Most of use seldom do any piece more than once, and often go
at making a piece with the Marketing Department's "Ready -
Fire- Aim" approach. "Fixing F**K Ups and making them
'Features'" seems to be the semi-norm. I personally use
the Design / Build As You Go" method, having a vague notion
of what the end result will be and only the length, width and
depth constraints in mind. Sometimes it works surprisingly
well - and sometimes - not so well.

Then there's Michael Fortunes approach.

Michael Fortune, an amazing woodworker from Canada, was trained in
Industrial Arts. With that background, and no doubt the mind and the
soul of a paradox - an analytical artist, he creates beautiful pieces -
from what initially appears to be a simple hand mirror, to a demilune
table like you’ve never seen before.

If you’ve seen any of his work, the artist part of him is obvious.

What is not obvious is HOW he creates his beautiful pieces - and why he
takes the approach he does.

From what I’ve learned of this guy, he starts with the idea that each
piece may warrant reproducing - the Industrial side of Industrial Arts.
So as the design of a piece evolves he’s always thinking of how it will
be made, and what jigs and fixtures can be created to facilitate
duplicating the final piece, using tools and machines that are readily
available and, in the world of manufacturing, inexpensive, OR can be
relatively easy to make.

Here’s an example - a hand mirror. You need a mirror and a handle.
Simple. Jig saw, bandsaw or scroll saw a cricle with a piece sticking
out for the handle or round and add a fat dowel. Glue the mirror on and
you’re done. Functional and quick - but probably not very pleasing to
the eye or the hand. Oh - the mirror will probably fall off after a
while - the wood movement thing.

But what if you could set the mirror IN the wood - say rosewood - a
circle of rosewood shaped as the mirror - round? And since wood moves,
don’t glue the mirror, capture it in a grooved depression in the wood.
That will complicate things just a little because it now needs to be
made of two pieces - a left and right half, with the mirror captured
between them.

But if most of the work to make this mirror design is to be done with
routers and bits, the two pieces must be temporarily be glued together -
with tissue paper between them, so router jigs can be used to control
the routing. Sharp edges are a no-no for pieces that require handling -
three sharp edges in this case - the inside lip of the mirror opening,
and the front and back outside edges of the circle of wood holding the
mirror. So there’s a need to profile three edges - in such a way that
they flow together - more jigs.

Rather than drill a hole in the edge of the wooden circle holding the
mirror and glueing in a stick handle, why not another circle in a
different wood - say ebony - transitioning to an oval handle, set at an
angle to the back of the mirror. Better yet, angle the back of the
mirror holding part and then also angle the handle. Four or five more
jigs for the bandsawing operation and a few more router templates and
what’s left is a little wood rasping, some scraping and then off to
sanding at 220 and finally 320.

There are maybe twenty jigs used to make the mirror piece, several with
options for variations of the basic design. Seems like a lot of jig
making - for a simple hand mirror, actually not that simple in fact but
it “looks” simple - at first glance. If you get to handle it as well it
becomes more apparent that it’s not a simple hand mirror.

For a One Off, the time and effort just don’t make sense. But the
second one can be made by a semi-skilled woodworker - in maybe 45
minutes, excluding glue and finish drying time. And because of the
options built into the jigs, five or six variations can easily be made
fairly quickly- by semi-skilled workers.

I watched all this on a jigs and fixtures tape Michael Fortune made
probably 15 or 20 years ago. I took his half day Jigs and Fixtures
class a couple of years ago and he’s still approaching design with the
intent to be able to do limited runs of pieces - and the pieces have
gotten even more complex - laminated curves for ALL the parts of many
chair designs - and all nice to look at and probably nice to sit it and
run yuur hand over the everchanging surfaces, one flowing into another.
For each design there are several labled boxes full of labled jigs - and
photos and instructions for their use and order of use.

Imagine having the ability to develop a design this way, knowing exactly
how it will be made, what jigs and fixtures will be needed AND build in
options for variations of the design - BEFORE making the first cut in
the wood. It would be nice to sit in on his internal dialogue as a
piece is developed. The guy’s amazing - and a nice person.

charlie b

"charlie b" wrote in message
...


