Computer software applications have long been mature – they work well and are usually bug-free. They often enable us to do things that we couldn’t do otherwise; or they vastly speed-up/automate a previously tedious and long-winded process. Consider spreadsheets and Photoshop as two such examples of excellent software. There are hundreds more.
One such program is CAD – or so it is claimed. Although I very much enjoy using software such as Photoshop, word processing and so forth there is something about CAD that has put me off, even after extensive play with it. I couldn’t have articulated what put me off; until, that is, I read “The Craftsman” by Richard Sennett.
Richard has a bone to pick with CAD and argues that it may detract from Craftsmanship because, “The smart machine can separate human mental understanding from repetative, instructive, hands-on learning”.
He goes on to explain, “You build up a kind of circularity between drawing [by hand on paper] and making [the eventual designed-thing] and then back again“. “This attaching circular metamorphisis can be aborted by CAD“. As an analogy, he quotes Victor Weisskopf, an MIT physics prof whose students worked exclusively with computerised experiments. The prof told his students, “When you show me that result, the computer understands the answer but I don’t think you understand the answer”.
Richard goes on to propose that, “CAD is frequently misused; what appears on-screen is impossibly coherent, framed in a unified way that physical sight never is”. In fact, he feels that this “impossible coherence” began with the concept of the blueprint which “…signalled one decisive disconnection between head and hand in design; the idea of a thing made complete in conception before it is constructed”.
He contends that made-objects begining as a “thing made complete in conception” as well as being “impossibly coherent” effectively undermines craftsmanship, as it takes away the human opportunity to experiment with and adapt the object whilst in the process of making it. The object thereby fails to reach it’s true potential and also makes the human into something of a machine, seeking to manifest a design that is in some sense unreal and perhaps unrealisable, at least as it appeared in the CAD.
Richard has more to say about the insidious effects of CAD on craftsmanship but the above allegations seem alarming enough by themselves.
And his viewpoint has me wondering: is the perfected-surface and clean-limmed look of much modern furniture a result of the maker’s over-reliance on CAD? Does the nature of the CAD design tool have this tendency to cause “…the person serving as a passive witness to and consumer of expanding competance [at designing] not participating in it”? Are the self-proclaimed designer-makers of today partly CAD-driven flesh robots?
Lataxe, still drawing on scraps of graph paper with a pencil and a big eraser.
Replies
It's an interesting question, but I sure don't know the answer.
I'm subconsciously going through this decision right now. I'm looking to buy a milling machine for fabricating metal and plastic parts. But I can't decide whether I want a standard hands-on mill where I control every move of the machine, or a CNC mill where once I have written the program I can have as many of those parts as I want--and eat supper at the same time.
But back to the question at hand; it seems that anything that separates me from the material I am working with is a bad thing. The beauty of hand tools; connection, feedback, and tactile pleasure.
You can make exactly the same argument about any tool. A handplane leaves a much smoother, flatter surface than you can achieve with an axe or adze, for example.
"And his viewpoint has me wondering: is the perfected-surface and clean-limmed look of much modern furniture a result of the maker's over-reliance on CAD?"
That is utterly absurd. The perfect surfaces and clean lines come from Gropius and the Bauhaus, in the early part of the 20th century, a long, long, long time before CAD ever existed. See Adolf Loos (1908) Ornament und Verbrechen [Ornament and Crime].
Quite the contrary, CAD, like any other tool, simply changes the rules of the game. Something that previously may have been hard to do now become easier because the tool facilitates it. While CAD certainly allows perfect lines and surfaces, in no way does it enforce them.
Witness the Tjibaou Cultural Center by Renzo Piano, the Walt Disney Concert Hall by Frank Gehry, or the Milwaukee Art Museum by Santiago Calatrava. In each case, CAD is what made it possible to translate the architect's vision into wood, steel and concrete.
At another extreme, these cabinets by William Massie have a wonderfully organic texture, yet are created entirely by CNC:
View Image
And what about this sketch that I posted last month:
View Image
Hand-drawn? Or CAD? I'll never tell...
While I don't know Sennett or his work, the brief bit of research I did just now leads me to believe that his comment about CAD is little more than sour grapes about things that he doesn't really understand. If James Joyce had had a word processor, I doubt that Finnegans Wake would have suffered for it; if anything, it might have been finished a few years earlier.
-Steve
It appears we are getting into that sticky area where we must draw a line between art and craft. They are almost diametrically opposed; art is any means to an end, but craft is the means to the end.
For Steve,I'll have guess about your sketches. They look like on of the effects that can be applied to drawings in Google sketchup. So I'd say they're sketchup drawings, but I suppose another program could do the same.For everyone,As Lataxe's question, I'll echo what a previous poster said. CAD cannot force a craftsman to do anything. I've used CAD and Sketchup to design pieces (but no longer do, I'd rather sketch and draft by hand), but I still make what I've designed and the process is still organic. My pieces never end up exactly as I've designed them.This is my personal signature.
Steve,
In amongst your arguments, which are cogent and reference real examples, you splurt this:
"While I don't know Sennett or his work, the brief bit of research I did just now leads me to believe that his comment about CAD is little more than sour grapes about things that he doesn't really understand".
I have to mention that this spurious comment is rather disappointing, as it says nothing to address Sennett's argument and is merely a piece of pointless character assasination about some bloke you "don't know". Do I detect.....the sour grapes of a CAD-fan with his nose outa joint? :-)
In other words, would it not be a more useful approach to discuss the ideas (as vigorously as you like) without yah-booing at the fellow who lays them before us? Rubbishing the person who speaks is a poor way to conduct a discussion. Rubbish his ideas if you like - by expressing some more persuasive ones.
Lataxe, who suggests that a reading of the whole book might be worthwhile (stimulating at least).
Latex, my man,
Let me first begin by saying that my opinions regarding Mr. Sennett arise from reading the part of the prologue of The Craftsman that is available at Amazon, along with several editorial reviews (not Amazon reader reviews!).
Anyway, if someone were to argue a point by beginning with, "Now, assuming that 2 + 2 = 5..." I think you would agree that the rest of the argument kind of falls flat after that sort of introduction. And so it is with Mr. Sennett. To wit, this quote from the New York Times review: "...nearly anyone can become a good craftsman."
I will return to that specific quote in a moment, but I want to first address the larger context. What I saw from the book's prologue and the other readings was the oft-repeated sociologist's claim regarding the interconnectedness of the human drives to learn and to create with the society in which we find ourselves embedded. It reminds me of the particular philosophy of science put forth by Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi and others, that the knowledge created by the practice of science cannot be separated from the "humanness" of those who conduct scientific inquiries. The problem with that outlook is that virtually all of the evidence points the other way, towards Karl Popper and positivism. So I would argue, and I think most behavioral psychologists (as opposed to sociologists) would agree, that those human drives, and society itself, are all emergent phenomena, and that they arise from a "biological reality," if you will, that we've only just barely begun to understand. And furthermore--and this is the key--there is no basis for the assertion that these phenomena are universal, in the sense that they affect all people in roughly the same way. (Once again, the evidence is to the contrary.)
Back to the quote: "...nearly anyone can become a good craftsman." I will now proceed to give a couple of counterexamples.
My wife is a biologist. Her field of study is the development and operation of the nervous system. The organism that she uses in her research is Caenorhabditis elegans, a small (adults are about 1 mm long) soil nematode. These are raised in the lab on agar plates. At any given time, she usually has 3-5 students working part time in the lab on research projects. Learning to tranfer these worms from one plate to another (using a tiny metal spatula while observing the process through a dissecting microscope) is, as you might guess, an acquired skill. Some people pick it up quickly, but some people simply never get the hang of it. In particular, the hard part seems to be the eye-hand coordination of watching what you're doing at 20X magnification.
Another important aspect of scientific research is that you have to be careful. (Obviously.) Some people seem to be essentially incapable of being careful. No matter how much training they get, no matter how hard they try, they still mix up a solution with the wrong concentration of a reagent, or leave a drug that needs to be kept in the freezer on the lab counter, or whatever.
It may well take 10 years and 10,000 hours to become an expert, but it's quite obvious from observations of these students that some of them just aren't ever going to get there.
-Steve
Steve,
Crimus peter, this is better than his book methinks.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob at,
Is "crimus" one of those New Englandish expressions? I can't find it in my dictionary.
Thanks for the link. It does add some background, although it doesn't speak to the specific theses put forth in The Craftsman (having been written some years prior).
Regarding your earlier comment about the disconnect between designer and implementer/fabricator: I have seen the same phenomenon, but it has always been a function of the personalities and prejudices of the people involved, and completely unrelated to the tools and technology used. I remember a specific instance where one of the technicians had noticed an odd discoloration on a stainless steel tube, as if it had been burned in some way. He brought it to the attention of the engineers, who basically ignored him, in a "let us worry about that kind of stuff" way. It wasn't until a year or so later that an investigation into lower than expected power output revealed that the residual magnetic field at that point was higher than initially assumed, causing the charged particles to veer from their computed trajectory and strike the walls of the tube.
-Steve
Sang kind of gives it away. ;)
I don't see any reason that using a computer to draw out what one plans to build in the shop should have any negative impact on craftsmanship. The craftsman (person?) still needs to go out to the shop and make the thing. If the parts don't fit properly or the piece is otherwise poorly executed, it makes no difference whether or not the plan was drawn on a computer or on the back of a matchbook.
Drawing it on the computer with some applications, anyway, do make it easier to look at the piece from all directions before the first mote of sawdust is created. I find that useful and worthwhile.
Not my design but drawing it made it easier to understand before building it.View Image
Edited 6/19/2009 5:44 pm ET by DaveRichards
"Sang kind of gives it away."
Shhhh!! ;-)
-Steve
>"If James Joyce had had a word processor, I doubt that Finnegans Wake would have suffered for it; if anything, it might have been finished a few years earlier."<!---->
Doubtful. Joyce wrote very slowly and deliberately. Everything in Finnegans Wake and Ulysses was agonized over many times. Additionally, Joyce had severe vision problems later in his life that a word processor would probably not have helped (he had an actual person that acted as his secretary). You should use an analogy that you understand better.
Ed, posting from the great state of Montana
"Everything in Finnegans Wake and Ulysses was agonized over many times."
That is, in fact, precisely the scenario in which a word processor is most helpful (and is the reason I chose Joyce as an example).
-Steve
As one who learned his drafting shortly after the earth cooled, and as someone who does all of my own design, I couldn't disagree more with that belief.
Whether you're using a CAD program, or a grease pencil, being able to transfer a vision onto a piece of paper is one of the most important steps in the building process. This is where you communicate the vision to someone else, and (perhaps most importantly) begin to determine the "constructability" of the vision.
I've been using CAD programs since the early 80's and rarely draw anything with a pencil anymore. Neatness was never one of my virtues and the ability to change a CAD drawing without leaving the smudges and eraser marks is a godsend to me. - lol
CAD has also saved me untold amounts of wasted material and overall aggravation. I often draw a project board-by-board, and cut-by-cut on the computer before I ever step into the shop. It's amazing how often I catch something that wouldn't work. Like I tell my customers, electrons are cheap, but things get expensive when something is made wrong.
The only real disconnect I think I've seen is when the designer just draws and someone else does the fabrication. Without a basic understanding of the tools and processes used by the fabricator, the designer can't clearly communicate his/her vision.
I dont think the two are linked together at all. As Steve said, its only a tool. The person sitting in front of the screen is the craftsman. If you sit down somebody that doesnt know anything, you get the same pile of junk that you would if he was sitting with a piece of paper. I find it interesting how many think the computer is this magic device that figures things out. I was chatting with one client about some code requirements (travel dist, spatial sep...) and I just about fell out of my chair when he said, "doesnt the computer figure that out?" Those who havent started down the CAD path can get the feeling of CAD next time if they stick their paper to a computer monitor and start drawing. Only thing is, when you want a line to go away you dont need the eraser, it is far more accurate than a pencil line and it has a few other functions that help speed up the drafting.
Has CAD opened up new ideas? You bet. And CAD is only the start. 3D modelling is taking it to the next level yet. The nice thing about 3d modelling is you start to spend less time drafting (notations, sheets....) and more time designing.
Just my .02
Isn't there always a tension between planning and building? If you stop being open to creative possibilities once you are satisfied with the cad, so that the building process is just assembly, I suppose that's possibly a bad thing as there are often small and large openings for creative invention, the builder's hand, and fortuitity in the building process (choosing grain, tweaking a dimensions, etc.). Then again, I suppose enough creativity may have occurred in the cadding that straightforward execution by whatever means is still going to render a fully successful work.
I don't think CAD kills craftsmanship, but I believe it can lull the craftsman into a stupor on occasion. By that, I mean that the ease of replication can tempt the craftsman into skipping the thinking-about-it stage of design drafting.
I am trained as an architect and have used cad for 20+ years. 99% of the furniture I build is drawn on the computer. People ask me how long did it take to build that? I tell them it takes as long to design and figure it out as it does to build it. That said, once I start cutting and looking at the wood decisions have to be made. I find that most of the design work happens in my head. Training I suppose but I can see it. Cad is an extrodinarily usefull tool for me. Maybe because I'm comfortable using it.
ASK
Latxe,
Years ago there was much discussion regarding how piece workers took no pride in their work as they never saw the finished product. I suppose the same could be true of a CAD operator but I tend to think many CAD operators are not challenged so much by the mechanics of operating the CAD program as much as they being able use CAD to create the vision of the designer.
Might that be considered a form of craftsmanship? To me craftsmanship is the actual process of making something.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I started drafting in 1979, and I still have my solid oak Mayline drafting table, but it sits in the basement as a craft table for my son and I.
At my first design job, I learned by watching an old-timer who learned drafting as a young man in Germany, and each of his drawings were worthy of framing. I absorbed his technique like a sponge, his printing and line-work were textured yet precise, slightly old-fashioned but always technically exciting, and they exhibited an economy of line yet never short of any detail...like the Count Basie of Drafting.
A few years after that, in the late '80's, we switched over to CAD. Of course, I cannot compare the two, CAD being so efficient and productive. Revisions are now so much easier, the list goes on. But when I think of the old way of pencil and vellum I am saddened by the loss of something that gave me so much pleasure. If you have ever lost a good old dog, that is the closest feeling I can compare it too. It's how I might feel today if my woodshop was replaced with a large machine that I fed a chunk of wood into one end, and a wood table came out the other.
*I would like to add something. Back when drafting with pencil, my drawings, although I was slow and methodical, stood out from my peers by virtue of their artistic qualities. CAD has been the great equalizer, enabling those with the the talents in the brain to created drawings neatly and quickly.
CAD is better, and I hate it. (maybe hate is too strong, how "harbor an intense dislike")
Edited 6/20/2009 8:08 am ET by Huntley
Speed in creating an original drawing, accuracy in creating that drawing, or the ability to create.Those are the hallmarks of "craftsmanship" where drafting is concerned.None of those are the primary advantage of CAD.
Edited 6/19/2009 11:05 pm by Jammersix
I cannot figure out the percieved (dis)connection between craftmanship and CAD.I need to plan a piece by sketching it out and dimensioning it. When I use CAD - and I always do - I can draw neat straight lines, which I cannot do with paper. I can stretch/curve/move bits around.When I like what I see I can measure the bits and plan my cuts.All that the CAD program does is display what I am creating. It does not do anything creative itself.What does make a difference is that I am sufficiently familiar with the software that it does not get in the way of the creative process. My early attempts with CAD were a struggle to make the thing do what I wanted. The little brain power I had was devoted to the mechanics, stifling any spark of creativity that there may have been.However, as I now use CAD a lot at work, this is no longer the case.I can see though that somebody who is not a regular CAD user will see CAD in a different light. Not to put anybody off, but a hobbyist woodworker who only uses CAD for his hobby is unlikely to ever build up enough momentum to use it fluently. Sketchup may change this.The woodworker who uses CAD to plan his work and then proceeds to build it is, in my opinion, no different to the one who uses paper and pencil.In times past a lot of people believed that a personal letter should be handwritten, not typed or word processed. I think that this CAD/pencil argument is similar. Personally I always considered that my sending a handwritten letter to somebody equated to a medium serious case of assault and battery. It has been said that I have the worst handwriting in the company I work for. The previous holder of this title retired a few years back.I sketch as well as I write.OK, back to CAD to find out where I blew the design for the drill-press table :-)
"My early attempts with CAD were a struggle to make the thing do what I wanted."IMHO, that's the key to the CAD vs pencil debate. I've taught several people to use CAD and my first warning to them was that they should expect to take 4-5 times as long to do their first CAD drawings as it would take them to do it in pencil. They knew WHAT to do, but they usually had to struggle to figure out HOW to do it.I've also taught a few folks how to use a computer beginning with "This is the ON switch". Oddly enough having them play Solitare is a very effective way for them to learn how to use a mouse. Eveyone knows how to play Solitare, and most folks quickly get past concentrating on the mechanics of using a mouse and start moving the cards without thinking about how they're doing it.
A fair enough comment. However this applies to any tool.Later on I have to post a question on table routing. I killed a router yesterday and don't want to kill another.
I learned by watching an old-timer who learned drafting as a young man in Germany, and each of his drawings were worthy of framing.
For me, this answers the question completely.
Heh. I did hope for an animated discussion and this wee topic seems to have roused one or two fellows to relate their CAD experience. In truth, my hope was for a discussion about the nature and effects of CAD as a tool rather than a series of how-tos or CADed objects (interesting though they are) that are usually found around here.
Just before a little review/summary of some of the points made so far, I have to deal with that chafing lad again. Now, young Steve: you are putting Mr Sennett into some kind of philosopher's ghetto by associating and contrasting him with the viewpoints of other philosopher fellows. But perhaps Mr Sennett is not inclined to live in a ghetto; indeed he seems to enjoy a roam about in the fields of many other philosopher chaps, of varied ilk and hue. You cannot successfully dismiss his arguments wholesale by sticking your label on him.
So, perhaps you will heed my plea and just address his arguments (as you have done in part) whilst leaving out them ideologial stances and philosophy-taxonomies o' yourn?
Also, Mr Sennett's basic contention that "anyone can become a good craftsman" - is perhaps a reasonable proposal after all. You toss in some anecdotal incident about a cack-hand in a lab. However, it is my experience that even cack-hands can become competant at something - if they are motivated enough. It may take longer and be harder for some than others but I'm afraid your view is something of an elitist and dismissive stance. This attitude may often be the very cause of a cackhand within your ken not getting motivated to succeed, as you insist s/he can't.
****
But enough of argument about the argumenting. What about this question of CAD being help or hinderance to craftsmanship?
In it's favour, there are chaps such as ASK who have developed their CAD skills to a point where they make the CAD their tool and not vice-versa. Also, the CAD they employ may have become mature enough to now be an extension of their mind and hand rather than a poor tool with aspects that limit or force the mind/hand of the designer.
Such CAD and CAD-skilled users are thereby provided with the convenience of having design drudge-work done for them by the CAD - drudge-work that if done via traditional means would perhaps teach them nothing they don't already know about either design or its effects of the subsequent manipulations of the material (the making).
In this happy scenario, CAD skills and the versatility of the CAD toolset have been absorbed into the craftsman's already extant panolply of knowledge and ability so that they enhance his overall craftsmanship.
***
But there also seems to be a counter-experience that is more aligned with what Richard Sennett is trying to describe: some CAD (and perhaps the undeveloped skill of its user) does indeed become a distraction and limit to the craftsman's efforts to make-well.....
jhard tells us that he is agonising over whether to choose a hand-operated mill or a CAD-driven CNC. He notes that: "...it seems that anything that separates me from the material I am working with is a bad thing". One might extrapolate from this that CAD or its user not having extensive abilities to render very lifelike objects and parts (3D needed, as brad mentions? excellent surface rendering?) will find the CAD output "disconnected" from the real object and from the real-material problems that will need to be addressed/solved when making.....?
*****
Dave45, in favour of CAD, notes:"CAD has also saved me untold amounts of wasted material and overall aggravation.........The only real disconnect I think I've seen is when the designer just draws and someone else does the fabrication. Without a basic understanding of the tools and processes used by the fabricator, the designer can't clearly communicate his/her vision".
This does underline one of Sennett's points - but in more than one way. As Dave45 says, there can be an obvious disconnect if the designer is not the fabricator. "Fractured skills". But Sennett would argue that in saving "untold amounts of wasted material and overall aggravation" Dave may also be depriving himself of some of that repetative experience of adversity and its overcomming that is a fundamental part of what makes a craftsman.
In Sennett's words:"Technique develops .... by a dialectic between the correct way to do something and the willingness to experiment through error". And this applies to both designing on paper/screen as well as working wood. CAD, like a CNC machine, may blind the would-be craftsman to skills that can only be got via that "experiment through error" provided more readily by drawing on paper, building models and building real things without a hard-and-fast plan.
But perhaps there comes a stage in craftsmanship when 99% of the skills one requires with both the designing and the material have been obtained (it begs the question, how?) so that helpers such as CAD may then merely deal with that design drudge work without depriving the craftsman of that error-based learning experience? Bob of Kidd points this out: "CAD operators are not challenged so much by the mechanics of operating the CAD program as much as they being able use CAD to create the vision of the designer. Might that be considered a form of craftsmanship"?
However, perhaps Ralph sums up best the danger here: "I don't think CAD kills craftsmanship, but I believe it can lull the craftsman into a stupor on occasion. By that, I mean that the ease of replication can tempt the craftsman into skipping the thinking-about-it stage of design drafting". Or perhaps Huntley has it perfectly summed with: "CAD is better, and I hate it".
Lataxe, enjoying the discussion a great deal.
PS Thank you Bob for that link to the Guardian article about Sennett. Even now Steve will be scooping up all that "socialist roots" talk and levering ole Richard into a pidgeon hole with it. :-)
PPS Plancher: is that you Charles? ;->
Lataxe,I get the sense that you have 2 scenarios going.
1. The designer/CAD user is a separate person from the craftsman.
2. The craftsman himself uses CAD to design the work.If (1) then I have to agree with most of what you say.
If (2) then I truly believe that, if the craftsman is sufficiently conversant with the CAD program then it is a tool which, given his knowledge of the material he will work with, will simply help him produce a design.Relating to scenario 1, about 30 months ago I was faced with a situation where the CAD operator drew about 10 pipes running through a 1.5m passageway side by side on the floor. You should always leave 150mm free all around a pipe so that the welder can get at it. CADman only drew lines, not dimensioned pipes.The welder looked at his drawing, swore in Italian, and asked me "What do we do about this?" The only reply was "We send Salvo out for a few lengths of hollow section and run the pipes at high level."So we did, and charged it back to the plant supplier. Hopefully CADman got a crash course in fabrication. I got an uncluttered floor!Although not woodworking, this supports your arguments for scenario 1. However, on the same project, I was also the designer for over 2Km of pipework and as I am slightly familiar with stainless steel I was able to produce a reasonable approximation of what actually was the final result, supporting scanario 2.
Dave,
It does seem that there is more chance of a fracture between designer-intent and a workman's production of the design if the two are separate people. Perhaps it need not always be so but probaby the designer needs to have a practical understanding of the work: the workman's experience; to have been a workman.
But if the designer is also the maker a problem remains in some cases: it does have to do with Hasting's point that all tools in some way force the hand of their user. Another of Sennett's points is that a well-experienced craftsman has made enough successes and failures to understand (and surmount) not just the design and materials but also the tools "force". The good craftsman can overcome the limitations of a tool or even adapt it to wider usage via a deep understanding of it's actions with various materials and applications. He gets this by playing ovr the whole design & make cycle, which involves a lot of errors and blind alleys.
His/her experience needs to be wide and detailed. Is a person who is introduced to design via CAD, without more primitive design methods first being used, going to have enough experience of how design-errors and oversights can occur? CAD can hide or prevent many kinds of error and therefore fails to allow the craftsmen to learn lessons associated with those errors.
Sennett is saying, I think, that craftsmen need to learn about inadequacy (of their own knowledge, tools, methods, materials and everything involved) from a fundamental level before they can take full advantage of more sophisticated tools or methods or materials. The only way to do this is to almost deliberately make the work (including the design work) hard. But the objective of CAD is to make the design work easy.........
Lataxe
Quote:
His/her experience needs to be wide and detailed. Is a person who is introduced to design via CAD, without more primitive design methods first being used, going to have enough experience of how design-errors and oversights can occur? CAD can hide or prevent many kinds of error and therefore fails to allow the craftsmen to learn lessons associated with those errors.
UnquoteCall me thick (It's often done) but how can CAD hide or prevent errors?
You print the design, go out to the shop and start cutting. OOPS!! I drew the rails to the "correct" lengths and forgot to add on the tenon length. It can happen equally easily with paper as with electrons.Where there can be a difference is that the inexperienced CAD user is so busy concentrating on the mechanics that he or she loses track of the nature of woodwork - rails always have tenons. (Or most times, or when necessary....)
Dave,
"....how can CAD hide or prevent errors"?
Error-hiding:
As illustrated rather well in an aricle within the current FWW, grain direction, pattern and so forth makes a huge difference to a piece. Can CAD accommodate these grain details in it's surface-rendering capabiity? If not one could easily imagine a CAD application generating a cutting list that results in parts that pay no attention to the grain. Result - ugly piece (or start again). A lot of sketchup drawings one sees on the web feature no grain pattern information.....
Error preventing:
Turning the above on it's head, if the CAD could automatialy generate an ideal grain orientation and pattern, along with the associated prameters to apply when selecting/cutting the timber, will this not prevent the craftsman from internalising the skilll and ability to make such selections himself? Instead s/he might merely follow the directions of the CAD and never really grasp why those grain patterns and orientations are important to the design or construction. There will be no learning-mistakes with the grain that illuminate why one arrangement is better than another, in various circumstances.
Similar arguments might apply to shade or colour-selection.
Lataxe
A lot of sketchup drawings one sees on the web feature no grain pattern information.....
That's certainly not because it can't be done.
View Image
View Image
View Image
Edited 6/21/2009 8:11 am ET by DaveRichards
Dave,
Those pics are informative.
The first thing I notice is that the grain looks to be "generic" rather than a true simulation of what real grain in real wood would look like. The patterns don't seem to emulate reality. Would you agree? Or is it maybe just that these particular pics haven't been tweaked to show a more realistic grain pattern (but could be)?
In practice, does the rendering of sketchup surfaces with the grain patterns help with the design when it comes to how grain will be chosen and oriented in the real workpiece?
Secondly, it would be interesting to know if and how sketchup generates cutting lists. In fact, is there any WW-related CAD that does this? I have heard that there are architecture-related CADs that generate quantity-surveyor type information about the required building materials......?
If cutting list are generated, how do they deal with grain pattern data?
Lataxe
This grain discussion, while perhaps just an analogy for all the small features that are likely best left tot he craftsman, is sort of funny in that it's not particularly easy to imagine a desired grain and then go and find a piece of stock that precisely matches it unless one has vast supplies of wood. It's like deciding before you go to the market that you will be buying the asparagus and tenderloin even though when you get there the only asparagus they have is limp and obviously far beyond fresh and the tenderloin small and full of gristle; you have cut off your flexibility to notice the fresh peas and the lovely red snapper.
I use Sketchup to quickly present an idea. No need to spend a lot of drawing time to see if the proportion looks right (and from various perspectives ). The details are then refined on paper, and finally the piece evolves as I work. So I think of CAD as roughing in like a Jack plane. Pencil and paper more like a smoother. The piece as it comes together reality. Cad is also great to show a concept to someone so that they can tell you if its what they had in mind. It does not take long to recreate a setting or whole room if need be.
Sir Lataxe
Saw my first CAD computer in 1975. It was a HP it took up the back of a semi with air conditiong and maybe 8X10 work space, tiny monochrome screen about 1 million at the time.
I got one of the first color mac and with out the aid of a manuel taught my self Quark Publishing.
Tried many CAD programs in 1997, tried a program for making custom shoe last to be ground by CNC mill. way to expensive. But pissed of a few folks at how fast I picked up the program. I have struggled with SU, guess my brain can't work that out. Deslexcia can be funnuy.
I can still pick up a pencil, t square and calculator and have at er. if need be to get a permit etc.
But quite often on a WW project I will only scetch and make with only a few detailed drawings. Cause it is my brain and I can see it. I can look at blueprints and they rise up to me, does that make sense?
I have worked with some good craftsmen who could not work with out detailed plans. They just could not understand how the finished product would be.
My kids now 17 and 18 grew up with siting on dads lap in front of the computer screen. We bought them Kid Pics drawing soft ware at 4 and 5 they had it mastered in about a week. It was an easier program for a quick print out that Power point, pagemaker word etcBut I still gave the kids crayons, paper mache, beads, and yes scissors so I could yell at them not to run!! and explained you have to know what you want to do first before you can use the computer as a tool to make it.
As for cad picking grain and preventing blow out, knots, splits and case harding. That is a human thing.
I shall boldly stand and proclaim. CAD is good for thing made from CNC. Materials must be Uniform, Stable, Prediceiable, and Repeatable. Metal, plastics, MDF, inert and dead things.Or something linked to GPS. again near same perameters.As for the Daughter that could recognize a CAD house I would like to meet her!! I understand. Probably a real perceptive person in many ways. Happy fathers day!!
I can walk down a street and pick up the gait of some one with a prosthetic leg or polio. I have been on courses using gait force plate and in shoe pressure sensor's Or is it connected to the life long pursiut of watching the quinisental gait of an appealing pelvic structure ambulating in front of me?to you Sir I defer
Those pics are informative. Thank you.
The first thing I notice is that the grain looks to be "generic" rather than a true simulation of what real grain in real wood would look like. The patterns don't seem to emulate reality. Would you agree? Or is it maybe just that these particular pics haven't been tweaked to show a more realistic grain pattern (but could be)?
I have some wood grain patterns that are more realistic than others. Actually, the European beech material on the drafting tables is pretty good. The problem with wood grain is that it doesn't naturally repeat itself. A digital drawing will use an image of a piece of wood and, like any photograph, it will cover a finite area. Unless the image covers a larger area than the part in the drawing, the pattern will neccessarily repeat. Obviously a repeated knot or other character mark will be very noticeable. One would need as much surface area of wood grain images as there is surface area in the project to make it all work perfectly. When I use wood grain textures in my SketchUp drawings, I tend to limit them to very straight grained materials unless the part is small enough. I have some interesting images of burls that, if they were real wood, would probably be used as veneers. Those can be useful on lids of jewelry boxes or small door panels but wouldn't work so well as the top of a table.
In practice, does the rendering of sketchup surfaces with the grain patterns help with the design when it comes to how grain will be chosen and oriented in the real workpiece?
It could. I don't feel the need for that for my own projects and rarely apply wood grain textures at all for things that I'll build. Some of my clients, though, like to have an idea of what the final piece will look like and showing it to them in color is helpful. They understand that they aren't looking at a photograph of the piece, though, so the grain doesn't have to be an exact match. I'd rather keep the grain pattern subtle like that than have a noticeably repeating pattern, say, with a prominent knot.
If the drawing is being done as a plan for others and if grain direction needs to be indicated, I would tend to make some sort of graphical indication such as a double headed arrow and a label. This tends to use less ink when printed and helps to keep file size down. Unless it is important to show the grain for something like a bracket in which you want to avoid a short-grain situation, I think it is reasonable to expect that the grain will run parallel to the longest dimension. There are exceptions of course but generally I think that works.
Secondly, it would be interesting to know if and how sketchup generates cutting lists. In fact, is there any WW-related CAD that does this? I have heard that there are architecture-related CADs that generate quantity-surveyor type information about the required building materials......?
Yes, it is possible to get a cutting list out of SketchUp. There is a free plugin available to do this which will generate a table that includes the name of each part, the quantity, the size, the number of board feet (or cubic meters) and the material specified. The plugin will also do a layout of the parts. At this stage the layout isn't perfect but for a free plugin, it is usable. Solid wood, sheet goods and hardware can all be sorted into appropriate parts of the cutting list, too.
SketchUp 7 has a report generating feature that isn't specifically for a cutting list but it could also be used to create lists for various things. You just have to massage the data you get out.
Once a drawing has been completed, a cutlist using the plugin can be generated in less than 30 seconds. It'll be as accurate and detailed as your drawing. Can anyone create a cutting list by hand that fast?
If cutting list are generated, how do they deal with grain pattern data?
Currently, the plugin doesn't deal with grain direction other than to assume it runs parallel to the longest dimension of the part. There are simple strategies to deal with that for parts in which the grain may run diagonally. My understanding is that the author of the plugin is looking at ways to work grain direction into the layout portion. This would be a big benefit for the layout of sheet goods certainly.
I think that one benefit that drawing digitally has over drawing by hand is the ability to quickly make accurate changes to a drawing. For example in the image below, the large table in the rear is the original. (It is L.F. Herreshoff's "Drawing Board", by the way.) The three smaller tables are modifications of the original. Those versions took little time to draw because I only needed to edit the parts (components). I get a good look at how the changes will appear. They can be looked at from any angle and can easily be placed in context with other furniture or with figures to get an idea of scale. An accurate cutlist can be quickly generated for whichever table is desired or for all of them at once.
View Image
The plan document including full size patterns is completed for the original version of the table and could be done in short order for the other versions as well. Here's the first page
View Image
And the patterns
View Image
I suppose that since you aren't using SketchUp in your furniture design work, you probably have had little incentive to look at it but there is a blog here on the Fine Woodworking site called Design. Click. Build. where this sort of stuff has been covered along with other topics related to the use of SketchUp for woodworking.
Dave,
Your post is not just informative but quite persuasive. You mention, "I suppose that since you aren't using SketchUp in your furniture design work, you probably have had little incentive to look at it...".
Well, I have played with some CAD in the past and have thought of making the effort to learn sketchup. Reading Sennett simply prompted me to ask the question as to whether CAD is a useful tool for craftsman; but also whether it does have potentialy detrimental effects of the sort Sennett mentions.
In fact, the discussion and all of its information, especially your description of sketchup's capabiities, persuades me that I should learn to fly it. At the same time, I'm aware now not just of its opportunities but also those "seductive easements" it may offer that would let me off my craftsman's duties. :-)
Thanks once more for an excellent post.
Lataxe
You're quite welcome kind sir.
I don't think you'll be let off your "craftsman's duties" but rather you may find that it makes completing them easier. I find that as I am drawing, I figure out ways to streamline my processes in the shop. It is much easier to discover which parts can be cut at the same time using the same setups. And because I can look at the assembly from all directions as well as see inside it, I know in advance where I might have conflicts with joinery that need to be dealt with.
These sorts of things don't eliminate the need for craftsmanship but rather help to eliminate surprises that might require on-the-fly solutions.
If you would like a hand with learning SketchUp or would at least like to see a little "live" demonstration, feel free to e-mail me and we'll set up a time to do it.
Dave
"The first thing I notice is that the grain looks to be 'generic' rather than a true simulation of what real grain in real wood would look like. The patterns don't seem to emulate reality."
As Sean notes, unless you can represent the actual grain of the wood that you're holding in your hand, anything more than a generic representation isn't going to help you very much. CAD doesn't completely absolve you from having to use your imagination.
You can photograph your entire wood stash and import the grain images into SketchUp and other CAD programs, by the way. Obviously, it's a lot of work, but if you chose to do so, you could create a CAD image that is a very close copy of the real thing.
-Steve
Latex, you rubbery old sole,
Apologies for the delay in reply; I was a bit under the weather yesterday, and capable of little more than one liners and such.
Let me begin by reiterating what I said at the outset: Every single criticism of CAD that has been put forth can equally be leveled at any other tool. A tool is just a tool. Any tool has features where it really shines, and limitations where it just can't do the job. In naïve hands, a tool's limitations can become readily apparent in the finished product ("when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"). But there is certainly no evidence that that must be the case, for every user and every tool.
Consider Grant Vaughan's sinuously curved vessels (back cover FWW #203). He lays out all of the dimensions meticuously and mechanically (there's a photo of this in Woodwork #115), uses measuring tools like vernier calipers, and shaping tools like Arbortech grinders and power sanders. Does any of this detract from the artistry and craftsmanship of the final result? In some hands, certainly, each of the tools that he does use could well lead to less than stellar results. Thus, the "life" that Vaughan's creations have derives from something else, not from the particular tools that he uses.
