The unedited John Brown

[AndyT]

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.

That's great advice, but before setting out on a long journey... all the indoor galleries are closed at present while they rebuild the exhibition part of the museum - more info here - http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/stfagans/.

But there are still some great examples of the sort of traditional work that John Brown helped bring people's attention to, in context, in the cottages. Here are three of my favourites from a visit this summer:

 

[marcus]

What do you want, a manifesto and ten commandments?

No, just for people to think things through a little more thoroughly before they start so comprehensively dismissing and denigrating the craftsmanship and life choices of other people. Doesn't seem too much to ask, even from 'eccentric nutters'.

 

[Nick Gibbs]

People claiming to tell the simple truth are surprisingly prone to being dishonestly selective.

Good point. I loved John. He was like a second father to me. But he was selective. At his memorial one of his sons recounted how John's brother once dared to contest one of John's stories. "The trouble with you," John retorted with typical candour, "is that you will let truth get in the way of a good story."

John got people thinking. He got people talking. There aren't many other woodworking writers who are still discussed with such emotion years after their death. He only wrote one book, and perhaps two dozen really good articles, many of which repeated similar material, but his impact was significant, and people who wrote to him generally received a generous reply. His heart was certainly in the right place, which perhaps is what he had in common with Krenov (and many others).

 

[Cheshirechappie]

...........
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!

With respect, I think you've missed the point, which is nothing whatever to do with what John Brown's chairs or James Krenov's cabinets might be worth now, but what they were able to charge for them when they first made and sold them - and what they had to charge in order to make a living.

John Brown could not have afforded to buy his own chairs, and James Krenov could not have afforded to buy his own cabinets. Without people of higher disposable income, neither could have made a living as they did. It isn't a matter of whether or not people of ordinary means appreciated their work - they very clearly do - but whether they could afford to commission it in the first place. That, perhaps, is one of the areas in which John Brown's arguments fall down. By having us all return to the simple life, he destroys his own market.

 

[Jacob]

There'd be more people with disposable income if we had more redistribution of wealth. More people would be able to buy better stuff - the quality of products, and life itself for many people, would be greatly improved.
Some weird logic there about John Brown's arguments. The "simple life" generally implies better quality of stuff; hand made, home grown, etc. Think of the Shakers, or the various arts and crafts movements.
His stuff wasn't that expensive - pricey like a lot of top end craft stuff, but not out of this world.
I don't think either of them need to be grateful to the plutocracy, probably quite the opposite. Markets are destroyed by allowing too much money and property to be held in too few hands.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

There'd be more people with disposable income if we had more redistribution of wealth. More people would be able to buy better stuff - the quality of products, and life itself for many people, would be greatly improved.
Some weird logic there about John Brown's arguments. The "simple life" generally implies better quality of stuff; hand made, home grown, etc. Think of the Shakers, or the various arts and crafts movements.
His stuff wasn't that expensive - pricey like a lot of top end craft stuff, but not out of this world.
I don't think either of them need to be grateful to the plutocracy, probably quite the opposite. Markets are destroyed by allowing too much money and property to be held in too few hands.

This is sliding too far into political theory - such matters are best left to other fora.

I stand by my previous comments. Others may judge for themselves

 

[Nick Gibbs]

John Brown could not have afforded to buy his own chairs, and James Krenov could not have afforded to buy his own cabinets. Without people of higher disposable income, neither could have made a living as they did.

Patrons have always funded art. John liked to promote 'good enough' woodwork, but the market economy calls for craftspeople to 'improve', to excel, to beat their rivals. I don't think it really matters, except if it undermines the bold efforts of those of us with more meagre skills making simple items for our homes. It's a bit like the complexity of TV cooking: do the fancy chefs frighten off would-be cooks, and make them feel inferior, or do they inspire us to have a go?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

John Brown could not have afforded to buy his own chairs, and James Krenov could not have afforded to buy his own cabinets. Without people of higher disposable income, neither could have made a living as they did.

Patrons have always funded art. John liked to promote 'good enough' woodwork, but the market economy calls for craftspeople to 'improve', to excel, to beat their rivals. I don't think it really matters, except if it undermines the bold efforts of those of us with more meagre skills making simple items for our homes. It's a bit like the complexity of TV cooking: do the fancy chefs frighten off would-be cooks, and make them feel inferior, or do they inspire us to have a go?

Certainly agree that without patrons, we would have a lot less art (architecture, furniture, interior decoration, literature, music, theatre and many other things) available to us. Enlightened patronage has greatly enhanced society in general.

Not entirely sure that I agree with your analogy with TV cooking, which I think is more about entertainment than about promoting real food (Saint Delia excepted). Most TV culinary shows are just food ****, really. I'm not sure that what John Brown was promoting was wood ****.

I do, however, take your point about the market economy making demands on craftspeople to 'improve' their work. This does mean that to become good enough usually means many hours of practice, which in effect means working full time at it; or at least, doing the same thing often enough for it to become a routine, almost mechanical skill - so that a high standard of work can be achieved at speed. I don't really think that should intimidate the amateur, who's raison d'etre is slightly different - to have fun, and if things of quality result, that's a bonus. The amateur has the freedom to decide whether to become proficient in one branch of woodworking, or whether to just potter happily making sawdust.

 

[Jacob]

....
Certainly agree that without patrons, we would have a lot less art (architecture, furniture, interior decoration, literature, music, theatre and many other things) available to us. Enlightened patronage has greatly enhanced society in general......

This is one of the strangest comments I have ever read on this forum. Somewhat pathetic too.
In the real world the principle enlightened "patron" of the arts you list, (in fact civilisation itself, you could say), is "society", or the community. Usually involving a struggle with whoever holds financial or political power. Often these things are going on in spite of, not because of, the powers that be.
Wealthy "patrons" make a mark by gathering the creative products of the community into one place, but impoverishing the community at large. For instance most of the old large estates and country houses (full of art and architecture) are built on slavery and greed. The people who did the work mainly lived in poverty.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

....
Certainly agree that without patrons, we would have a lot less art (architecture, furniture, interior decoration, literature, music, theatre and many other things) available to us. Enlightened patronage has greatly enhanced society in general......

This is one of the strangest comments I have ever read on this forum. Somewhat pathetic too.
In the real world the principle enlightened "patron" of the arts you list, (in fact civilisation itself, you could say), is "society", or the community. Usually involving a struggle with whoever holds financial or political power. Often these things are going on in spite of, not because of, the powers that be.
Wealthy "patrons" make a mark by gathering the creative products of the community into one place, but impoverishing the community at large. For instance most of the old large estates and country houses (full of art and architecture) are built on slavery and greed. The people who did the work mainly lived in poverty.

Jacob - other fora are available for discussion of political theory.

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Not entirely sure that I agree with your analogy with TV cooking, which I think is more about entertainment than about promoting real food (Saint Delia excepted). Most TV culinary shows are just food ****, really. I'm not sure that what John Brown was promoting was wood ****.

I didn't really mean that. I meant that some home woodworkers might feel inadequate comparing their pieces to work produced by patron-funded professionals. I just like the idea of people making tables and chairs because they need tables and chairs and enjoy the process of making, whatever the results are like, and don't feel intimidated. I compared it to cooking only because I remember some research that says the plethora of cooking programmes has put people off cooking at home because they feel intimidated. I'm not sure if it's true. And I wonder if that's true of woodwork, and may explain why making jigs & devices & benches can be more popular than making furniture, because no one sees your jigs and you don't have to be frightened of exposing your creativity.

 

[Cottonwood]

....
Certainly agree that without patrons, we would have a lot less art (architecture, furniture, interior decoration, literature, music, theatre and many other things) available to us. Enlightened patronage has greatly enhanced society in general......

This is one of the strangest comments I have ever read on this forum. Somewhat pathetic too.
In the real world the principle enlightened "patron" of the arts you list, (in fact civilisation itself, you could say), is "society", or the community. Usually involving a struggle with whoever holds financial or political power. Often these things are going on in spite of, not because of, the powers that be.
Wealthy "patrons" make a mark by gathering the creative products of the community into one place, but impoverishing the community at large. For instance most of the old large estates and country houses (full of art and architecture) are built on slavery and greed. The people who did the work mainly lived in poverty.

Jacob - other fora are available for discussion of political theory.

Sorry old cheshirechap, but when you start to talk about the high value of so called "enlightened patronage" etc etc, then you are entering the realms of political theory yourself..... :roll: If you dont see that you are perhaps a bit naive.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No, it was a statement of fact, not theory. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.

 

[Jacob]

No, it was a statement of fact, not theory. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.

Not it wasn't a statement of fact and the why's and wherefores are highly relevant and very interesting.
Perhaps the most important feature of vernacular design, as emulated by John Brown and others, is precisely that it didn't have wealthy patrons. It was ordinary stuff produced by the people, for the people, and often as cheaply as possible.
Wealthy patrons produced extravaganzas such as the high end of the mahogany trade, which by and large are not that interesting - display of wealth being the main objective.

 

[AndyT]

Jacob, I think I see what you are saying there. Vernacular design, first time round, produced the sort of work I illustrated with the Welsh chairs at St Fagan's. Made using minimal materials, scavenged locally, few tools and no elaboration. The sort of thing a farm labourer could afford to furnish his cottage.

But the difference comes when anyone tries to draw on the tradition in modern times and wants to make a living doing so.

The demand for such 'simple' designs is not to be found among the poor, who in the 80s when John Brown was working would have been more likely to shop at MFI. And because a craftsman, even one living quite frugally, expected a much higher price for his work, he needed to find a different sort of customer. Not someone poor, but someone willing to pay more than the price of a factory-made chair, because they appreciated the design and the craftsmanship.

That's the same paradox that hit the Arts and Crafts makers a century earlier - by following vernacular design, or a re-imagining of it, they ended up making luxury goods.

 

[Jacob]

There are plenty of people who don't have a lot of cash but who have good taste and will make an effort to buy good quality stuff and support the creative industries as a whole
I've been in the "craft" business for 40 years or so, and know this to be true.
Oddly enough we used to sell our stuff through the same gallery as J Brown - "Workshop Wales" in Fishguard, but this was before his time I think (70s) and I wasn't aware of him then, though I was certainly aware of Welsh trad furniture and managed to pick up a few items myself, in spite of being permanently skint.

 

[Nick Gibbs]

Good points, Andy. I'm sure it's the result for every maker through time, one way or another. Craftsman of yore would surely have tried to sell to the squire, and doffed caps and whatever needed to be done to get the gig.

Of course, people are not necessarily paying just for the product itself, but for being part of the maker's craft, at least in their minds. They are searching for 'flags' to indicate their wealth, and they like the idea of associating themselves with the knarly craftsman who works without electricity. It's all about marketing. And perhaps, philanthropically, buyers also want to help the maker and keep the craft alive, possibly because it makes them feel good to be doing something good. There's a fantastic book called The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley that asks why, if we are entirely self-orientated (as indicated by The Selfish Gene), do we do seemingly friendly acts like patronage?

 

[Cottonwood]

No, it was a statement of fact, not theory. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant to the truth of the statement.

What statement of fact?? :lol: :lol: The comment he made was an opinion, hes just uncomfortable when it gets challenged, and wants to shut it down "because its political theory"

.....without patrons, we would have a lot less art (architecture, furniture, interior decoration, literature, music, theatre and many other things) available to us. Enlightened patronage has greatly enhanced society in general.

This is nothing more than the bog standard old chestnut that people (usually middle class) churn out to try to comfortably justify, rationalise and of course reinforce their own distorted view of the past existence of an allegedly rich and diverse cultural heritage as a valid and decent cultural phenomenon-one that was inconveniently based on the hegemony of the governing class, and the exploitation of the labourers who produced all their nice pieces for them. LOL patrons who couldnt even "dress" themselves :roll: The thing with patrons is that they will always patronise you...

 

[Nick Gibbs]

The thing with patrons is that they will always patronise you...

I tend to agree. I wish we woodworkers could sell more items because we are solving a need, rather than having to spin some story of craftsmanship and artistic integrity to the rich, while 'needs' are fulfilled by mass-production. William Morris understood this, and yet the A&C Movement failed entirely.

 

[marcus]

I wish we woodworkers could sell more items because we are solving a need, rather than having to spin some story of craftsmanship and artistic integrity to the rich, while 'needs' are fulfilled by mass-production.

Agreed! Although against that I've had a few clients who weren't particularly well off who have bought fairly expensive pieces — they saved up, or had a windfall and they wanted something really well-made for their home, and they went ahead and ordered. So I think these days the issue is often as much about people's taste and priorities as it is about anything else. Skip going on holiday for a while and do without a few high tech gadgets and you can probably afford to have something special made for your home. Of course this assumes you have a home, and are in the position to afford holidays and gadgets in the first place, but it certainly means that the option is open to a much wider range of people than a tiny elite at the top. I'm not going to argue whether or not that is a sensible choice for most people to make, but the choice is there if they want to take it.

Also it's worth remembering that most well-made things will go through several hands before they are finished, so not only the first (and usually wealthiest) buyer benefits; some really quite good antique furniture is available at the moment at quite silly prices on ebay if you are willing to wait a bit.

For me the ideal (and therefore probably fantasy) answer to this would be a world where everyone appreciates good craftsmanship, whatever their taste, and can see the value in trying to make the world a more beautiful place for everyone to enjoy. And where they can all afford to have a sensibly sized house that is homely, with one or two really high quality things in it for them to enjoy if they want them. In theory this doesn't seem too much to ask; it was more or less Morris's vision I think, but I'm not holding my breath for it....