Understanding Design

[Dave S]

Just been catching up on the 'Interesting Pieces of Furniture -17' thread and noting Sgian Dubh's comments about the lack of explanation and reasoning behind some critiques.

I tend not to venture opinion on such matters, partly because I don't feel qualified to judge the work of makers far more skilled than myself. But there's another reason, and I wonder if I'm not alone. I have an instinctive reaction when I see a piece, but I find it pretty much impossible to understand my reaction and work out why I feel the way I do.

Maybe it's because I don't have an artistic bone in my body. I can design practical solutions to problems, but to design something that even I find aesthetically pleasing is a major challenge.

So, does anyone else find themselves in a similar position. And any thoughts on understanding why one piece just 'feels right' and another doesn't?

Dave

 

[sawdust maker]

Yes I fully agree with you Dave. I have posted some comments on furniture but it has been limited to "yes I like it" or "no I don't". But why do or don't like it is often a mystery. Like you I struggle to design something original, and I often end up with something I am not totally pleased with. I do so envy those who can design an object that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

I struggle to design something original, and I often end up with something I am not totally pleased with. I do so envy those who can design an object that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

Part of the secret IMHO is to give up the struggle.
Why are we under this imperative to be "original"? In general I think most makers would do better by copying and copying, perhaps never ever making anything original, but learning a great deal about design in the process.
In a way Tony's furniture thread shows up the consequence of the desperate search for originality. A bit like Ascot fashions; in isolation any one of them could look bold and creative, but put them all together and they start looking very similar, shouting for attention, screamingly camp even.
IMHO the best way to get to grips with both design and making is to look closely at the stuff around you that you like, and work out how and why it was made like that.

cheers
Jacob

 

[Woody Alan]

I made a foot stool from English cherry some years ago and wanted turned legs and try as I might in no way could I come up with an aesthetically pleasing turned design. In the end I took a copy from a book of "turnings through the periods" of a table leg mathematically shortened it to my requirements and it looks to my eye correct.
There is no doubt I possibly fall I into the same camp as you Dave I have no artistic/design talent whatsoever but I can take something and copy it or engineer a solution in the execution (apart from an eight sided polygon ).
I am in the "I know what I like" brigade I'm afraid, I do like some modern pieces but am aware I may tire of them. Design is the thing that gives me the "writers block" of woodworking and slows the execution of many projects and stops me replying to those design posts as well as the getting in too late and only repeating what has already been said.
Alan

 

[Anonymous]

I made a foot stool from English cherry some years ago and wanted turned legs and try as I might in no way could I come up with an aesthetically pleasing turned design. In the end I took a copy from a book of "turnings through the periods" of a table leg mathematically shortened it to my requirements and it looks to my eye correct.
snip

That's the way to do it - that's how you learn about design, not by sitting staring at the wall trying to be creative :roll:
What's more I bet you could repeat the design from memory - which means you are well on the way to being a designer; much of which is about building up a repertoire.

cheers
Jacob

 

[Anonymous]

Just been catching up on the 'Interesting Pieces of Furniture -17' thread and noting Sgian Dubh's comments about the lack of explanation and reasoning behind some critiques.

I fell very much into the knowing I like/don't like camp without knowing why. As a result of Richard's comments I visited five mid-market furniture stores and spent a couple of afternoons looking at various tables, chairs, beds and cabinets and tried to work out why I instinctively felt as I did about a piece.

It was a very interesting exercise. The LOML was with me and I explained to her why I liked/displiked a piece. I found that after a couple of hours I was able to articulate the reasons for my likes and dislikes. It has given me a much better insight into design.

Thank you Sgian Dubh.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[ByronBlack]

art and design is not a mystery. I studied graphic design at college, and almost everything that created or designed and is succesful willing or not follows a set of rules that happen to be easy on the eye. It all comes to down balance, light and shade, weight and composition. It stems from what we find attractive in a woman(or man).

Here's a fun excercise: Look at 10 women whom you really fancy, then compare their body and face shape and their features, you'll start to pick out common shapes and certain attributes that you find attractive, this directly applies to everyhting that we see in the world today.

Cars are an obvious example, they use very feminine curves and features that apeal to a certain person or groups of people.

Furniture therefore is the same, everything has femine or male qualities that some find attractive and others don't, it's a breeding thing!

As for the argument about originality, if we only ever copied what went before we would never see anything new, there would be no innovation. Just because someone doesn't like something that is original doesn't make it any less original or valid. Being a designer is not about building up a repatoire, far from it. Being a designer is having the ability to take a breif and create something that fits that breif, or solve a problem.

For example: the dyson vaccum cleaner, that was designed to solve a problem (loss of suction) and the design followed that parth, the designer didnt nessacarily have a built-up repatoire of vacuum systems.

You'll find that a lot of designers work across industries, they don't have a vast repatorie of stock shapes and forms that they apply to the breif.

 

[Gill]

I hope I'm not being too controversial (or obvious :roll: ) in mentioning that the Golden Ratio can help to produce satisfying designs. Pieces which conform to this tend to please the eye.

Gill

 

[Lord Nibbo]

I hope I'm not being too controversial (or obvious :roll: ) in mentioning that the Golden Ratio can help to produce satisfying designs. Pieces which conform to this tend to please the eye.

Gill

The Golden Ratio is prominent in art more so than furniture design, I think what many here are quoting as design is more akin to style, you can look at certain furniture and know it's Maloof, Makepiece, even chippendale, yes they've all got their own style. Even our own Woodbloke's Burr elm chest has a certain look of a very well known cabinet maker who loves plonking a box on top of very long legs, yes in my view if that certain style would fit in my house I tend to like it.

 

[tnimble]

What Byron is talking about is very true. However to the extent that we're trained from birth on to like a certain set of attributes and dislike the rest. Over longer periods of time the set of attributes shifts slightly. This causes the various periods and styles. Currently in our western world it can be said that it is generally expected from us to like things that are 'practicle' and slender.

I hope I'm not being too controversial (or obvious :roll: ) in mentioning that the Golden Ratio can help to produce satisfying designs. Pieces which conform to this tend to please the eye.

Gill

Indeed and there are many more 'systems' like the plastic number and more root based sequences like the silver ratio. And there are geometric based systems such as rotating the diagonal of a base shape to get a smaller of larger piece (the method used for the Alhambra).

 

[ByronBlack]

tnimble - you make a good point, tastes do shift, the obvious way to illustrate this is with fashion. We can date quite accurately periods from the clothing that we wear (maybe not so much now), but in the 50's, 60's 70's etc.. all had quite a distinctive look.

 

[tnimble]

tWe can date quite accurately periods from the clothing that we wear (maybe not so much now), but in the 50's, 60's 70's etc.. all had quite a distinctive look.

Currently we also have a distinctive look. But only when the general taste has shitfed we start to notice the distinctiveness. What probably will be the distinctiveness of the current period is its distinctivelessness. :shock:

 

[ByronBlack]

tWe can date quite accurately periods from the clothing that we wear (maybe not so much now), but in the 50's, 60's 70's etc.. all had quite a distinctive look.

Currently we also have a distinctive look. But only when the general taste has shitfed we start to notice the distinctiveness. What probably will be the distinctiveness of the current period is its distinctivelessness. :shock:

A very true observation, it's funny how everyone (in general terms) strives so hard to look different but by doing so look the same.

 

[Anonymous]

In my job I have always had to undertake prescriptive design methodologies (comply with many regs etc.) due to the nature of the kind of engineering I have been involved in and the demands placed on us by customers.
Of course, there is some scope for creativity, but not in the same way as in furniture design.

When it comes to furniture, i typically get the time 50-70% 'designed' before starting and then just let it evolve as I progress and inspiration hits.

The best rule as far as I am concerned is the one myself and colleagues tell our students "Design is about doing"

 

[milkman]

great thread, I think people worry too much about being original, without having much of an understanding of where that comes from. In my experience as a print designer the secret is to copy often and WIDELY*.
After a while a synthesis occurs and a style, your style, begins to emerge. The other thing is that you must never stop absorbing the inspiration that surrounds you.

I've thought a lot about this over the years and this is where my thinking is at the moment, hopefully even this model I have I have will change further in future.
: ) Marko


*The wide bit is very important, copy stuff thats new old, different, copy stuff that you don't like, copy stuff thats been badly made! copy stuff thats not even made of wood!
Several lifetimes would not be enough for anyone to 'know what they like'. If you're thinking that way, stop it now.

 

[dickm]

Has anyone read (and applied?) the stuff in Mike Darlow's book on Woodturning Design? It's primarily aimed at turners, but some of the ideas are more widely applicable. He's a bit inclined to be dogmatic "this is what looks good", but in general, I find that things designed using the rules he suggests do come out relatively pleasing.
But maybe that approach to design only pleases people like me with no artistic imagination?

 

[tnimble]

Has anyone read (and applied?) the stuff in Mike Darlow's book on Woodturning Design? It's primarily aimed at turners, but some of the ideas are more widely applicable. He's a bit inclined to be dogmatic "this is what looks good", but in general, I find that things designed using the rules he suggests do come out relatively pleasing.
But maybe that approach to design only pleases people like me with no artistic imagination?

Most probably 'the real designers' won't like it indeed. But why? Who are these 'the real designers'? Mostly they are the people that have a high regarded degree of some sort in design, alas the ones that dump on others mostly are. What always strikes me is how these 'the real designers' have been dumped on by their teachers if they'd designed anything that was not exactly the teacher expected to be real design. And this real designed turns out to be extremely narrow.


What I think of to be good design is copying in your own way what has be done before.

Honestly when designing for instance a table there are a zillion number of ways to do that but only little of those designs would produce a usable table. And guess what they all have been done already somewhere sometime.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I find it uplifting that my comments in another thread started a debate on design appreciation. That it's caused at least a few to try and analyse what it is that you either like or dislike about a piece of furniture I feel is useful for all furniture makers. Not just furniture makers, but anyone that is involved in the applied arts to give the subject a broad description.

Certainly 'good' design is a subjective decision, but any design judgement looks at a range of elements, eg, function and material choice.

I reject the sneering put-downs promulgated by some commentators along the lines that most contemporary designers are all overweeningly precious and 'look-at-me', I'm so clever. Certainly some designers design just to shock or be different, but many try to create pieces that are both original and will age gracefully. Many fail to create a coherent and interesting design. I've failed often enough, but there are one or two pieces of my own I'm rather fond of.

There are spurts of creativity in the design world, and often these spurts are allied to new materials or technology. The Art Deco period was one such. The ability to work metals in different ways and improved technology in man-made board materials led to a great deal of innovation with the Bauhaus group being one example and, contemperaneously, the Scandinavians being yet another grouping whose active spirit survives in modified form to this day. The whole Art Deco movement is wrapped up in the political and economic events of the time. It makes sense to try to understand what shaped a movement.

Similarly, the Arts and Crafts Movement led by such as William Morris was a reaction to the machine age and other events of the mid-1800's, and an attempt to get back to some perceived Nirvana of honest affordable rustic craftsmanship. The whole Arts and Crafts movement failed miserably in its cosy rose-tinted and fuzzy egalitarian aims. There was nothing affordable about Arts and Crafts furniture, or any of the other artefacts the movement spawned. But it did produce some interesting work with a definite 'feel' of the era.

There are those that think the pinnacle achievements of furniture making occurred in the later 1700's. I was looking at some Chippendale ribband back chairs the other day, and I was struck yet again by their general ugliness and squat appearance. They look fine within Harewood House where I viewed them because they suit the classically inspired architecture and design work of Adam, et al. But take those chairs and other furniture items out of context and they all too easily become gaudy, over the top and even, as Mr. Grimsdale says,

shouting for attention, screamingly camp even.

My point is that the Georgian furniture of the period suited the architecture it was designed for along with the other works of art and design of the time.

Design, designers, materials, taste, customer needs and times change. We're not stuck in a bubble of time. Things move along. We can either move with it or freeze ourselves in a preferred past hoping it will come back. Slainte.

 

[Woody Alan]

They look fine within Harewood House where I viewed them because they suit the classically inspired architecture and design work of Adam,

It must be all of 13 years since I visited Harewood house, the lasting impression I have, is of it not only being the most impressive collection of artwork I have ever seen but in it's context of that grand hall with the curtains being carved from solid wood (Adam design I think). I doubt many people actually realised as much as they strolled through. As stated though I think if I carved the curtains at home it would stick out like a sore thumb, context again.
Alan

 

[Anonymous]

I find it uplifting that my comments in another thread started a debate on design appreciation. That it's caused at least a few to try and analyse what it is that you either like or dislike about a piece of furniture I feel is useful for all furniture makers. Not just furniture makers, but anyone that is involved in the applied arts to give the subject a broad description.

Agree

snip
I reject the sneering put-downs promulgated by some commentators along the lines that most contemporary designers are all overweeningly precious and 'look-at-me', I'm so clever.
snip

Hmm, dunno, one man's sneering put down is another man's healthy scepticism.
Yes sometimes unfair or plain wrong, but a counterbalance perhaps, to the fawning forelock-pulling admiration of the various icon's and idols, particularly in the "studio" furniture world. Seems to be a particular feature of the amateur woodwork scene for some reason, with at the same time a blind and negative attitude to tradition.
Different in the world of pottery; yes there is a "studio" posh expensive end but there is also a strongly established veneration of tradition.
I was looking at this only recently - following a hint from old Jim Krenov himself to be found here in this very interesting interview.
Jim K is disdainful of tradition but at the same time admires Soetsu Yanagi who was the founder, in association with Bernard Leach and Hamada Shoji , of the Mingei folk art movement.
A number of paradoxes here, and interesting lines of thought to be followed :shock:

cheers
Jacob