A chair

[woodbutcher453]

Chairs are THE most difficult and complicated thing that any woodworker can make because there isn't one answer. These are my views and please feel free to disagree with me. In fact... I would encourage it, because if we were all the same, the world would be a boring place !

Wood expands across the grain and not with it. Ignore that fact at your peril. That's the problem...!

But it's not a problem, it's a creative asset. Necessity is the mother of invention. This is one of my 'solutions'

You build a framework, but if you're using big flat areas, you have to allow for movement. The seat's easy... it's just a big chunk on sliding joints, gravity holds it in the right place, but the back... that's a whole different thing.

The rails have the grain running side to side whereas the upright pieces have the grain going up and down. You could just use a big bit for the back. That's where ergonomics raises it's head. Your behind is a bulging lump of fat and is quite happy to sit on a big flat surface. Your back is a marvel of biological engineering and finds leaning against a flat surface uncomfortable, mainly because we have a big bony spine thing that stands proud of the surface.

You could carve out a curve in the back but this would take ages. You could laminate the back to have a curve in it, but while the edge can be aesthetic, on most occasions it isn't. This is what I mean about there not being one answer.

My choice was to split the back in two and angle the pieces forward at the outside edges.

This angle is determined by the shape of the top rail, which stops it being flat and makes it more comfortable. Each backpiece has fixed points (fp) on the top rail and the bottom rail but by the middle edge. The outside edge has a sliding joint (sj) on the top rail that consists of a dovetail shaped piece of nylon fixed to the rail, fitting into a dovetail slot in the backrest piece This allows the pieces to expand and contract while the dovetail stops it from being levered away.

All this tinkering has it's aesthetic benefits by adding a bit of visual interest.

I'm not saying 'THIS IS HOW TO MAKE A CHAIR' It's just A solution... when we have a cure for cancer and can travel at light speed we will still be arguing about chairs..!

 

[Benchwayze]

Your back is a marvel of biological engineering and finds leaning against a flat surface uncomfortable, mainly because we have a big bony spine thing that stands proud of the surface.

Yet Mackintosh seems to have ingnored this completely in some of his high-back designs. So there is another question:
Were his designs Art or Craft, or designed to be used?

I like the designs he came up with, but I am not sure I'd like to sit on them for very long. I might lose weight though by not having time to eat very much!

I agree with you WB. Especially with regard to the difficulty of chairmaking!

regards
John

 

[woodbutcher453]

An interesting point John. I made a ladder back chair once (I'll dig out some photos) Everyone said 'oooh Macintosh' and it's nothing like it. He was an architect as much interested in it fitting in with his building as it's function as 'a chair'. He just has his name tennoned into the phrase 'ladder back chair'

I don't like him much

remember - FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

Paul

 

[Benchwayze]

Thanks Paul...

I like the 30's design of 'drop-in' seat chair (What was once referred to as 'utility' furniture.) I recently had to dispose of one from my parents' home. It had had gone way past restoring.

Now whenever I see any of these chairs for sale in 'junk-shops' I have a good look. One day I will find a design I like and one I can adapt to my use as I surely need some dining chairs! The 'trendily' designed chairs I copied in the 60's are just about at their life's end.

I like the curves you use, but my 'wood-miser' traits shudder when I think of timber I have to waste, cutting out the shapes from a board. I could laminate I know, but the lines are not easy to disguise!

Just keep butchering the way you butcher. It's grand.

PS.

I think I confused the issue here. When I say 30's design I mean the basic form. I.e Trapezoidal drop in seat, curved back legs, curved back top-rail and slats in the back (Usually loose and not glued). They all have some kind of stretcher assembly to strengthen the legs as they were usually of dowelled construction. Within those parameters there was a wide range of styles to choose from !

John

 

[Jamesc]

With all designed work it is important to know what the brief was in order to judge the solution. My understanding is that the design for the high backed chair came out of a design brief from Mrs Cranston for her tea rooms. The requirement was to make intimate spaces within a large flexible open plan area. Also to put her tea rooms on the map with modern designs.

In my opinion his high back chairs meet these criteria admirably. As already stated he was not a woodworker but an architect. His designs are about creating architectural spaces. As for the main criticisms levied at the chair designs, lack of comfort and poor construction (the joints invariably broke and had to be reinforced) I think that these also need to be looked at in context.

The chairs were designed in the 1880-90s a time when fashionable women wore long dresses with bustles and men wore close fitting suits. Neither of which permitted you to do anything but perch on the edge of your chair. As such the straight back becomes somewhat irrelevant.
With regards the construction, the chairs were made for a commercial enterprise in reasonable quantity and as such were built down to a price. I have studied the original design drawings and they indicate form, not construction. This would have been down to the firm contracted to make the furniture.
Lastly Mackintosh was not particularly interested in wood as a creative medium. It was just the most expedient in many cases. He was much more interested in form as his painted pieces indicate. I firmly believe that had it been available he would have made most of his furniture from plastic.

Just my 2p worth.

James

 

[Benchwayze]

With all designed work it is important to know what the brief was in order to judge the solution.

Just my 2p worth.

James

Yes indeed. I appeciate your point James. Knowing the history and the 'brief' certainly makes these things more interestiong.

However, I don't think it's necessary to know what the brief was in order to 'like' a piece of furniture; anymore than it is necessary to know why and for whom Constable painted his landscapes to enjoy looking at them.

Just my opinion, and please note I am not trying to devalue yours.

Cheers.

John

 

[Jamesc]

Hi John, absolutely no offence taken.

I find this a very interesting subject. As a designer (albeit of AC systems). I find it very frustrating when designs are dismissed as rubbish or not working with absolutely no knowledge of what their designed purpose was.

With regards asthetics this is a different but related subject. I wholeheartedly agree with you that you don't need to

know why and for whom Constable painted his landscapes to enjoy looking at them

.

I hope more people chip in as I find this subject fascinating.

James

 

[stoatyboy]

Hi,

I can't add anything to the debate - but I like the chairs!

cheers

 

[Benchwayze]

Hi John, absolutely no offence taken.

I find it very frustrating when designs are dismissed as rubbish or not working with absolutely no knowledge of what their designed purpose was.

I hope more people chip in as I find this subject fascinating.

James

I agree entirely. This could be a good thread, albeit that it might be in the wrong place! I try not to dismiss designs out of hand. But as I said, even knowing the reason for Mackintosh's wide, deep seats and high backs, I still might find the chairs uncomfortable; especially with my rickety spine and knees! :lol:

Cheers
John

 

[woodbutcher453]

I agree with James in a way. We as a nation underrate the value of design.

A lot of people 'look' but can't 'see', if we, as designers, can produce something that is easily usable/comfortable/practical etc., people will, in time, learn to appreciate it.

In answering the brief of 'putting her tea rooms on the map', Macintosh was a great success. He must have been, we are talking about him now. There is school of thought that a chair in a retail establishment SHOULD be uncomfortable(ish) to prevent customers getting too relaxed and hogging valuable space. In it's location and in terms of it's role, a monumental achievement, I just don't think that we should put it on a pedastal, without it's context and worship it murmuring 'This is what a chair should be like'

Anyway... this is my ladder back chair

The initial concept involved a wire coat hanger and a pair of pliers. The wooden back piece was a 'happy accident' as it is an offcut from the seat profile. It was supposed to be simple but looks can be deceiving there are 21 pieces in the frame. I wanted to make lots of them, but in 20 years I've made 3 of them, including the original, which stands 10 foot away from me now. Does it look dated? and more importantly, does it remind you of Macintosh?

 

[Jamesc]

Hi Woodbutcher, your chair has really got me thinking. My initial reaction was well made (and photographed) but not to my taste. But I've given it a little time and keep coming back to it and there is something about the design, some quality that draws me to it. I think it is the back and seat.

To answer your question yes I can see the influences it certainly has a Mackintosh look to it. To my eyes it also has a continental look (but then Mackintosh had links with the "Viennna school"). It does have a simple elegance and a presence. For my taste I am not so keen on the legs but I understand where you are coming from I think with the single bar bent to form the whole frame.

Did you make the wood and metal work yourself? The frame looks very difficult to achieve. Excellent work.

James

 

[woodbutcher453]

Hi James

yes I did make it all... The wooden bits are made using a machine called a bagpress. The frame is 16mm tubing, corner radius is a standard bend (2.5 x diameter, I think) and put together with a mig welder

Paul

 

[Benchwayze]

I can admire the invention, and the application of wood and metal.


I can't tell exact dimensions from the picture and though the woodwork does look very 'sit-in-able', the out-curve on the backrest might be in the wrong place, where it would press on my ruptured disc. But that's personal and to me the chair looks clean, and funcional overall. Nice work again.

It also struck me that for sure, it wasn't designed with Christine Keeler in mind!

John