Mock ye not !!

[G S Haydon]

That's an interesting link Mark. I had not seen any advertising yet. Looks like serious money and time has been invested in the advert. Are the training videos presented in the same way?

He got it out at 4 mins in - call the sock police...

Judas!

Thanks for the link. I'm surprised by the production. It starts off a bit like Torchwood. The graphics and zooming in and out and spinning seem make me feel a bit dizzy. Not that I'm in the market but if I was I think I would find this kind of presentation off putting. Just me though, I'm sure many really like it.

 

[David C]

Possibly Jacob has not seen any of the furniture which I made, because he has failed to look at any of my books.

He has also failed to visit any of my clients.

Another stupid and pointless comment. Demonstrating his propensity for writing baseless rubbish.

Oi veh

David

 

[woodbrains]

LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!

No sense of irony at all. You are talking about taste, and that is subjective. Some iconic designs in the modernist movement may be superb, but they are good designs not because of industrial processes, but because the designers were good. The industrial process was the means by which the designs were made real. Some are left cold by modernism and will have some other favoured design movement that suits their taste and there will be iconic designs for them too. If you do not like the inclusion of precious metals, surface decoration, exotic materials, then fair enough, but do not confuse elaboration with poor design, it is just different taste and thankfully there are lots of different tastes.

Victorian tat was a bad thing, obviously. Poorly made things in nasty sweatshops for profiteering industrialists. Children working under looms and up chimneys and down holes. This was what the Arts and Crafts railed about. Failed in its ideals of honest purposeful work for craftsmen, of course, but this is what it stood for. Try reading Ruskin.

Mike.

 

[Cottonwood]

LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!

No sense of irony at all. You are talking about taste, and that is subjective. Some iconic designs in the modernist movement may be superb, but they are good designs not because of industrial processes, but because the designers were good. The industrial process was the means by which the designs were made real. Some are left cold by modernism and will have some other favoured design movement that suits their taste and there will be iconic designs for them too. If you do not like the inclusion of precious metals, surface decoration, exotic materials, then fair enough, but do not confuse elaboration with poor design, it is just different taste and thankfully there are lots of different tastes.

Victorian tat was a bad thing, obviously. Poorly made things in nasty sweatshops for profiteering industrialists. Children working under looms and up chimneys and down holes. This was what the Arts and Crafts railed about. Failed in its ideals of honest purposeful work for craftsmen, of course, but this is what it stood for. Try reading Ruskin.

Mike.

I guess "subjective" applies to the differing ways that people approach woodworking too...evidently your and my "taste" in benches, sharpening and other things , is different :?: .

"but because the designers were good" exactly the point I was making. Their furniture would of been just as good (maybe even "better") if they had made it themselves by hand. But the western world was psyched up with the idea of "good furniture for the masses" especially post WW2, and a talented designer in partnership with a firm such as knoll, offered the way to acheieve this. Ironic, isnt it, that now even the "best" modernist furniture is only affordable by the wealthiest sort of people.
Why waste time reading ruskin ? I did try once, long ago. The man tried to theorise and spiritualise ordinary mundane work.
What about the host of other "honest craftsmen" (other than gimson & the barnsey's) of the 18th or 19th centuries, there was lots of joiners and cabinet makerrs-not all working for high class clients admittedly. Was their work tat-ty too? I mean like the folk who created what is now bought and sold as "country furniture" or "primitive furniture" EG Irish gibson chairs, hedgerow chairs, famine chairs, welsh back stools, cricket tables, pine dressers, chests, settles and cupboards etc-IE the actual GENUINE vernacular furniture? I look at one of those pathhetic, weedy looking gimsonesque ladderback chairs, then a solid bold welsh back stool-theres no comparison, but, as you say thats my taste, just as valid as yours, or any one elses

 

[Richard T]

'Chippy Minton?' Some would say that he was manipulated.

 

[Jacob]

[.....

You have just agreed with me, haven't you? Arts and Crafts, by nature, cannot use industrial processes, Bauhaus relied on it.

Mike.

Could you expand on this - what is the defining difference between "industrial" and the other (non-industrial?) processes ?

 

[mark w]

Totally agree with David C, as regard the history lessons, I think you are getting out of your depth again Jacob. I`m waiting for the post where you say you were there to witness the industrial revolution. :wink:

 

[Jacob]

Possibly Jacob has not seen any of the furniture which I made, because he has failed to look at any of my books.

He has also failed to visit any of my clients.

Another stupid and pointless comment. Demonstrating his propensity for writing baseless rubbish.

Oi veh

David

No need to get huffy I only asked! And I'm still non the wiser. It seems I've got to buy a book! :roll:

 

[Racers]

LOL

Pete

 

[iNewbie]

That's an interesting link Mark. I had not seen any advertising yet. Looks like serious money and time has been invested in the advert. Are the training videos presented in the same way?

He got it out at 4 mins in - call the sock police...

Judas!

Thanks for the link. I'm surprised by the production. It starts off a bit like Torchwood. The graphics and zooming in and out and spinning seem make me feel a bit dizzy. Not that I'm in the market but if I was I think I would find this kind of presentation off putting. Just me though, I'm sure many really like it.

I'm sure they do - I even considered buying it...

And though Jacob has his issues with other industry people (take the stake out of Dave's heart, J) - from a Guru selling point, I find Sellers no different in his own way. Its business. Well, apart from the cheesiness of the presentation and giving-up, "secrets" ans here's what I made for a President. :roll: Still, one mans meat is another mans, selling angle...

 

[Jacob]

Somewhat tacky presentation I agree. His designs aren't too hot either. Doesn't alter the fact that his basic teaching methods are very good - which is what he is selling after all. There's no shame in not being good at bullsh|t!
I got his book and I think it's one of the best, in terms of clear and simple explanations of how to get things done effectively.

R Denyer - I'm on page 105 mostly - scale practice.
Learning music is not unlike learning woodwork - can seem impossible, everybody else seems to have natural talent, nothing seems to work too well. Then weeks (or years) later you suddenly realise that you are getting slightly better at it!

PS practice practice!!

 

[iNewbie]

I'm not against others methods. I like to learn. I'm just not so rabid. :wink:

Denyer, etc - I'm years into playing. Not my natural instrument by any means (its my nemesis in life) and I'm still, shy_ _... I must be the exception. :mrgreen:

 

[G S Haydon]

It would be nice to find a more balanced DVD approach, not one that makes you potentially sleepy nor one that looks like it was produced by Skynet. Anyone seen a Chris Schwarz DVD and can compare it to others they have seen?

 

[Jacob]

[.....

You have just agreed with me, haven't you? Arts and Crafts, by nature, cannot use industrial processes, Bauhaus relied on it.

Mike.

Could you expand on this - what is the defining difference between "industrial" and the other (non-industrial?) processes ?

Bumped this up.
The reason I ask this question is that I think the answers would be very different and dependent on many points of view. It's not an easy one as there is no obvious answer. Hand-made with or without tools would seem to be the only clear line, which isn't very helpful!
The second point is - the Arts n Crafts movement was based on one very simple logical mistake.
Yes they reacted against Victorian tat - particularly at the Great Exhibition where there was a lot of it.
But they made the mistake of blaming industrialisation and the manufacturing process.
In fact the blame was entirely with the designers - GIGO; garbage in, garbage out.
Better machines are only better tools and should improve the end product (as we are told over and over on this forum!). But not if the design is garbage to start with.
The Bauhaus recognised this and tried (very successfully) to bring together the arts, crafts, industry, to get a better input to the industrial process. This resulted in a great leap forwards still going on. Bauhaus stuff still looks amazingly up to date and includes some beautiful craft work (low tec and high tec).
In the meantime the arts n crafts movement remains stuck up it's own arts hole, to this very day! :lol:

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

This is your opinion Jacob, but none the less, they were both seperate and distinct design movements with their own reasons for being. It is a matter of taste as to what makes good design and there were certainly good and bad from both movements. It is all about how the individuals involved wanted to work and how they wanted to produce the things. I do not design for CNC because I do not own one big enough to make furniture on. I also prefer a certain amount of hand work and I like to work the material directly and spontaneously. So what I design and make has links to the Arts and Crafts. But I do not design 1900's things, I have moved on. This is the same for most designer craftsmen working today. they are just designing and making things in the materials and with the equipment available to the.

