then, the craftsman has to cut precisely by hand to each line. With each stroke he risks cutting across the line. He may then have to follow up the cut with a hand plane to get to the line. A craftsman, of moderate skill, would require a steady hand with the a saw and a skillful method with the plane. I recently watched one of the Rob Cosman DVDs on some sort of hand tool. While he was sawing, he mentioned to his partner that his skill was on the line 100% of the time. I think that statement embodies a lot of what David Pye is saying in "workmanship of risk" vs. "workmanship of certainty".Thanks for reading.Josh
There's actually little room for arguing over your point (not, of course, that some won't do it - arguing over the internet seems to be a new American hobby). One way to state your point is the exchange of hand-tool built furniture for factory-made furniture in the 19th century.
Hand-tools - "The workmanship of risk"
Power Machinery - "The workmanship of certainty"
There's an absolute fundamental difference. As humans, we are not built to reproduce a particular motion repeatedly. Machines are built to do exactly that.
While one can argue that nothing is exactly the same (and that's correct, it's a fundamental property of physics), any machine is capable of repeating an operation to far more precision than any human is capable of. Were this not the case, the Industrial Revolution would not have happened.
"..any machine is capable of repeating an operation to far more precision than any human is capable of. Were this not the case, the Industrial Revolution would not have happened."Don't mean to quibble, but that's not exactly true. I think machines do it cheaper, but they don't always do it as well or with less variation. Cutters wear, adjustments go out of adjustment, work pieces move and parts get scrapped. Machines don't really produce the same part over and over again. You may find it interesting to note that in my experience designing highly complex machinery, we use CNC for cheap. When we want good, we get a person to do it. Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. I've actually programmed CNC machines and attempting to draw a association between that and using a hand saw is simply preposterous. You sit your your fat arse programming a CNC machine, with a cup of coffee and an ipod. I can't listen to music in my woodshop because I need all of my senses and concentration to do what I do. And I'm working through sweat, and blisters, and aches and pains to produce. To work by hand one needs the skill but also physical dexterity and fitness, all of which can take years to develop. Once learned, once the skills are developed, the challenge of executing remains, every time. Nothing I do is automatic. I work for every saw cut.Adam
Adam,
In his book, On Combat, author Col Dave Grossman talks about developing a set of skills. He's talking about a set of complex movements, like a policeman drawing a gun, moving into a shooting stance, acquiring his target, aiming, and pulling the trigger, while maintaining sight picture. Not unlike sawing to a line, really.
Grossman speaks of four levels of competancy:
1-Unconscious incompetance: You don't know you can't do the procedure.
"Well, anyone can do that. It's simple enough to push and pull a saw back and forth, and the line is right there to see."
2-Conscious incompetance: You know the extent of your inabilities.
"Huh, that's harder to do than it looks. Guess I need to practice, get my saw sharpened, get a Japanese steel (heh) saw, improve my stance, practice, new eyeglasses, practice.."
3- Conscious competence: You know your abilities.
"By golly, those dovetails took all evening, but they fit pretty good, and the first ones I cut yesterday are nearly as good looking as the last ones I cut last night."
4- Unconscious competence:
Often associated with "muscle memory", when the series of actions are undertaken without much thought, or apparent concentration, but seem to just happen on their own. Driving a car is an operation that most folks have mastered to the point of unconscious competence, when we have driven home from the grocery store, pull up in the driveway, and have no recall of anything along the way; our conscious mind has been occupied with something else entirely (that drawer waiting to be assembled in the shop), rather than stopping, starting, traffic lights, signalling, turning, braking.
" Once learned, once the skills are developed, the challenge of executing remains, every time. Nothing I do is automatic. I work for every saw cut."
It'll come, Adam. Just give it time.
Ray
I get what you mean and believe it. But I don't do that. And I never do that in the car. (great analogy, btw). In the thread about samurai swords, I mentioned that I was a kendoist (japanese fencing). One of the things I learned in kendo was mindfulness.Mindfulness, or staying in the moment, is essential to performing any task at a high level. I would attribute any success I've encountered as a woodworker, to the lessons my kendo teacher taught me. When I'm sawing, that's all I'm doing. I'm thinking about the saw, how it feels, and how I can improve my sawing. When I'm driving, I'm watching the road, and the cars around me. I don't see the scenery and cannot talk on the phone. I highly recommend learning more about mindfulness, especially to power tool woodworkers. where a moment on auto pilot can cost you a finger. Adam
Adam,
I agree with you about mindfulness. It seemed to me that there was more angst than mindfulness in your description of how you need to work. Perhaps I misread.
The kind of "unconsciousness" Grossman was referring to, is not being unmindful; it is more along the lines of picking up a chisel, and using it to pare a dovetail pin flush with a drawer side, without having to stop and think about which chisel is the one I want to use, where to place it, how thick a paring I can shave off at a time, what direction to push it to prevent the edge from splitting off, how much downward pressure to use to keep it on course, and yet to keep it from digging into the side. I might, while I'm cleaning pins, (and watching what I'm doing,) be thinking about whether the chisel needs a touch-up, whether the glue up of the drawer bottoms is dry enough to work them next, or if I ought to wait on them, and get out backing boards instead---just the way that in the truck, I can brake, downshift, and turn to make the corner, without having to give each action my full attention (now where is the brake pedal, let off the gas, pick up your foot, don't push too hard, grab the shift lever, 4th gear is down and to the left, push in the clutch, etc etc) while I'm thinking about the directions I was given; right onto Elm St, 2d house on the left, white picket fence; and watching oncoming traffic. It just seemed to me that if you cannot listen to the radio while you are sawing to a line, you might be concentrating more than being mindful. Maybe we're saying the same thing, you just put a finer point on it..
Ray
Ray,Everyone knows why a top musician closes his eyes while he's playing, or why an athlete doesn't hear the roar of the crowd. Distractions diminish our ability to perform at the highest level.I can't woodwork at a high level. I'm sure I'm not as good a woodworker as you are. But when I'm working, I'm doing my absolute best. I'm using my ears and eyes and touch. The position of my feet, the condition of the floor, can make a difference of whether I can plane for 4 more hours or 5. If you find you can chop dovetails with one arm tied behind your back, while singing along to the soundtrack of High School Musical, then you probably aren't performing to the top of your ability. You're coasting.Chris is asking and I'm answering- Woodworking by hand presents us with a significant challenges, physically, mentally, maybe even spiritually. I believe 18th c craftsmen were much better than I am, so I strive to go faster, work better, and produce better stuff. And maybe that's the best reason to work wood by hand. We weren't put on this earth to spend our lives on autopilot. We're here to do the best we can with whatever we were given.Adam
Adam,
Ever hear the one about the young bull, and the old bull? All this about the sweat, blisters, the fiery obsessive focus...how can you maintain that pace, and still see the line?
To quote Obi-Wan. Relax Luke, use the force. After you drill enough holes, you will know, without thinking, what that brace looks like when it's straight up and down. Just like you know what the view from the driver's seat looks like when the car's in the center of the lane.
Cheers,
Ray
Ray
And to continue quoting from another Star Wars character, Master Yoda.....
"Don't think......DO!!!!"
I agree with you on this point. When I am in "the zone" inside the workshop, I'm not concentrating a whole lot on what I'm doing. These tasks have been done so many times before in the past that the mind tells the hands what to do without much time wasted on thought, if any at all.
Jeff feeling the force at all times
Adam,
Challenges are certainly a good reason to want to work by hand. I have built a couple pieces (no works of art) entirely by hand tools. To me, the idea seems romantic at first, and my determination drives me. However, before long I realize that it is a long uphill climb. To me, power tools at the least are labour savers. Jigs increase accuracy and repeatability. At the end of the day, I know that my hand tools are the tools I really cannot do without. Albeit with more effort and skill, they can do everything my power tools can do and more (where they really shine).Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Adam,
Perhaps your kendo mindset is not actually appropriate to many kinds of more mundane activities, including a range of woodworking activities? To continue with Ray's driving analogy...
When I drive there is a part of my mind that does everything needful, including the full observances, signalling, anticipation of others' predicable actions and so forth. I have a comprehensive but only semi-conscious routine for driving. I come to a consciousness of the driving if and when something happens that requires non-routine considerations and actions. Then my mind is fully devoted to the driving business, until the difficuty is dealt with.
Of course, I don't do things whilst driving that would interfere with this unconscious process. Talking on a phone or watching a movie (or a satnav) would be too much of a distraction for me - it would interfere with the automated driving process going on in my mind/body.
But there are many things that I can think about as I drive that are nothing to do with the driving. Indeed, I often solved work (spit) problems when driving as somehow the "in two minds" condition seemed to stimulate analytic thought.
Many woodworking actions have become so familiar that they are now semi-automated within me. Rather than causing me to make mistakes, this allows the routine matters of woodworking to happen correctly. If I think over-much about it, it then goes wrong more often.
This syndrome is common in many sports (not Kendo it seems) where the player must make an effort not to think or analyse as he or she does the action. The action needs to be unconscious-competant or you will miss the goal, fumble the catch, go in the rough, fall off your bike during the skid or whatever. You will over-react or become a victim of your own mental provarication.
In short, there is not just one mental attitude appropriate for all activities. Different approaches are more or less suitable depending on the nature of the activity involved.
Kendo, I imagine, involves dealing with fundamentally unpredictable opponents. I suppose it cannot be routine - although surely there are bodily moves that must be, even if there is a conscious choice to employ them at a particular instant within the contest?
A lot of woodworking is not like that- not unpredictable; although certainly some is, especially when one is learning. But I now find I am thinking about the next process and the overall plan of action with a piece, rather than looking at the plane or saw, as I employ them in the way I have done so N-times before to perform a basic operation. The things that go wrong are never the now-routine things but rather the new (to me) stuff.
Lataxe
Respectfully, you're repeating Ray's point. About your driving, do you think that's how Michael Schumacher does it? That's the difference I'm trying to point out here. I guess there are some ww activities that don't need me there to perform them. Although I can't think of many off hand. Even drilling a perpendicular hole can be a challenge. Like Michael Schumacher, I'm trying to go faster for example. I can't do that while I'm thinking about picking up my puffy shirt at the dry cleaners.Adam
"About your driving, do you think that's how Michael Schumacher does it?"
Absolutely. Driving (like kendo) is a combination of a number of highly choreographed, stereotypical actions (the "muscle memory" that Ray mentioned) along with a reactive decision-making process that is continually accepting sensory input and tweaking the "action plan" in real time.
The difference between a Formula One driver and an ordinary driver is in the depth and breadth of the catalog of stereotypical actions and of the various "what if?" scenarios that are used in the decision tree (in other words, experience and practice). The difference between a winning Formula One driver and another Formula One driver is that the winning driver's actions are more automatic, not less. The winning driver is more able to quickly sift through the scenarios in the decision tree and prune it down to the one action that will most likely produce the desired result.
When confronted with a particular race track for the first time, a Formula One driver will experiment, performing all of the actions involved in driving fully consciously. Eventually, he will settle on a particular subset of actions to form the "standard plan" of making it around the track. This plan will include numerous mnemonics, like "downshift into 2nd as you pass the yellow pole on the right with the brown smudge on it." The key to success is in assimilating as much of that conscious track knowledge into muscle memory as possible, in order to free up the conscious mind to attend to all of those unexpected and unplanned-for occurrences that crop up during the race.
-Steve
Adam,
I feel you are confusing the need to feel competant with the need to feel important. You're only working wood, just like the rest of us - except for them "deliberate mistakes" you advocate of course. (Perhaps those are what are requiring your unalloyed attention?) :-)
Steve's explanation of the Formula I driving scenario is very illuminating and can be found in lots of other sports requiring a mixture of highly honed skills and decision-making. This behaviour has been exhaustively researched by swathes of sports scientists and is dominant in the regimes of virtually every sports coach involved with such sports.
Typically, sportmen and women at the top of their game have internalised and automated many of the routine functions involved in their sport. In training, a high class socer player will score the penalty at every attempt. However, under the pressure of being observed, the player often becomes anxious and slips back into a self-conscious & over-analytic mode. The penalty is fumbled and missed.
Perhaps you have been writing too many magazine articles and feel all them gazes focussed in your direction?
Lataxe
I enjoy your columns in Popwood but it seems like you're always trying to drive hand tool work into the realm of the esoterica. I mean, the idea that you can't do it "correctly" unless you exactly duplicate the tools of the Seaton Tool Chest,.... And now you've got to concentrate with the single-minded focus of the Zen master,...what a bunch of horse hockey. You can't even listen to music? Heck, my dentist even listens to music as he drills my teeth. Sometimes we even discuss politics and current events as he works (I say "discuss" - when it gets to the point where I'm doing eye blinks to agree or disagree, it's kind of one-sided) - point is, I trust the guy to multi-task a little bit. Not really rocket surgery. Neither is most hand tool work. And then you bring physical fitness into it,...you know, for me, physical fitness is doing 30 reps at the bench press and then running 5 and a half miles in 90 degree heat. It's not really sawing something, Adam. Or using a bench plane.But rave on, brother, always enjoy your posts and various writings,...
Sometimes I write about stuff without giving you the whole story. Here's at least more of the story:In 2003, a young couple inherited a box of books from a friend. In that box was a tiny 18th c book, whose existence was known to scholars by its reference in early texts, but for which no copy existed. The book titled simply "Prices of Cabinet and Chair Work" and dated 1772, was a secret tome provided to Philadelphia cabinet and chair makers for the purpose of controlling and fixing prices for labor and finished products. The couple, Tom and Dee Howland, chose magnanimously to donate the book to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The was reprinted and here are a few excerpts:Secretary desk- scalloped drawers with shell carvings, no book case on top, mahogany £4-10s (about 3 weeks labor)Chippendale chair no elaborate carving on the back or knees, but with ball and claw feet, no arms 10s (2 days labor)Chippendale low-boy or dressing table, including ball and claw legs, corner columns, drawers - 6 daysI can't build this fast today. And I don't know anyone who can. I'm in excellent health, I'm young and strong and I have every tool there is. My shop is the 18th c equivalent of Norm's. Moreover, I have electric grinders and synthetic stones to maintain my edge tools. I also have electric light. And yet they were able to do with none of this, what many can't do with a full modern shop today. Our ancestors' ability to build quickly motivates me to continue to try to learn their secrets and find ways to work faster and with greater accuracy using hand tools.The Philadelphia Museum of Art has planned an exhibit based on the Price Book. The exhibit will open on July 5 (2 days from now). Read about it here:http://www.philamuseum.org/exhibitions/326.htmlMaybe we should try to get a group together. If anybody is interested email me offline. You can buy the book here:
http://www.philamuseumstore.org/istar.asp?a=6&id=30177I'm really excited about this book. Its highly controversial. People who do what I do are claiming its impossible to build these pieces in this amount time. Debates over the wages paid Journeymen have been raging. And I have no insider information regarding the content of the exhibit (which is really puzzling). I assume it will include representative pieces along side the various entries. It's possible they could cross reference the price book prices with actual prices paid from contemporaneous account books.On whole this sort of information forces us to rethink what we thought we knew about Philadelphia furniture, and the labor required to make it, the price of reproduction furniture, and inevitably the use of hand tools to work wood.Adam
Thanks for the information.My brother is a car mechanic and what he does in one hour would take me a good part of a day or more. I think sometimes we wonder how anyone could do things so fast but when we see it with our own eyes we no longer question it.
Very interesting Adam. The one thing that came to mind is that there is an assumption that only one person did all the work. I would submit that perhaps the was an apprentice or two to help things along. Or any other combination of employeer/employeee/partners etc. The fact that they were pricing things using man hours does not mean that it was only one man doing it all.Cheers,Peter
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
Just a clarification Peter- the prices were given in pounds, shillings and pence. Not manhours. I used my figure for manhours to determine the time it took to build these things, but there's significant debate about the price paid to journeymen in Philadelphia in 1772.As far as apprentices go, people seem to have a notion that because apprentices weren't paid, customers weren't charged for their labor. That is incorrect. So for the purposes of this book (and my point) it doesn't matter who did the work or how many of them there were. The prices were fixed assuming a Journeyman making the standard wage (5s/per) did the work. There may have been many masters who used apprentices to do some or part of this work, but they wouldn't remain in business long if they passed the labor savings to their customers. Apprentices were not helpers. They were essentially unpaid journeymen. Their masters' pocketed their 5s/day as payment for their instruction. We think their instruction may have lasted about a year. After that, they probably functioned as under-skilled journeymen for the remainder of their indenture. Adam
We are talking in circles but agreeing here. Somewhere, somehow the cost has to be determined taking into consideration how many man hours it takes to build something. However one comes at it, it boils down to that. A business does not quote the price on an item by saying so much for materials plus so much for so many hours at so much an hour/day.I find your second paragraph very interesting. If you have any more historical information to pass on, please do so. It will much appreciated. Was there a formal guild system at play here? Did the population accept price fixing as normal?Cheers,Peter
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
Adam,
Thanks for the link to the book. Winterthur Portfolio 13 has an article on one of the manuscript copies apparently made from the original printed one.
Couple of points for your consideration re: the speed at which these guys were able to work. First, the typical day was 12 hours, so that lowboy for instance, had 72 hrs, or almost two of our typical workweeks, in it. 2d, the couple of apprenticeship agreements I've seen reproduced were for 5 to 7 yrs in duration, so that a journeyman would have been a pretty seasoned worker. And finally, would you not expect some degree of division of labor in a large urban shop, so that the dovetailing for instance would have been done by one man who primarily cut dovetails in that shop, leaving the framing work, mortising, tenoning, to another who primarily did only that? The result of all these would give quite a leg up on any of us today, who have not the benefit of years of long days doing repetitious work as an apprentice, then as a journeyman. Instead, we have come to the trade relatively late in our lives, and even those of us who have been years in the trade have had to develop our hand skills more or less "on the side". I think that is a hurdle that is hard to overcome.
Ray
Ray
You know, it's funny you mention the 12 hour days. I was talking to a friend from the museum who was saying something similar about a craftsman who worked on North Third Street in Philly. There isn't more than 8 hours of good light on North Third street, even in the Summer. And some of this work is really hard to do by candle light or in poor light. I would think this would be even harder in larger shops. So while they talked about 12 hour days, I think we shouldn't believe that they actually worked 12 hours. Also, they ate their main meal in the afternoons. The whole "high tea" thing, which was a meal eaten after work in a factory, wasn't typical then. (Some folks think high tea is a more formal version of 4 o'clock tea- I'm betting you're not one of them). I think they probably had a long siesta in the middle of the day, as many modern Europeans do. It's even possible guys went home for this meal. So my guess is they probably worked more or less what we work.Interesting to note, in the account book of Thomas Nevell (who built Mt Pleasant), Nevell credits his customer for feeding his "away team" the apprentices and journeymen working on site. This account book reveals that tastes haven't changed much in 250 years. Woodworkers then preferred meat, bread, and beer for their meals!As to specialization, I've never seen anything or done anything that would suggest cooperation within a wood shop. On the contrary, my own experience suggests the most efficient approach is for one worker to work cradle to grave on a project. Just bear in mind that would be cradle to grave on structure. Carving, finishing, and upholstery were all specialities that we know were "out-sourced" to external specialists (external to the joinery or cabinetshop). Some carving and veneer would probably have been done in house. On a Chippendale chair for example, there's evidence that the ball and claw was probably carved in house- the carvings are similar from chairs from the same shop, while the knee carvings and back carvings show the work of a different hand with different tools. Account book data indicates that the chairs were being "shopped out" to carvers so we think that's where the work split was. Ball and claw in house, other carvings out.I think your sense that these guys were really good at what they did is correct. I'd go further and say that dovetailing was not a specialty. All of them were Frank Klauses, capable of making dovetails very quickly. We do have evidence that there was a drawer maker in Philadelphia. What isn't known (to me at least) is for whom he worked. I wouldn't assume he was making drawers for fine case furniture, though. He may have been making drawers for built-ins for example, subbing out to carpenters for instance. Overall, I remain impressed by the abilities of these guys with only a few years of experience. They weren't super men. They were certainly smaller people than I am, with considerably poorer general health and fitness, and yet they were able to do what I am not. Even with all of Norm's tools, I don't think he's much faster if at all, and I've not seen him do work that's as nice. Clearly, we have more to learn. I've certainly not "arrived". There's much much more to learn which is why I continue to feel challenged and enthused about what I do.Adam
Adam
As to the long, 12 hour work days...........
My grandfather and great grandfather were both professional woodworkers. I just got off the phone with my mother, as I thought I'd ask her about her memories of her fathers work day.
I can't attest to anything 18th century, but in the late 1800's and early 1900's, the 12 hour work day was the norm, 6 days a week. My grandfather worked in his father's shop, which then became his own when my great grandfather died.
Just a tidbit of fact based on my mothers account of it all. My mom also recalls that my grandfather was the last in a line of 4 or 5 generations of professional woodworkers (Her brother, my uncle, became a police officer.) This work ethic most likely was handed down from times well into the 18th century.
Jeff
Adam,
So, they didn't work early in the am, or late in the pm cause it was too dark, and they took a long siesta in the middle of the day. By god, they were fast, then, and their bosses were pretty lenient, too.
Ray
As far as light, I thought in the cities they had gas lamps, and in the country, oil lamps? While these might not be halogens, you'd think a bit of woodworking could get done with such light, wouldn't you?
http://inventors.about.com/od/lstartinventions/a/lighting.htm
I've worked by candle light. I know candles were expensive then. And you can work where the candle is. But in a wood shop, you loose stuff. I wouldn't think you could share a candle. Its more like working wood with a flash light. I don't know anything about oil or gas lamps. Never spent much time with either and never tried working with them. My sense is I'd want to try it before I believed this is what they did. I've never seen documentary evidence talking about them working by candle light. Not saying it doesn't exist. My experience suggests it's not easy to do, however. These two coupled together are the cause of my suspicion.As far as the hours per day worked, Campell talked abut this in "The London Tradesman...." I think the hours given represent an expectation. I don't think guys were given a quitting time and walked off the job at 5pm for example (whether that was 12 hours or not). I think they were expected to work all day. They were paid by the day, not by the hour. But I don't feel comfortable using Campell's 10-12 hours/day as actual manhours worked. It may have been that the cost of artificial light and the reduction in productivity made it simply not worthwhile.Another aspect to this that I hesitate to mention is the notion that Romans and other ancient civilizations divided the actual day light on any given day into 12 hours. Its possible that the 12 hours is just short hand for" all day" and that 10-12 hours is "almost all day". Naturally this means an hour in Winter would be less time than an hour in Summer. I don't know if this was the case in 18th c London. (Campell wrote London tradesman in 1748 IIRC). It's my belief that rail lines caused the need to keep time accurately. Before rail, I think everywhere was like Italy is now! Pope John 23 was asked by a reporter how many people worked in the Vatican. He thought for a moment and answered "About half of them".Ciao!Adam
Adam - I suspect at least some work was done by candlelight. Many of the journeyman-master agreements of the day required the master to provide candles and a set amount of beer. Interestingly, many of these contracts specified that veneer work was to be done by hammer if at all possible, and in cases where that method was not suitable, the master had to provide the cauls. I find it unlikely that the contract would specifically address who was providing the candles if they were'nt an integral part of the work day.
Were it my cabinet shop, carving, finishing and intricate joinery would be done by daylight, but the early morning or late evening hours would be an opportunity for rough-planing stock to approximate thickness, sharpening tools, and potentially gluing up carcasses, doors and drawers that were dry-fitted earlier in the day (particularly since hide glues needs at least 12 hours to dry).
Another thought on how much work could be done by candlelight, as I get older and my eyesight gets less reliable, I'm finding I actually do less of my work by eye than I thought, and a lot more by feel. I didn't notice it until the eyes started going, but I've been doing it for a while. Muscle memory, I suppose.
I earlier countered Ray's "muscle memory" with mindfulness. So I guess this is your sense too. From the mindfulness camp, I use certain very specific techniques to accommodate failing light, and eyesight. Certainly the use of my now famous striking knife comes to mind. Listening for straight when using a try plane is another. In general I regard these as smart techniques for any worker or light. But I certainly am more likely to knife all around as the day draws on and my eyes become weary. Adam
Beautiful looking tool, Adam. I do most of my marking out with a 5MM mechanical pencil. I go through a lot of lead, but I get a very controllable line and no cutmark. I also divide the pencil line mentally into thirds when I need fine accuracy. But I understand you're doing 18th century type work, where the strike marks are appropriate. I live in a Colonial town, and am sometimes called to do historic restorations, and there's no getting around knowing old methods and having old or old-style tools. Do you do it professionaly or on the side ?
I wrote a response and deleted it earlier in your discussion of mindfullness, but I'll try it again. Certainly while learning, total mindfulness is important, or for me when doing something I know how to accomplish but have seldom or never done. But when doing many tasks that I've done countless times, sometimes a zen-like thing occurs and I'll do something like cut a piece of molding without measuring, or build a complex solution to a problem on the fly without drawing it out. I've learned to trust my instinct on these kind of things, and am seldom dissapointed. I can only guess that previous mindfullness has lead to a kind of integration between man, tools, and intent, but it can be a little spooky.
Edited 7/7/2008 10:32 pm ET by thumbnailed
"I do most of my marking out with a 5MM mechanical pencil."That's some pencil! My kids have crayons smaller than that. No wonder you can divide it into thirds! :) (I think you meant 0.5mm)The nice thing about a knife line is that your saws or chisels will find it. You can also knife all around a board (literally) with your eyes closed. Once a board is sawn, you can often see the line from the end grain.Adam
"About half of them"
Now that's one to remember!Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Gas lamps are a 19th century (and late 19th century, at that) thing. And while oil lamps have been around since the time of Moses, oil was harshly expensive until the invention of that most barbaric of Whale hunting devices, the canon launched exploding harpoon. That's why whale oil became the lighting source of choice from about the 1830s - 1870s.
Tallow candles were relatively inexpensive by comparison, which is why you often find antique 18th century candle boxes, and very very few 18th century oil lamps. If you think about it, it makes sense - flax seed oil (linseed) was the petroleum of its day, only a heck of a lot more expensive than $140/barrel in today's prices, and it was used for everything, including paints, varnishes, women's makeup, etc...
I'm no expert, and it makes sense that candles and fireplaces were likely cheaper and more widespread in use especially early on, but as far as gas light, the link I had in my message seems reasonably precise in dating gas lights of various sorts (FWIW):
In 1792, the first commercial use of gas lighting began when William Murdoch used coal gas for lighting his house in Redruth, Cornwall. German inventor Freidrich Winzer (Winsor) was the first person to patent coal gas lighting in 1804 and a "thermolampe" using gas distilled from wood was patented in 1799. David Melville received the first U.S. gas light patent in 1810.
Early in the 19th century, most cities in the United States and Europe had streets that were gaslight.
I don't doubt the date of the inventions, but I do doubt the wide-spread adoption date that the website gives, unless "early" in the 19th century means the 1840's or 1850's.
I think the website link you had in your post had a typo. The wiki entry on gas lighting states:
"In the early 20th century, most cities in the United States and Europe had gaslit streets. However, gas lighting for streets soon gave way to electric lighting. Small incandescent electric lamps began to replace gas lights in homes in the late 19th century, although the transition took decades to complete. See, for example, Rural electrification."
The entry is fairly extensive, and makes clear that coal-gas lighting was gaining acceptance by the 1820s in Europe, and at least implies that America was a bit farther back.
Regardless, of course, the topic was regarding work habits in 18th century Philadelphia, which would've primarily been lit by candles, and perhaps occasionally with oil lamps.
It's fiction, so you have to take it with a pinch of salt, but George Eliot's "Adam Bede" was written in 1859 about an earlier period. It opens in a country carpenters' shop with 5 workers (no apprentices). The hero Adam, described as unusually tall at almost 6 feet (!), is annoyed with his coworkers because they drop tools the moment the clock strikes six.
Adam has been "carving a shield in the centre of a wooden mantelpiece," presumably because he's the most talented, but everyone else seems to be working through his own piece, doors, window frames and wainscoting. There's a running joke about one moonstruck worker who thinks he's finished his door when he's forgotten to put the panels in. (How do you manage that?)
Adam goes home where he has to stay up all night making a coffin in the home workshop because his old man sneaked off to the boozer and didn't come back -- source of light not given. Eliot was noted for her realism, but that door with no panels makes me wonder.
Jim
Jim,
George Sturtz' The Wheelwright Shop describes the working conditions for his family owned wagon business in the late 1800's. Start before daylight, work til after dark, and no Eyetalian layabouts there, tho the pitsawyers had a habit of going to the pub and never returning if their foreman was late in arriving...
Ray
Hi Jim,You wrote, in part:"It's fiction, so you have to take it with a pinch of salt, but George Eliot's "Adam Bede" was written in 1859 about an earlier period. It opens in a country carpenters' shop with 5 workers (no apprentices). ... There's a running joke about one moonstruck worker who thinks he's finished his door when he's forgotten to put the panels in. (How do you manage that?) " ... Eliot was noted for her realism, but that door with no panels makes me wonder."If I recall correctly, the co-worker who assembled his door without panels was Adam Bede's brother. Actually, it was this specific description which led me to believe that Eliot likely had talked with someone familiar with a joiner/carpenter's shop in preparation for writing this scene.I was once involved in a large project during which three of us produced nearly 100 four and six panel interior doors, all of quarter-sawn white oak. A few times while I was present, we had actually started to enter the through tenons into the mortises before noticing that we had failed to install one, or more, of the panels. Close calls! And this was with at least two, and sometimes three, people involved in the glue-up. One day while I was absent (purely coincidental), my two co-workers got one door completely clamped up, and the glue had already set-up too much to allow for disassembly, before they realized they'd forgotten to install the panels. I had to tease them a little (well, a lot), but couldn't really say too much because I already knew how easy it was to focus on glue application and the clamping sequence, while losing sight of the panels.So, it may seem preposterous to someone who hasn't done this kind of work, but I have no trouble finding it believable.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Yep, it was his brother Seth, the dreamer. I can see how the mistake could be made in a group making a series of doors, but here the door was one man's work for the day, and he lifts it up and places it against the wall before claiming he's finished. Poor guy must really have been in love. It's not clear whether he even made the panels, or just forgot to put them in. However the scene is otherwise convincing, as most of Eliot's work scenes are, so I'm probably being over-critical.
Jim
Adam et al,The 1772 Philadelphia _Prices of Cabinet and Chair Work_ booklet is, indeed, a fascinating historical document. However, there are a lot of gray areas involved in interpreting it's intent and import, so one needs to be careful about making assumptions and, especially, about drawing conclusions based on those assumptions. At the least, one needs to be quite transparent as to how one's conclusions are reached.For example, your post concerning the contents of this document includes the statement: "Chippendale chair, no elaborate carving on the back or knees, but with ball and claw feet, no arms - 10s (2 days)." I've looked at the introductory material related to this document in which the authors indicate that cabinetmakers in Philadelphia at that time may have averaged between 15 and 25 shillings a week. Based on that, I can only conclude that you took the high end of that (quite considerable) range, divided by 5 days and concluded that a day's wage would be 5 shillings. Hence, the wage of 10 shillings being 2 day's work.Well, as others have already pointed out, this doesn't square with the working hours/days at that time. In the first place, they were working six days a week. As to the hours, I'll simply let _The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices_, 1828, speak for itself: "All men working by the day to be paid not less and $1.33 1/3 per day, to work eleven hours, employers to find candles." (I doubt that working hours had grown longer from 1772 to 1828, and I doubt the candles were for drinking tea.)Further, it seems to me that a more neutral starting point would be an average weekly wage of 20 shillings - half way between 15 and 25. If we divide that figure by six, we end up with a daily wage of 3s 4d. In which case, a piece rate wage of 10 shillings would be closer to three day's wages. But, if they were eleven hour days, it would really translate to 33 hours, or an hour more than four eight-hour work days. Four of our work days is still challenging, but a far cry from two. I won't claim this to be entirely historically accurate, but, at least, others can follow my starting point/assumptions and decide for themselves if it makes sense. Similar calculations could be made for the other pieces you mentioned.Another factor. A careful reading of the various pieces and wages makes it clear that not all work was included in the journeyman's wages. For example, under "Pembroke or Breakfast Tables," are these two consecutive entries (description of work - wages to be paid):[Breakfast table], with crooked [cabriole] legs and plain feet - 0 17 6
[Breakfast table], with claw feet - 0 17 6In other words, the journeyman's wages were the same for the second table, even with the addition of carved claw feet. There are a number of other such examples throughout the listings. So, it is clear that some carving (and, possibly, some turning) work was not included in these wage listings. On the other hand, there are some entries which indicate that the wages were to be bumped-up if carving was added, indicating that, in these cases, the journeyman would do the carving and be paid extra for it. What isn't clear is whether the cabriole legs were being provided by specialist carvers for the journeymen to work with - one of the gray areas I mentioned. But, this may be the case, as it seems the instances where the journeymen were to be paid extra for carving tend to be those in which the carving might better have been carried out after the piece was substantially assembled. In which case, in the example of the Chippendale chair discussed above, the cabriole legs may have been supplied by the carver. At the least, in looking at the associated chair listings, I think it reasonable to assume that the carving of the ball and claw feet was not included in the wages listed. All of this impacts our assessment of the time involved.I suppose there are those (if they've read this far) who view all of the above as a lot of quibbling about insigificant historical minutia. In a sense, this may be true, but I guess I place a fair amount of value on at least *trying* for historical accuracy. Beyond that, if we are to draw insights regarding our own approach to woodworking from the historical record, then it pays for us not to base them on inaccuracies, ignorance, and blind guess-work.And there's another element, which I'll call the culture of craftsmanship. The English literature often includes admonishments that work be done in a "neat and workmanlike manner," and Roubo makes it clear that the French woodworkers had a similar outlook.("L'Art du Menuisier. Work practices of French Joiners and Cabinet-Makers in the Eighteenth Century", Hans-Ulrich Thamer, European University Institute Department of History and Civilization). Of course, it can be argued that the need for such admonitions is evidence that not everyone fulfilled this expectation. And, we've all seen examples of these lapses, so there is some truth to this. But, I do believe that this culture of craftsmanship was intended to create the expectation that one was not to sacrifice sound workmanship to the pressures of commercialism. Someone already mentioned that none/few of us are likely to ever be as fast at cutting dovetails as Frank Klausz. That is true, but I think it also important to remember, if I recall correctly, that his master/father first insisted that Frank learn to cut them well, THEN insisted that he learn to cut them fast. Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Don,
Amen, and amen.
Ray
Don, you misread. The author of the introduction you read listed Journeymen's wages at 15-25s/day. It's not a typo. As I understand it, she had some data, but I don't know what it was or why it misled her. I think you'd agree that the example she used: "Bureau table with Prospect Door and Square corners £2-7/6" is more than "a little over 2 days work". I'm familiar with several primary source documents listing Philadelphia wages in this period at 5s/day. I cross referenced this with the cost of lumber, materials, and other consumer items and the 5s wage seems to be in the right ball park. This is also the number I recall from "The London Tradesman". But I'd agree that book is earlier and English so it may not be a good guide to third quarter Philadelphia wages. Interesting that it corroborates though. So just to be clear, we have account books from Philadelphia craftsmen from this period and this is the wage given.Initial and exit conditions are the gray area I see/suspect. I think you and I would agree there. I asked the questions you are asking. The answer I was given is that there's evidence that chairs specifically were roughed to shape. Cab legs with ball and claw feet were carved in house and all the other fancy carving was out. I think some of the best B&C carvers today are doing that job with 6 gouges. The knee and back carvings are really very different. Ya know, I did some B&C legs last week and they really didn't take that long. I liken it to turning. You could spend all day turning something. Or you could do the job in 10 minutes. I guess that's why folks like these crafts as hobbies. I think guys like Will Neptune or Phil Lowe can carve a B&C leg in 15 minutes. There's a lot more to this story. If you email me offline, I'll type up more of it for you. Or remind me when we I see you in November. I'll issue a full report on my blog about the Price Book exhibit. I'm going to try to go this week.Adam
Adam,You're right, I misremembered the author's wording. However, I do believe it is a mis-statement on her part. I guess, to the extent that I subconsciously assumed she meant per week. Sorry about that.I had looked into possible income levels, independently, and had found seemingly reliable information that, in 1781, average wages, in London, for skilled workers in the building trades, was around 14 shillings a week. It is thought that wages in Philadelphia were somewhat higher than in London, so something around 20 shillings a week was/is believable to me. Fifteen to twenty-five shillings a day, given the piece-rate wages in the listings, is simply not believable. And, apparently, you agree with that.I still maintain, though, that it's important to clarify whose days we're talking about. Even at a daily rate of 5 shillings, a 10 shilling wage would equate to two eleven hour days, or just a couple of hours short of three 8-hour days.As to ball and claw feet, there are a couple of entries which indicate wages are to be added for them, but most of the listings seem to indicate otherwise. To me, this suggests they were mostly to be done by a carver.Just another example:"Card Tables with Crooked [cabriole] Legs.
Card table, plain feet and knees 0 17 6
Ditto, with claw feet 0 17 6"Similar examples are scattered throughout the booklet. And, I believe this applies to the chair we've already discussed, based on reading all of the entries in context.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
We have several account books and day books showing a 5s wage. That's not in question in my mind. The problem is these things are in the Philsophical Society. They are in Winterthur's Library and not easy to find. You find them referenced by people. Try looking up the master's thesis of Arthur Leibundguth, University of Delaware.You and I can BS about this sort of stuff using the few books reprinted by Dover or Astragal Press, but there's real data. It's amazing what we DO have. Not only do we know there was a price fixing book for carpenters "Carpenters Company (of Philadelphia) Rule Book", we have Thomas Nevell's with his hand written annotations.Don I think you'd like this. It gives prices per linear foot of architectural moldings. Happy birthday:
EDIT: I apologize of the link Don. I don't understand that gibberish. I'm linking you to the HABS (Historic American Building Survey) in the Library of Congress. Go straight to the HABS this way:http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/Type "rule book" into the search field and you'll see Nevell's copy of the Carpenter's Company Rule book. I'd be shocked if you don't find this interesting. Looked like an hours work to stick a foot of complicated molding (including stock prep etc etc) And that seems right to me. Just imagine what a house like Mount Pleasant cost. END EDITBack to the original point (boy you guys get me off on tangents) I don't care how many hours they worked in a day. They could make a chair for three days pay that takes Williamsburg 60 hours to make. They were making large case pieces that sell for $40,000 as repros today in 2 weeks. Slice it however you want. They were fast-probably faster than us, and they worked with good quality. That's a good, challenging target to shoot for in my opinion.AdamEdited 7/8/2008 8:40 am ET by AdamCherubini
Edited 7/8/2008 9:51 am ET by AdamCherubini
Adam,
You wrote, "...You and I can BS about this sort of stuff using the few books reprinted by Dover or Astragal Press, but there's real data..."
What an insult, Adam! Now you've p!ssed me off. Don spent a life time working wood for a living. Almost all of that in situations working primarily with hand tools. Even at that, he has more time in libraries researching this stuff than you have time in a shop. One thing that seemed very apparent to me in your earlier articles is that the majority of your "research" for them involved seeking out years of Don's posts on the "oldtools" mailing list. One thing I can tell you about Don is he always cites his sources, just one of the millions of things you could learn from him.
I apologize. I didn't mean it like that. I don't find this data easy to find. I'm not sure Don was privy to it and I was commiserating. The Philosophical Society is NOT easy to deal with. I'm assuming Don has never been there. But you're right, I don't know for sure. Maybe the reason I feel I sometimes get chilly responses from Don is that I haven't recognized how tremendously influential his combination of scholarship and craftsmanship has been. So let's set the record straight: Without Don McConnell I'd be painting water colors and there would be no Arts and Mysteries column.So if he's gone back to work in disgust please pass on my sincerest apologies and thanks for his lifetime of effort.Adam CherubiniEdited 7/8/2008 10:02 am ET by AdamCherubini
Edited 7/8/2008 1:28 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Black Sandpaper Blues"So thar I went 'n stumbled and slipped,...
Confusin' my woodworking with Shakespearian scholarship.How'd they do it so fast said I,
Whackin' together a lowboy in the wink of an eye?How much did they really get paid?
And when did they ever find the time to get [censored}?Pacin' to an fro, my noggin was cookin,'
Somehow the cat took off with my skullcap when I warn't even lookin.'So I put up my book, doused my taper,
And secretly honed my chisels with some black sandpaper."-to the tune of "Dollar Bill Blues," Townes Van Zandt, with many hammer-ons in the Am chord.-Sorry guys, just trying for some levity. Actually I am an admirer of the scholarship.
I'd love to do further reading on this whole issue, if Don has published something could you please post links or a cite for the forum?
TIA
Ed - Adam's not the only one trying to replicate the methods of the eighteenth century, he's just a lot better writer than are many of us doing the same thing.
There's an excellent reason to use the tools of the period to build pieces appropriate to the time period. Beyond replicating the look and feel of the originals (including all of the tool marks), the choice of tools can greatly influence the construction of the final piece.
Windsor chairs are an excellent example of this principle. When Michael Dunbar and others set out to figure out how the originals were made in the 1970's, very little of the original technology was still around and easily accessible. It turns out that a windsor made by shaping green wood with hand tools is a significantly stronger and more elegant product than the factory-produced models that fill unfinished furniture stores.
Point taken, and the example of a Windsor chair made from green wood is a good one.Don't forget to have fun at some point in your journey toward replicating the 18th Century. Too much zealotry scares the natives.Speaking of the 18th C - reading David McCullough's "1776" this week. Good book. Would recommend to anyone.
Perhaps a better way to view the "zealotry" is fidelity. There are those of us attempting high fidelity to see what there is at the end of the road. The Seaton chest has some fine nuggets in it, but only if you use the tools found within.Now, this does not mean you can't make fine pieces using non 18th C tools. It is just that you aren't going to figure out how it may have been possible to do what the workers did without picking up the tools they had. Different goals for different folks, none right nor wrong.For me, half of the fun is trying to put myself in the shoes of a worker of the period.Dean
Hah! "Zealotry" is a good word (and is probably most appropriately applied to silly antiques dealers that insist on redefining "grimy and in good need of a professional cleaning" as "wonderful original surface").
I'll admit I'm not too interested in going as far as re-enactment. I'm old and don't see too well by candlelight, and I much prefer modern New Balance tennis shoes on a concrete floor to 18th century hobnailed leather ones.
Besides, I firmly believe that the South (where I live) would be SEVERELY under-populated were it not for that most wonderful of 20th century inventions, air conditioning!
Whether the CNC machine can make exactly what it was intended to make or not, I don't think the've got a machine yet that can select perfect grain direction for a chair leg ( that's why EThan Allen type furniture is so clunky compared to it's ancestors) or make those tiny adjustments on the fly that make the difference between the beautiful and the mundane. The eye of the skilled craftsman is still irreplaceable, fortunately.
Adam - While it's true that a poorly performing machine may potentially introduce more variation in a particular operation than a person, that's the exception rather than the rule. Many machines are intentionally designed to produce precise results regardless of normal wear and tear - Stanley's rule marking machinery is a great example.
They're a wonder of mechanical design, and the gentleman that wrote them up in Philip Stanley's "A Sourcebook for Rule Collectors", page 104, noted that the bearings had gotten extremely sloppy over their 100 years of use, but the results were nevertheless precise. That's a book, by the way, that's well worth buying, particularly if your interested in the mathematics of measurement.
My thought is that it's certainly possible (maybe even likely) for a machine to produce a bad result time after time, but they do so in a very predictable manner, and a human doesn't. When you introduce more modern machines with integral sensing and measurement, the tolerances achievable are far beyond what humans are capable of with hand tools. I rather doubt that a human could produce a granite surface that's within 1 ten thousandths of an inch over a 3 foot distance without a machine.
All - Regarding Maloof's work, everyone should remember that the $50,000 price tag for one of his rockers (and more importantly, the willingness of customers to pay it) isn't based on the production method or even the materials. His customers are paying for the design and his signature, and I'm betting more than a few are speculating that his pieces will skyrocket in price after they're no longer being produced (which is really unseemly, but that's another thread).
and chabber,
OK, what about the wood?
Can the CNC spot flaws, imperfections, knots? What if the board is bowed, cupped, etc.?
The local Ethan Allen factory's CNC machines have this capability, but I bet it costs a pretty penny, and is it reliable? Don't know 'bout that.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
I guess one could compare a CNC to cheap labour. Both will do as told, but no more.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
What I like about "arguing over the internet" is that I get a broader range of demographic responses, not just of the local flavour and biases.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
I only jig an operation if I am making more than one of the pieces. And I use jigs a lot--mdf is super cheap. Regards, Scooter"I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow." WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
That works for simple pieces, but complex joinery like a dovetail is a whole new ball game.
If you are hand cutting a dovetail you can shave a it more off with a chisel to refine your fit. The CNC machined part is left with what ever tolerance is cut.
CNC programming, for complex parts of a multi part assembly, is every bit as much of a skill, as using hand tools.
In either method there will be those few craftsmen, who do it well, and others who get an ok results.
Thanks for the reply.First, I certainly don't want to come across as saying that operating a CNC machine is not a skill.My example was simple, but isn't every project made up of a multitude of these simple actions? Projects that are complex do require design/coordination at a certain level and exists in both exercises. I don't think they are specific to one exercise or the other.The difference I see is that one can program the computer to cut a dovetail. The first time you do this, it may be difficult. The second time I program the dovetail cut, it is going to be immensely easier and probably perfect. The first time I cut dovetails, it was difficult and frustrating (probably not unlike the first time programming the CNC). 2 years later I am still cutting dovetails and it requires every bit of my attention and skill to get it right (or wrong!).Again, I have never actually used a CNC machine, so please correct me if I am wrong in my assumptions.Josh
Samson,
Thanks, I'll order a copy for myself.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Do you live to work or work to live?
F.
I live to work.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Chris,
"I live to work".Nicely said. I am in a different position. I am retired.
I LIVE TO HAVE FUN. The word "work" often gives the wrong impression. I actually do woodworking at least six days a week. When I do that, I often sweat profusely, and on occasion, I utter a profanity. That might seem like I am doing work, but that would not be true. I am having fun.I am a behavioral psychologist. Decades ago, behavioral psychologists tried to figure out what is "rewarding" to a person. One good answer is to watch the person at a time when the person can do what he chooses. Whatever that is, is rewarding to that person. I hope that makes sense to you.
If not, it will when you are retired.
Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I believe that there is "work" and then there is "work". (is that as nonsensical as it sounds?) One is an obligation, one is just to keep yourself busy and you can do it as you please. "Work" is not really by choice.
I often joke that I plan to retire in a couple years.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
IMHO, "craftsmanship" begins with an idea of something you want to build; is one of the most important parts of the design process; and continues throughout the job - from materials selection thru construction and finishing.
The specific tools you use really don't matter. Whether you use the latest in CNC equipment, or a toolbox full of hammers, saws, planes, chisels, etc (that you made yourself, of course), if you enjoy the process of building something, and you're pleased with the finished product, you're a craftsman. If everyone else who sees it likes it, you're an artist. - lol
This is going to rub some folks here the wrong way, but as a purchaser of a piece of furniture, I don't give a rats *ss if the maker used a less efficient, more difficult, and more error-prone way of getting the job done.
I'll be impressed they pulled it off, but it doesn't make the piece more valuable to me.
What does make a piece valuable is if the end result fulfills a function and/or looks/feels really good AND it is built in a way that will last a very long time.
Jast last weekend, I saw a beautiful Maloof-inspired rocker in a local museum that appears to have been dowelled or screwed together in a couple of structurally important places. Selling price is $6000! I'd worry about the durability of such a piece and so would not purchase it (besides, I plan to make my own in the near future).
BUT if I found out that Maloof himself had used a precision-tuned CNC at every phase of his chairs' manufacture (not that I think a machine actually exists that can do that job), I would still believe them to be just as valuable as if the only electric tool used in their manufacture was a light bulb.
From the perspective of a hobbyist woodworker though, I would never put a CNC machine in my shop. I'm sure I would find the use and maintenance of that beast both annoying and unsatisfying, even if the end results were spectacular.
Max,
From a consumer's point of view, I agree with you. However, from a fellow craftsman or collector's point of view, I disagree. Would you post your multi-axis CNC produced Maloof chair on Knots' Gallery? Original paintings always have more value to collectors, as I'm sure we are all aware. Prints, on the other hand, are cheap. Both probably look identical.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
"Would you post your multi-axis CNC produced Maloof chair on Knots' Gallery? Original paintings always have more value to collectors, as I'm sure we are all aware."
What about furniture that is unique and entirely of your own design? It would certainly fit the "original" classification. Would its being manufactured under computer control preclude its inclusion in the Knots Gallery?
Take a look at these: http://www.dwr.com/product/classics/eames-molded-plywood-lounge-chair-lcw.do. They're 100% factory-made, yet people are willing to pay quite a bit for them (in no small part because of the Eames "designer label" attached to them). Another example: http://www.dwr.com/product/classics/saarinen-tulip-armchair.do.
Everyone seems to be focused in on skill/risk at the fabrication stage only. That's just one of many places where those forces come into play.
-Steve
Steve,
I guess my point is that it sounds better to say "I spent 200 hours building this table by hand." than "I spent 100 hours programming a CNC to cut out the parts for this table.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
The programming itself is mostly grunge work. (I know--I create software for a living.) The skill/risk comes in figuring out how to solve the problem at hand.
And what does the time involved have to do with it? It takes me a whole lot longer to cut dovetails than it does Frank Klausz; does that mean my dovetails are more impressive?
-Steve
I hear this discussion all the time among guys in my trade (I'm a machinist. )
Are the guys who use CNC real machinists? The debate is widespread and heated. To me, the answer lies in whether you could get the job done if the servers go down or the spindle on your gee-whizz-o-matic fries. To me a CNC machine is just another tool to a real craftsman. There is a complex set of skills involved in setting up, programming, and running any type of CNC machine. It quite often involves just as much fixture design and building as manual machining. It requires the same understanding of the material being worked and the cutting forces invovled. And anyone who thinks there is no risk has never pushed the "little green button of death", as one machinist I know calls it, on a program that hasn't been proven out. A minus sign in the wrong place and you drill through the ballscrews of your machine with a sickening "crunch".
I work with both CNC and manual machines, and I often wonder if the first guys to ever build body panel stamping dies (which any machinist will tell you requires no small amount of very real craftsmanship) had to listen to the old panel beaters tell them they weren't real craftsmen because they weren't using mallets and wooden forms.
Would you post your multi-axis CNC produced Maloof chair on Knots' Gallery? Original paintings always have more value to collectors, as I'm sure we are all aware.
Actually, I probably would, but mostly to tweak some noses :-).
I think you missed my point, however. This isn't about me copying Maloof's design. If I came up with a new furniture design that spoke directly to people's hearts in the same way that Maloof's rockers do, I would be VERY proud of the achievement whether the physical piece of furniture was made with a CNC router or a pocket knife.
If I used the pocket knife, I agree that would be an additional thing to brag about.
My point, to echo others', is that the creation of a beautiful, functional, durable design is at least as much worth bragging about as the physical means used to realize that design. I would call mastery of either side of that divide "fine woodworking".
To the man with a hammer, all the world is a nail.
The late John Brown on woodworking by hand (you'll need online access):
http://www.taunton.com/finewoodworking/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesPDF.aspx?id=2504
Everytime we use a jig, a little less skill is required on our part. HARDLY!
It take alot of skill to make that so called Jig ..PERFECT for it's intent' Or you get crap out as you would without one!!!
Good point. The exception being store-bought jigs.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com
- Success is not the key to happines. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
I think that's basically true, although it's a jig far more elaborate than any we construct in our shops.
I also think it's true that the same fundamental principles apply whenever we're talking about the development of skills. Of course, there are still some rather important differences: Decision making in Formula One takes place on a tenths-of-seconds timescale; decision making in golf takes place on a tens-of-seconds timescale.
-Steve
"Everytime we use a jig, a little less skill is required on our part. "
Yes, but sometimes making the jig takes as much skill as does the entire project.
The benefit if the jig is to make the pieces for precise fit with repeatability.
http://www.superwoodworks.com
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled