JK and RI

[woodbloke]

This train of thought has been rattling around inside my pea-brained bonce for a while now, so I thought I'd give it an airing on the forum. In common with many others (though not all :wink: ) I'm a huge fan of Krenov and like almost everything he does (with his 'back of a *** packet' approach to design) and more importantly, the way that he does stuff and the workshop kit that he uses (which ain't a lot at the end of the day) to achieve the results that he does.
However, as a reader of F&C I'm equally awe struck by Robert Ingham ('God' to those who've been taught by him and unfortunately I'm not one of them) and the stuff he produces. His workshop is like an operating theatre (and is probably cleaner than one :wink: ) but he comes at this game from the other end of the spectrum in that he treats the material almost like metal adopting an engineering approach to making furniture, in fact reading some of his articles on how he's made pieces...I still don't understand :? In recent issues of F&C he's been discussing drilling techniques and there are pics of some of his gear, two of which are a vertical milling machine and a largish Boxford metalwork lathe, both used for working wood.
So I sometimes find myself making a mental reference to either JK or RI and wondering where along the spectrum I sort of fit? To have the sort of mind set that RI must have, and to work the way that he does is beyond me (and I suspect most others) but equally I can't work like JK, though I'm very sympathetic to what he does.
Sorry for the ramble, but interested to see where others find themselves along this imaginary woodworking line...JK at one end and RI at t'other - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

A very interesting subject, Rob, and one that I've often thought about myself. I've concluded that two factors predominate - the first is personality type and the second is circumstances.

Don't know whether you've ever done the Myers Briggs personality type rating stuff. Fascinating stuff. It helps you to understand why some are suited to say, repetitive type work and others are better at, say, management, or some are obsessed with detail and others make do with the back of a *** packet and a pencil.

With circumstances, it depends on whether you, say, live in a one-room bed sit or have lots of facilities at your disposal. How many could even contemplate a workshop like Robert Ingham's?

Having seen you work I'm, frankly, in awe of your organisation and methodical approach - In reckon you've got it about right :wink:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

How many could even contemplate a workshop like Robert Ingham's?


Paul

Paul - agreed, the point's taken about RI's 'shop which looks about the size of an aircraft hanger (Boing 637 :lol to me, but it's the organization and detailed planning that's gone into it that's staggering. I know that I like to keep my 'shop tidy and that's probably a bit of an RI trait but my place bares no comparison to his, so I wonder if you could have a much smaller 'shop with far less gear in it but equally well organised and clean. You probably can, but I've not seen or heard of it :? - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

so I wonder if you could have a much smaller 'shop with far less gear in it but equally well organised and clean. You probably can, but I've not seen or heard of it :?

That's where the circumstances bit comes in. Taking my own situation, I have to share my workshop space with my son's motorbike, various gardening bits and pieces, some of my wife's "stuff", two freezers (why do we need two :? :? ). Then there's the personality bit - I'd happily throw away what I consider to be "junk" but I'm married to someone who won't throw anything away ( you wanna see what's in our loft :shock: :shock: ).

I've concluded that life (and workshops) is full of compromises - do the best with what you have and with whatever your circumstances are.

But it's bloody frustrating all the same......... :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[skipdiver]

I take the back of the *** packet approach.I tend to make things up as i go along.I'm an organised chaos type of guy.It may look a mess to everyone else but i know what i'm doing(sort of).The ends justify the means.

Never took the Myers Briggs test but did something similar a while back when i was thinking of changing my career.It was called a Morrisby test and the upshot of it was that all the findings lead me to being a person who should be working with my hands and preferably alone. :roll:

 

[davegw]

I'm definitly at the back of the *** packet end - in fact given that I have now given up the dreaded weed, I'm a little way past this as I have nothing to write on

 

[jonbikebod]

Engineering has been a major part of my life and there are times I like precision and many engineered things in my eyes are also beautiful.
I do however find myself in the JK camp when it comes to wood. I get a thrill that the beautiful grain patterning I have just exposed with my plane that is unique and no one has ever seen it before.
I am also lucky enough to have both wood and metal turning lathes. Moving the cutter via lead screws seems right for metal but entirely wrong for wood. You can create a free flowing form with a gouge on a wood turning lathe much as one sketches a shape with a pencil. The metal turning lathe is more like an Etch-a sketch as a creative tool.
I tend not to use a router a lot as it reminds me of vertical mill and I don’t feel as ‘in-touch’ with the wood as I do with a moulding plane. This is however an indulgence I can afford as woodworking is for me entirely recreational.
I guess that just makes me an old tart as far as disciplines are concerned but wood is special.
Jon.

 

[paulm]

Those are some good analogies Jon, pretty much how i feel about things also.

The satisfaction in taking a rough looking, unpromising log or lump of firewood and converting it into useable timber, and even sometimes into a finished piece :shock: , is the fun and reward for me, the making as much as the end result.

Cheers, Paul

 

[beech1948]

Hmmm...I'm a bit unsure about this question and the responses.

I often wonder what it would be like to stand in other peoples shoes and to behave like them. In fact I have as an exercise followed behind someone and repeated every movement I could see. In the way they walk, sit, move, etc etc. Both men and women.

Don't worry I'm not a stalker it was part of a training course.

At the end I returned to being just me. Pretty boring. Except that I feel that I gained from walking like a different woman or man. I'm not sure what I gained either.

What I'm getting at is that there can be no point in such comparisons as we must all return to what we are and what we have. perhaps the trick is to try out one or two differetn things. Take a different path and experiment.

I like to create full size drawings which are very accurate and use these as rods. I don't use a ruler or measure other than the rod after the dsign is so created. I learnt this from a challenge from a friend so I copied him. Worked out well and added some value.

So I think we should just experiement. Add what works not compare or envy.

regards
Alan

 

[marcus]

I know that I like to keep my 'shop tidy and that's probably a bit of an RI trait

I think JK kept his pretty tidy too from what I remember him saying in his books :wink:

I think as others have said it's about personality types. I shared a workshop for a while with some guys who took the "woodwork as engineering" approach, and I was blown away by the precision of what they did. They just seemed to think differently to me and I couldn't get my head around what they were doing sometimes with these extraordinary router jigs etc.

For me JK is just an amazing character - such keen and uncompromising insight into woodworking and craft. And he is one of the very, very few writers on woodworking who really gets beyond the practical "how to" side of things, and has worthwhile things to say about the reasons for spending time with wood at all - and about where the value in doing so might lie...

Marcus

 

[jonbikebod]

The satisfaction in taking a rough looking, unpromising log or lump of firewood and converting it into useable timber, and even sometimes into a finished piece :shock: , is the fun and reward for me, the making as much as the end result.

Totally agree Paul, one of life's simple pleasures that has no downside I can think of.
Jon.

 

[Digit]

I was trained to work by hand, but over the years I've become accustomed to machines of all sort, but as I get older I'm tending more towards hand tools again.
As somebody pointed out with Norm, he never shows how long it takes him to set up a Dado head, by which time a decent plane will have done the job.
Granted the Dado head wins hands down if you've more that one dado to cut, but mine is a hobby, not a busiiness.
I took one of those tests about 20 yrs ago. I gave every daft answer I could think of. Never did hear the results. Probably came back as 'he's a right awkward bugger!' :lol:

Roy.

 

[ByronBlack]

I'm definitely in the JK sector. *** packet, organic and design as you go is the way for me. I find it more natural and a lot less painstaking than trying to design every last millimeter on paper. I don't have the attention to detail to be that clinical. In my view, wood is a natural organic material and should be viewed as such, I think engineering in wood can sometimes lose it's natural qualities, but it's a matter of taste.

 

[BradNaylor]

Thinking about this question reminded me of that old hippy book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.

It's 30 years since I read it but its exploration of the dichotomy between the 'romantic' and the 'classical' still strikes a chord with me.

I would place myself firmly in the 'romantic' camp. Or is it 'classical'? I can't bloody remember which is which!

The narrator anyway - not his uptight mate.

I've heard of Krenov - he makes cupboards on long legs, right?

I had to google Robert Ingham - and found that he lives near me! I pass his gaff on the way to the Welsh cottage every few weeks. I might just pop in and say hello.

Cheers
Dan

 

[woodbloke]

Thinking about this question reminded me of that old hippy book 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'.

It's 30 years since I read it but its exploration of the dichotomy between the 'romantic' and the 'classical' still strikes a chord with me.

I would place myself firmly in the 'romantic' camp. Or is it 'classical'? I can't bloody remember which is which!

The narrator anyway - not his uptight mate.

I've heard of Krenov - he makes cupboards on long legs, right?

I had to google Robert Ingham - and found that he lives near me! I pass his gaff on the way to the Welsh cottage every few weeks. I might just pop in and say hello.

Cheers
Dan

Loads of interesting views here, many thanks. I find the work of both makers inspiring but the sheer technical complexity of RI's methods leaves my head in a spin.
Roy -

'he's a right awkward bugger!'

.....we know :lol: :lol:

Dan - it's worthwhile just have a quick look at Krenov's site as you rightly say, it's cabinets on long legs...note that all of them are sold and no prices are given :shock: I recollect also that JK kept a tidy and efficient shop...it's not in the same league as RI's though - Rob

 

[Digit]

we know Laughing Laughing

No! Really? :lol:
I prefer 'independent minded.' 8)

Roy.

 

[Mr Ed]

Interesting thread Rob.

I share the enthusiasm for James Krenovs work and like many others have taken considerable inspiration from both the aesthetic of the pieces he made and the way he went about it. Incidentally, I refer to him in the past tense only in the sense that I understand he is no longer making furniture, but only planes now due to failing eyesight.

I know a lot less about Robert Ingham, other than having seen pieces of his in magazines and books over the years. Where have people seen his workshop / discussion of methods, that I have clearly missed somewhere along the line? I'd be interested to read more.

I think it may be slightly misrepresenting Krenov to refer to his work as 'back of a *** packet', from what I have read. Whilst its certainly true that he did not have much regard for working drawings, he certainly did draw things from time to time. But moreover I think the depth of thought that went into his pieces was considerable and while this replaces drawings it still counts as planning and design in my view.

In 'The Impractical Cabinetmaker' he refers to how early on he made drawings and models, but later adopted what he calls composing - developing the design of the piece effectively in realtime with making it. I wonder to what extent this is because he had already learned what looked right and what didn't so could more readily work in this way. You have to consider that his body of work is effectively focussed on a very narrow area of furniture (I hesitate to take Dans description of cupboards on legs, but largely it is!) so he developed a design language that he calls back up piece after piece. In the same book he refers to the fact that a chair, as an example, would need sketches and working drawings because it is a 'complicated structure'.

I'm a bit surprised that in the discussion of precision engineering in furniture that no-one has mentioned Mr. Charlesworth, who in my view is a great exponent of precision and engineering style practices in furniture making. Personally I learned a huge amount from Davids books and
I think one of the main things I took from them was the approaches to achieving precision in our work.

I read somewhere an analysis of the types of people working in 'graphical' professions which suggested some were artists and others were skilled technicians - possible achieving things that on face value were similar but getting there by different routes. I'd definitely place Krenov in the artists pile, some others in the skilled technicians pile and I have yet to decide where to put myself.

Cheers, Ed.

 

[ivan]

RI (from his book) appears to make quite a bit of his 'hardware' and a lot of tricky jewelry boxes (somtimes furniture) with features like pivoting drawers, which is probably what demands the purchase of a small mill and metalworking lathe. Then if you've got it, you can do other things with it too (+ book doesn't seem to show a woodworker's lathe). JK's books get me thinking about wood, and DC's and RI's about technique.

 

[woodbloke]

Interesting thread Rob.

I share the enthusiasm for James Krenovs work and like many others have taken considerable inspiration from both the aesthetic of the pieces he made and the way he went about it. Incidentally, I refer to him in the past tense only in the sense that I understand he is no longer making furniture, but only planes now due to failing eyesight.

I know a lot less about Robert Ingham, other than having seen pieces of his in magazines and books over the years. Where have people seen his workshop / discussion of methods, that I have clearly missed somewhere along the line? I'd be interested to read more.

I think it may be slightly misrepresenting Krenov to refer to his work as 'back of a *** packet', from what I have read. Whilst its certainly true that he did not have much regard for working drawings, he certainly did draw things from time to time. But moreover I think the depth of thought that went into his pieces was considerable and while this replaces drawings it still counts as planning and design in my view.

In 'The Impractical Cabinetmaker' he refers to how early on he made drawings and models, but later adopted what he calls composing - developing the design of the piece effectively in realtime with making it. I wonder to what extent this is because he had already learned what looked right and what didn't so could more readily work in this way. You have to consider that his body of work is effectively focussed on a very narrow area of furniture (I hesitate to take Dans description of cupboards on legs, but largely it is!) so he developed a design language that he calls back up piece after piece. In the same book he refers to the fact that a chair, as an example, would need sketches and working drawings because it is a 'complicated structure'.

I'm a bit surprised that in the discussion of precision engineering in furniture that no-one has mentioned Mr. Charlesworth, who in my view is a great exponent of precision and engineering style practices in furniture making. Personally I learned a huge amount from Davids books and
I think one of the main things I took from them was the approaches to achieving precision in our work.

I read somewhere an analysis of the types of people working in 'graphical' professions which suggested some were artists and others were skilled technicians - possible achieving things that on face value were similar but getting there by different routes. I'd definitely place Krenov in the artists pile, some others in the skilled technicians pile and I have yet to decide where to put myself.

Cheers, Ed.

Ed - ...'back of a *** packet' is perhaps a little unfair to JK, but I seem to recollect somewhere in one of the books a sketch that would fit on a Post-It note for one of his cabinets and he mentioned that this was the only drawing that he ever did of it, so he must have developed the piece in 'realtime' as it was being made...a sort of a 'seat of the pants approach' which he repeated time and again so that he knew instinctively when something looked right or was totaly wrong. Even so, as you rightly say, there must have been a huge amount of thought given to each step in the making of his cabinets...thinking his way through the project you might say.
My insight into RI's work and methods has only been gained from his articles in F&C over the years. I hesitate to bring in Mr C into this thread because even though he is an exponent of the precision approach to this game, as far as I'm aware he hasn't actually made anything for years and am more than happy to be corrected if wrong. This is not to degrade any of David's skills or abilities because I think all of us (certainly myself included) have learnt a lot from his workshop methodology...it's just that RI and JK make real pieces of furniture, which at the end of the jour, is what it's all about. I agree also with everything in the last para of your post in that it's very difficult to decide where to place yourself - Rob

 

[Harbo]

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

Two people that have not been mentioned are Sam Maloof and Jim Kingshott.
I have only seen them on videos but they both appear to have natural abilities/skills and a great affinity for the wood. Sam's ability to work by eye to produce those amazing flowing shapes is just incredible.

I saw RI a few years back at "Art in Action" where he was making and selling very expensive, small boxes in steamed pear. I did not know or appreciate who he was at that time, but it was the prices being asked that amazed me!
I have nothing against jigs and other aids to assist accuracy and speed production. Even David C admits he cannot saw accurately and uses a bandsaw when ever possible. But it is hand skills I aim for - the ability to chop out a mortice or dovetail without using an Engineers square, the ability to saw a straight cut, the skill to plane a board straight and true first time - something that I will most likely never achieve?

Rod