Starting a Rietveld Build

[Benchwayze]

Jacob,

You define Arts and Crafts as a cul-de-sac. By that, are you are asking me do I think Tracy Emin's 'My Bed', for instance, is an artistic statement? If so, then no I don't! It's just a filthy, untidy bed that says a lot about the 'artist' and her personal hygiene. It communicates, I agree, but art it ain't. Unless you are a 'King's new suit' person.

Back to woodwork Andy....

 

[AndyT]

Can we get back to woodwork?

Looking at the photo, many of the straight timbers in the framework overlap each other. How are they joined at those intersections? Just screws? Screws and glue? Dowels? Complicated Japanese-style joints?

What sort of timber will you be using to get the required strength? As the sections look quite large, would it be feasible to use softwood?

What about the cantilevered ends of the arms - are they a weak point or is there something clever going on to make them strong enough for someone to lean on heavily when getting into or out of the chair?

 

[Jacob]

Can we get back to woodwork?

Looking at the photo, many of the straight timbers in the framework overlap each other. How are they joined at those intersections? Just screws? Screws and glue? Dowels? Complicated Japanese-style joints?

Fat dowels and glue. Very easy to do but a pillar drill would help to position the holes accurately. They are an important part of the structural design. See my post above somewhere

What sort of timber will you be using to get the required strength? As the sections look quite large, would it be feasible to use softwood?

About 32mm. Douglas fir might be OK but redwood perhaps too soft. I made mine from some reclaimed bits of mahogany like stuff.

What about the cantilevered ends of the arms - are they a weak point or is there something clever going on to make them strong enough for someone to lean on heavily when getting into or out of the chair?

Strong enough - they are only short . The locking joint at the crossover points is very strong and self bracing against turning.

 

[Jacob]

....., are you are asking me do I think Tracy Emin's 'My Bed', for instance, is an artistic statement?.....

No I didn't ask. But it is furniture isn't it!

 

[mn pete]

Wow! I went away for a couple days and came back to a great thread of design discussion! Even those that don't like it at all are important contributors. The whole idea of the De Stijl was to evoke new response to new thought. I love it!

One of his goals was to build something that would almost disappear at various angles. It's interesting to consider looking at the chair from the front, and then as you rotate your angle of view around to the side it appears to become larger and then almost vanish from the side. Sure you still see the chair, but from the side it becomes a collection of points and lines. I find it clever and intriguing.

For those that were commenting on the specific size of the piece, the book provides a customer list of folks that he built the chair for, with the specific, custom sizes he used for each chair. I thought that was a pretty neat add to the book/story.

@AndyT - The plans call for 15mm dowels and glue for the joinery. The points at which three members come together will become virtually unbreakable when joined.

@Greedo - I think you hit on a wonderful point. For a chair that was designed so long ago, to look so modern (maybe even too modern for some) and to evoke so much response, makes for some great discussion.

 

[Benchwayze]

....., are you are asking me do I think Tracy Emin's 'My Bed', for instance,is an artistic statement?.....

No I didn't ask. But it is furniture isn't it!

You are quoting out of context, and it's supposed to be a work of art. I think it's just a block of polystyrene, set up to look like a bed. :wink:



Unsubscribed from topic.

 

[Greedo]

There's some amount of pish getting talked about in this thread. It is a classic design, I have made one in the past and sold it and it is comfortable to sit on. Maybe not to sit and watch a film the length of DrZivago or Out of Africa etc but it is a comfortable design. The guy pushed the boundries, tried new techniques (it's all dowels holding it together), designed something totally different for that time and it still gets talked about nearly 100 years later.

I'd bet a lot of money the people slagging it have never designed a chair of their own, nevermind one that is so unique. The design suggests it shouldn't work but the ergonomics ensure that it is comfortable. His original wasn't painted in these colours either. I'd bet that is why it puts people off. As I said previously. Anyone who can show me a design they have made that is unique and doesn't look like every other chair previously then I might take what they say with a slight bit of respect.

 

[kinsella]

I agree with Greedo, whislt design can be personal taste. The principles of clasic and modern design hold true. the red and blue chair is recognised as a modern classic. Its about astetics, proportions and design simplicity. The chair challenges the eye, it looks comfortable but yet it look uncomfortable, as colleageues point out its actually comforatable in context. You won't find it in your local cinema or starbucks.
It comes out of an era of 1917 entering the arts and craft movement. The fact that that it challenges and is raising the debate would only encoroug Gerrit Rietveld.
As a pretend designer and part time DIYer, this is something i can't wait to make. Its been on my list for years.

Pete full marks for raising a thread that generates debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jacob]

Agree.
It's also about manufacturing simplicity ; it's made with easily machined components - all straight, flat, rectangular, square etc. Then easy to put together by hand with just dowels and nails.
Not unlike the windsor chair - easily machined components (turned) then put together by hand.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Greedo - I think 1960's high rise council estates are ugly monstrosities. Of course, having never designed a council estate, I've no right to think that.

 

[Jacob]

Greedo - I think 1960's high rise council estates are ugly monstrosities.

Do you mean in terms of their desirability as places to live? Some of them ( a few :roll: ) are very well liked and people enjoy living in them, which makes sweeping judgements based on their 'aesthetics' somewhat irrelevant.

Of course, having never designed a council estate, I've no right to think that.

Odd thing to say - you are free to think what you like!

I can understand the irritability of the nay sayers - they know something is going on which attracts attention to these objects, but they don't know what it is.
It's not that they haven't been invited to the party or something - they just haven't done the homework. Lazy sods! :roll:

Reminds me of my old dad somehow, muttering on about everything.

 

[custard]

Bump.

Best of luck but do keep us posted on progress, I'm looking forward to learning how you get on with this terrific project.

 

[mn pete]

Thanks for the bump custard. I've been traveling like crazy for work and then the holidays, but I'm back at home now. I've got all the stock milled down to 30mm thickness, so I'll start sizing all the compentents this next weekend.

 

[Jacob]

Thanks for the bump custard. I've been traveling like crazy for work and then the holidays, but I'm back at home now. I've got all the stock milled down to 30mm thickness, so I'll start sizing all the compentents this next weekend.

Sorry to be boringly repetitive but a basic fact of woodwork is that (as a rule) you size components before you plane to thickness. Doing it the other way around seems to be amateur/beginner big mistake numero uno!

 

[MickCheese]

Thanks for the bump custard. I've been traveling like crazy for work and then the holidays, but I'm back at home now. I've got all the stock milled down to 30mm thickness, so I'll start sizing all the compentents this next weekend.

Sorry to be boringly repetitive but a basic fact of woodwork is that (as a rule) you size components before you plane to thickness. Doing it the other way around seems to be amateur/beginner big mistake numero uno!

Jacob

You will have to bear with me on this as I am but a mere amateur.

If I cut to length before planning to thickness on my planner then I get snipe or the trailing edge sometimes chips out that I can cut off if I cut to length after thicknessing.

So

Is you rule above the same regardless of hand or power planning? Have I missed the point completely?

Mick

 

[Racers]

Mmmm

I have been told keep your wood as long as possible for as long as possible, snipe can be a problem, and you can't get short pieces through a planer.

Jacobs way and the wrong way?

Pete

 

[Jacob]

....

Is you rule above the same regardless of hand or power planning? ....

Basically yes - but don't let me put you off; if it works for you that's fine! Especially with hand planing - moderately sized pieces longer than the plane but not too long, are easiest to plane
The basic standard procedure is to start with a cutting list, cut in order - biggest pieces first from smallest pieces of stock available, saw close to length, rip close to width, then plane etc.

Mmmm
I have been told keep your wood as long as possible for as long as possible, snipe can be a problem, and you can't get short pieces through a planer.

You've been told wrongly. Though yes very short pieces are easiest handled combined as one.

Jacobs way and the wrong way?

More like experienced woodworker versus amateur.

 

[marcros]

for hand tools, you are likely to appreciate the amount of work saved by only thicknessing what you need. When the technique is mastered, you should also get a consistant thickness across the whole board/piece. For the reasons above (pete and Mick), when using power tools, I think that it is more efficient and accurate to thickness whole boards. it actually takes less effort to do so.

like everything in life, rules and methods need applying to the individual situation in hand.

again, only a mere amateur though...

 

[Racers]

Funny how the word "amateur " is used as a insult by some, it only means you don't get paid for doing something.

Pete

 

[Jacob]

... I think that it is more efficient and accurate to thickness whole boards. it actually takes less effort to do so........

It may be quicker (if machining - definitely not quicker hand planing) but if the board is bent it will end up thinner. e.g. a 2m board with 10mm error will lose 10mm in planing flat. The same board cut into 2 x 1m lengths will each lose only 5mm to achieve flatness.
In other words it's more economical - you can use thinner stock and you aren't spoiling your offcuts by reducing them unnecessarily.
Standard sized timber yard 1" boards usually come out PAR at about 18mm. If you do it yourself cut to length first you can get as much as 22mm (depending on the board, sometimes more). This can mean that you don't have to buy the next sawn size up (1 1/2 etc).

Funny how the word "amateur " is used as a insult by some, it only means you don't get paid for doing something.

Pete

It's about economy - in both materials and effort. Amateur or professional makes no difference.