Then there's Michael Fortunes approach.

Michael Fortune, an amazing woodworker from Canada, was trained in
Industrial Arts. With that background, and no doubt the mind and the
soul of a paradox - an analytical artist, he creates beautiful pieces -
from what initially appears to be a simple hand mirror, to a demilune
table like you've never seen before.

Thanks Charlie, I never heard of him until now.
http://www.michaelfortune.com/home.html

Be sure to read The Artists Statement

My projects are made with reproduction in mind too - I'm always f**king
something up.

That's some really impressive work.

B.

charlie b wrote in news:44186689.25B6
@accesscom.com:

snip
Then there's Michael Fortunes approach.

Michael Fortune, an amazing woodworker from Canada, was trained in
Industrial Arts. With that background, and no doubt the mind and the
soul of a paradox - an analytical artist, he creates beautiful pieces -
from what initially appears to be a simple hand mirror, to a demilune
table like you’ve never seen before.

If you’ve seen any of his work, the artist part of him is obvious.

snip

He came to the Sacramento show last year, and did a floor session. Your
characterization of his work as art is really appropriate. What he does
with simple, well-used tooling is to be well emulated.

And he seems as nice a fellow as one could hope to meet.

Patriarch

He has an article in the recent Fine Woodworking that is very
informative.

Renowood

charlie b (in ) said:

| Most of use seldom do any piece more than once, and often go
| at making a piece with the Marketing Department's "Ready -
| Fire- Aim" approach. "Fixing F**K Ups and making them
| 'Features'" seems to be the semi-norm. I personally use
| the Design / Build As You Go" method, having a vague notion
| of what the end result will be and only the length, width and
| depth constraints in mind. Sometimes it works surprisingly
| well - and sometimes - not so well.
|
| Then there's Michael Fortunes approach.
|
interesting article snipped
|
| Imagine having the ability to develop a design this way, knowing
| exactly how it will be made, what jigs and fixtures will be needed
| AND build in options for variations of the design - BEFORE making
| the first cut in the wood. It would be nice to sit in on his
| internal dialogue as a piece is developed. The guy's amazing - and
| a nice person.

What you've described is the approach required for CNC woodworking,
where nothing can be done until the design is fully specified in a CAD
drawing which is subsequently converted to a part program (think:
_software_ template) which is subsequently used to produce parts using
CNC tooling.

Once the part program has been produced, it can be used to make as
many copies as needed.

When parametric programming is used, the part can be automatically
modified according to the parameter values (to draw from your example,
perhaps to change the diameter of the mirror or to allow for
elliptical mirrors by specifying major and minor axis values) to
produce an entire family of similarly-styled pieces.

It works - and it's fun!

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Morris Dovey wrote:

What you've described is the approach required for CNC woodworking,
where nothing can be done until the design is fully specified in a CAD
drawing which is subsequently converted to a part program (think:
_software_ template) which is subsequently used to produce parts using
CNC tooling.

Once the part program has been produced, it can be used to make as
many copies as needed.

When parametric programming is used, the part can be automatically
modified according to the parameter values (to draw from your example,
perhaps to change the diameter of the mirror or to allow for
elliptical mirrors by specifying major and minor axis values) to
produce an entire family of similarly-styled pieces.

It works - and it's fun!


But it has no soul. There's no Hands On. And he does use wood files
and scrapers and sands to blend shapes and curves so they flow - one
into another. And his larger laminated pieces - chairs for example,
just don't lend themselves to CNC because CNC is subtractive - cut
away antyhint that doesn't look like an elephant.

I have two chinese "silver chests", one done probably in the early
20s and another done in the late 70s. Both have carved cedar panels
in the doors and sides. The older piece is very three dimensional
and obviously carved by hand - with very fine 3 dimensional
work - faces, hands, trees etc. that are clearly done by hand
and done by someone who was well versed in carving. The newer
one looks similar - initially. But a closer look shows the
limitations
of the power tools used to create them - though eased a bit, what
should be rounded isn't - corners where there shouldn't be corners,
acute intersections just don't lend themselves to machines.

You see the new one when you walk in the door. The older one
is around the corner - where it's less apt to be dinged. That one
I enjoy for its craftsmanship. The other one just keeps dust
and stuff of the silverware housed in it. One has soul, the other
doesn't.

Now I have no problem with using machines to do the grunt
work. I do have a problem with stopping there. And if the
wood itself isn't a major issue in the design of a piece then,
to me, something crucial is missing.

There's a place for "affordable to the masses" stuff - everyone
should have access to a copy of a painting by a master and
better a fairly nice veneer over mdf table than a plastic one.
But there should also be pieces that can be appreciated for
generations - something I doubt Ikea pieces will do.

charlie b

charlie b (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| What you've described is the approach required for CNC woodworking,
|| where nothing can be done until the design is fully specified in a
|| CAD drawing which is subsequently converted to a part program
|| (think: _software_ template) which is subsequently used to produce
|| parts using CNC tooling.
||
|| Once the part program has been produced, it can be used to make as
|| many copies as needed.
||
|| When parametric programming is used, the part can be automatically
|| modified according to the parameter values (to draw from your
|| example, perhaps to change the diameter of the mirror or to allow
|| for elliptical mirrors by specifying major and minor axis values)
|| to produce an entire family of similarly-styled pieces.
||
|| It works - and it's fun!
|
| But it has no soul. There's no Hands On. And he does use wood
| files and scrapers and sands to blend shapes and curves so they
| flow - one into another. And his larger laminated pieces -
| chairs for example, just don't lend themselves to CNC because CNC
| is subtractive - cut away antyhint that doesn't look like an
| elephant.

I don't buy that "soul" comes from the tool. I'd argue that the "soul"
of any work comes from the mind of the creator and the ability
(craftmanship) to create a real-world object that faithfully reflects
the creative vision.

If the vision is flawed or poorly rendered, then the "soul" of the
work will be diminished.

| I have two chinese "silver chests", one done probably in the early
| 20s and another done in the late 70s. Both have carved cedar
| panels in the doors and sides. The older piece is very three
| dimensional and obviously carved by hand - with very fine 3
| dimensional work - faces, hands, trees etc. that are clearly done
| by hand and done by someone who was well versed in carving. The
| newer one looks similar - initially. But a closer look shows the
| limitations
| of the power tools used to create them - though eased a bit, what
| should be rounded isn't - corners where there shouldn't be
| corners, acute intersections just don't lend themselves to
| machines.

It sounds like a rendering skill/quality issue. FYI there are machines
/can/ do both rounding _and_ acute intersections quite well. If the
craftsman uses the wrong tool - or uses the right tool incorrectly -
does it really seem sensible to attribute the result to the /tool/?

| You see the new one when you walk in the door. The older one
| is around the corner - where it's less apt to be dinged. That one
| I enjoy for its craftsmanship. The other one just keeps dust
| and stuff of the silverware housed in it. One has soul, the other
| doesn't.
|
| Now I have no problem with using machines to do the grunt
| work. I do have a problem with stopping there. And if the
| wood itself isn't a major issue in the design of a piece then,
| to me, something crucial is missing.

Interesting comments. So where is the boundary for "grunt work" then?
Is it when the log has been reduced to a blank which does not yet
contain any resemblance to the piece? Or is it when the piece has been
shaped to within 0.0002" of its final form?

Or are you saying that the design isn't done until the piece is done?
If so, then you're arguing in favor of trading off discipline in favor
of "accidental" excellence.

| There's a place for "affordable to the masses" stuff - everyone
| should have access to a copy of a painting by a master and
| better a fairly nice veneer over mdf table than a plastic one.
| But there should also be pieces that can be appreciated for
| generations - something I doubt Ikea pieces will do.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. I have a delightful
(to me) bronze by an artist whose work I've long admired; and to my
mind it's the best of all his works. Are you claiming that its
artistic quality is diminished because it was cast rather than hand
carved? Or are you saying that its beauty was diminished when the same
mold was used to produce the _next_ casting?

Methinks you have too closely associated the ability to produce
objects repeatably with cheap materials, weak artistic vision, and
poor craftsmanship - and I'll suggest that close association is, while
all too common, not a given.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto