Karl Holtey

[iNewbie]

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]

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]

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

 

[Rhossydd]

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]

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

 

[John K]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

BugBear

 

[lurker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

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]

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?

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]

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?