What do you suggest I do; spend a million on plant and machinery so I can mass produce my designs, or sell off all my tools, forget my skills and just design stuff for some Far Eastern sweatshop to mass produce. I don't think so. There is nothing to do with being lost in the past, labouring over dovetails or any romantic notions about how things used to be. I work in the now, design stuff that modern people want and am ispired by lots of stimulae; be it Bauhaus, Greek urns, 20th century modern, whatever tickles me. And I am not going to produce Egyptian inspired things the same way King Tut's slaves did, nor am I going to use CNC to make post modern inspired stuff. No 'up ones own behind' about it, it is just what I can do.

Incidentally, are you still making those old fashioned, inefficient wooden windows and stairs. I have heared there is PVC and aluminium extrusions these days? Or do you work in the media available to you too and even find advantages in that ancient stuff called wood, and perhaps enjoy making the things too.

Mike.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Just seen the Sellers vid. Wow, I knew he uses a Veritas LA jack on a shooting board, but did you see how many Lie Niesen and Veritas planes and spokeshaves he has? I'll bet a pound to a pinch he doesn't use that awful method of convexing the soles of those tools. Didn't see too much evidence of Aldi chisels either. It might be just a little bit about the tools then.

Mike.

 

[mark w]

Well spotted Mike, I must admit I missed all of that back ground stuff in the Sellers Vid`s, I was to busy watching him dent those Pine dovetails with his hammer.

 

[iNewbie]

Didn't see too much evidence of Aldi chisels either. It might be just a little bit about the tools then.

Mike.

Oh he has a mass of tools - one video has Blue Handle Stanleys. Another has Robert Sorby's

 

[woodbrains]

Woodbrains, you mean Jacob was only acting ignorant, fetch him an Oscar.
Krenov was your teacher, please tell me more. How did you get to be taught by him?

Hello,

Re. Krenov;

I attended the College of the Redwoods in 2003. TBH is was already a fairly well formed woodworker by then and had been a professional maker for 8 years or so. I had to quit my workshop at the time, so thought i would go and visit the US. I did not go as a beginner, as some do, and already had my own ways. The college was a good place to experiment and refine some techniques that might get passed over in a commercial workshop.

Krenov had actually retired from the school (read 'got the sack') the year or so before. This did not stop him coming in several times a week to do his own work and give impromptu lectures. I visited his house and his little workshop in Forest Drive there. he was very inspirational and very much misunderstood by those who have not met him. he wanted to work in his own way and was a stickler for his own standards in the way he worked. He wanted others to work with his own sensibilities, but not in his style, necessarily; which people seem to think he was rigid about. He liked many different styles of working but he hated things that were carelessly done, or done without due reverence to the materials. He liked to see people do their best and not take short cuts or use sloppy methods. He was all at once cantakerous, generous and inspiring. he was also rude and opinionated, but would take time to encourage anyone who showed an interest and who was working sensitively. I couldn't help but like him immensely, despite him annoying the heck out of a few students there at the time, even though he officially had retired. He was wicked sometimes. I'm lucky enough to have made a piece of furniture from a plank of rippled, spalted maple, which was just gorgeous and then found out he was working on a cabinet from the next sequential board. Sadly, the piece was left with a friend who lives in Vermont, so I don't see it often, but the memory is a nice one.

Mike.

 

[mark w]

Very interesting Mike, I have the book with his students work in it, looking at that most of it is of lookalike work, I thought by that he must have imposed his style on his students, its good to hear that was not the case. Looking at the websites of some of his other past students it seems it was obligatory to make a wooden hand plane in his style, was that the case? May I ask why he was sacked.

Mark