JK and RI

[marcus]

But isn't this use of technical stuff hiding or overcoming the lack of natural hand skills?

Maybe so, maybe not. But I wonder if it is necessary to privilege hand tool skills over other types of skills? I'm hand tool focused myself, and I value skill with hand tools. As a result there are huge areas of skill with machines which I know nothing about. These would require of me just as much dedication and practice to learn as my hand tool skills did. In fact I suspect I could not learn to use machines like RI does even if I tried - at least not very well. Doing so doesn't accord with how I naturally think and work.

I remember David Pye writing that the only way a craftsman should be judged is by his work - not by how he arrived at it. I have some sympathy with this view and hugely admire those very skilled users of machines (when they produce work which follows the logic of machines rather than trying to imitate hand tool work on the machine!). This work can be very beautiful. It is certainly different to work produced using hand methods, but not worse by any means. To me the integrity of the person doing the work, the thought that goes into the work, and the logic behind the piece is what counts.

Marcus

 

[skipdiver]

I agree and as i said in my earlier post,the end justifies the means.When i make something for a client,they couldn't give a stuff how it's made,just what it looks like and how much it cost.To this end it is speed based and speed equals machinery.

When i make stuff for pleasure,i tend to use hand tools more and there is nothing better than hearing a finely tuned plane "sing" as it cuts through the wood.I love hand sawing and giving my disston it's infrequent run out.

Both approaches work.Some people work one way,some another.In my case,i adopt both approaches.

 

[woodbloke]

I agree and as i said in my earlier post,the end justifies the means.When i make something for a client,they couldn't give a stuff how it's made,just what it looks like and how much it cost.To this end it is speed based and speed equals machinery.

When i make stuff for pleasure,i tend to use hand tools more and there is nothing better than hearing a finely tuned plane "sing" as it cuts through the wood.I love hand sawing and giving my disston it's infrequent run out.

Both approaches work.Some people work one way,some another.In my case,i adopt both approaches.

The sort of pieces that we're discussing here aren't even client based. In the rarified world of this sort of work it's produced and then snapped up when finished. JK's work was probably client based when he started many years ago, but as his reputation grew he didn't need the client base. RI does sometimes make to commission but as far as I can make out, these sorts of makers that are at the very top of the tree produce speculative pieces that are almost instantly swallowed up into private collections at some prohibitive cost :shock: which we can only guesstimate at. This means then that time isn't really an issue...they can choose or not choose to use machinery knowing that once the piece is done it's a guaranteed, cast iron certainty that's it going to be sold for whatever is the asking price :shock: - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

That's interesting, Rob and I'm sure you are right. I'm not normally a fan of the whole collecting thing because it artificially inflates prices. However, I'm glad that there are people about who can afford to buy stuff by people like RI and the other top makers. It enables them to continue producing work of superb quality that would not be viable in a normal commercial sense. It's for the good that these top makers can continue pushing the envelope and creating inspiration for the rest of us.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

That's interesting, Rob and I'm sure you are right. I'm not normally a fan of the whole collecting thing because it artificially inflates prices. However, I'm glad that there are people about who can afford to buy stuff by people like RI and the other top makers. It enables them to continue producing work of superb quality that would not be viable in a normal commercial sense. It's for the good that these top makers can continue pushing the envelope and creating inspiration for the rest of us.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Paul - I hadn't considered that aspect of it either and I think you have something there as well - Rob

 

[Digit]

I prefer handwork, but if the choice is a superb looking table that needs the Complete Works of William Shakespear under one leg, I'll use a machine.

Roy.

 

[Mr Ed]

Do the opposites Rob originally suggested of on the one hand 'organic' and evolutionary making (JK) versus highly structured and 'engineered' making (RI) necessarily have to equate to machines versus hand tools?

I suspect when we think of Krenov most of us picture that little wooden polishing plane in his hands looking only one step on from Noah hewing out the ark, but the fact is the guy used machines a lot. I just flicked through 'The fine art of Cabinetmaking' again and the pictures and discussion cover machines a good deal, in a healthy balance with the discussion of hand tools. Conversely, if I think back to the articles I can remember reading by Robert Ingham in F&C and they were hand tool based, I remember one in particular on dovetails for instance.

I suspect we like the romantic idea of working in the organic/evolutionary way using handtools, but it could equally be with machines. In fact, if I was to make a piece only with handtools I would probably have to do more planning and structured thinking for some operations than I would with a machine. Equally, the way handplanes get talked about, by David Charlesworth for instance, is in the language of engineering; tolerances, flatness, shaving thickness and so on.

I think what I'm getting at is that the 2 different ends of the spectrum that was originally proposed don't have to correspond to machines at one end and hand tools at the other. Both the guys originally cited use a balance of both from what I can see, which is probably how I would describe my own approach.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, Ed.

 

[marcus]

For me the difference between the “engineering approach” and the “non-engineering approach” is that the timber engineer finds beauty and meaning primarily in very precise, accurate geometry, whereas the non-engineer finds it primarily in more intuitive, inexact forms. Machines tend to favor the former approach, hand tools tend to favor the later. It’s therefore easy to generalise and think of the engineering types as machine focused, and the non-engineer types as hand tool focused. And often these generalisations are true.

But as you say Ed, hand tools can be used in an ultra precise mode, and for that matter machines can be used in a more free-form and exploratory way.

I wonder if it is mostly the beginning and end of the work that we are discussing, rather than the noisy dusty bit in between. After the timber is prepared, and the joints are cut (which is usually a more or less mechanical process no matter how we approach it), is our primary motivation to create more and more precision and exactness? Or are we mainly interested in putting a living, human quality into the work. JK’s greatness is that he somehow manages to create a living exactness, and that is the real trick I guess....

Marcus

 

[BradNaylor]

So where does Norm fit in to this spectrum?

'Cos I'm with Norm!

Dan

 

[Tusses]

I'm 'back of *** packet' , if that ! sometimes no sketch at all.

when I work - it looks like a mess. I like everything in an arms length radius. I cant see a reason to put something away if I will need it again soon - or tomorrow , or in a few days .

As for design, I tend to do it in my head. I sit and think - build it completely, start to finish , try out different joints, will this work ? what if ? - all in my head. Then I start work, and its like I've already made it before and seems to flow faster.

I like the 'Norm' approach but always with DC in mind for the joints. I dont use many hand tools. I find pleasure in old machines and setting them up to be accurate and true - almost as much as using them to cut wood ! I like jigs and fixtures. The 1st thing I think when I see a tool/machine is 'what else can this do?'

I also consider that I am making a 'kit' that anyone could assemble. once everything is cut to size,joints made and sanded ready to finish, that is the woodworking done. from then on its just assembly and then final finish.

 

[woodbloke]

So where does Norm fit in to this spectrum?

'Cos I'm with Norm!

Dan

Dan - who's this Normbloke anyway...never heard of him :lol:

JK and RI both use machines to a greater or lesser extent. JK's stuff was pretty basic...10" t/s, decent heavy duty bandsaw, overhand surface planer and a table router/spindle moulder. RI on the other hand has a 'state of the art' Felder combo, band resaw with a 75mm blade :shock: a wall full of routers, heated hydraulic veneer press...the list goes on and on. The question for me then is not whether it's the hand tool exponent vs the machine tool one, rather their methodology (which JK talks about very succinctly in his books) to achieve their results.
Turning the question on it's head, I wonder if RI could make one of JK's cabinets (and how would he do it) and also if JK could make one of RI's fiendishly complex pieces...intriguing :-k - Rob

 

[skipdiver]

That's very much my approach too Tusses.I "see" a job in my head from start to finish and often lay awake trying to get the thought process right before i can sleep.The job then usually transforms organically as it progresses.


I think it was a natural progression for this topic to morph into a "handtool v machinery" discussion as machinery is percieved as a more precise,accurate medium.

I personally don't get anything from design and accuracy to the nth degree.I prefer function over form and if something is not a 100 per cent perfect,then so be it.To me,a workshop should be at least a bit messy and not look as though you could perform surgery in it.I think that sometimes people get lost in the technicalities of a hobby and forget why they do it in the first place.Spending hours getting chisels and planes as sharp as Samurai swords and polishishing them to infinity is not my idea of fun.I get just as much pleasure from knocking 4 inch nails into studding at work as i do making a piece of furniture.I've never bought a nail gun for this reason.

As my brother often says.Life is a rich tapestry and it wouldn't do for us all to be the same.

 

[Digit]

I'm with Skip on this. My tech drawing at school was hopeless 'cos I couldn't project it if I couldn't visualise it. If you can 'see' a complicated piece of furniture you should be able to produce it.
Designing in detail has one big snag, if you hit a problem part way through construction everything downstream from there is probably going to need a re -design.

Roy.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Turning the question on it's head, I wonder if RI could make one of JK's cabinets (and how would he do it) and also if JK could make one of RI's fiendishly complex pieces...intriguing :-k

They probably could but I doubt that they would enjoy it because it wouldn't be their natural way of working.

Just a thought - given that RI used to teach at Parnham, I dare say he could turn his hand to most things and most styles of working. All his ex-students don't do things the way he does his personal work, so he must have been able to teach various ways of doing things.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[jonbikebod]

What both RI and JK have in common is a very distinctive style of design. I relate strongly to Krenov sorting through his cherished bits of wood, the idea for the finished piece coming from the suggestion of the wood as well out of his head. RI makes beautifully executed boxes – frequently in batches – of predominantly geometric design and interesting contrasts and colours. Both are of a very high level of craftsmanship and originality. The techniques they have evolved comes largely from the type of piece they are known for. A small inaccuracy in a small box is going to be very obvious so a precisely jigged and engineered approach seems appropriate.
The organic, subtle curves of JK’s cabinets could be no better and probably worse is designed on AutoCad.
I also like to produce curves with planes and spoke shaves that leave a finish, not of a perfect radius but a number of fine facets. The craftsman’s marks like the carvers fine tooled finish. This adds tactile interest but also defines the piece as ‘hand made’ as the thumb print on the base of a hand thrown pot.
I don’t think it makes my pieces any more valuable on the world market but I would like to think one day my great grandchildren will be told “Great Granddad made that” and it will include a vestige of my presence…
Jon.

 

[adzeman]

I have followed this discussion with interest but being a nerd on computers took some time to work out how to make comment.
I did an apprenticeship as a joiner prior to going to college (as a Surveyor). In the shop, work was set out using a rod, so starting with a *** packet sketch I put the concept on to the rod. As I only work in the workshop at week ends with grand kids coming round, the supermarket shop the rod allows me to stop and start by assisting in picking up the thread again. I don't see many references on the forum in using a rod except one in this thread. Preferences to hand tools or machines is hand tools, mainly because they are quiet. Have to think of the neighbors. It easy to do good work with quality sharp tools. The skill is in the sharpening. I love my saw from Philadelphia and when I was in the trade became proficient in sharpening it but that was 50 years ago so now I rely on machines for sawing. My favorite machine is my De-Walt overarm, its quiet, does not take up much room in a small workshop and is accurate. I still had to learn how to use it and acquire skill. In a small workshop like mine tidiness is essential and everything has to have its place but i still misplace pencils by the score or cant find that gauge.

 

[jonbikebod]

Welcome to he forum Mike,
I think a lot of members use ‘rod’s of various sorts. The turners do of course for making more than one of anything. Full size drawings on melamine and MDF seem to be popular as well. I made a table when I was 14 (that I still use) that didn’t once require a ruler. The mortise gauge was set from the chisel, rails and legs were marked out together side by side. It didn’t need to fit into a particular space so a natural sense of proportion was used to determine the scope of the top, the length of the legs and the depth of the rails etc. Just the normal disciplines of marking from face sides and edges. I am pleased to say the proportions still look OK to me today.
I don’t think they teach that today in ‘Design Technology’.
Jon.