# Karl Holtey



## Harbo (5 Jun 2015)

After 26yrs Karl Holtey is retiring and making one last plane, a No 984.

A very skilled craftsman and I wish him a happy retirement.

Rod


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

Seems a shame he didn't develop talent who could continue the business after his retirement with him still somewhat active on an 'of-counsel' basis.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (6 Jun 2015)

I too wish Karl a happy retirement. I think he's contributed a lot to woodworking, one way and another (A2 steel for one!). I could never afford one of his masterpieces, but it's good to know that there are people like Karl prepared to take craftsmanship to new heights, and that there are people prepared to allow him free rein by buying his planes. Nothing advances by just doing the same thing our predecessors did.


----------



## Mr_P (6 Jun 2015)

CStanford":1tuv1211 said:


> Seems a shame he didn't develop talent who could continue the business after his retirement with him still somewhat active on an 'of-counsel' basis.



Maybe he just wants to enjoy his retirement, without worrying about rent, bills and his reputation.

He is the business, client base / orders might drop off once if it was revealed these aren't 100% Holtey made anymore.

Big danger of training someone up and then they go solo.

He has a fair few quid tied up in machinery, should pay for few world cruises. 

Good luck to him.


----------



## CStanford (6 Jun 2015)

True. Good points.


----------



## lurker (6 Jun 2015)

CStanford":20sc9f6i said:


> Seems a shame he didn't develop talent who could continue the business after his retirement with him still somewhat active on an 'of-counsel' basis.




Maybe you are leaping to conclusions!
I used to live in the far north where he is based and he did quite a lot to try to publicise how high level skills low volume was a way forward for the region.
Locally he is well liked and has helped many aspiring engineer on their way.

If you look at his website you will how generous he is illustrating his methods which must have inspired many all over the world.


----------



## Racers (6 Jun 2015)

After a while you notice some people just write negative stuff, I don't usually see it as I have them on my ignore list but other people quote them and I am forced to read it.

Karl has a fantastic blog and he did help a bloke I can't remember his name Ian I think, to make a copy of his plane so he has contributed a fantastic amount of information about plane making etc, and some body deems it necessary to do him down for some imagined reason....

Pete


----------



## iNewbie (6 Jun 2015)

I could never afford one of his planes although I admire his skill-set.


----------



## Rhossydd (6 Jun 2015)

Racers":1vl9q73b said:


> some body deems it necessary to do him down for some imagined reason....


Maybe you've missed the sentiment of the message by not reading it all ?
I read it as; it was a pity that he hadn't been able to get someone to continue his business of extreme high quality plane making.
I'd have to agree that it will be a pity if all his knowledge and experience will just be lost to tool making in future.


----------



## John K (7 Jun 2015)

I would think of Karl more as an artist. And while an artist may not train an apprentice, their work often does live on in the work of many other artists. Karl already has had a huge impact on toolmakers of every description, let alone the especially peculiar (I say that fondly) folks who continue to make hand planes. It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction his announced retirement provokes, as it will also say much about the world of hand tools as a whole.


----------



## Rhossydd (7 Jun 2015)

John K":3nk661uf said:


> It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction his announced retirement provokes, as it will also say much about the world of hand tools as a whole.


I doubt it will register on most woodworkers at all. They are just such a niche product.
His products looked wonderful and reportedly worked as well as they looked, but with a total production of less than a thousand they have little significance in the real world of woodworking.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (7 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":2tgsw437 said:


> John K":2tgsw437 said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction his announced retirement provokes, as it will also say much about the world of hand tools as a whole.
> ...



Karl's contribution goes beyond the product he offered for sale. This was minuscule in comparison to his influence on other planemakers - motivation, construction methods (for example, dowels as well as dovetails), design (both BU and BD), manufacturing technique, validation, education, and setting the bar. Boy did he set the bar high! 

He also contributed tool steel such as A2. There may be others (PM?).

Karl Holtey will live on in the same way that Spier and Norris came to epitomise infill planes.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## lurker (7 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":3dtwy0mv said:


> Racers":3dtwy0mv said:
> 
> 
> > some body deems it necessary to do him down for some imagined reason....
> ...



Clearly you have little idea how remote Lairg is.
The chances of finding someone locally with the inclination are pretty slim
Anyway without the "name" I doubt there would be a living to be made.


----------



## Droogs (7 Jun 2015)

I suppose you need to define locally. I'm sure if Holtey had let it be known a year or so in advance and that he was willing to be an atellier then he would have had people coming to him to apprentice


----------



## Rhossydd (7 Jun 2015)

lurker":2ybhekyo said:


> Clearly you have little idea how remote Lairg is.


Don't be silly, it's just another town in Northern Scotland. In the 21st century it's no great big deal to be away from the major conurbations when most of your clients are hundreds or thousands of miles away.


> The chances of finding someone locally with the inclination are pretty slim


The real question is not if there's someone local to train, but if there's a will to try to continue the venture. If there was, and it's as significant as Derek says, someone would probably be prepared to move there to perpetuate the business. The prices commanded would ensure it could be worthwhile.


> Anyway without the "name" I doubt there would be a living to be made.


Not necessarily, many other high end businesses carry on even after their founders hand over the reigns to their designated successors. Ever heard of Rolls Royce or Fabergé ?


----------



## bugbear (8 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":10i5poag said:


> John K":10i5poag said:
> 
> 
> > It will be interesting to see what sort of reaction his announced retirement provokes, as it will also say much about the world of hand tools as a whole.
> ...



Karl's influence is indirect. He influences tool designers, tool makers and especially plane makers (obviously).

It's a bit like formula one - no one in the real world drives a formula one car, but the ideas filter through.

BugBear


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

I posted this on sawmillcreek. 1 reply in two days time. Indeed it seems that no one is interested anymore. And he used to be such a hotly debated figure in the past. 

The man's a legend. No doubt about that.


----------



## lurker (8 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":1xpp3oy9 said:


> lurker":1xpp3oy9 said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly you have little idea how remote Lairg is.
> ...




Well you are certainly not the first person to suggest I’m silly, maybe I did not express the point I was trying to make, Say someone had been interested in being Karl’s apprentice would they be prepared to live is what is essentially a large village two hours’ drive (petrol is at least 20% more expensive up there) to the nearest town, Inverness. 
If you are sick and need more than a GP it’s a car or Ambulance journey to Inverness, this was the main reason I decided not to retire there. I used to travel 600 miles south if I needed dental treatment as it is impossible to get on any dentists list.
The map is deceptive, 30 miles down your way is maybe 30 min on a dual carriageway. Up north even the A roads can be single track with passing places. The road from Perth to Thurso (200 miles and 4 hours if you are very lucky) has the largest death toll in the country. 
How was he going to attract a young man up there? Add to that, until recently, anyone for 300 miles around with an inclination toward engineering, got a job on the rigs and earned a shedload.


----------



## Droogs (8 Jun 2015)

lurker wrote - Well you are certainly not the first person to suggest I’m silly, maybe I did not express the point I was trying to make, Say someone had been interested in being Karl’s apprentice would they be prepared to live is what is essentially a large village two hours’ drive (petrol is at least 20% more expensive up there) to the nearest town, Inverness. 

In response to this I would have to say in all likelyhood - AYE
A friend of mine who is a master swordmaker/armnourer advertised for an apprentice last year and received over 1500 applicants. The lad who was chosen is actually trvelling over 3000 miles in order to apprentice and will arrive later this month for the start of what will be a 4 year apprenticeship. this is all being done with no grants etc but because Pauil feels the skills of his trade should not die out


----------



## Mr_P (8 Jun 2015)

One man bands usually have three options on retirement.

Pass on to an heir, no idea if Karl has kids and even if he has maybe not interested.

Sell the business, easy if you are a newsagent.

If you can't sell, wind down and sell your assets.

Option 4, romantic idea involving semi-retirement and an apprentice and leaving him to run the business. I can imagine dozens of potential problems with this idea. 

My job moved to Scotland and I did 18 months before I quit and headed South. 

So once again, Karl I wish you a happy and long retirement.


----------



## iNewbie (8 Jun 2015)

I would think it'd be very difficult for Karl to give over the reigns to his name considering his perfectionism. You can teach someone, but its not your work.


----------



## Rhossydd (8 Jun 2015)

bugbear":qqy5pt8i said:


> Karl's influence is indirect. He influences tool designers, tool makers and especially plane makers (obviously).
> It's a bit like formula one - no one in the real world drives a formula one car, but the ideas filter through.


Can you explain what innovations he's made that influence others ?
From what I can see the planes he makes are exquisitely made, but have no major innovations, just small refinements of an already mature design.

It's not quite the dramatic new developments in technology that F1 refine and bring to the ordinary user's vehicles.

What am I missing here ?


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

He was the first to use A2, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Rhossydd (8 Jun 2015)

Corneel":1qeaplpm said:


> He was the first to use A2, if I remember correctly.


Without wishing to get into a tediously detailed discussion on tool steels, was that really so revolutionary and innovative ?
It seems new steels have cropped up regularly over time and continue to do so.


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

In the handtool woodworking world, that was a bomb! :lol:


----------



## John K (10 Jun 2015)

Asserting that Karl Holtey should have trained an apprentice is a bit like arguing that Van Gogh or Hemingway should have trained apprentices. An important part of Karl's method has been the steady improvement and refinement of the planes he makes. It seems unlikely that anyone he trained who was brilliant and impassioned enough to carry on this improvement would not want to put their own name on the fruits of their labor. They certainly would have every right to. It's also not clear that there would be any economic reward to continuing down this path. Karl's prices are high because his volume is low and the research and development he puts into each plane formidable. It's not an attractive business model.


----------



## Rhossydd (10 Jun 2015)

John K":3853t5qs said:


> Asserting that Karl Holtey should have trained an apprentice is a bit like arguing that Van Gogh or Hemingway should have trained apprentices.


I'm not seeing any 'Art' in these products, just fine craft.


> the research and development he puts into each plane formidable.


Is anyone capable of explaining just what's so remarkable about these planes that makes them different and worth the money* ?


> It's not an attractive business model.


Without knowing the actual demand it's impossible to know if the enterprise has a profitable future or not.

*Other than simple rarity ?


----------



## Racers (10 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd have a look at this video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYEFINB ... 45ygXN7RL6

And if you still don't understand then you never will.

Karl has pushed the standards up to a very high level and others have had to follow.

I guess it you don't work with exotic woods you will probably won't need a Holtey, I would love one and would just look at it.

Pete


----------



## Doug B (10 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":1qormn11 said:


> Is anyone capable of explaining just what's so remarkable about these planes that makes them different and worth the money* ?



They stand out from most other planes in the accuracy that they were constructed & were hand made in small batches that's why as Karl said it could take over 200 hours to make one plane.

Now I have no desire to own one but can't fault him charging the prices he does, precision engineering is very expensive & that's what he was offering.

Whether anyone thinks they are worth the money is down to that persons opinion, there are always folks who judge everything on cost that's the main reason his planes caused such debate which I believe is what lead to him removing the pricing of his planes from his site.

I don't really understand why folks bang on about the price, if you can afford one good for you if you can't then banging on about it isn't gonna change a thing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jun 2015)

Are Karl's planes works of art? Well, people often refer to things like iconic car designs and some architecture as 'works of art', so yes, why not? At least one well-known artist was once heard to assert that art was what she said it was (Tracy Emin), so on that basis, anything can be art. Let's face it, Karl's planes are far more pleasing to the eye than Tracy Emin's unmade bed! As far as I'm concerned, Karl's planes ARE works of art. Other people are perfectly entitled to other opinions, of course.

Is anybody capable of explaining just what's so remarkable about these planes that makes them different and worth the money? Well, I'll have a go at that one - I think it's because they're better than anybody else's planes, on pretty well every measure - and the competition is stiff. (We're taking about the world of very high-end infill and fine finishing planes here, not the world of bog-standard chunks of wood or iron for hacking lumps off doors.)

Without knowing the actual demand it's impossible to know if the enterprise has a profitable future or not. Yes, I'd agree with that, generally. Karl generated a demand by being better than everybody else. I doubt he's made a fortune out of it, but I hope he's made a decent living. Perhaps more to the point, he's made contributions to planemaking and woodwork way beyond narrow financial considerations. If anybody else was going to carry Karl's business model on exactly, they'd have to have his uncommon perfectionism and drive to improve and innovate - a very rare combination.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jun 2015)

Are Karl's innovations patented/copyrighted? He may have started with meticulous copies of Norris
designs, but then he started altering things.

BugBear


----------



## lurker (10 Jun 2015)

Nail on the head Cheshire!

In a just world Karl ought to be richer than Tracey as his output shows skill as well as artistry.

I imagine his "business model" was he wanted to live in a beautiful part of the world and needed to earn a living where livings are hard to come by. Or rather his skills allowed him to move up there.


----------



## MatthewRedStars (10 Jun 2015)

His planes are beautiful, but not art. 

Art to me is that intangible x-factor. Beauty is only one small piece, the old masters didn't just paint beautiful pictures - they captured some essence of humanity. That's what turned beauty into art.

Or even someone like Donald Judd's literalist pieces of metal. They evoke, in me anyway, and indescribable feeling - a kind of spacial intrigue. An emotional tension. 

A plane can be art, though, if placed knowingly in an artistic context. The object on the workbench depends on context - the same object in a gallery has different context, it can become art. But it can't be art inherently... just really pretty.

My two pence.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jun 2015)

As far as I can tell the conventional definitions are:

Art is that which is made by an artist.

An artist is someone who makes art.

_Good_ art is defined by art critics.

And the conventional definitions are complete bovine excrement.  

BugBear


----------



## lurker (10 Jun 2015)

If emin's and hurst's carp (anag.) is art then Karl's far surpasses that in my book.
His stuff rouses many emotions in me, mainly lust!


----------



## John K (10 Jun 2015)

People define art in all sorts of different ways. The OED says that art is: "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." By that definition, Karl's work certainly qualifies. I have no doubt that this will be lost on many people who have not learned enough to develop an appreciation for Karl's beautiful sculptural tributes to the dignity of working wood by hand.


----------



## custard (10 Jun 2015)

Reason is the better half of intelligence, and craft is the better half of art.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (10 Jun 2015)

bugbear":3ew1wdxp said:


> _Good_ art is defined by art critics.
> 
> BugBear


So how do we explain the value attributable to a Turner/Constable/Da Vinci? Is it "inherent in the work" or is it man-made by market forces or other such "artificial" external factors?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":3f88ty4z said:


> bugbear":3f88ty4z said:
> 
> 
> > _Good_ art is defined by art critics.
> ...



I've never really understood the workings of the art market, but I have noticed that if you want to make a lot of money as an artist, being dead is a very good career move. I'll bet if Turner, Constable or da Vinci were still drawing breath, they'd be struggling to get £10/hr.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (10 Jun 2015)

Surely, following that logic....just dying would automatically positively affect the value of all artists work wouldn't it? Is there nothing of value at all in the work itself that justifies those telephone number type prices at auction?


----------



## Rhossydd (10 Jun 2015)

Racers":149zgd0y said:


> Rhossydd have a look at this video,
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYEFINB ... 45ygXN7RL6
> And if you still don't understand then you never will.


OK, I've just watched that, but I still see no particular signs of development, innovation or influence on others* that people seem to be claiming here.
OK I understand that A2 tool steel is significant, but did he create it himself or just find that it was suitable for hand tool use ?

It seems odd to me that at the price charged, David Barron still had to flatten the back of the plane's blade and put a micro bevel on it. A thousand pound plane not ready to use out of the box ? really ?
In fact the video doesn't really get some things right. African Blackwood "unplanable" ? I've just been out to my workshop and my Stanley 020 block plane seems to cope OK with it and it hasn't had the blade sharpened very recently either.

Don't get me wrong; I fully understand that these are exquisitely and precision made tools, and given that quality of manufacture, the price has too be very high.

Whether there's 'Art' in them is open to discussion, but I think a lot of that will rest on if the maker(artist?) is building them for artistic impression or not.

*Maybe the innovation was creating a market for bespoke planes for collectors with fat wallets. There do seem to be a few other now chasing the market for people prepared to pay for exclusivity. No problem with that, but does it really have an influence on hand tool design overall ?


----------



## Rhossydd (10 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":3t07xpn0 said:


> I'll bet if Turner, Constable or da Vinci were still drawing breath, they'd be struggling to get £10/hr.


You might like to learn a little about these people before making such silly claims.
Leonardo da Vinci was hugely celebrated and successful in his own time.
Turner was hardly struggling either. Have you seen Mike Leigh's recent film on his life ?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":uy7dalm6 said:


> Surely, following that logic....just dying would automatically positively affect the value of all artists work wouldn't it? Is there nothing of value at all in the work itself that justifies those telephone number type prices at auction?



My remark was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. Obviously missed the mark slightly! Oh well...

More seriously, there are all sorts of factors in the art market, and 'fashion' or 'snob value' become more important the higher up the price chain you go. Scarcity is obviously another factor; whilst an artist is still adding to the output, that factor is depressed, but when a fashionable artist stops working, there will only ever be a set supply to satisfy demand.

I'm not sure the woodworking collectables or antique tool market is completely free of fashion or snob value, but it seems to suffer less of it than some markets.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jun 2015)

You want tools and art - Bridge City tools, surely?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":1o8eknxg said:


> Cheshirechappie":1o8eknxg said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet if Turner, Constable or da Vinci were still drawing breath, they'd be struggling to get £10/hr.
> ...



....and a very pleasant evening to you too!

PS. No, I haven't seen Mike Leigh's film. I haven't watched a film in nearly thirty years. I've read some great books, though, including 'The Story of Art' by E.H.Gombrich. Though t'was a few years ago, to be fair...


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (10 Jun 2015)

Cheshirechappie":1vcha22s said:


> Random Orbital Bob":1vcha22s said:
> 
> 
> > Surely, following that logic....just dying would automatically positively affect the value of all artists work wouldn't it? Is there nothing of value at all in the work itself that justifies those telephone number type prices at auction?
> ...



Fair comment about the tongue in cheek nature....I wasn't being overly serious with my response....more a muse really as I am intrigued by the notion that, particularly the masters (like those we've mentioned) output has value that is created by the artist and isn't bestowed through any market forces. In other words, if you took the Mona Lisa for example and allowed it to be released into 4 completely separate art markets, where those markets were entirely discrete from one another (obviously a theoretical only experiment), would the painting naturally rise to the highest value niche in each of those markets? In other words is it's value inherent in the painting or is it inherent in the culture and people who trade, discuss, promote art etc. If in the painting, we would expect it to rise to the top of any market it entered. If it were culturally derived then only those works that appealed to the zeitgeist of the moment would become valuable. Now I accept that in real life you cant separate the culture from the painting since they're unpickable. But I just rather like the idea that the quality of the work is what drives it's ultimate value, and I'm quite prepared to be told that view is naive. I still like the idea though since it gives eternal hope that masterpieces will always rise to the top and will always command decent value. Gives something to aim for


----------



## Rhossydd (10 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":3hcnqcej said:


> But I just rather like the idea that the quality of the work is what drives it's ultimate value, and I'm quite prepared to be told that view is naive.


No naivety, you're absolutely correct. As an example go to the National Gallery's Sainsbury wing and you'll see 'Masterpieces' of renaissance art that have no attribution, they have have their value simply through the quality of the art work.

Similarly Holtey's planes should always command premium prices, even if the maker's name or reputation is forgotten or lost, just because they are so well made. (although that doesn't automatically make them works of Art)


----------



## n0legs (10 Jun 2015)

Well I'm giving up on the savings, I'll never afford one now  
Good luck to Karl for the future, congratulations on your retirement.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (10 Jun 2015)

Bob, I'm afraid that the value of art is not in the actual piece. Why this is I'm not sure, but as evidence I have a friend whose truck was painted by Banksy many years ago before the art world decided his work was important/valuable. Her house was falling down and she decided to sell a panel of the truck to pay for repairs. Before they were verified as genuine Banksy's they were of no value and she could not get his agents to verify them. Eventually he verified them and she got enough money to fix her house ( I don't know the actual sums but they go for upwards of £100,000). To me this is all odd as they were the same thing whether painted by him or someone else. This is a big difference between art and craft. If a piece of furniture that was supposed to have been made by Alan Peters turned out not to have been made by him it may lose some value, but the fact that it was fine enough for people to have thought he made it means it is still a fine piece with an intrinsic value. This is not the case with art works. Even a violin that turns out not to be made by Stradivarius will have an intrinsic value if it was fine enough to possibly have been made by him. Perhaps its value goes from 1,000,000 to 20,000 but it still has a "real" value. 
I have just had a couple of customers in our dock who make art for Gavin Turk. The "craft" is theirs not his, but they are on £100 a day whilst his works sell for 6 and 7 figure sums. My bed is at least as messy as Tracey Emin's and my drawings are probably better, but neither are of any value. 
I'm not anti modern art but there is something weird about the market. Banksy's work is street culture, often about radical politics and counter culture, I actually like it, but who are these idiots who pay £100,000 upwards for a stencil, you can't buy your way into counter culture. 
I'd prefer a Holtey to Banksy any day, but this is partly because they are not art, they are a real thing, it doesn't matter who made them, it is what they are, unfortunately I am very unlikely to ever own either so I'll just be happy with my Stanleys and pictures by my seven year old daughter (somewhat better than Tracey Emin's).
Paddy
Paddy


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Jun 2015)

Interesting.


----------



## John K (11 Jun 2015)

An exact copy of a Karl Holtey plane would not be as valuable as one made by Karl himself, which is partly why it is, in fact, art.


----------



## RogerP (11 Jun 2015)

"Art" or objects of great rarity or value are bought for investment not for looking at or using. 

The item is locked away in a bank vault and brought out and sold on a few years later when it has increased sufficiently in value. Then it goes into the new owner's bank vault. 

Occasionally they appear at a heavily guarded exhibition for a few weeks to prove they still exist and to garner interest from prospective buyers.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jun 2015)

It always amuses me when galleries have abstracts for months before they're informed that they've hung them upside down.


----------



## bugbear (11 Jun 2015)

John K":8t2dmi5b said:


> An exact copy of a Karl Holtey plane would not be as valuable as one made by Karl himself, which is partly why it is, in fact, art.



That's a bold and unsupported statement.

IMHO the merit of Karl Holtey's planes is partially the design, but mainly the extraordinary (and unique) level of precision and care in the manufacture.

If (and it's a colossal "if") an exact copy could be made, I (for one) would value it equally with a Holtey.

If you're looking for a tool that is priced like Art, I suggest the a Krenov smoother is a better choice, although they
may be selling as souvenirs or memorabilia.

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Jun 2015)

bugbear":3niors4o said:


> John K":3niors4o said:
> 
> 
> > An exact copy of a Karl Holtey plane would not be as valuable as one made by Karl himself, which is partly why it is, in fact, art.
> ...



That's a little harsh on John's statement BB! This is the perennial problem with art isn't it. What constitutes it is very much in the eye of the beholder, it's subjective, no more gossamer than a fleeting opinion perhaps?

But from the perspective of a Hotley plane I really think we're all missing something here which is confusing the issue. The plane in question is obviously a triumph of engineering in terms of the materials, the design, the construction and the tolerances. So on that level it's FUNCTION is a total and utter success and therefore woody's crave it's ownership because they know it will work well at it's job. But maybe less, maybe more, maybe just equally, it's FORM seems also to attract, to move, to motivate people in it's direction. So I would contend it has subtly crossed the line between tool and call it "sculpture in metal" as an art form. In other words it co-exists, in both camps. it's both rational and functional yet aesthetic and "beautiful" simultaneously. I'm not sure I would be in such a hurry to denigrate an opinion that promotes it's aesthetic qualities myself.

It does feel weird I'll freely admit that, thinking of a plane as sculpture, but if it moves the onlooker emotionally then why on earth can't it be classified in the art section of life?


----------



## John K (11 Jun 2015)

Thank you, Bob. I'd add that the value of a piece of art is also impacted by CONTEXT. What were the circumstances under which it was created? What influence did it have? Who commissioned it? The story behind a particular work adds to its meaning and shapes how we view it. Aesthetics are a symbolic form of communication. When I look at a Karl Holtey plane, I see a man skillfully laboring to pay tribute to and to dignify (with his entire being) the value of tools as an essential part of the human spirit and the ingenuity of mankind.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Jun 2015)

wow.....[I've gone to roll a spliff]


----------



## woodpig (11 Jun 2015)

Can I take it these planes aren't intended to be used but are for collectors?


----------



## John K (11 Jun 2015)

I would guess that a large percentage of Karl's planes are cherished but unused. Others are used regularly. And others are used for special works. It's up to the owner. David Charlesworth has one.


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Jun 2015)

Probably quite a large percentage too. I think many will see them as being too precious to use, at least on any real day to day woodworking basis. They probably use their Stanley circa 1978 for that.


----------



## Andy Kev. (13 Jun 2015)

Paddy Roxburgh":igz5csjx said:


> Bob, I'm afraid that the value of art is not in the actual piece. Why this is I'm not sure, but as evidence I have a friend whose truck was painted by Banksy many years ago before the art world decided his work was important/valuable. Her house was falling down and she decided to sell a panel of the truck to pay for repairs. Before they were verified as genuine Banksy's they were of no value and she could not get his agents to verify them. Eventually he verified them and she got enough money to fix her house ( I don't know the actual sums but they go for upwards of £100,000). To me this is all odd as they were the same thing whether painted by him or someone else. This is a big difference between art and craft. If a piece of furniture that was supposed to have been made by Alan Peters turned out not to have been made by him it may lose some value, but the fact that it was fine enough for people to have thought he made it means it is still a fine piece with an intrinsic value. This is not the case with art works. Even a violin that turns out not to be made by Stradivarius will have an intrinsic value if it was fine enough to possibly have been made by him. Perhaps its value goes from 1,000,000 to 20,000 but it still has a "real" value.
> I have just had a couple of customers in our dock who make art for Gavin Turk. The "craft" is theirs not his, but they are on £100 a day whilst his works sell for 6 and 7 figure sums. My bed is at least as messy as Tracey Emin's and my drawings are probably better, but neither are of any value.
> I'm not anti modern art but there is something weird about the market. Banksy's work is street culture, often about radical politics and counter culture, I actually like it, but who are these idiots who pay £100,000 upwards for a stencil, you can't buy your way into counter culture.
> I'd prefer a Holtey to Banksy any day, but this is partly because they are not art, they are a real thing, it doesn't matter who made them, it is what they are, unfortunately I am very unlikely to ever own either so I'll just be happy with my Stanleys and pictures by my seven year old daughter (somewhat better than Tracey Emin's).
> ...


I agree with that. In my opinion the whole thing can be demystified if we start by making a distinction between art and craft. If you were to ask most people in most trades to define their trade they would probably come up pretty quickly with a no nonsense, straightforward answer. Ask anybody involved in any capacity in the art world and they will adopt a strained expression, their knuckles will whiten as the pressure of their grip on their glass of cheap Chilean Chardonnay tightens and they will go into waffle mode for 5 minutes or so, at the end of which you will be none the wiser.

The solution? You need a working definition of art. My own (which has so far never let me down) is that a piece of art has to communicate something intended by the artist: it can simply be an unusual physical perspective on an object or a statement about the morality of a set of circumstances etc. If something which is claimed to be art does not communicate to you, it and its artist have failed. So if you take Damien Hurst's dot paintings they are at best pieces of design but in my opinion there is no sensible way in which you an call them art. You mention Tracy Emin: she seems to want to communicate (usually tedious and self-obsessed) points about her own life but in a sort of cack-handed way.

Which brings us neatly on to craft: the skills used in the construction of the work of art. We know that Hurst can draw a set of circles (I believe he otherwise gets people to actually do the physical work on his projects) so he would appear to have the craft skills of a 10 year old. Tracy Emin can put up a tent or trash a bad, so she is presumably blessed with normal physical coordination.

However it seems to me that precious few modern artists have high levels of craftsmanship. Constables, Turners and Caravaggios seem thin on the ground these days.

Karl Holtey on the other hand is a master craftsman with a gifted eye for design which is so well developed that most of us would probably say that their is an element of artistry in his works (so excellent is the design). However, his planes do not communicate anything in themselves therefore we must conclude that they are not works of art.

This then leads us to the matters of price. In the art world it is all about money. Art can be a terrific investment. That's why pictures by Picasso change hands for billions. I think van Gogh was a tip top dauber of paint. I'd be prepared to spend about two thousand on one of his originals (if I had it spare) but people who have got millions spare have pushed the prices into the stratosphere. The whole art market phenomenon is in principle the same as the emperor's new clothes. Your friend with the Banksy van did well: she exploited the work of a low to mediocre quality "artist" who seems to possess little craft (he wields a stencil and a can of spray paint) by selling it in a market which is full of people who are desparate to make a few bob in a quick and easy way.

So do you buy a Holtey, a Banksy or a Picasso? Well if somebody is going to offer you a Picasso for 10 grand, snap it up, sell it for ten million, buy as many Holtey planes as you want and a couple of decent pictures to go on your wall and then do the world a favour by bying a few Hursts, Emins and Banksies and burn them.


----------



## Rhossydd (13 Jun 2015)

Whilst I'd agree with almost all of your post you need to be careful before saying things like;


Andy Kev.":1uct9llq said:


> However it seems to me that precious few modern artists have high levels of craftsmanship. Constables, Turners and Caravaggios seem thin on the ground these days.


Unless you have a really good knowledge of contemporary art making statements like this rather risky. There are a lot of fine artists working today,but you probably haven't heard of most of them or seen their work.
You need to remember that many of past artists weren't widely regarded as 'masters' in their own period and it's only with the passing of time that the worth of their work has been truly understood.


----------



## Andy Kev. (13 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":3jtp9e29 said:


> Whilst I'd agree with almost all of your post you need to be careful before saying things like;
> 
> 
> Andy Kev.":3jtp9e29 said:
> ...


Yes, you are of course quite right. I'm aiming my remarks essentially at the scandalous nature of art world hype, the rotten foundation of which to me seems to be a widespread inability on the part of many of its participants to even confidently state what they think art is. And in terms of artists, my target is the kind of people I named. There are many good, masterful even, modern artists (not necessarily engaged in the production of "modern" art) but they tend, for obvious reasons, not to scandalise our sensibilities. I'm also assuming that on this forum we can treat the subject in a relaxed, irreverent way while not feeling the need for academic precision.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 Jun 2015)

Andy Kev.":23oiucbd said:


> I'm also assuming that on this forum we can treat the subject in a relaxed, irreverent way while not feeling the need for academic precision.



Quite right, lets show some respect in the way we respond to people's opinions please. Particularly with esoteric subjects like art there is no right or wrong, it's got to be one of the least binary discussions going and neither harmony nor the debate are served by inflammatory language.

Opening posts with: "No" or "you're wrong" or "you need to take more care in what you say", that kind of language just puts the posters back up, causes them to dig their heels in and adopt a defensive posture. If folk reference the idea not the person then it keeps the discussion lubricated and non personal. The moment the person is rejected instead of the idea, it gets nasty and I for one don't want to read posts of people bickering. For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jun 2015)

Wenn Ich "Kultur" hore, nehme Ich meine Pistole.

Apologies for the missing umlaut.


----------



## CStanford (13 Jun 2015)

There is a huge difference in the industrial arts, decorative arts, and fine art. These actually are dichotomous and such dichotomy is a permanent feature in the market for art, particularly the last two.


----------



## Corneel (13 Jun 2015)

Take for example musicians. I am not a musician, so I really should have no idea, but when I listen to some modern violin players who play a classic piece, Bach for example, they can do that with the utmost perfection. They are true craftsmen. And what's more, the art world doesn't expect anything less then perfect execution. Are they artists or crafsmen? (Or women of course).


----------



## custard (13 Jun 2015)

bugbear":3hfyrgte said:


> IMHO the merit of Karl Holtey's planes is partially the design, but mainly the extraordinary (and unique) level of precision and care in the manufacture.
> 
> If (and it's a colossal "if") an exact copy could be made, I (for one) would value it equally with a Holtey.



I'd agree with that. 

But here's the thing, a great deal of Holtey's precision and care isn't actually visible, much of his effort is sealed inside the plane so an exact copy wouldn't be verifiable as an exact copy. 

In that respect the Holtey name is more like a brand than artist's signature, in other words its real significance is as a guarantee of quality rather than evidence of authorship.


----------



## John K (13 Jun 2015)

I respectfully disagree that Karl's planes do not communicate anything in and of themselves. I can certainly see why they don't communicate much to some people. But I think there is a language in the craftsmanship, design and engineering of his planes that does speak to people who know the language. His planes are full of individual decisions that are every bit as considered as brush strokes on a piece of canvass. I see more art in some of Karl's planes than others. He started out trying to make higher quality versions of planes made by others who came before him. But by the time he made his 98 he had moved to a place where he began to fully express his own ideas. In the end, I think art is something that is determined by the nature and quality of the relationship between the object and the viewer. That is where "meaning" gets created--or not. So it really is not at all surprising that one person might see something as art while another person would be totally unmoved. The perversions of the art market are a separate matter entirely.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 Jun 2015)

I'm inclined to agree with John. Karl's planes could be reasonably viewed as sculpture. The fact they perform a function is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## iNewbie (13 Jun 2015)

The guys an Artist. They are, art.


----------



## n0legs (13 Jun 2015)

John K":1dhrasp3 said:


> I respectfully disagree that Karl's planes do not communicate anything in and of themselves. I can certainly see why they don't communicate much to some people. But I think there is a language in the craftsmanship, design and engineering of his planes that does speak to people who know the language. His planes are full of individual decisions that are every bit as considered as brush strokes on a piece of canvass. I see more art in some of Karl's planes than others. He started out trying to make higher quality versions of planes made by others who came before him. But by the time he made his 98 he had moved to a place where he began to fully express his own ideas. In the end, I think art is something that is determined by the nature and quality of the relationship between the object and the viewer. That is where "meaning" gets created--or not. So it really is not at all surprising that one person might see something as art while another person would be totally unmoved. The perversions of the art market are a separate matter entirely.



I wholeheartedly agree with this. One of the most comprehensive, clear statements made on this subject.



iNewbie":1dhrasp3 said:


> The guys an Artist. They are, art.



My feelings also.


----------



## Rhossydd (14 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":ydtx5i70 said:


> For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"


Are you reading these posts ? Andy agreed I was right in my correction of his post. "Yes, you are of course quite right."

This thread is all about celebrating and understanding the extreme precision with which Karl Holtey made his planes, why not strive for a similar academic precision and factual accuracy in our discussions here ?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (14 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":nl8p11p1 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":nl8p11p1 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with Andy's posts and he didn't need to "be more careful"
> ...



I'm reading them for sure. I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words! I think Andy was simply commenting that perhaps we don't need to be quite so intense, quite so picky about the detail, particularly when a) these are opinions and not facts and b) this discussion is lets face it pretty esoteric at the point it strays into the notion of art and as I said before, that isn't a binary discussion, there is no black or white....just opinion. In my view expression of opinions is valid and the people who express them can probably live without advice about how careful or otherwise they should be. By all means folks should take issue with an idea or a theme but steer away from commenting on the person. It's just basic courtesy that's all.


----------



## Bedrock (14 Jun 2015)

"Art" has become such a devalued word over the last century or so. I seem to recall that the French National Academy originally refused to accept work from any Impressionist artists, excluding the work of Monet, Manet etc., as they did not conform to their then rigid set of criteria. Having visited several galleries of modern art, initially with a full set of "anti" prejudices, I have had my views altered considerably, and am now somewhat more open minded.

Having said that, I recall a BBC programme some years ago where a couple (very wealthy) were being shown a new work of art in an "exclusive NY gallery", which consisted of a very large canvas, entirely painted white, and for which they were being invited to pay several hundred thousand dollars, before anyone else had the opportunity to see it. There's another word for that, and I don't think it's "art".

Whether something designed for a functional purpose, transcends the barrier to become "art", can only be an individual subjective opinion. I for one, believe that any surviving Concorde aircraft have made that transition as it is an artefact of stunning beauty as well as a tribute to the British aircraft industry. I would "value" any of those aircraft at way more than any Damien Hurst, but they are a damn sight more difficult to accommodate on your mantelpiece or bank vault.

Much as I admire the engineering and beauty of Mr. Holtey's work, would I put his planes in the same category as Concorde? Hmmmm.....

Mike

Much as I don't like most of Ms. Emins work that I have seen, I believe that she is a more than capable conventional draughtsperson.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (14 Jun 2015)

Art's a complicated one and no mistake. It has so many dimensions two of which: the money side and modern art seem to be almost completely at odds with what perhaps the majority consider to be the most important aspect of it which is "did it move me in some way".

I'm afraid I don't really understand modern art myself. If a piece is making a cultural comment then sometimes I get that but a white canvas......not being funny but what the heck is that all about?? Surely the onlooker would need to be taking some pretty creative chemicals to get a buzz out of that??


----------



## iNewbie (14 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":2dximzg0 said:


> Surely the onlooker would need to be taking some pretty creative chemicals to get a buzz out of that??



The body will supply its own chemicals - no outside influence necessary, for some.


----------



## Rhossydd (14 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":4rzge08z said:


> I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words!


and that's poor advise too. Just read what people post and comment on what they actually write, not what you think or hope or suspect, they mean. Too many people make assumptions that are incorrect and post unnecessarily inflammatory posts on fallacious ideas.

Jut keep it factual and accurate, is that really so difficult ?


----------



## CStanford (14 Jun 2015)

I suppose the obvious question to ask is whether Karl has exhibited his work in a setting other than some sort of woodworking get together, say in a general gallery or something along those lines, possibly along with work by UK designer/craftsmen who may have used his planes.

Just wondering...


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":yud4j7r8 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":yud4j7r8 said:
> 
> 
> > I would encourage everyone to read "between the lines" as well as the words!
> ...



A near perfect demonstration of my point - thank you! Oh and......it's a small c......in advise


----------



## iNewbie (15 Jun 2015)

There is an s in Just, too. (homer)


----------



## Bedrock (15 Jun 2015)

I gave up any attempt to "understand" modern art a long time ago. I work on the simplest judgement - does it affect me, or do I like it or not. But I never fail to be astonished at how apparently shrewd business people can be persuaded to part with large quantities of cash for what I might consider painting and decorating.

I think the earlier reference to context is relevant, in that I might doubt that a Holtey plane is unlikely to be considered as having an intrinsic artistic value, outside of our world where there is some understanding of it's purpose. Concorde might be different.

Mike


----------



## JohnPW (15 Jun 2015)

There are lots of different types of "art". There's applied art (overlaps with craft), performing arts, etc. What most people mean by "art" is actually "fine art" ie traditionally painting, sculpture etc. By definition a woodworking tool is not fine art.

The art market is something entirely different, and more to do with status, perceived taste, conspicuous consumption, money than anything to do with what art is or not.

Back to topic of his retirement. He could train or let another person/firm continue making his planes but would they be a "Karl Holtey"? It could that if he's not making the post-retirement planes, they shouldn't have his name on them. Perhaps like individual violin makers, after Stradivari stopped making violins, there are no more new Stradivari violins.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Jun 2015)

But there are a heck of a lot of Fender Stratocasters. If he was capable of imparting his knowledge to a series of apprentices, would that not then count in the same way? Or is he just too much of a one off for that to work?


----------



## Andy Kev. (16 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":2xp0dfmm said:


> But there are a heck of a lot of Fender Stratocasters. If he was capable of imparting his knowledge to a series of apprentices, would that not then count in the same way? Or is he just too much of a one off for that to work?


I'm surprised that he took on no apprentice, having worked so hard to build up a body of skills to take plane making to his level. It's not as if the notion of passing the torch to an acolyte who has met the master's standards is a new one and then the name can justifiably be carried on. Still, I'm sure Mr H has got his reasons.


----------



## Doug B (16 Jun 2015)

Perhaps he has made a batch of planes that he is saving until the inevitable rise in price of Holtey planes due to them no longer being available to order, imagine what collectors would pay post retirement for a brand new unused box Holtey. Could be a nice little pension :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (16 Jun 2015)

the "undiscovered" back catalogue!


----------



## Doug B (16 Jun 2015)

With an etched flower on each plane to prove his latent artistic credentials :shock:


----------



## whiskywill (16 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":frtqh4pk said:


> Oh and......it's a small c......in advise



I was going to advise that advise was the wrong word but though that to offer unsolicited advice would be inadvisable.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Jun 2015)

Well it wouldn't be a capital "c" in advice, either.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (16 Jun 2015)

whiskywill":2xsnk7hd said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2xsnk7hd said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and......it's a small c......in advise
> ...



Very drole Oscar =D> =D> =D> 

I had a similar though...bu hen I realised he leer t was missing from my keyboard


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (16 Jun 2015)

phil.p":10heyopf said:


> Well it wouldn't be a capital "c" in advice, either.


It's possible you may have missed the subtlety in my original response Phil  But that's OK....taking posts at face value is clearly preferable to reading between the lines.


----------



## Andy Kev. (16 Jun 2015)

Random Orbital Bob":gs57fygm said:


> whiskywill":gs57fygm said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbital Bob":gs57fygm said:
> ...


Er ... you're not going to like this but it's "droll".


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (16 Jun 2015)

LOL...touché Andy


----------



## John K (19 Jun 2015)

is this what a string looks like when it ends?


----------

