A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

In article , (Dick Durbin) wrote:
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

And up until this point, I thought I was the only person who thought that.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

It's art. It doesn't have to *do* anything, it just has to look impressive.
;-)

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

Just guessing... but the "trifles" probably sell for a *lot* more.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

On 10 Nov 2003 06:57:37 -0800, (Dick Durbin) wrote:

A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.


"Initial reaction to the painting is overwhelmingly critical. The
German fair guide calls Guernica "a hodgepodge of body parts that any
four-year-old could have painted." It dismisses the mural as the dream
of a madman."

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresofthewor...ica/gmain.html

To each according to his own tastes.
I've always admired Krenov's designs, but I generally dislike woodworking as
"art" and not getting anything functional from it. For the most part his
pieces offer both. Some are more functional than others though.
Take a look at some of his older work (like one of his silver chests) for
great technical, aesthetic as well as functional values.
For me, I like the more contemporary designs of Krenov, Maloof and Nakajima
but when I look at a piece of Federal or Baroque furniture - I admire the
technical of it, but hate the designs.
So like I said, everybody has their own tastes.

"Dick Durbin" wrote in message
om...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

I happen to agree with you, But do understand that "Beauty is in the eye of
the Beholder"
I have seen a lot of people make a name for themselves doing this kind of
work and we will never know whether the designs are any good because that
wont happen for at least 100 years.
I doubt anyone of us will be here to admire or critisize.
A lot of what is called great art today was not in its day, it has to stand
the test of time to realy be called art.
Right now to me its Oh well that surely is differant,

"Dick Durbin" wrote in message
om...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

Gary wrote:
To each according to his own tastes.
I've always admired Krenov's designs, but I generally dislike woodworking as
"art" and not getting anything functional from it. For the most part his
pieces offer both. Some are more functional than others though.
Take a look at some of his older work (like one of his silver chests) for
great technical, aesthetic as well as functional values.
For me, I like the more contemporary designs of Krenov, Maloof and Nakajima
but when I look at a piece of Federal or Baroque furniture - I admire the
technical of it, but hate the designs.
So like I said, everybody has their own tastes.


This discussion leads to a very interesting point about furniture.
Unlike most of the other decorative arts, furniture has a "functional"
component that most other disciplines do not - jewlery making, ceramic,
painting, etc . . . A chair has to "sit" right, be durable. A dining
table needs to allow people the room to sit comfortably, not bang their
knees together, be durable etc . . . While hopefully fulfilling some
functional role, furniture also has the capacity to rise to the level of
"art" - i.e. some type of self expression that is reflective of the
maker - All of these topics of course are subject to individual
interpretation - especially the "art" component - but that is what makes
furniture so enduringly interesting to me. The body of work which has a
function, and achieves some degree of "self expression" (Krenov's work
being an interesting example - some I like, some I don't), is IMO, the
most interesting. It's what I strive for in my own work. Everyone is
free of course to interpret any given design and piece as it suits them
- good or bad - funtional, or non-functional - wll crafted or not -

Glad to see an interesting thread for a change on the NG.

BTW, the Furniture Society is a great organization if this topic is of
interest to you.
http://www.furnituresociety.org/

Rick

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:04:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Dick Durbin) wrote:
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds.

And up until this point, I thought I was the only person who thought that.

You've missed my postings then ? 8-)

Can't stand Krenov's work myself, particularly the "flared jeans" legs
to so many pieces. But read his books, because there's a lot you can
learn from them.

"George M. Kazaka" wrote in message
...
|
| I happen to agree with you, But do understand that "Beauty is
| in the eye of the Beholder"

I agree, and thank heaven that it is. I'm glad there are people who
appreciate what I create, and I'm glad that there are people who create
things I can appreciate.

| A lot of what is called great art today was not in its day, it
| has to stand the test of time to realy be called art.

In a certain sense I agree with this, but I can't fully. I suppose it
matters whether one's personal definition of art requires a critical mass of
appreciation substantial enough to ensure survival. True, in art collection
circles one generally holds on to an obscure piece in the hope it will
eventually become widely appreciated. But for my purposes, as both a
producer and consumer of art, there is a much more personal aspect to art.

To qualify as art for me, something merely has to have an aesthetic
component. Something has to appeal to the senses in a way that provokes an
emotional response. Now there are certainly many things -- a Gaugin, for
example -- that have nothing but an aesthetic intention. And there are
things at the other end of the spectrum, such as architecture, in which we
typically allow the functional aspect to dominate.

I'm in a "small clock" phase right now. The project plans for those are
easy: Get a hunk of interesting wood, render it into an interesting shape,
create an interesting and complimentary finish, gouge out an
appropriately-sized hole with a Forstner, and tap in the pre-manufactured
clock insert. The function of the clock is provided almost exclusively by
the assembly provided by someone else; all I've done is arrange for that to
be held at an appropriate height and angle.

Now there's an ulterior motive to that phase. As I posted some weeks ago,
I'm trying to get finishing experience using techniques I've not previously
tried. This lets me do that for a minimum of expense and effort, with the
off chance that someone might actually be interested in the final product.
My most eye-grabbing effort to date is simply what happened when I attacked
a chunk of highly figured maple with a band saw, without even attempting to
think of a design first. It looks like something from Dr. Seuss, and
honestly it's not something I'd be proud to put on my own mantle, but a
couple of people have complimented me on it.

Let's see, I had a point here. Where was it?

Oh, yes. Art can certainly be appreciated in its own time, as art. The
reason I want to emphasize this is because I don't particularly like the
implications of defining art in terms of widespread popular appeal. If you
follow that, you get art that is unoffensive, bland, and ultimately
unappealing. I believe -- and maybe it's just me -- that the only art that
truly has the ability to soar is art that also has the ability to really
make you retch.

I grew up in a family of architects. A couple of years ago I was performing
a musical work in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles and so had
the opportunity to see the celebrated Frank Gehry design for Disney's
theater going up across the street. Architects are polarized about Gehry.
They either really like him or really hate him. His stuff is bold -- it
*makes* you either like it or hate it. I think most artists would rather
hear that their stuff is unappealing than to hear that it's "interesting".

Where was that point again?

I'm looking at Krenov's stuff now. Some of it I like. Some of it I really
hate. And if I saw him to his face, I'd tell him what I like and what I
don't like. I'm sure there are people who love ever splinter that has come
out of his shop, just as sure as I am that there are people who don't care
about anything he's built. That's exactly as it should be.

You can build "safe" furniture or objets d'art according to an aesthetic
which ensures popularity -- either in the here and now or according to a
hundred-year-old tradition -- and you can be reasonably sure that your work
will be well received. And if there is a business aspect to what you do,
that may be very important. But *if* you're going to pursue woodworking as
an art, then what you create has to be what you feel passionate about. Even
if only one other person in the universe appreciates you for it.

--Jay

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:09:45 GMT, Tom Watson
brought forth from the murky depths:

On 10 Nov 2003 06:57:37 -0800, (Dick Durbin) wrote:
Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

"Initial reaction to the painting is overwhelmingly critical. The
German fair guide calls Guernica "a hodgepodge of body parts that any
four-year-old could have painted." It dismisses the mural as the dream
of a madman."

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresofthewor...ica/gmain.html

I'll see you and raise you a mudflapII.
http://www.brooklynx.org/rotunda/reading/reading.asp (scroll down)
4,000 of our tax dollars paid for this tripe.


--------------------------------------------------------
Murphy was an Optimist
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

In article , Andy Dingley wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:04:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article ,
(Dick Durbin) wrote:
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds.

And up until this point, I thought I was the only person who thought that.

You've missed my postings then ? 8-)

MIssed your posts on that subject, anyway, Andy. Normally I do read your
posts.

Can't stand Krenov's work myself, particularly the "flared jeans" legs
to so many pieces. But read his books, because there's a lot you can
learn from them.

Agreed.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Anybody who has that much respect for
the innate qualities of the material they're
working with, I respect. Its not like he's
****ing in a bottle and dropping a crucifix
in because his mommy sent him to his
room and then getting hundreds of
thousands of dollars for it. All those
surfaces are cut, for God's sake, the
guy doesn't believe in sandpaper.

"Rick Stein" wrote in message news:LmOrb.2283
This discussion leads to a very interesting point about furniture.
Unlike most of the other decorative arts, furniture has a "functional"
component that most other disciplines do not - jewlery making, ceramic,
painting, etc . . .
Rick

I'd agree with jewlery and painting, but ceramics have a strong functional
component.

-Jack

"JackD" wrote in message ...

I'd agree with jewlery and painting, but ceramics have a strong functional
component.

-Jack

And jewelry doesn't? When you give some to the right person, the rewards
can be very functional.
Ed

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:04:34 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , (Dick Durbin) wrote:
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

And up until this point, I thought I was the only person who thought that.

Add one more to the camp.

"Art" is never easy to understand. G

BArry

In article ,
says...
To each according to his own tastes.
I've always admired Krenov's designs, but I generally dislike woodworking as
"art" and not getting anything functional from it. For the most part his
pieces offer both. Some are more functional than others though.
Take a look at some of his older work (like one of his silver chests) for
great technical, aesthetic as well as functional values.
For me, I like the more contemporary designs of Krenov, Maloof and Nakajima
but when I look at a piece of Federal or Baroque furniture - I admire the
technical of it, but hate the designs.
So like I said, everybody has their own tastes.


Yep. I'm of exactly the opposite camp. I admire the technical in
Krenov's work and also his approach to his work as expounded in his
books, but I don't find his style that appealing. I deeply treasure the
rich style of the Federal style.

OTOH, I also am of the opinion that they stopped writing music in
about 1850 or so, and really the best was done in the 1700's, thus maybe
my style esthetics also reflect my musical esthetics. :-)


"Dick Durbin" wrote in message
om...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

(Dick Durbin) wrote in message . com...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.
Well, he does refer to himself as the "Impractical Cabinetmaker", so
I've always interpreted it as him saying, "works for me!"


Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

I don't think anyone here could take anything away from him as far as skill,
simply meaning that the man most definitely knows exactly what he's doing.
However, I personally think some of those things he builds has got to be
some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen. Don't know about you but I
wouldn't want one in my house. I was just typing this trying to imagine one
of those alien looking cabinets over in the corner and it just doesn't come
to me at all. I do admire his attention to detail and the perfection in
which each piece is crafted. A++ for that.

Jim


"Michael Dembroge" wrote in message
om...
(Dick Durbin) wrote in message
. com...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started
looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to
be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others.
I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.
Well, he does refer to himself as the "Impractical Cabinetmaker", so
I've always interpreted it as him saying, "works for me!"


Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

It's art. It doesn't have to *do* anything, it just has to look impressive.
;-)

Traditionally, the term art was applied only to painting sculpture and
architecture, because they served the purpose of church and state,
creating the kinds of visual spectacle that induced a state of reverance
and subservience.

When an anthropologist visited Bali, he was told "We have no art, we do
everthing as well as we can." So here in the US we have the concept
"art" to distinguish between objects done with care, expertise and
sensitivity and the vast innundation of things done with little human
involvement, sensitivity or personal growth.

The division of things into functional and lacking function is very
obscure as well. Paintings add to the environment of a home, providing
color and interest.....are those functional purposes?

Words are essentially useless and misleading when describing things like
those made by Krenov, Nakashima and so many others. Is it enough to call
a rocking chair by Maloof, a chair? Yes, it is one, but could it also be
called sculpture? Yes, but could you understand it as sculpture without
having a visual image or photograph to understand why it should be
called that? Study the words long enough and it makes a person feel like
keeping the pen in the drawer and the mouth shut and the eyes wide open.

Personally, I like Krenov, both for the simplicity of his design, and
the integrity with which his work is produced. When you get into so many
other designs, like Federal, etc., they were all based on wood being
manipulated to project the image of being something else more monumental
instead of being allowed to be wood in all its natural glory and
wondrous humility.

My 2¢

Doug Stowe

--
Doug Stowe Author of: Creating Beautiful Boxes With Inlay Techniques
Simply Beautiful Boxes Making Elegant Custom Tables
Contributing Editor, Woodwork, A Magazine for All Woodworkers
website ---- http://www.dougstowe.com

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:14:21 -0600, Doug Stowe
wrote:

being allowed to be wood in all its natural glory and wondrous humility.

How would you compare Krenov to Nakashima ?

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:14:21 -0600, Doug Stowe
wrote:

being allowed to be wood in all its natural glory and wondrous humility.

How would you compare Krenov to Nakashima ?

Nakashima seemed much more intune with the humility of the wood.

-Jack

However, I personally think some of those things he builds has got to be
some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen.
I posted to the original message defending
Krenov, but
You know what? I admire his skill, but
as time goes by, I kind of agree with
you. Maybe if he designed a bedroom suite...but art is art and furniture is
furniture at some pont. Furniture is
in art museums partly because it
represents a point in history, but some-
times when I see a Krenov piece I think
of Jimmy Carter!

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:14:21 -0600, Doug Stowe
wrote:


being allowed to be wood in all its natural glory and wondrous humility.


How would you compare Krenov to Nakashima ?

Somewhat like comparing Bach to Bethoven - but in an effort to actually
do so, I would say that Krenov is most "in tune" with the process of
work. Nakashima was (he died in 1990) most "in tune" with the wood
itself. Neither sensitivity, imo, is better than the other. Both are
valuable, and each artist has an esteemed place in the world of craft
and woodworking.

Rick

Does this mean that all model cars that I built when I was a kid should be
thrown away because they can not be driven??

I feel that if an artist, who in this case happens to be a wood worker,
creates a piece of art, which happens to look like a piece of furniture,
should not be devalued because its does have any functional usefulness for
you or is not your style.

For cryin' out loud, you cant sleep with the Venus de Milo.

Grandpa Simpson


"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
However, I personally think some of those things he builds has got to be
some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen.
I posted to the original message defending
Krenov, but
You know what? I admire his skill, but
as time goes by, I kind of agree with
you. Maybe if he designed a bedroom suite...but art is art and furniture
is
furniture at some pont. Furniture is
in art museums partly because it
represents a point in history, but some-
times when I see a Krenov piece I think
of Jimmy Carter!

"BUB 209" wrote in message
...
|
| ...but art is art and furniture is furniture at some point.

Sure. Objects created to be simultaneously artistic and useful can cease to
be either under the right circumstances. There is nothing dictating that
those aims must be contradictory, but a contradiction is not difficult to
achieve. A Laz-E-Boy is a butt-ugly piece of furniture, but it seems to
have satisfied its utilitarian specification.

To me, the questions, "Does that look nice?" and "Would I put that in my
home?" are not equivalent. Our homes are our most intimate artificial
spaces. As such they often reflect great attention and discrimination on
the part of their inhabitants.

Even so, homes are not the only built environments we encounter and by which
we are affected. What works in a living room may not work in an office. In
a mountain cabin you might appreciate a bed made of minimally worked pine
logs. That same bed may seem comically out of place in a Manhattan
apartment.

Frank Lloyd Wright recognized that furniture was an appendage to the
immovable structure of a building. And so for each of his houses or
buildings, he designed the furniture that would go into it, so that it would
be one single expression of his artistic intent. But have you ever sat on
some of his high-backed chairs? They're gawdawfully uncomfortable. Do they
look nice? Without question. Would I put that in my home? Not if I
respected my guests, I wouldn't.

I haven't yet seen any Krenov pieces that I would appreciate in my home.
That doesn't mean I can't think of a setting elsewhere in which even the
weird bell-bottomed cabinets would be at home.

Jay Windley writes:

Frank Lloyd Wright recognized that furniture was an appendage to the
immovable structure of a building. And so for each of his houses or
buildings, he designed the furniture that would go into it, so that it would
be one single expression of his artistic intent. But have you ever sat on
some of his high-backed chairs? They're gawdawfully uncomfortable. Do they
look nice? Without question. Would I put that in my home? Not if I
respected my guests, I wouldn't.

Some of the living room benches and other furniture, including built-in bedroom
furniture, at Wright's Kentuck Knob is downright uncomfortable to even look at,
at least for me. The house makes me feel like crouching because of low door
lintels and narrow passageways...Wright was said to be height challanged and
slender. I used to be short, but then I turned 12. I used to slender, but then
I quit smoking.

Anyway, the concept is brilliant, but like the construction at Falling Water,
the implementation leaves a bit to be desired (at FW, they've spent OVER $4
million bucks to restore a house that cost about $100,000 to build, IIRC).

I love the way the two houses look and they way they are set into their
respective landscapes, but I'd prefer not to even think seriously of living in
them.

Charlie Self

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things." Sir Winston Churchill

On 11 Nov 2003 21:52:00 GMT, (BUB 209) wrote:

sometimes when I see a Krenov piece I think
of Jimmy Carter!

What do you think of if you see a piece by Jimmy Carter ? He's a
pretty good cabinetmaker.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Ain't that the damn truth. 12 years at a steady 5lbs a year ain't pretty.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I used to (be) slender, but then I quit smoking.

Swingman writes:

Ain't that the damn truth. 12 years at a steady 5lbs a year ain't pretty.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I used to (be) slender, but then I quit smoking.

Figure about 14 years. Yuk.

Charlie Self

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same
function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of
things." Sir Winston Churchill

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:23:34 +0000, Charlie Self wrote:

Swingman writes:

Ain't that the damn truth. 12 years at a steady 5lbs a year ain't pretty.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03


"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I used to (be) slender, but then I quit smoking.

Figure about 14 years. Yuk.

My packin 'em on started with the "quit smoking" routine also.
The OverLord put us on an unofficial weight watchers program in mid
September after I packed on 5 pounds in 3 weeks while on vacation. Down
18 lbs in 2 months with 14 to go for the target. Portions, man - portions
:-) You wouldn't believe the tasty stuff we've been eating. Cutting down
to one little relaxing toddy in the evening seems to be a big help also :-(

-Doug

What do you think of if you see a piece by Jimmy Carter ?

James Krenov.

Andy Dingley wrote:
mility.

How would you compare Krenov to Nakashima ?


- Nakashima would use pieces with splits and crack - spanning
them with a couple of bow ties if they threatened the
integrity of the surface.
- Krenov doesn't usually leave cracks and splits in his
finished pieces

- Nakashima pieces are typically of a single wood and often
a single slab.
- Krenov pieces are typically of several, complimentry (sp?)
woods put together in such a way that they make a pleasing
whole which does not hold the eye on any one wood.

- Nakashima seemed to keep the woodworking to the absolue
minimum (his chairs being a minor exception)
- Krenov uses several basic joining methods - done exception-
ally well and often invisible.

- Nakashima was a university grad (architecture I think) who
traveled extensively, associated with artist in various
countries and spent years in an ashram in India.
- Krenovs' travels seemed to have been driven by economics
and he doesn't seem to draw on others for inspiration,
preferring to do all of the work on each of his pieces,
a solitary woodworker (his teaching seems to be the
exception).

Nakashima had more wood in one place at one time than
Kremov does.

Nakashima visited significant trees all over the world
and sketched them, along with lots of other trees. I
don't think Krenov has drawn any trees yet. He gets
interested once it's been cut and dried.

Nakashima wrote a book - Krenov has done four, possibly
five books.

Nakashima used more japanese woodworking tools than Krenov
(big surprise right?)

Nakashima understood busines - marketing, promotion etc.
while Krenov eventually did well in spite of himself.

I don't think Nakashima was a tennis player.

charlie b

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:14:21 -0600, Doug Stowe
scribbled in his usual thoughtful fashion:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

It's art. It doesn't have to *do* anything, it just has to look impressive.
;-)

Traditionally, the term art was applied only to painting sculpture and
architecture, because they served the purpose of church and state,
creating the kinds of visual spectacle that induced a state of reverance
and subservience.

I'd like to interject some of my random and somewhat confused
thoughts. Originally, "Arte", in Italian, meant (and still means)
craft or trade. Like the "Arte della lana" in medieval Florence was
the trade guild regulating wool weaving and dyeing. A craftsperson or
independent tradesperson is still known as an "artigiano" (artisan) in
Italian, like my cousin who is a plumber (Sorry Tom).

The original renaissance artists were tradespeople, who had to serve
an apprenticeship, eventually became journeymen and masters with their
own shops. I still feel a strong connection with them, having learned
and heard stories about Giotto, Michelangelo, Leonardo and others at
my grandfathers' knees. Both my grandfathers were cabinetmakers, as
was my father. There was clearly a sense that those guys were like us
and from our social/class background - Italian artigiani. Although we
would never reach the same sublime heights, we were part of the same
tradition. We have an obligation to make beautiful things at very high
standards of workmanship. I remember my mother saying that one reason
she fell in love with my father was that "ha l'arte nelle mani", he
has art in his hands.

At some point, though, the French invented the term "beaux-arts" to
distinguish sculpture, painting and architecture from the rest of the
more mundane arts such as weaving, dyeing, tailoring, carpentry,
cabinetmaking, blacksmithing, masonry, pottery, etc., and also the
term "artiste" to distinguish practitioners of those "beaux-arts" from
mere "artisans".

So the guys who daubed paint on wet plaster and chipped away at stone
remained famous. I have seen some exquisite renaissance pieces of
woodworking in Italy, but no names associated with them. That ****es
me off.

The names of cabinetmakers since then are few and far between:
Chippendale, Phyfe (sp?), Stickley, Morris. More recently, though,
"art" has broadened and media which were the province of mere
craftsmen are now recognised as "legitimate" art by the powers that
be. Not only "art" or "studio" furniture, but ceramic and textile arts
as well (including your grandma's quilts), and it has now been quite a
while that blacksmithing has been accepted as sculpture. This is good.
Woodworkers like Krenov and Maloof and Nakashima are recognised
"artists". This means that they will be remembered in the future,
unlike the Renaissance craftsmen.

But, I have a problems with most "Art" or "Studio" furniture. Even
though I can admire the craftsmanship in their work, I think it's
pretty ugly (Howzzat for an oxymoron). Krenov's "curio cabinets on
stilts" seem totally unbalanced and ready to topple over. The "Arts &
Crafts" stuff just looks clunky to me. Nakashima's slabs of wood
remind me of my neighbour's chainsawed log garden furniture. Maloof's
stuff is neat, but doesn't really grab or inspire me. (I must admit,
though, that Doug's books, which I finally got around to buying
recently, are slowly but surely getting covered in drool).

Maybe I was born in the wrong century. But no - I really like the Art
Nouveau with all its curlicues and Art Déco; the first maybe because
of the Baroque that lies in the soul of every Italian, latter maybe
because that's the style my father made a lot of his furniture in and
I grew up with it.

When an anthropologist visited Bali, he was told "We have no art, we do
everthing as well as we can." So here in the US we have the concept
"art" to distinguish between objects done with care, expertise and
sensitivity and the vast innundation of things done with little human
involvement, sensitivity or personal growth.

This is an important point. My father railed against cheap ready-made
furniture and bewailed the fact that nobody appreciated quality and
was willing to pay for it. He ended up working in construction after
his cabinetmaking/millwork shop went bankrupt, starting as a carpenter
and eventually making his way to superintendent.

On the other hand, those (mass-produced) things done with little human
involvement, sensitivity or personal growth are what have ensured a
pretty good material life for most North Americans, Western Europeans
and Japanese. Even when they buy painting of puppies big teary eyes on
black velvet. Besides, I believe that aesthetics are not important to
most people, just fashion and price. In any case, modern industrial
designers (especially the Italian industrial designers) have proved
that one can make mass-produced things that are also beautiful.

The division of things into functional and lacking function is very
obscure as well. Paintings add to the environment of a home, providing
color and interest.....are those functional purposes?

Also, architecture, which is recognised as an "art", does provide
"function", so to speak of "art" as being non-functional is silly. It
seems that "Art" is what the art establishment and the "patrons" are
willing to spend money on. Even a guy ejaculating on a canvas - which,
BTW, has apparently been done. So a lot of it is stupid, especially a
lot of so-called "installations" and a lot of it is done "pour épater
les bourgeois" (in the same spirit as many of us trying to gross out
our female relatives when we were boys) or as an elaborate form of
mental masturbation.

I had an interesting conversation on Sunday night with an "arts" type.
She was talking about her brother who is a painter (pretty good, I
like his stuff) and a diamond driller. She was bemoaning the fact that
he had never had a "show" and sold his work through an agent who came
to his house, picked the paintings she liked and went off to sell
them. She compared her brother to a poor unfortunate *cabinetmaker*:
i.e. had never had a show blessed by the arts mafia, did not know who
bought his work, and there was no way of identifying where his
"oeuvre" went if ever there was to be a show.

On that note, I am going to bed as my head is aching from too much
thinking about art.

I would say my 2 cents worth, but I don't think my confused ramblings
are worth that much.

Luigi
Replace "no" with "yk" twice
in reply address for real email address

Mon, Nov 10, 2003, 6:57am (EST-3) (Dick=A0Durbin) says:
snip I can not, for the life of me, understand the appeal snip

I've never seen any of his work in person, only from photos. But,
from what I can tell, his technical expertise, his woodworking, is very
impressive. But, while I see parts of his work that I really like,
doors, legs, whatever, I don't think I have seen any of his work, that I
like everything about the entire piece. I've seen pictures where it
looks like doors will be different sizes, or the gap at top and bottom
will not be the same. So, I'd have to say, I don't care for his work;
and, like someone said, some of it is just plain ugly.


JOAT
My aim is to get through life peacefully, with as little interferrnce
from human beings as possible.

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 11 Nov 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofal...OMETUNESILIKE/

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:53:10 -0800, charlie b
wrote:

- Nakashima would use pieces with splits and crack - spanning
them with a couple of bow ties if they threatened the
integrity of the surface.
- Krenov doesn't usually leave cracks and splits in his
finished pieces

I'm sure I've seen at least one Krenov cabinet with slab doors where
one (or both) had a vertical split all the way through - and delicate
tiny strips across it to constrain it. However it was still clearly a
slab of _timber_ not "wood". The edges were absolutely square, the
joinery was perfect. The split was merely a more-developed form of
the typical Krenov feature of a colour stripe of highly figured wood.

Nakashima made furniture from trees, Krenov made it from timber, the
regularised product of sawmills.

- Nakashima seemed to keep the woodworking to the absolue
minimum (his chairs being a minor exception)

Agreed - bit odd really, how naturalistic his tables were, and how
'70s space-station-futurist his chairs were. Although he never really
followed any overall design tradition, the chairs were a complete
rejection of traditional woodworking approaches and had more in common
with architecture and concrete work.

Something I plan to make one day is a Conoid chair for outdoor use -
in reinforced concrete.

I've also got the elm seat slab for a wooden Conoid waiting here -
manyana.

--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:04:08 -0800, Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

Originally, "Arte", in Italian, meant (and still means)
craft or trade. Like the "Arte della lana" in medieval Florence was
the trade guild regulating wool weaving and dyeing. A craftsperson or
independent tradesperson is still known as an "artigiano" (artisan) in
Italian, like my cousin who is a plumber (Sorry Tom).


Commedia del'Arte?


Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson

"Dick Durbin" wrote in message om...
A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.

Oddly, they seem well proportioned to me. It's all to do with
how you look at them. That's one of the things with JK's
stuff: it changes as you change your point of view.

I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

But curio cabinets have a function. Not for you and
most definitely not for me as I don't own "curios".
Others do. Besides, if you get some of his books,
you'll find that he goes through phases. He made a lot
of other stuff in past periods.

The thing with his creations is that the execution is
nothing short of perfection, always almost invisible.
But effective. That is hard to do. Very hard. I particularly
like his cabinet with the oddly cooppered doors that cannot
possibly close or open, yet they do and to perfection.


Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.

His current phase is cabinets. Once he's happy that he's explored
all his mind tells him to do in that area, he'll move on. If he's
still alive. Personally, I don't mind one bit. I've found all
his creations a source of ideas and interesting techniques which
I try to emulate. Without success, but I learn. That's the whole
idea of his, I guess.

Nakashima for example does not do as much for me. His chair is mostly
impractical unless you have a huge room. And I suspect it won't
"wobble" properly. Although obviously stunning. All his other creations
remind me of someone grabbing a lump of wood, polishing one side and calling
it finished. Nevertheless, it's still very well executed stuff and I wish
I could "polish one side" as well as he does!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
am

They're gawdawfully uncomfortable. Do they
look nice? Without question. Would I put that in my home? Not if I
respected my guests, I wouldn't.


Excellent point. There's a great
and uncomplicated challenge
in designing furniture, and that's
precicely it. If I can make something
that not only looks great but also
works anywhere, I'll have achieved
something even FLW couldn't
acheive. Good assignment in
a class on architecture - Take a
Wright environment, scrub the
furniture, and replace it with something
that satisfies both criteria.

Ah, yes, to be able to "polish one side well". I think we all aspire to
this in one form or another but then someone comes along and asks, "when
will it be finished?". Alas, my audience would not appreciate the work
to do one side only, they only want to know, "How many beers can ya
putin there?". :-)

BRuce

Noons wrote:
"Dick Durbin" wrote in message om...

A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can
not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little
curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with
the cabinets that sit on them.


Oddly, they seem well proportioned to me. It's all to do with
how you look at them. That's one of the things with JK's
stuff: it changes as you change your point of view.


I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I
am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects
d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in
scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.


But curio cabinets have a function. Not for you and
most definitely not for me as I don't own "curios".
Others do. Besides, if you get some of his books,
you'll find that he goes through phases. He made a lot
of other stuff in past periods.

The thing with his creations is that the execution is
nothing short of perfection, always almost invisible.
But effective. That is hard to do. Very hard. I particularly
like his cabinet with the oddly cooppered doors that cannot
possibly close or open, yet they do and to perfection.


Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required
to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building
trifles.


His current phase is cabinets. Once he's happy that he's explored
all his mind tells him to do in that area, he'll move on. If he's
still alive. Personally, I don't mind one bit. I've found all
his creations a source of ideas and interesting techniques which
I try to emulate. Without success, but I learn. That's the whole
idea of his, I guess.

Nakashima for example does not do as much for me. His chair is mostly
impractical unless you have a huge room. And I suspect it won't
"wobble" properly. Although obviously stunning. All his other creations
remind me of someone grabbing a lump of wood, polishing one side and calling
it finished. Nevertheless, it's still very well executed stuff and I wish
I could "polish one side" as well as he does!


--
---

BRuce

Have you seen and touched any of his work? I saw several of his pieces as
well as Maloof's work at a museum in San Diego this summer. I was awe
struck. I didn't touch, but I could have if I had wanted to. The point is.
it was accessible to the point of being able to examine it closely.
One piece that I had never seen photo's of was a case that was hung on the
wall. The doors and joinery was perfection. His dovetails are perfect in
this piece.
He did things other than tables and chairs.

I've only seen photo's of Krenov's work. I would like to see them for real.

I also saw some Townsend - Goddard pieces this fall, and also the wood
workers at Williamsburg . . . . . . . We were invited to touch and examine
their work. One had an inlayed harpsichord under construction, all by hand
tools.

"Noons" wrote in message
u...
"Dick Durbin" wrote in message
om...

Nakashima for example does not do as much for me. His chair is mostly
impractical unless you have a huge room. And I suspect it won't
"wobble" properly. Although obviously stunning. All his other creations
remind me of someone grabbing a lump of wood, polishing one side and
calling
it finished. Nevertheless, it's still very well executed stuff and I wish
I could "polish one side" as well as he does!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
am

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
|
| Wright was said to be height challanged and slender.

He was, and so am I. I don't have any problem navigating Wright interiors.
:-)

But seriously he also has some designs that soar. Wright did lots of
innovative things with space. Remember that he rebelled against a design
tradition that envisioned houses as a collection of isolated square boxes
joined by doorways. That rebellion produced an entirely different concept
of space in a dwelling by creating a flow from one functional area to
another and using things like ceiling height to visually demarcate them.

Innovation isn't always and universally good. By trading the strict
compartmentalization of Victorian architecture for his new concept, he just
traded one set of known problems for another set of problems that he (and we
subsequently) came to characterize and criticize.

| Anyway, the concept is brilliant, but like the construction
| at Falling Water, the implementation leaves a bit to be desired

The whole concept of built-in furniture is fraught with peril. And I'm not
talking about Murphy beds or bookshelves. The notion of setting in stone
(or nailed-down wood) just what the furniture should be and where it should
go denies some of the freedom normally enjoyed by the inhabitant. We enjoy
our homes partly because we can adapt them to our tastes in ways the
original designer perhaps did not envision or intend, and because we can
change those adaptations at will.

Mutability appeals to some people. Look at how many people post here
saying, "I've got this table that I really like, but I need to change it.
How should I go about it?" Maybe Wright built in a seat or a table
somewhere with a very good reason in mind, but who is to say the inhabitant
recognizes and appreciates that reason? Who's to say the inhabitant hasn't
found a better reason for locating that piece across the room?

Now we here tend to congregate at the nascent end of a piece's life cycle.
There is a certain sense of "ownership" of a piece, even if we pass physical
possession of it to someone else and cash his check. We invest our creative
efforts into choosing the wood, executing our design, and carefully
finishing the piece. And so part of us wants to scream when the recipient
glops on six coats of Minwax High-Gloss Kindergartner Snot. But the other
part of us has to admit that if that's what makes the piece visually
appealing or functional to its new owner, it's better that way. It means
the end user is "correcting" a "deficiency" that we should have seen.

Wright took great care to create an integrated expression of his ideas to a
great level of detail. If some fault exists in the design, or in the
execution of the design, we would like to have the ability to correct it.
Wright didn't leave much flexibility for that. And in so doing requires you
either to take him or to leave him. If a designer is going to do that, then
he must accept being left.

| (at FW, they've spent OVER $4 million bucks to restore a house
| that cost about $100,000 to build, IIRC).

Well, sure. But how much do you think the Mona Lisa costs in terms of the
materials and initial labor? Compare that with the efforts now expended to
preserve and extend its life. We spend $4 million on Fallingwater because
it's the architectural equivalent of a Mona Lisa. Other houses get the
wrecking ball when their cantilevers sag.

I can go buy a bookshelf from Sauder made of compressed oatmeal with a
picture of wood pasted on it. It may look good in a context where a Krenov
would not. It may provide a sturdy, serviceable container where a Krenov
might not. Under those circumstances, the only advantage a Krenov has is
that Krenov made it. The value of art is exactly what we assign to it.

I remember having spent a lot of time in the 1980s with wildlife artist
Hayden Lambson, who is a friend of my grandfather. At the time he was just
an amateur painter. He had a typical desk job. He would show his works at
local art shows where people spread out their paintings on the lawn or
makeshift easels with prices marked in little colored stickers. The turning
point in his life came when a renowned artist visiting an art show paused at
one of his works, picked it up, and wrote Hayden a check for three times his
asking price. As Hayden's eyes widened, the artist said, "Don't you ever
sell a painting for anything less than that amount." Now, of course, Hayden
paints full time, has a full plate of commissions, and commands four and
five figures for originals. He doesn't paint any better or worse now than
when he was hawking his canvases in parks. The difference in the prices and
respect he commands was in finally realizing what impact his work was having
on others.

In a sense, the appreciation of art -- whether it's a coffee table, a house,
or a painting of a white-tailed deer -- is arbitrary. Why did we pick
Wright, out of all his contemporaries who were following the same design
principles, to be the exemplar of a particular style in a particular art
form? Why are we spending millions of dollars preserving his offerings
(including some of the most uncomfortable furniture ever built) at letting
others be destroyed? I don't know why. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, and therefore preservation comes from the wallet of that same
beholder.

| I love the way the two houses look and they way they are set
| into their respective landscapes, but I'd prefer not to even
| think seriously of living in them.

And that's a widely-shared opinion.

But, see, now we have to go back and revisit that "take-it-or-leave-it"
philosophy. Wright, in addition to his visual motivation, was also
practical. He wanted his work to be visually appealing, but also useful and
practical. He used lots of windows in order to provide natural light, but
that wasn't expected to come at the cost of freezing your kiester off during
a harsh Chicago winter. If you got cold sitting next to a window, Wright
would have advocated replacing his window with a better one.

Wright spent a lot of time working on designs that he intended to be easy to
live in and easy to build. He was big into the notion of pre-fab housing.
We associated him with unique and visually stunning commissions for the very
wealthy, but that isn't necessary the role he wrote for himself. He wanted
houses that looked nice, but that anyone could afford to own.

"Mr. Wright, I like your chairs, but they're so terribly uncomfortable."
Wright listened, and so version 2 had a sloped back. Still not as
comfortable as a Laz-E-Boy, but Wright did pay attention to that kind of
feedback. I'm not sure he would be pleased with the "preserve the original
design at all costs" mentality with which some have addressed his work.

And so in that respect, perhaps both his houses and his furniture designs
have passed into pure art, forsaking all semblance of function. But it's
because we made it that way, not necessarily because Wright made it that
way.

--Jay