Hi,
I am new to this forum. I am only an amateur woodworker and I don’t get much shop time but I am very interested in design and any methods that may help me in the design process. I have spent a couple hundred hours of reading what others have written about proportions in design and I don’t think I yet have any expertise. I have collected several books and dozens of articles exerted from college library books and magazine articles. For all my time, I still can’t say for SURE that proportioning systems make a good design, but I THINK they do. I am interested in what you all think. Are proportion systems a help, or mumbo jumbo? If you think they help, explain how. Also, explain how you apply your favorite theory when you are at the drafting board. Those of you who have had some experience that has lead you to conclude proportions are irrelevent, please, tell us about it.
Randy
Replies
Randy,
I have always found Graham Blackburn's writings on furniture design to offer a very good synthesis of traditional design theory, human comfort and practical construction techniques. There are a couple of FWW articles of his on furniture proportion and also a couple of books wot he wrote. I will dig out the references and/or links in due course.
It seems easy to get carried away with the purity of some design theory or other. Architects are particularly prone but furniture makers are maybe next on the list of those who are ready to sacrifice everything to their latest mad design thang. I blame Rationalism (the inclination to invent everything anew and to despise hard-won past designs because they are ..... past).
In Britain we had the Brutalist-inspired architects of the 60s, who build a great deal of ugly, inhuman housing and other edifices before the population at large woke up and stopped their antics. In the last decade or so, they have been largely blown up (ie knocked down). Hurrah!
The Brutalists believed their buildings were "efficient". (They forgot who the efficiency was supposed to be for - human tennants, not concrete mixers).
Funnily enough, the 60s is also a time of Tremendously Ugly Furniture, of a loudly "innovative" kind that is not just laughably ill-proportioned but also rather unusable. Oftimes it is painted in garish colours, just to underline its "innovativeness". The plywood and mdf is also very visible. The unfortunate inheritance even now exists in IKEA and its ilk.
Personally I am leery of claiming a design capability for myself. I fear that I would get carried away and become a Brutalist or worse. Also, I would become over-serious and take umbrage when others snickered behind their hands at my peculiar creations. "I am Designah"!! I would cry, as I stumpted off to sulk.
So, I take those traditional forms, styles and systems of proportion that have stood the test of time and adapt them to the particular space, decor and usage that the recipient of the piece requires. There is still plenty of choice: frou-frou-based and curlicued over to super-plain Shaker. (I shy away from frou frou, myself - just a matter of taste).
My stuff may not always be constructed only of Golden Mean sections but generally I get away with a stretch here and a compaction there. The decorative overlay is usually in a familiar style and kept quiet. Some makers want a shouty piece of sculpture - "Look at ME". I prefer my furniture to sink into the background and become a familiar but useful thang.
I call it "reconfiguration" rather than "design".
Lataxe
Edited 6/25/2007 5:46 pm ET by Lataxe
Proportioning systems can help. They're worth studying to see and understand what has gone before, and how they still influence the designers of today.
Are any of those systems worth following slavishly? That's debatable. It's all too easy to treat systems like the Golden Section or the Ken system as a God, and not a guide. The result is such slavish adherance can result work that is stiff, awkward and uncompromising.
However, there are designers of classical works that adhered very closely to Classical proportions and their end results do work very well. Robert Adam was one such designer, an architect. Classical lines in architecture lent themselves to classical lines in furniture, hence Chippendale, Hepplewhite, Sheraton, et al.
To save me getting into a long discussion I'm not prepared to perpetuate, here are two useful but pithy design motto's that often help. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Randy,
As promised, here is a Blackburn book link to Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Furniture-Design-Lessons-Craftmanship-Woodworker/dp/1585746991/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-1193151-7908130?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182686639&sr=1-2
If you have the full on-line FWW service, you can search on "Blackburn" from the FWW homepage and you will discover very, very many Graham Blackburn articles (from past issues of FWW, in pdf format): "Graham Blackburn on the design of....(lots of furniture-related items)".
Lataxe
Edited 6/25/2007 5:47 pm ET by Lataxe
You must have missed my article in your library search! :)
Seriously, I've heard from many woodworkers who say their eyes roll into the back of their heads when this subject comes up. I tried to make my article as pragmatic as possible. Its along the same lines as Graham Blackburn's articles but it addressed topics I've never seen anywhere else (like my controversial 9/16 rule for drawer spacing).
I think as woodworkers we naturally focus on joinery because that's what we do. But design is as important or more important. In 2005, Early American Life magazine picked me as one of the top 200 traditional Artisans in the country. Only 25 cabinetmakers were chosen that year. That puts me in the top 25, right? What I find funny about this is that EAL's judges didn't see a single mortise and tenon go together. They didn't see a single dovetail joint. The stuff I'm proudest of as a woodworker, they never saw.
So what did they judge? They judged stuff we never talk about, and generally ignore; proportions, line, texture, color, details. In essence. they judged my ability to execute the artistic intent of early builders, which in my mind has little to do with woodworking. But this stuff is important because this is what people see.
Don't miss that article of mine. Of all the articles I've written, that's the one to clip out and put in a scrap book somewhere.
Adam
"In essence. they judged my ability to execute the artistic intent of early builders, which in my mind has little to do with woodworking."It has little to do with the actions of woodworking but what is the point of making a piece that absolutely nobody likes to look at? Sure, "form follows function" but as the "Brutalists" proved, they put up buildings that performed the function they were designed for and people hated them. Woodworking, as a craft, must include design aspects out of necessity. A lot of structurally correct joints also happen to look good. Some, which quickly fail, just look "wrong". Whether the judge's criteria were based purely in aesthetics or technique, should be up to the people who decided to compare the pieces but should probably have been conveyed to the entrants. Can I assume these judges aren't woodworkers?We, as woodworkers, consider all of these aspects in every project. If we didn't, we wouldn't care about which woods go well together, if a top was a good "fit" for the table base, which legs/feet to use on a cabinet or how to finish it, with respect to stain (or not), filled grain (or not), level of sheen, etc. I think the early woodworkers you emulate, (if you prefer another word, feel free to substitute it) used joinery that was known to work well, assuming they cared how long their work stood, how critical it would be to the object holding together and whether it could be done quickly enough for them to make some money on it. How well they performed these tasks probably showed as they progressed and were incorporated as features, rather than being hidden. If the piece you were judged on was intended to have a simple exterior, these details would have been mainly hidden anyway but that's no reason to omit them. I don't know how you look at a piece for the first time but I look for these "surprises". Simplicity can be it's own end but hidden details, well executed, are a true bonus. Go to a furniture store and watch people, while they pick out their furniture. Most stand back and just look, maybe they'll make a few comments about its proportions or color. Less will look at the grain and even fewer will remove/open the drawers to see how the piece was built. Based on your comments, it seems conceivable that someone could have entered a perfectly proportioned section of 2x4, and won. It reminds me of an episode of M.A.S.H.. Frank and Hotlips wanted to have a bust of Col. Potter carved from wood, and when they were talking to the large smiling Asian man about the quality of the finished piece, he held up a piece of 2x4. Frank snidely told him that's all it was and the beaming Asian said, "Yeah, it used to be round"."In essence. they judged my ability to execute the artistic intent of early builders, which in my mind has little to do with woodworking."I wonder how they know what the artistic intent of early builders was.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
I totally agree, when it comes to design in woodworking. We as "Woodies" get to caught up in the making of a piece. Dovetails here and mortise and tenons there. The general public and the design world doesn't see any of that. They see the overall piece and the lines and contrast and the proportions. To them and anyone that buys custom made furniture, it has to please there eyes and then they might start to see the craft involved in making it.Kaleo
http://www.kalafinefurniture.blogspot.com
Seth Stems"Desigining Furniture is good. There are a few things I keep in mind:
1. Open space-sometimes open space may be visually appealing rather than having a cluttered piece showing the multitude of the latest tricks in design. Shaker furniture has areas with open space. An example of a latest design trick is the "I just bought a new Mortice machine and I will put alot of brown sqare pieces on my end table (hey if it looked good I would do it)".
2. Some pieces use the minimum amount of material. That can push the limits of craftsmanship ie..by having a small mortice/tennon the only way to get strength is through a perfect joint.
3. consider adding curves, color. metal, stone, etc .
Randy
Wow, it did not take long to get feedback on this subject. It is still one that is dear to my heart. I am currently reading "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio. Not necessarily a practical reference, but interesting just the same as she outlines all of the instances that the Golden ratio appears in our lives. One in Mathematics and second in nature itself. It is amazing how often it appears in our daily lives and we see the beauty without understanding where the beauty lies. There is even a chapter on the ratio in music.
I agree that we can take any design formula to far, I personally have learned this the hard way. But by the same token, it is good to have a basic formula to start with. Form follows function, but form is still important.
I am a big fan of Sketchup, the beauty there is creating a piece in CAD and being able to view it from many angles. It allows me to experiment with the design and see first hand if it works.
Dave
Randy asks, ...I still can't say for SURE that proportioning systems make a good design, but I THINK they do. I am interested in what you all think. Are proportion systems a help, or mumbo jumbo?...
I highly recommend the golden ratio. Will it help you design? No, but you can use it to justify even the worst of designs while sounding scholarly and knowledgeable in the process. It's a very precise proportion but can be infinitely variable in practice. Editors will check spelling, grammar and most math but they'll allow wide latitude in claiming a golden proportion. One can use completely arbitrary points to define a golden rectangle and even then the rectangle doesn't need to be all that close to a real golden rectangle. No one is going to check, have at it and be creative.
The golden ratio offers the advantage of being able to claim a design is some how rooted in the classical orders. Never mind the fact that the golden ratio isn't found in a single one of the columns or ratios of the classical orders. Writers puffing smoke for years have created a connection so, if you claim to use the golden ratio, you've claimed direct design linage to the Parthenon or what ever else you chose.
Early texts clearly state early designers used the ratios of 3:5 (.06/1) and 5:8 (.625/1) but OED doesn't cite a single pre 19th Century use of the golden ratio being used for architectural design or other decorative art design. Don't worry about that. The golden ratio of .618/1 is close enough to anything you want, no reason to get all that specific.
All that's standing between you and design greatness is claiming to use the golden mean. In my shop it's referred to as the "golden meaningless."
Here's an article you might enjoy:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5141t6j5463n61h/fulltext.pdf
Edited 6/24/2007 3:00 pm by lwilliams
Here are my observations, which may help you see things differently:3:5 and other integers can be a little harder to use than golden section. One of the nice things about golden section over 5/8 for example, is that you can make 17 divider movements- keep in mind, that's what we're talking about. Not some mathematician at the job site working out numbers from measurements. And the more divider movements, the more error you get. So one shouldn't expect to find .6180339. That's just silly. But not finding that number, doesn't mean they weren't shooting for it. The other advantage is working out the inverses. 1/gs = 1-gs Sometimes you have the 5 and want the 8. Other times you have the 8 and want the five. With gs, you just don't have to think about it. You make your 31 movements and worry about fractions later. Believe me, when you are working fast, its easy to make a mistake, then you've cut something wrong. With gs, there's alot less head scratching. People just try to make this more complicated than it is.The other criticism that comes up is that folks find gs where they look for it. People who do this are stupid. You've got to measure stuff the builder would have applied some proportion rule to. You can't measure a case to the molding for example. Since I know roughly how period furniture was made, I went looking for specific dimensions. I looked at carcases and found numbers that were close to golden section. Lastly, the reason I think folks used gs besides it being more convenient, is that while we see variation, we see that variation between .6 and .625. If they were shooting for 5/8, its amazing that no one ever went over. I think folks should read my article, think about it and have a choice as to whether to use it or not. If you read my article though, you may be surprised at how few gs proportions I discussed/used. There's an awful lot of furniture that are squares or double squares.Adam
"...3:5 and other integers can be a little harder to use than golden section. One of the nice things about golden section over 5/8 for example, is that you can make 17 divider movements- keep in mind, that's what we're talking about. Not some mathematician at the job site working out numbers from measurements. And the more divider movements, the more error you get. So one shouldn't expect to find .6180339. That's just silly. But not finding that number, doesn't mean they weren't shooting for it...."
What are you talking about? Dividing a line into eight equal parts requires only bisecting three times and I can show one easy way to divide either three or five equal parts with that number of divider arcs and a diagonal line. Let me get this straight. Dividing a line into three, five or eight parts was just too hard but to use your 9:16 system for drawers you have to keep dividing by 16 and that's somehow easier?
So my criticisms and those of the article I posted a link to aren't valid? Okay, post those images from your article up here and let's examine them. We'll look for arbitrary division lines and real golden rectangles. Everyone here can participate and we'll see what we find.
I agree with your assessment of the 9/16 rule. It is harder to use. Like I said in the article, I included it because it worked. Its a template you can fit over period pieces and get a match (more or less). Drawer spacing is something guys struggle with. But here's a simple way to make better looking furniture.But you have the right idea. All the integers are just a little harder to use. The problem with 5/8 (or 9/16) is that you have to move 8 or 16. If you have a board 57-3/4" long and a set of dividers with a throw of 1/2" to 4 or 5 inches, you need to make 16 movements. 8 is out of the question and you can't bisect anything. These aren't theoretical boards! If you use golden section, you can use 15 or 13 or 17 divider movements. Doesn't matter. What I'm trying to say is that gs offered this advantage to guys living 200 years ago who had real boards and didn't have tape measures and calculators . And gs is something I could see guys using in better shops. Sure, I think others skipped it. But their furniture isn't in the art museums.As to posting images from my article, I think I'll pass. Something about that just doesn't feel right to me. I mean, I wrote an article on this very subject, so I mentioned it. But I otherwise don't like talking about who I am or what I do. I'm a FWW reader and a woodworker just like everybody else here.Adam
Edited 6/24/2007 10:41 pm ET by AdamCherubini
"...What I'm trying to say is that gs offered this advantage to guys living 200 years ago who had real boards and didn't have tape measures and calculators . And gs is something I could see guys using in better shops. Sure, I think others skipped it. But their furniture isn't in the art museums...."
So why didn't Chippendale, Hepplewhite or Sheraton mention the golden section in their pattern books. Design technique was a major thrust of their books yet not one mentions the golden section. There isn't any mention of using the golden ratio for architectural or furniture design until the 19th Century. Where's your evidence for your claims? Yes, you do need to come out exactly at .618 to 1 given how close the ratios of 3:5 and 5:8 are. I have no doubt craftsmen in those "better shops" who produced the furniture now in art museums and major collections were capable of accuracy.
You indicated that article was the best you've written and recommended it highly. You did so right here in this forum. Post your images on your blog and let's examine them. While I remember some questions about your placement of some of the division lines, I haven't checked them to see if they're actually the golden ratio. Now I'm really curious but don't know if I still have the magazine. I may have to visit the library. Maybe someone else here has it?
What you're really talking about, Larry is the builders' intentions. That's tough to prove so folks will argue. That isn't what my article was about, but its an interesting subject.
One issue you'll find if you try it is that you probably won't take the time to get your divider settings exactly correct. You make your movements, you get to the end of the board, and you say "ahh- close enough". And whatever error you introduce when you construct the golden rectangle will get magnified when you walk out your 18 movements or whatever. So I think its unreasonable to expect to find third decimel place accuracy and more unreasonable to require that to prove their intention. You'll never find that, if that's what you're looking for.
If this subject truly interests you, the place to go to the prove your theories isn't the art museum. Its Chippendale's Director, Paladio's books, Batty Langley (did I spell that correctly?) and the like. Now those engravers could have made mistakes, but they will likely be considerably closer. You should be able to see if the proportions are .61, or .63 or .56. There, you'll get a better sense for their intentions. You could also ask Mack Headley in Williamsburg and see what he says. He's looked over this stuff quite a bit more than I have.
Adam
Hi, Everyone,
I am thrilled with the responses you have written. Thank you. You have given me a lot to take in, so I can't make any comments that are too specific right now, but there are a couple large principles that I'd like to comment on right now. Before I make a few comments in reply, let me say that I know I am not an expert, and the following are merely my opinions.
First, designing any object is a complex task. There is no one way to approach it. 100 designers may come back with 100 different succesful solutions!? That is either a liberating or terrifying thought!
Lataxe, Thanks for the Blackburn recommendation, I will take a good look at his stuff. PaulMassachusetts, I have Seth Stem's book and agree with you that it is very helpful, thanks.
I believe Lataxe brought out a very significant point regarding design when he said he thought brutalist architecture is ugly. Everyone has their own personal taste. Let me say right off that I think that any style can be done well or poorly. Not every example of a style is executed to the same level of competance. I am sure that I would not like some of the buildings Lataxe thinks are ugly, but I would be surprised if I disliked all of them. It is possible, though, that even the ones I liked might upset me regarding their placement into their context. A 10 story high brutalist post-office should never be built in a neighborhood of 3 story timber frame buildings. I would feel that the new building desecrated a sacred site, and I think that 99% of people would feel the same way. Sometimes, contrast or variety is great, other times it is horrible. At this point, we have stopped talking about aesthetics and are now onto social values. Values are a real factor in design! It wouldn't matter if the building is great in an aesthetic way if it defied some cultural standard. Lataxe, please tell me, didn't you find even a little joy in any brutalist building? I am not a fan of architect Richard Meier's work, But I see bits here and there in his stuff that I like. This is not a discussion about modern vs. traditional. This is about style bias, for want of a better term. Gothic and neo-classical are entirely different from each other, but because both are so old, so entrenched, that we lump them together into "historical" and elevate them to god-like levels. Only maniacal modernists dislike neo-classical or gothic but most of us don't really want to live with either in their original forms. We constantly modify them to suite are current tastes and needs, neo-neo-classical. What is new is not bad because it's new. What is old is not good because it's old. Gothic was radically modern with a capital "M" in its day. I am not sure exactly what I am trying to say, except that we all have personal prejudices against certain styles, materials, forms, etc. The point, I guess, is that custom furniture designers work for one client and can tailor the design to the aesthetics, functional requirements, budget, social values, etc. of that specific client. An architect also designs for a specific client, but the public is exposed to the product and may or may not react appreciatively. The furniture designer who works for the mass-market trade wants the piece to appeal to as many people as possible. That raises the question, "Is there a bell curve on visual easthetics?" That bell curve on aesthetics of form is the main, but not the only concern of this strand. Lataxe, thanks again for your heartfelt response, I pray I have not offended you, my friend.
Next, I think that the golden section can be used in a close-enough-is-good-enough fashion and still succeed because the eye is not a precise measuring tool and proportions vary in relation to the veiwer's location. However, I strongly believe that lwilliams and AdamCherubini are correct about spurious application and interpretation. I agree that the Parthenon was not designed to comply with the gs (even in a close-enough mode) because the points or lines that are measured to show gs compliance are not significant in the composition. I will rant about that at a later time. SgianDubh, you mentioned "slavish application", that is one of my big questions. Is it slavish application or improper application? What a pandora's box that is! I can't say. I like your philosophy about thinking about the small elements, like hardware at the start of the design, and not as an afterthought. And the suggestion to learn from a piece that is done right is very critical. But it begs the question, "What, or why, is this piece right?"
Slivers Dave mentioned the phrase "Form follows function". Some have said it is a ridiculous idea. I believe, however that it is quite accurate, IF you hold that beauty is a functional requirement that must be met. The client gets to describe what he believes beauty is and the designer is obliged to provide it (Another topic altogether to discuss is how to tactfully and effectively educate your client in good design!) Form follows function is related to Le Corbusier's later statement that "A house is a machine for living." This is also true. The machine must dispense all the features the client demands, including beauty. Both of these statements are equaly true for architecture as well as furniture.
Adam Cherubini, I am anxious to find the article you wrote. You didn't mention where it is. Is it in a FWW? And, you are correct that the customer/client rarely sees anything but the outer appearance. I am not advocating shoddy workmanship, but shoddy workmanship exists because the statement is true.
No one has brought up grids or root 2 rectangles, anybody using these?
Again, THANK YOU ALL! Your responses are exactly what I was hoping for. You are providing me, and others, with information we couldn't get elsewhere. We will all be better as we share what each of us has.
Please keep the dialog going.
Cheers,
Randy J
Randy,
You enquire:
"I believe Lataxe brought out a very significant point regarding design when he said he thought brutalist architecture is ugly. Everyone has their own personal taste. Let me say right off that I think that any style can be done well or poorly. Not every example of a style is executed to the same level of competance. I am sure that I would not like some of the buildings Lataxe thinks are ugly, but I would be surprised if I disliked all of them".
This does highlight an interesting point about design, one that Ray Pine's reply perhaps illuminated best. Whilst we can appreciate many design aesthetics in isolation and find some merit or even beauty in them (even in a cleverly proportioned and laid out bit of Brutalism) it has to be remembered that virtually no designed thing, apart from art object in an exhibition, exist and function in isolation.
There is the existing physical context in which a newly-designed object wil be placed. There is (as you mention) the "social space" it must inhabit (which includes the resident cultural sensibilities installed in the wetware of the citizens involved).
On top of that there probably are some fundamental design "laws" which reflect the various forms that are the bedrock of nature itself. The Golden Mean is the most famous example but Chaos theory (for example) has revealed other forms and ratios that, despite being rather more complex, seem to be fundamental in the physical world (I mean in the whole of the universe, not just Planet Earth).
Perhaps the jarring of the spirit (for want of a better term) that we feel when confronted with designed objects that ignore or flout some of these fundamentals is the best measure of a bad (and hence good) design?
***
To go off at a tangent, consider this little illumination emergent form evolutionary theory:
Designed things evolve, in physical genetic nature but also in the metaphysical memetic evolution of ideas and concepts within human brains/culture. As with other adaptation via mutation in a given environment, when a "design niche" is filled by one possible good-fitting evolved thing in the environment, it automaticaly excludes many, many other equally well-fitting but now merely potential design possibilities.
This means that these possibilities - these multiple unrealised, alternative-but-good design-fits to (let us say) Westernied human furniture-making culture of the early 21st century - are still out there waiting to be realised. Who will realise them and how? It may take a revolutionary-minded designer, prepared to step outside of the current evolving design traditions - a radical.
But for every sucsessful design-radical there are a thousand producers of ugly nonsense. By what criteria are we to separate the ugly stuff from The Progentor of a Wonderful New Design Tradition (a new design genus)? This is the hard question. In the end, we do a Jonesy and trust our (educated) instinct.
Lataxe
RandyWell this was fun, I never expected the subject to be so controversial, I think some people try to make the subject into more than it truly deserves. The Golden Ratio is simply a guideline for proportioning a project, nothing else. I use it because I find the results give it a balanced look, but as I said before, form follows function (apparently some don't agree with that either).The attached spreadsheet is a chart that does the math for calculating the ratio's for you. It is only to 3 decimal points, you can format it to more if you like. I print it off and keep it in the front of my sketch book as a handy resource.DaveGenius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.
Hey, Dave,
It has been fun. Thanks for the chart.
I am happy to have received so much good information from all the responses. Thanks to you all! I need to take some time studying it all. The advice to look at Chippendale's discussion of the orders is something I want to do, I just have to find a copy.
Other folks have recommended some books, so I'll offer a recommendation too:
'Architecture: Form, Space & Order'
By: Frank D.K. Ching
It's focus is on architecture, but there is much the furniture designer could get from it. It has one section on proportion and scale, and another that covers axis, symmetry repetition, rhythm, and other design principles. Check it out of the library, if nothing else.
I would also like to encourage everyone to make several dividers for themselves. Each one would be tailor made to measure a single "standard" proportion from one of the common systems. These are double ended dividers, each end measures one of the parts of the ratio. You set the legs of one end to match a part of the design you have set. You then flip it end-for-end to get the other distance. I made one that measures the golden section. I want to make up some others for some of the other common proportions, such as root 2. The advantage is that you don't need to do any math. These are also helpful for determining what ratios another designer had used on a project.
I had hoped to get a little more feed-back from folks about the theory of what makes one ratio feel good and another one doesn't. Is the study of proportions just an exercise in gobledey gook, or is it really worthwhile? If it works, why? As I said at the outset, I think it does help, but maybe I'm wrong. Anyone have some incites?
Cheers,
Randy
"...What you're really talking about...is the builders' intentions. That's tough to prove so folks will argue....Its Chippendale's Director, Paladio's books, Batty Langley (did I spell that correctly?) and the like. Now those engravers could have made mistakes..."
Adam,
I've read and studied Chippendale's "Director", looked at Hepplewhite's book of drawings and spent time with Sheraton's pattern book. I've read Vitruvius and Palladio. While I can't recall discussing this specifically with Mack Headly, I did attend both sessions of his talk on design and proportions at the Williamsburg symposium a couple years ago. In all this, I haven't found a single early reference to the golden ratio. Chippendale's intentions aren't "tough to prove." Rather than look for something that isn't there, why not look for what is? Let me refresh your memory. Here's the last paragraph from your article:
"Maybe this is why master cabinetmaker and fashion icon Thomas Chippendale (1718-1779) urged his fellow cabinetmakers to develop "an acquaintance" with the classical column orders and their uses in art and architecture. He wrote in 1762, "These [proportional rules], therefore, ought to be carefully studied by every one who would excel in this branch [cabinetmaking], since they are the very Sould and Basis of his Art."
It's pretty clear isn't it? The fact is the golden ratio doesn't appear a single time in any of the drawings of the orders as Chippendale presented them. Not once. There are a number of other ratios but no .618:1, which is consistent with every other early reference I've read. Even as creative as you were with your illustrations (yeah, I found your article), I don't think you can make the golden section appear in the old reference books.
In all your study, I think you missed this most important quote:"I am not afraid of the Fate an Author meets with on his first Appearance from a set of Criticks.....Let them unmolested deal out their pointless Abuse, and convince the World they have neither Good-nature to commend, Judgment to correct, nor Skill to execute what they find Fault with."
Thomas Chippendale
1762
What a wide open question - and a wonderful one - the type of question a child asks. And I don't mean that in a bad way at all. Chidren don't censure themselves for fear of asking a dumb question. For me, if you've thought about it and really want to know - then you can't ask a dumb question.Your question is very broad so you'll get all kinds of answers - with guidelines and rules that may make great starting points, or at least adequate ones to get you started. Proportions are just one part of a pleasing piece - wood selection, grain selection, grain orientation, component sizes, joinery selection, edge treatments, set backs / reveals and the shadow lines they create, hardware selection and placement, the list goes on an on. Most important of all is FUNCTION. If you put your glass on it - will it stay there? If you want to put something in it - and get it out again later - can you do that - without any special tools - like a crow bar. One consideration often overlooked - how hard will it be to keep clean?Then there's the question once function is taken care of. Do you want the piece to fit in with what's around it - or stand out and be a focal point - rather than an eyesore?When you ask about proportions look to the graphic arts - they've been playing with keeping a viewer / patron / customer's attention an interest longer than furniture makers - cave paintings pedating furniture by a good number of years.Early on, not so long ago, I got into "design" and put up some web pages you might find useful - at least some things to consider.http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/Design/Design.htmlThe stuff on graduated drawers may come in handyBut I suggest, as other have, that you start with Graham Blackburns Rule #1 - Start with a plan - any kind of plan and begin with What's It Supposed To Do and then How Tall, How Wide, How Deep along with some specifics if applicable - how many drawers, how many doors, etc. It doesn't have to be specific - to the nearest 1/32nd of an inch - a sketch on some graph paper, a napkin in a pinch - and some not initially obvious issues will begin to appear. As you deal with them the plan will firm up. Don't "cast it in concrete" though for options and opportunities may present themselves as you start making the piece or even earlier - stock selection.One of the less than obvious design considerations is the joinery. Many of the traditional joints allow your to assemble things as you go, are self supporting AND self aligning, allowing you to see the real thing, at least so far, at full scale, with the wood - which you can dampen - with alcohol - to get and idea of what it will look like with a finish, or at least an idea of how the look will change from bare wood. You can also "measure" parts dimensions to fit the actual opening - with a stick and a pencil - no pocket tape or rule to read, or misread, either then or later when marking parts for cutting.
Though this "article" is about mortise and tenon joinery, the page about Six Degrees of Freedom (to move) is applicable when thinking about any joint. At some point in the design you'll have to deal with this - unless you don't mind pieces that rack and twist and self destruct, or simply fall apart when you let go of them. Hmmm- clamps as a design element?http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/MT/MtPrimer4.htmlAnother way to come up with a design is to collect images of pieces you find attractive - to you. Poke around the Net via a search engine looking for pictures of furniture. When you see one you like save it to a folder of ideas - be spontaneous, you can do closer looks and examination and maybe analysis later. When you've got a few hundred pictures start sorting them - chairs, tables, dressers, armoirs, sideboards, beds etc.. Then get into the folder of the type of piece you think you might want to make and study what you selected. What are the commonalities? Is it the color of the wood, the lightness or massiveness of the pieces, are they full of curves or all straight flat parts? Is it the hardware that caught your eye, or some detail that pops out at you when you really look at the picture(s) of the piece? Are the edge treatments square and straight, beveled, beaded or rounded - the latter blur the actual size of the parts, making them appear thinner and lighter than they actually are.Oh - lets not forget one of the hallmarks of a good design - the flexibility to turn a screw up into a feature.Better quit and check out what other folks came up with to answer your question
Randy-
I believe that systems of proportion may be a good starting point for aethetic beauty... the human eye is able to recognize certain proportional relationships (usually taken from nature). These relationships can help a piece feel balanced. They can make something more 'comfortable' to look at and live with.
At the same time, i think experimentation is equally important. It helps to work with models and scale drawings in order to work out relationships within a piece. The famous architect Frank Ghery uses models to design his sculptural titanium buildings (such as the guggenheim addition in New York)rather than working with drawings or rules of proportion. He uses simple materials like mat board and veneer to build and re-build an idea until it looks right. It's only after he is happy with the model that he will begin creating the actual blueprints for a building.
There are no formulas that can provide a shortcut to good design sense. This comes from trial and error, experience, and a unique aethetic sensibility. Each persons visual language is different... proporionality is part of this personal syle.
If I were asked to describe the role of proportion in a piece of furniture, I would say that it manifests itself as a feeling of 'rightness' or 'not-rightness'. If you have ever looked at a building or a piece of furniture that felt 'off' in some way... that's usually connected to poor balance and proportion.
the other important thing to consider is the size of the human body, since furniture is mostly interactive. The function must realate to the body in a way that makes the piece successful in it's intended purpose. The size of the space the piece will occupy is also a factor.
good luck!
vicent
pro,
You've gotten some good input on this topic. I'll add a couple thoughts. While the golden section or the orders of architecture are often helpful in determining the relationship between certain furniture components or the section of a leg vs its length, one should keep in mind that the real world and human scale imposes its own limitations, too. So that sizing an 8' long table's height according to the golden section, makes it around 5' tall. Best to just keep it between 30 and 32" and move on. And perhaps the dining room's width, combined with the fireplace on one side and the sideboard on the other, makes even a 5' width impracical. Maybe 4' x 8' makes more sense, or 44" x 8' will allow for the chairs to be pushed back without hitting the wall.
At the shop level, will you use that beautiful wide board for a top, that is just 1/2" too narrow for perfect proportion, or glue a strip onto its edge that brings it to exact compliance with your formula, yet looks like the dickens? Your ionic column formula says that the table leg needs to be 3 1/8" square. You've got 12/4 stock, and 16/4 is sooo expensive, and wasteful in this application, to boot. Will the proportion police come knocking if the legs are 2 3/4" intead?
In smaller pieces, where overall proportions are more easily taken in at a glance, some kind of system often makes a piece more pleasing to look at. But here again, a Procrustean approach to the golden rectangle may not (often may not) work. A relationship of 1:2 , 1:3, or some other may fill the space desired more readily, or may come closer to fulfilling the builder's (or the customer's) expectations. The width of a table, chair, etc, leg length and apron width is a case in point. For one piece, an apron width of 1/5th of the leg's height will look well; for another, 1/6 or 1/8th of the height might be more appropriate.
Several years ago, I was approached by a client to build a tall chest. She explained that there was a door at the end of a hallway in her home that was no longer being used, and she had decided that the tall chest she'd always wanted was just the ticket to cover the door. My initial reaction was very like that of the butler on the old "Addams Family" tv show--groooaaannn! On paper, as a scaled drawing, and built up, standing in the shop, it was a horror- way too tall for its width, too broad to be a column. Yet, when we placed it in the home, it looked just perfect- as if it was made to go there.
Ray
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled