The unedited John Brown

[Phil Pascoe]

Ikea apparently uses one percent of the world's timber - it's still a lot, though.

 

[Cottonwood]

Ikea apparently uses one percent of the world's timber - it's still a lot, though.

Well if thats true, I was misinformed...but your right even so its still a lot of wood-and it still gets made into boxy sh#te any way... :lol:

 

[Nick Gibbs]

I can remember John did articles for one of the woodworking magazines and very good they were but his continual rants about power tools made him unpopular with the tool advertisers. The question of hand or power tool in MHO is each to his own

I was editor of Good Woodworking for the first two or three years that John Brown was writing. As far as I know it is a myth that advertisers complained, but it may have been after my stint. I never heard any complaints. We were nervous about it, but I'm not sure anyone actually complained or threatened to take their advertising away. In fact I suspect they appreciated having such a thought-provoking editor.

Asking John to write those columns stands out as the single wisest thing I have done as an editor, even better than launching various magazines. It is the only time in my career that I've been responsible for something that was a 'must-read' for so many readers, and a column that such a high proportion of readers would always turn to first.

I am currently working on an anthology of John's articles, trying to fit them into a outline he'd devised for a book, called The Anarchist Woodworker. He had intended the book to be called the Self-Sufficient Woodworker, but had changed the title for personal reasons. The interest here will get me going with the book of his articles. It's up to my daughter typing them in!!! I promise not to publish any white text on black. Actually I suspect it's the width of the column on Tony's site that makes it difficult to read as much as anything.

Nick

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Oh, and by the way, John didn't work only by hand. He worked without electricity. He had a tractor-powered bandsaw, and and hand-powered grinder. And he only made chairs, and very occasionally tables, but not many cabinets. When he did make cupboards they were often made from PAR softwood, and painted, so you can argue that he used planing machines (and mechanised saws), but didn't own them. Chairs are much easier to make without machines than almost any other piece of furniture. Despite his passionate tone, he was also a pragmatist when it suited him!

 

[Harry 48]

Sorry for getting it wrong about complaints from tool advertisers it all happened a few years ago I thought Johns articles where very thought provoking and a hot topic in readers letters. I'm glade you are try to finish the book it will be a worthwhile project. You do not get many people these days who live by there convictions as John Brown did

 

[Paul Chapman]

I am currently working on an anthology of John's articles, trying to fit them into a outline he'd devised for a book, called The Anarchist Woodworker.

I look forward to seeing that, Nick. I have John's book on chairs and found it compulsive reading.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Don't worry. It might have happened later, and it's a rumour I've often heard. Perhaps John started the whisper himself!!!

 

[Harry 48]

Nick can you remember how long ago the articles where the published

 

[Nick Gibbs]

John stopped writing a couple of times, but his final one was in December 2002. He had two really good phases. Right at the beginning in about 1993 (I still go tingly when I read his first article - I must have realised I was onto something), and then a three or fours later when Phil Davy and Pete Martin were running the magazine and John did his Anarchist Woodworker series, and had really got into his stride.

 

[marcus]

I'm not the all time Krenov fan but I do think that comparing his approach to John Brown's is interesting. Krenov's work is all about sensitivity, subtlety and craft in the best sense of the word, it is high quality, and obviously 'hand-crafted' — no one could accuse him of making things that look like they were made in a factory. And yet, in spite of his obsessive hand plane making and using, he also used machines a lot.

Rather like David Pye he had no time for romanticising hand work. Somewhere I think he says that the worst thing about avoiding machines altogether is that the person who pays for you to spend hours doing things that can be done in minutes is the client, and this is not fair just so that you can feel a certain way about your working day.

I'm interested in what John Brown says about "tell people you are making by hand and they will come and buy from you", because it is essentially selling a mystique, a feeling. It is loading up the product with all sorts of appealing associations that don't have nearly as much to do with the product you are trying to sell as you might want to believe. Which is modern marketing in a nut-shell, and not so far from the ways of the world that he rails against as he may have liked to think.

When I switched from 10% machines 90 % hand tools to 60% machines 40% hand tools, the look and feel of the work didn't change at all, only the price I needed to charge for it changed. It still had the softness and warmth (in my eyes anyway!) and still felt handmade. Which was a bit chastening to be honest. However I know that if I switched to 100% machines the work would suffer, and ultimately it is the work that matters, not my ideas about it or how I want to feel about doing it. As David Pye said, the way to judge a workman is by his work, by the things he produces.

 

[Jacob]

Hmm. Have to say I'm not the slightest bit interested in Krenov (except as a phenomenon) so I couldn't begin to compare or contrast him with J Brown. But I do like Brown's chairs and that whole area of trad and vernacular stuff. Must pop in to St Fagans again sometime soon.

 

[marcus]

I do like Brown's chairs and that whole area of trad and vernacular stuff

Me too! They're very good chairs indeed.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hmm. Have to say I'm not the slightest bit interested in Krenov (except as a phenomenon) so I couldn't begin to compare or contrast him with J Brown. But I do like Brown's chairs and that whole area of trad and vernacular stuff. Must pop in to St Fagans again sometime soon.

I think the point about 'trad and vernacular' stuff is that it tended to be very pragmatic - using simple tools and readily available materials to make (usually) simple, unadorned functional pieces; items of necessity rather than items of show. Such work had to be done to a tight budget, hence the readily available material and small capital investment in equipment. Sometimes, the results are plain or even downright ugly, sometimes the pared-down nature gives them a dignified beauty.

Krenov worked at the other end of the scale. His pieces were primarily for show. He put great effort into finding rare and beautiful materials, and spent much time showing the natural beauty of those materials to best effect. Whilst both he and John Brown were both fine craftsmen, I don't think their approaches were remotely similar.

Krenov did work analogous to high art - Brown did work analogous to pop art. Both are perfectly valid.

 

[Jacob]

..... ....
Krenov did work analogous to high art .....

No way! :lol:

Brown did work analogous to pop art. Both are perfectly valid.

I think you have it completely the wrong way around. Krenov was popular mainly on the amateur woodwork scene and is virtually unknown outside it. Brown, and vernacular products in general, have much more in common with the mainstream of the modern movement.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

..... ....
Krenov did work analogous to high art .....

No way! :lol:

Brown did work analogous to pop art. Both are perfectly valid.

I think you have it completely the wrong way around. Krenov was popular mainly on the amateur woodwork scene and is virtually unknown outside it. Brown, and vernacular products in general, have much more in common with the mainstream of the modern movement.

We'll have to agree to differ. I'm sticking with my opinion.

John Brown's chairs are supremely functional and easy on the eye - fine work in every way. Krenov's cabinets were sublime - and they were not bought by amateur woodworkers, either; they were bought by the sort of people who appreciate fine art, and could afford it. (No doubt I'll get a lecture on socialism now; however, it's a very good thing there are people about who can afford a high price for fine furniture and fine art, or neither would exist; and we'd all be the poorer for that.)

 

[Nick Gibbs]

I think it's hard to compare chairmakers and cabinetmakers. The disciplines are so far apart.

A visit to St Fagan's is thoroughly recommended, and to High Wycombe's Chair Museum. Some of the oldest chairs at St Fagan's may be hidden away, and you might need an appointment to see them. But the curator is really helpful. I have his details somewhere if anyone wants to contact him. Do email me.

 

[marcus]

I think it's hard to compare chairmakers and cabinetmakers. The disciplines are so far apart.

That is true, but in the article John Brown doesn't make that distinction — in fact rather the opposite. It's pretty clear that he's talking about all wood crafts, including cabinet making. And to me this points to the heart of the problem with the article — it is not a reasoned argument, it is a polemic. It expounds and gesticulates and presses all the right emotional buttons, as polemics do, which makes it that little bit harder to notice that what is actually being said is riven with half-truths, avoided complexity and nuance and, in places, downright falsehood. And then you learn that the chap used PAR for his cabinets — in other words was happy for some kid in a factory to wear the 'monkey suit', and be subjected to the noise and the dust, while he works away quietly in his peaceful workshop lecturing other people from his high horse. I think one is justified in stopping reading at that point. Which is a shame, as the chairs themselves are good, and there are also, here and there, nuggets of truth in what he is saying.

 

[bugbear]

I think it's hard to compare chairmakers and cabinetmakers. The disciplines are so far apart.

That is true, but in the article John Brown doesn't make that distinction — in fact rather the opposite. It's pretty clear that he's talking about all wood crafts, including cabinet making. And to me this points to the heart of the problem with the article — it is not a reasoned argument, it is a polemic. It expounds and gesticulates and presses all the right emotional buttons, as polemics do, which makes it that little bit harder to notice that what is actually being said is riven with half-truths, avoided complexity and nuance and, in places, downright falsehood. And then you learn that the chap used PAR for his cabinets — in other words was happy for some kid in a factory to wear the 'monkey suit', and be subjected to the noise and the dust, while he works away quietly in his peaceful workshop lecturing other people from his high horse. I think one is justified in stopping reading at that point. Which is a shame, as the chairs themselves are good, and there are also, here and there, nuggets of truth in what he is saying.

Indeed. People claiming to tell the simple truth are surprisingly prone to being dishonestly selective. The real world has a nasty habit of being significantly complex.

One is reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson - "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons"

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

I think it's hard to compare chairmakers and cabinetmakers. The disciplines are so far apart.

That is true, but in the article John Brown doesn't make that distinction — in fact rather the opposite. It's pretty clear that he's talking about all wood crafts, including cabinet making. And to me this points to the heart of the problem with the article — it is not a reasoned argument, it is a polemic. It expounds and gesticulates and presses all the right emotional buttons, as polemics do, which makes it that little bit harder to notice that what is actually being said is riven with half-truths, avoided complexity and nuance and, in places, downright falsehood. And then you learn that the chap used PAR for his cabinets — in other words was happy for some kid in a factory to wear the 'monkey suit', and be subjected to the noise and the dust, while he works away quietly in his peaceful workshop lecturing other people from his high horse. I think one is justified in stopping reading at that point. Which is a shame, as the chairs themselves are good, and there are also, here and there, nuggets of truth in what he is saying.

Yes it is a polemic. If you look for a closely reasoned argument you will be disappointed and miss the point, which is a shame. What do you want, a manifesto and ten commandments?
He wasn't at it all that long and he was finding out, just like the rest us. "Work in progress" you might say.
I noticed his quote from Norman Potter, never heard of him. Got the book, and another one. Another eccentric with his life as a learning process. Interesting stuff. More eccentric nutters the better IMHO!

 

[Jacob]

...........
John Brown's chairs are supremely functional and easy on the eye - fine work in every way. Krenov's cabinets were sublime - and they were not bought by amateur woodworkers, either; they were bought by the sort of people who appreciate fine art, and could afford it. (No doubt I'll get a lecture on socialism now; however, it's a very good thing there are people about who can afford a high price for fine furniture and fine art, or neither would exist; and we'd all be the poorer for that.)

What a shockingly elitist thing to say!
Ordinary people appreciate fine art too. Having loadsa dosh doesn't mean you have good taste - usually the opposite in fact.
Van Gogh sold one painting in his lifetime. Shakers made their stuff for their communities (communists! :roll: ).
There is a vast world of high class art, craft work, music, food, etc. etc. produced by and for ordinary people who don't need patronage from the wealthy. The fact that classy objects have high prices doesn't necessarily benefit the maker in his lifetime - it's just surplus cash speculating on potential assets. Doesn't benefit the community to have stuff owned and stashed away by the wealthy.
Roll on the revolution!