Note also that the surfaces of his work don't show the touch of the gouge or plane or other hand tool (since he doesn't use those tools). Does that make his creations inferior?
And so it is with CAD. The point made above that AutoCAD-designed houses are easily told from other houses is not about CAD per se, but rather about the skill of the user. Many tools do allow a less-experienced craftsman to produce inferior results (one doesn't have to look far to see how the advent of desktop publishing has led to the identification of individuals who really ought to have all of their fonts taken away from them).
And there are even a few tools that are so limited that "artistically inferior" results are essentially the only thing you can achieve. Take the basic dovetail jig, for example. There is no way that even the most inexperienced observer would be fooled into thinking that the dovetails produced from such a jig were cut by hand. We can then progress to something like the Leigh jig, where the casual observer might be fooled, but the experienced woodworker would not. And then, finally, we reach something like Bridge City's Jointmaker Pro. I would wager that even the most experienced woodworker would not be able to state with any certainty whether a dovetail joint made on the device were jigged or entirely hand-cut.
It is ironic that you criticize me for attempting to paint Sennett with a broad brush. After all, isn't that exactly what he and his buddies do? ("...nearly anyone can become a good craftsman.") And that is the problem I have with that approach: It attempts to find Universal Truths, but they are based on the flimsiest of foundations. This is an endemic limitation of the "soft" sciences: their hypotheses are so very often untestable. The result is that instead of the weaker hypotheses being shown to be wanting, and then tossed aside, they simply sit around and fester. Later workers build on top of these fragile ideas, and it all inevitably culminates in grand edifices that, upon closer examination, are nothing more than houses of cards. The sociologists and anthropologists are so desperate for an answer that they fail to notice that they don't yet understand the parameters of the question.
If I seem dismissive, it's because I've seen it all so many times before, and it just gets tiring to rehash the same things over and over again.
The reason I offered the two examples that I did is that I believe that if there is anything at all that is a "universal" requirement of craftsmanship, it is an attention to detail. And some people just don't seem to have it. That's not a criticism--there are many brilliant thinkers who lack an attention to detail (they have others to manage the details for them)--but they aren't craftsman. The other example, about hand-eye coordination, is something that is certainly a requirement for some kinds of craftsmanship (e.g., woodworking), although it could be argued that creating a good novel is also craftsmanship, and hand-eye coordination plays little role in that.
Regarding motivation and practice: These are certainly requirements, but once again, they are not sufficient. My niece is an accomplished violinist. At 20 years old, she long ago passed the 10 year/10,000 hour mark. She's quite good, likely good enough to get a job in a professional symphony orchestra, but she isn't Joshua Bell, or Hilary Hahn. Likewise, while I strive for artistry and craftsmanship, I know that there are things that I will never achieve. I remember in particular a painting by Picasso that I saw at an exhibition in Oklahoma City, a liitle over ten years ago. Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of the work. It was little more than a line drawing of a woman, but the lines carried an incredible amount of emotion. I realized at that moment that I didn't know where to begin to even think about creating curves with that level of feeling.
-Steve
Steve,
Such a lot to answer! :-)
Or maybe not, as I think we (and Sennett incidentally) do agree about CAD being a "surmountable tool" just like any other. Perhaps Sennett is merely using CAD to illustrate how some tools have a much greater tendency to divorce the craftsman from the material and the work done on it.
But another of his major proposals is that such limitations of tools can be a stimulus to master the tool (make it serve one's intent) and increase the craftsman's mastery also over not just the tool but also the design oportunities it offers and the material involved, all at the same time.
****
I understand you reluctance to admit the social "scientists" and anthropologists to the category "scientist". In those spheres there is certainly a preponderance of theory over measured evidence. But what is the alternative to their approach if we are to discuss and attempt understanding of ourselves at all? You can reduce such understanding to analysis of genes and their history; or measured economic indicators. These will tell you some but little, of themselves, about the varieties and motives behind human behaviour. As we have seen, economics is anyway far from a hard science able to make predictions, despite the enormous amount of available data.
Sennett uses an old style of rhetoric - he is a story teller. Yet his observations do reference many scientific studies of the measured and repeated kind. He is very, very cogent. This is not the place to rehearse his many arguments and proposals so I urge you to read the book then make a judgement. At present you are merely shoving the bloke into one of your categories in the "dismissed out of hand" room. Perhaps you are doing the "only looks for evidence to suport his current beliefs" thang? Shurely shome mishtake!
*****
This proposal of yours:
"I believe that if there is anything at all that is a "universal" requirement of craftsmanship, it is an attention to detail. And some people just don't seem to have it."
is worthy of a new thread. I feel that this statement reveals your very unscientific assumption concerning basic human nature. ("...some people don't seem to have it"). Your statement about you and your niece's lack of perfection also is revealing:
" She's quite good, likely good enough to get a job in a professional symphony orchestra, but she isn't Joshua Bell, or Hilary Hahn. Likewise, while I strive for artistry and craftsmanship, I know that there are things that I will never achieve."
Here I feel you are victim of the long-standing assumption within Western culture concerning hierarchy - the Great Chain of Being. You are saying, in effect, that only the very peak of some hierarchy of ability is worthy to be called craftsmanship. You dismiss even your own abilities as somehow not worthy because "there are things I will never achieve". You are doing an Ayn Rand - dismissing 99.99999% of human abilities as somehow second rate and therefore of no value because they don't measure up to some high ideal.
We must open another thread, in due course, to once more discuss the whole meaning and definition of "craftsmanship"! (Do I hear groaning in the stalls; shurely not). :-)
Lataxe, a craftsman of sorts despite many imperfections (many, many).
"I feel that this statement reveals your very unscientific assumption concerning basic human nature."
That's not an assumption, it's an observation. And that's the point, really. One can assert that all swans are white, but it takes only one black swan to demonstrate that the assertion is false. The only sweeping generalization that I will make is that there are no sweeping generalizations.
I'm much more of a socialist than you seem to think. But I do believe that those who espouse extreme positions of socialism, as well as of laissez-faire capitalism, libertarianism, and whatever other -ism you care to name, frequently ignore the very plain and objective contrary evidence that is in front of their faces, all in the name of an overly idealized world view. Nature just isn't that clear-cut. One side says that lack of opportunity is the only thing that stands in the way of success. The other side says that lack of motivation is the only thing that stands in the way of success. Both sides are nonsense.
I gave the other examples not to say that perfection is the only goal, but instead to demonstrate the falsity of "practice makes perfect." Rather, we have at best, "practice makes better." No matter how hard you try, you eventually reach a plateau, and the level of that plateau varies from person to person, and from one activity to another. There is something else--and, currently, no one really knows what--that sets the varying levels of those plateaus. Ignoring their existence is not only just plain wrong, it inhibits further investigation into their origin and mechanism.
Another example: Growing up, I was always very good at volleyball, and hideously bad at softball/baseball. I never made any particular effort at improving my skills at either; my expressed abilities reflected only my "innate" skill.
As for economics, David Mermin, a physicist at Cornell University, made the observation after attending a Nobel Prize lecture by the recipient of the prize in economics, "I learned that economics is just like physics, except that physics works."
-Steve
Steve,
Again there is much on which we agree. Perhaps our difference concerns the conclusions to be drawn about causes for the phenomena we agree on? You say "Practice makes better". This we can agree (with Sennett). Also, "..the level of that plateau [of skill] varies from person to person". Agreed again.
But how do these proposals demonstrate the falsity of "Everyone can become a craftsman"? You mention the black swan; true not everyone falls on the bell curve of "ability to acquire and apply skill" as there are poor folk born with flaws in their body, of greater or lesser degree. But I believe Sennet doesn't mean literally "everyone". Rather he is suggesting that the vast majority of humans have the innate capacity to develop some kind of meaningful craftsmanship, to some degree, more or less quickly.
Moreover, Sennett suggests that the bell curve of abilities, as measured by mechanisms such as the IQ test, vastly exagerates differences in ability; and completely ignores many of the abilities associated with good craftsmanship. He would invert the bell graph into a champagne flute, with only a very few down at the stalk end having little ability to acquire skill given the opportunity (real opportunity, not the minefield of our curent culture, with its monoculture of only the consumer-producer role for all humans and demands for losers to highlight the winner).
One of Sennett's points is that our culture does place people in hierarchies-of-worth. I think you do that when you compare your niece to a couple of famous violinists. But these hierarchies are "merely" cultural. The excellent example of Joshua Bell does not negate or devalue your niece's craftsmanship with the violin - nor that of a whole swathe of other violinists of lesser skill than hers.
The question is, where on the continuum of skill-acquisition does craftsmanship begin? I doubt that there's a digital answer (47 points on the violin exam level 5 and you're a violinist; 46 and your not). Rather the status of craftsman comes slowly and in a cumulative fashion.
There is also the issue of who Sennett's "everyone" includes. it might include everyone who is a healthy babe; but Sennett is also clear that subsequent cultural and personal conditioning will slowly exclude many of those babes, as they grow, from acquiring the habits and attitudes of craftsmanship. There will come a point where they cannot, for practical purposes, be redeemed.
Such unlucky folk are died-in-the-wool wage slaves, mere consumers of other's craftwork, superficial "specialists" who must change their "specialism" every week to suit the latest technology or management-method round. Or just bums who cannot deal with the demands of modern life and it's volatile institutions - pushed to the bottom of the hierarchy (there has to be a bottom in such a culture).
*************
Finally, you must stop shoving ole Sennett into some extremist camp or other. Read his work and then tell me that he is some crazy idealist oblivious to reality. He writes within an American philosophical tradition called "pragmatism". This looks for meaning in real physical events and the conditions of people's actual lives, rather than at some idealistic model of humanity dreamed up in an ivory tower. You cannot convincingly criticise what you do not know and about which you have merely consumed a partisan rumour.
Lataxe
So do you think Sennett would want people to practice the craft ethic in everything they do, paper pushing, etc.? Is he just gussying up the old saw to 'take pride in one's work'?
Edited 6/23/2009 7:02 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
C, you old inflammatory plank,
Yes, I believe Sennett is indeed gussying up that concept you mention. He defines craftsmanship as fundamentally doing something well and doing it for the sake of doing it.
The gussying is his attempt to define what that means in practice, how it has manifested and developed historically in various trades, workplaces and so on - including factories, orchestras and bureaucracies. He is pointing out that it takes time and physical involvement; requires difficulties to overcome rather than "right first time" stuff beloved of management theorists; and suffers from competing motives such as profit-making, cost-cutting, desire for fame and so forth.
He also examines some of the cultural and social institutions that our modern society has developed which cause craftsmanship to be lost or prevented from developing.
Being somewhat socialist in outlook, he argues for craftsmanship as a fundamental human opportunity and capability rather than the heroic pursuit of half a dozen supermen. :-)
Try his book - a handy counterpoint to Ayn Rand.
Lataxe
I'd like to accept your comparison to Rand but it's clear you haven't read her by the comment you made to another poster. I'm still wondering if you can find some selections from a text that might support the assertion you made.
I doubt seriously Rand would dismiss a craft approach to work. Her protagonists are often portrayed at doing manual work with more than just a little dignity and honor. She could have left Roark in the quarry and practically made her point.
What is it about an architect who takes his work very seriously (a 'craft approach'?) and practices his profession uncompromisingly that you think Sennett would take issue with?
I'm not seeing it. Help me out.
What, specifically, do you find disagreeable about this:
"The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. Productive work is the road of man’s unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. “Productive work” does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind."
Edited 6/23/2009 5:08 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
Charles,
Ah ha! I have read much Ayn Rand, after your own recommendation. Indeed, I believe there is little of hers I have not ploughed through (I am the heroic reader, although I have run out of heavy sighs).
In truth, I do take from her Great Splurges of Words that sentiment you portray with the quote; and some others, such as the suspicion of self-sacrifice and the kind of imposed or mob collectivisms she detests.
The problem is all that droning woffle; not to mention her utterly shallow understanding of the world at large and of human nature, with its untidy relationships and complexity. It leads her to the idea that the whole world is wrong, full of second raters and not really fit for her heroes. She is very black & white and looks for no explanation of how the world is as it is other than there are some second-raters conspiring to be lazy and collectivist.
Her characters spring up from nowhere (what were their antecedents, their mentors, their education, traditions, family, cultural backgrounds, etc.)? They can only live isolated in some hidden Shagrila-come-utopia. There is no society but mutual exploitation between solipsists. In short, her "theories" are without context and divorced from the difficult dirty world.
****
I have devoured that Sennett and vandalised the text with the highlighter pen, at second reading. My Ayn books are similarly scrawled upon. I'll get you a few quotes in due course, if you insist - perhaps in new thread concerning craftsmanship and its many dimensions. Now don't everyone get excited. :->
Lataxe
Edited 6/23/2009 5:56 pm ET by Lataxe
One thing you surely missed what the portion I quoted above. That's sad because that theme runs through The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There's not one scintilla of Ayn Rand that wouldn't apply to a janitor or a trash collector as easily as it does to people with the most gifted of intellects or artistic talents.
It's a shame you don't see that.
Edited 6/23/2009 7:05 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
Charles,
You really are a fan of Ayn, incha? You even copy her stance of, "If you don't agree with all of my jots and scintillas then you just don't understand". Also, you ain't listening and are trying to allocate attitudes to me that don't reflect what I say. I am thinking: that lad is a solipsist. :-)
The quote you provided contains some basic argument in favour of what we are here calling craftsmanship. But consider the po-faced and humourless style; the absolute dislike of the real world; the autocratic "man over nature" sentiments.
"... the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. ......Productive work is the road ...to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values".
Call me a sentimental old hippy, but I feel that this attitude, along with her completely naive idea of what capitalism is (clever chaps making wonderful objects and swapping them in a lost valley) undermines her whole case. It is these attitudes that have lead us to the "century of the self" with its politics of pandora and astounding rape of the natural world.
Lataxe, a former solipsist who found reality is best not ignored.
Everything's sociology or social psychology, right?
Hey, I missed the chapter(s) where the natural resources were gleefully used up and the employees abused. Point those out for me.
Her use of the term rational self-interest explains much but is ignored by most. Most of the points you brought out in your post wouldn't be considered rational behavior.
When are you going to send me the fantastic table you built? You know, I need it more than you do. I can objectively prove that I do so you don't really have any right to keep it for your own enjoyment.
Edited 6/24/2009 6:54 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
"When are you going to send me the fantastic table you built"?
Ah ha! I have suspended altruistic mode just now in favour of "mine all mine". But were you to send me your address in an email I might arrange for some nice reading, as you have definitely gulped down too much Ayn and my social conscience feels a pang when I looks at your bent memeplexes.
What is this sociology you mention? I understand the other thang, trick cycling, of course. This is all about psyching out the other blokes in the race by calmly eating a fig-slice whilst going past them uphill.
Did you mean "culture and its many vigorous evolutionary branches, with humans as the substrate, vectors and reproductive organs"? (Come now, you know we all copy loads of stuff from each other).
As to Rationalism - I will include some Mchael Oakeshott in them books. Meanwhile consider Pandora not to mention the revelations of chaos theory. You know it makes sense!
Lataxe, never rational enough to know what his own interests are (just like everyone else).
Why don't you address the specifics?If somebody needs the table built more than you do why should you get to keep it? Somebody out there could use the money you have. Why don't you send it to them? You really don't have a right, per se, to have more than anybody else. You have to share your talent and ability to generate wealth with all the rest of us, don't you? You really don't have a right to enjoy beautiful furniture of your own making when other people have to live with particleboard junk purchased at a discount store. I mean, what gives you THE RIGHT to do this? Do you think having created the article of furniture out of rough lumber gives you some sort of right to hang on to it? Oh brother, you're so wrong.I think that you have to share ALL the fruits of your talents. You don't have the right to decide what you'll share, the group gets to tell you what you MUST share. We make that decision as a society don't we?I'm still looking for the chapter where the Randian capitalist pours boiling oil on the employees at the end of the day just to show 'em who's the boss. I still can't find it, darn it.
Edited 6/24/2009 9:27 am ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
This thread is sort of wonky.
You guys are refering to some one who wrote a book about their ideas. Never read either never will. I can appreciate recreation reading, but to bandy back and forth about the intention of there words or how a phrase was interprted, just don't make sense to me. If you want clarification ask the author.Did you read these book in a good or bad mood? did you read them for insite on why you do things? or why others do things?
Society evolves and changes some things for the better sometimes for the worse.
some people are motivated and a lot are not.
everyday is a study of sociology and pschology, everyone you deal with is an education of sorts wether you realize it or not.
But this hero worship of people who had set pen to paper or fingers to a keyboard, I just don't understand.
Why don't you write you own books, put forth your own ideas, then go make some saw dust.Have any or these authors made anything from their own hands? Have they ever started something from a concept to a finished working product, that may be so perfect no changes could make it better in any way. ( I highly doubt it) Even a published author who has been allowed by a publisher to market their work has already had to comprimise the words to get published. So why do you care so much? that's them, you are you and I am I.My late brother was a published author. I read some of his works other I didn't. But watching the process was an education for me. His words were an encapsulation of his thought at that point in time. The editor did the same, who know what mood the editor was in when they wanted things changed? Was the editor trying to fill a quota? be altruistic? influance someones thought to suit Their temperment, morals, ideals?anything less than a self published work has been tempered in some way along the archaine old boys club of publishers. So why do you give it so much credance?
Shoe,
It's true - all we have is the rhetoric of the moment and a set of repeatable experiments. Even maths is under attack as somehow a subjective human construct! How do we manage to make our way in the world!? :-)
Still, word-bandy is quite relaxing after a session with that Royal Marine. He has failed to kill me of cardiac arrest again this afternoon. Indeed, I now feel full to the top of endorphin. Well! It's legal!
"Have any or these authors made anything from their own hands?" you ask. Well, I understand Mr Sennett is a musician (graduate of that famous Noo Yawk school) as well as a marine engineer, amongst many other things. As you imply, writings from experience of craftsmanship are perhaps worth somewhat more than, say, the heated romantic novels of a failed actress.
But enough Ayn-bashing as we should not goad her fan.
Lataxe, a book addict.
But isn't the "rational" part of "rational self-interest" exactly the problem? People are rarely rational, even when they think they're being rational. So instead of prosperity through rational self-interest, we have the tragedy of the commons: people invariably and severely underestimate the degree to which they impose on the rest of society.
And no matter what the game, a significant fraction of the players will try to circumvent the rules, for personal gain. Is such behavior "rational?" Why or why not? How do you quantify it?
-Steve
The problem is all that droning woffle; not to mention her utterly shallow understanding of the world at large and of human nature, with its untidy relationships and complexity. It leads her to the idea that the whole world is wrong, full of second raters and not really fit for her heroes. She is very black & white and looks for no explanation of how the world is as it is other than there are some second-raters conspiring to be lazy and collectivist.
An excellent and concise summary. Yours is much more colorful and specific,but mine would be more brief:
sophomoric
Lataxe, what does Sennett say about the 'craft' of using AutoCAD?
After all, using AutoCAD to its full potential isn't as easy to learn as falling off a log.
As far as I can make out AutoCAD is just a tool like any other. Slainte.richardjonesfurniture.com
I haven't been able to locate a copy of The Craftsman locally. I can get one through interlibrary loan, but given that I will soon be embarking on a long trip to Peru, it will have to wait until I get back.
Is being a craftsman a "digital" yes/no thing? No. But it is sort of an exponential thing: there isn't an absolutely sharp threshold, but there is a compounding effect that gives the appearance of something like a threshold.
So what fraction of the population exhibits craftsmanship (or the equivalent in whatever kind of work they do--a janitor can exhibit the same kind of approach to his or her work that a cabinetmaker would, although "craftsmanship" is perhaps not the best word in that case)? I would estimate that the percentage is quite low, maybe 2-3%. And the percentage of people who are capable of exhibiting craftsmanship, but don't, whether because of circumstance or whatever, is probably not more than tenfold greater. So still less than half the population.
One thing that separates woodworking and other "craft" from typical occupations is that in most occupations, you can get away without exhibiting craftsmanship in your work. Even such craft-like occupations as engineering, architecture, medicine, etc. contain many practitioners who do not follow a craftsman-like approach to their work. A standalone woodworker, on the other hand, is unlikely to be able to make a living without practicing a high level of craftsmanship.
Toshio Odate, in the last (perhaps final?) issue of Woodwork, tells the story of having a second-story floor installed in his workshop, and discovering that not only did some of the floorboard nails miss their joists, but most of them did. These are the kinds of things I see every day that demonstrate to me the lack of craftsmanship that abounds in our world. Most people not only do not care about the level of craftsmanship in their work, they don't even understand why anyone else would care, either. They don't "get it," and that's why they will never be craftsmen.
And while craftsmanship is something that is learned, I don't think that it's something that can be taught. That is, the motivation to be a good craftsman, the attention to detail, the understanding of what craftsmanship really is, all come from within. A craftsman is a craftsman not because he is required to be, but because he wants to be.
-Steve
Edited 6/25/2009 9:45 am ET by saschafer
Steve,
You make many interesting (and some controversial) points. I think we need a new thread to consider just how alive or dead craftsmanship is today (as well as what it is). I suppose I'd like to take issue with your proposal that: "....while craftsmanship is something that is learned, I don't think that it's something that can be taught".
Meanwhile, should you care to email me your physical address, I will send you a spare copy of the Sennett book as I discover I have had an Amazon ordering-paroxym and so have two copies. When you are in Peru, you can send me an exotic T-shirt in return. I have a collection of exotic South American T-shirts as the sister-in-law often does a stint in various embassies as a visa control hofficer.
Lataxe
Regarding the death of craftsmanship: I don't mean to imply that there's less craftsmanship today than there was a long time ago. Rather, I don't think there was ever that much craftsmanship.
I will take you up on your book/shirt exchange.
-Steve
Steve,
Then I'd like to hear your definition of craftsman(ship). Perhaps after your trip.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
You are doing an Ayn Rand - dismissing 99.99999% of human abilities as somehow second rate and therefore of no value because they don't measure up to some high ideal.
That's a stupendous misinterpretation of Rand:
"The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself. Productive work is the road of man’s unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. “Productive work” does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind."
Edited 6/22/2009 4:56 pm ET by Plancher_Fasciitis
"Dave may also be depriving himself of some of that repetative experience of adversity and its overcomming that is a fundamental part of what makes a craftsman."
This is the old "apprenticeship makes a good craftsman" argument. For some people, it's undoubtedly true. After all, apprenticeship is largely just practice, practice, practice, and we all know that practice is an important part of craftsmanship.
But for every successful craftsman who went through a traditional apprenticeship, there are several who did not, and there is no way to tell from the work which is which. And, once in a while, you come across a "natural," someone who effortlessly creates remarkable works, having had to invest little or no time at all in refining his craft.
Tools save drudgery, and in doing so, they offer flexibility: If I could mock up a model in a few minutes, rather than an hour or more, I'd be able to explore a greater variety of possibilities. Time is the enemy, and the greatest benefit of tools like CAD is that they allow for that kind of exploration.
Many years ago, I designed a rather elaborate piece of plumbing (for servicing a satellite). There were hard requirements concerning the overall size of the equipment, so I had to cram everything into a small space, and all of the parts were sort of folded in on top of each other. It was a mix of off-the-shelf parts and custom welded work, and it was laid out entirely via pencil and paper. I don't recall how many design iterations I went through, but it wasn't too many, maybe three or so. There just wasn't enough time for more (not that I'd have the patience to do many more, anyway).
During the actual fabrication, there were some conflicts, parts that interfered with each other. These required some creative (and expensive) on-the-fly redesign.
Had I had access to modern 3D solids modeling software, I would both have been more likely to find the conflicts before fabrication began, and also have had more time to play with the design to improve the routing and configuration of the pipework (I was never really satisfied with what I came up with). And had I had access to a 3D printer (see Asa Christiana's recent blog post about furniture design if you don't know what that is), I'd have been able to create a relatively low cost prototype to "prove" the design before committing to stainless steel.
But, perhaps most importantly, I think I can say with some conviction that the end product would certainly not have been any worse than what was actually built.
-Steve
Lataxe:
Sennett's argument about the means affecting the end is very similar to Edward Tufte's arguments about MS PowerPoint.
Clearly, the choice of any particular tool will, to a greater or lesser extent, have some influence on the creative process. Whether that is detrimental or not would be a function of the particular tool used. In any event, it would seem that it would be a very subjective area.
If you're enjoying the process and you like the end result, regardless of how you get there, then it's probably working OK. Others' mileage might vary.
H
Hastings,
Whether that is detrimental or not would be a function of the particular tool used.
I've seen some highly skilled work done with what was available in ones woodshop. Carving comes to mind where a user used a flat chisel where a gouge would have been the preferred tool as an example.
I also think a skilled person can make tools do things that might not be the tools intended function. Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Thank you for bringing this book to my attention.
If you haven’t already read it The Old Way of Seeing: How Architecture Lost Its Magic - And How to Get It Back by Jonathan Hale ISBN-10: 039574010X is another interesting view. Lie-Nielsen Toolworks has recently issued a DVD Unlocking the Secrets of Traditional Design by George Walker. I just viewed the DVD this week and among other gems he has an interesting little segment where he designs a chest with one half in a classical style and the other half as a studio piece.
Wallace Nutting made the statement, or something like it, that there was no furniture built after 1830 worth looking at. 1830 was the beginning of the machine age and according to Nutting it has all been downhill since then. I don’t totally agree with that statement but I think he is correct that the beginning of the machine age has had a significant impact on furniture design and not always for the better.
One of the other wood related forums had a discussion about CAD and one member made the statement that his sister (or sister-in-law), who was an architect, could tell which houses on a street were designed using AutoCAD just by looking at them. I certainly couldn’t but I believe someone which some professional knowledge could be fairly accurate in their assessment. Using a machine to design buildings and furniture are like the early days of MAC based computer advertising. There was a depressing sameness to the output which was driven by the limited capabilities of the early programs.
I first learned mechanical drawing in the 1960’s while taking my first engineering courses and I eventually learned AutoCAD. My use and knowledge of AutoCAD is very limited as I only used it at work for a few special layout problems. I have since retired and have begun to learn how to build period furniture. I have found that full scale drawings are very useful as I can take measurements directly from the print. I can visualize and make small changes with an eraser easier then with a CAD program. The biggest problem I have is without access to large format printing I would have to send the CAD drawing out to be printed at additional time and expense or make due with a scaled printout which defeats a main purpose.
I eventually would like to design and build a piece in the Art Nouveau style and I can’t imagine who anyone who only basic knowledge of CAD would even think of attempting a CAD drawing.
Ron,
And thank you for those references to further reading on this fascinating subject. I confess to being between projects at the moment, with many other interesting thangs competing for attention. As well as a new attempt to learn classical guitar and a new attempt to take up archery, there is the refining of one's slowly rotting body, in an attempt to push-off the dreadful consequences of age. :-)
So, I have been resting atween these demanding activities with books, on the pink settee (shared with the cat). A re-read of Krenov (rambling romatic) and a first read of David Pye (organised, good definitions but limited scope) led to Richard Sennett (I've yet to form a judgement on him). Your references have gone on my list. Where's that magic Alice-in-Wonderland drug that slows down time!?
*****
Your mention of the architect who can differentiate CAD from non-CAD designs in buildings is illuminating. I find these days I do something similar with furniture, although it tends to be more like spotting the effects of tool-use and the informing design traditions rather than the effects of CAD. However, I do now begin to harbour suspicions concerning the possibly CAD-affected "wood-engineering" look that seems so prevalent in studio or contemporary styles of many current "designer-makers".
***
Perhaps CAD is like any other tool in that it needs craftsman to understand and surmount it's difficulties or limitations. Once this is done the CAD ceases to drive the craftsman and becomes just another means to him or her realising or developing her intent? But, as with the more mechanical tools, it does seem that it is very easy to let the tool drive you and your choices about how to make the workpiece.
Sennett is suggesting that becoming a craftsman is a career, with an ever-more complex set of tasks, tools, designs and skills gradually developing. This process is, he suggests, evolutionary - requires the refining of the craftsman's abilities via many mistakes, dead-ends and just a few successes (the path forward). There is no sky-hook to lift a would-be craftsman past the early stages of this evolution. Perhaps CAD appears as such a sky-hook into design skills; but in fact it may be more like a space suit - enabling one to survive in an alien environment but also cutting one off from ever truly experiencing that environment. (For "environment" read "craft").
***
Some lads carp agin' the motorised tools for this reason. To them it seems a barrier between the material (wood) and the craftsman. But perhaps the solution is not really to put the tool aside but rather to use it extensively until it's opportunities and limitations have been grasped and tamed? After all, many handtools impose their own particular limitations but also offer new opportunities (compared to their cruder forebears). Few folk suggest we put them aside in favour of the stone axe or our teeth.
Lataxe, rambling on and on.
Lataxe, I work with CAD quite a bit. I've been involved in it on and off since it's infancy. So, I have a pretty good understanding of it's strengths and weaknesses.
I can't imagine a situation of doing cabinetry out of sheets goods with out cad, and some type of sheet lay out and optimization software.
I use it a lot at work, and for detailing out buildings and civil engineering it is invaluable, allowing me to be far more efficient and accurate, than I could ever be doing hand drafting. It lets me check to be sure that the components will all fit together, and the plumbing isn't running through the hvac ducts, and that the electrical cabinets have the required clearances, etc.
But for furniture, and other things where clean flowing curves are required, I find myself dropping back to my french curves, and "ten sheet". And, I consider the drawing to be just a guide when I get done with it. Something to help me get a materials list together, and start my layout from.
Frequently the final product tends to drift away from the drawing.
Lataxe..
I have Cad ( I use Punch? ) But I use just to sketch out my problem areas.. As I have said before, I go while cutting to make my 'stuff'.. But I need some 'image' in my mind I want before I start any project. I use the CAD for the image.. NOT for the exact sizes of the finished 'sticks' I end up with..
I'm sure I'll catch some flack for saying this, but here goes ....
CAD is the pencil and paper of this day and age. It is no different learning to use a CAD program then it is to learn how to draw with more traditional instruments. Think about it .... How good do you think Rembrandt, Van Gogh, or Da Vinci were when they were learning? As with any "new" tool, there will will always be nay-sayers. Just like when I was growing up, calculators were just beginning to be excepted as a main stream work tool over the slide rule. Today, very few students get through their day without doing their math via a calculator.
For me, I think it was important to learn the "Old Fashioned Way" before moving on to something more modern. It has given me the skills to do a better job with the modern tool.
B,
Perhaps I gave a wrong impression of Sennett's use of CAD as an example of a tool that may separate the craftsman from his work. As many (including you) have pointed out in this thread, CAD is a tool that may be surmounted by the user (as with many other complex tools) and used to help fulfill his or her intent.
Sennett would agree completely but merely suggests that CAD (because of it's seductive automation processes) may also be used to "excuse" its user from getting hands or mind dirty with the fundamentals (of designing in this case). It can form its own "intent" which the user then goes along with.
To some CAD appears to be a short cut to enabling sophisticated design but Sennett suggests that a better route is to start with fundamentals and to understand the many wrongs of bad design (by trying them slowly with cruder tools) to enable the rights of good design to be more fully grasped.
As you yourself suggests, once those fundamentals have been better understood, CAD might well be picked up and used effectively to do away with the drudge work that was previously valuable to the apprentice designer as part of the learning process.
In short, CAD seems to provide a quick route to "designer" status but in fact may prevent it's impatient user from achieving that status. But as a great tool for already educated designers, it is undeniably versatile and even offers new opportunities in design.
Lataxe
You're funny! How can one even imply "intent" in software. A program is human driven. It is driven by the programmer ... the operator ... the machine builder ... and so on, all the way to the guy that dug the sand for the chip. We are not to the point of having AI in every home. Intelligence IS what drives intent. Intent also requires that little thing called "Free Will." Without free will, there is NO intent. I think you should lay off the long hair philosophy, put down the bong filed with sawdust and go see a shrink to discuss your grandiose self image with narcissistic tendencies. You're one of those people that thinks because you've read a few books, that makes you an expert on the subject. You may be eloquent in your speech, but you have not grasped the concepts presented to you well enough to make so bold a statement as you have tried to do here. I have to wonder what YOUR "intent" was is starting this thread. Because you are not having a discussion with the other responders, so much as searching for fault in their responses..... The "Craftsman" builds / creates what is designed by either him/her self or others. The Craftsman is the one who has to figure out how to build even a poor design in such a way that it both works and fills the need it was intended for. Weather that need if form, function, art, or a combination of those needs.
The Craftsman is the one who has to figure out how to build even a poor design in such a way that it both works and fills the need it was intended for.
Maybe I'm not reading that right - it suggests to me that the craftsman may in fact change the design. Is that right?
I was all wet earlier today - went fishing.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Come on now . . . Pull in the whole quote:".... The "Craftsman" builds / creates what is designed by either him/her self or others. The Craftsman is the one who has to figure out how to build even a poor design in such a way that it both works and fills the need it was intended for. Weather that need if form, function, art, or a combination of those needs."You tell me .... If the design calls for a simple butt joint on the corner of a cabinet door . . . . Would a "Craftsman" not make the joint strong enough to last? Add a floating tenon? Add at least a couple of dowels? Or just glue it up and hope for the best?
I wasn't criticizing your post but was not fully understanding what you said.
Perhaps I should quantify my perspective on design, as it relates to woodworking. I see design more as a look/feel as opposed to its actual construction, i.e. design and construction are two seperate processes.
My point is the construction should in no way change the original design. To me an attribute of good craftsmanship is the ability to construct a design accurately.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"My point is the construction should in no way change the original design. To me an attribute of good craftsmanship is the ability to construct a design accurately."
That assumes that the design is "complete" in some sense, which most often is not the case.
I don't think design and fabrication can be separated so easily. In a high-production environment, or when using a long-standing design that has been revised and perfected over a period of time, perhaps, but otherwise, the design rarely embodies enough of the designer's intent that the craftsman can fabricate from it without at least some "reading between the lines."
-Steve
That is what I was saying, they are two different steps. And sometimes the design step falls short in some way when it comes time to build. So the question becomes, not weather or not the shortcoming should be fixed, but how to go about it. Designers don't always have the benefit of the hands on side of things. It is a collaboration of the two steps. For me, furniture needs to be a balance between form and function. What is the point of building a fancy chair if it won't hold the weight of a person? Or a bookshelf that won't support the books it has the room to hold?
"Designers don't always have the benefit of the hands on side of things."
Which is a failure of "craftsmanship" on the part of the designer. It's easy to design if you don't have to worry about how to build the thing. The designer who works in a craftsmanlike fashion makes an effort to ensure that the design is buildable.
-Steve
Beckum,
Aieeee! I seem to have squeezed your sensitive part. That collar looks hot!
Note the quotation marks around the "intent" that I asign to the CAD. This signifies that it is not a true intent but something that might well have a similar effect. That is, the design of the software tends to result in a set of outputs of this kind rather than that.
Are you saying that software is completely neutral with results entirely decided by the operator? At the very least, the predelictions of the software writer will manifest. And CAD software may not be AI but it's whole design-paradigm is to produce complexity from the interconnection and inter-operation of simple rules. Is the user always aware of, never mine in control of, the internal machinations and inbuilt bias of the program? If you knew software you'd know the answer is: definitely not!
*****
Free will - a droll concept but somewhat suspect. Free from what? One forms an intent out of many preconditions - genes, culture, current mood.....1001 other factors not usually in the control of the person forming the intent. Still, kid yerself on if you like. Personaly I think of myself as a biological machine - no ghost or metaphysical homunculus somewhere in there, outside of time and space but somehow pulling the body-levers to animate it.
****
My intent in starting the discussion? Well.... to have a discussion. This is the activity where a group of folk (as you put it) "search for fault in their responses" to each other to attempt a better understanding than they had when they began. Call it dialectic or whatever you prefer. What is your idea of a discussion? A group of folk who all agree with everything you say?
Which, incidentally, I mostly did with your post! Cuh - sensitive wee egos!
Lataxe, polishing his grandiose self-image.
PS My understanding of CAD and it's uses has greatly improved since post 1. Even you have changed my grasp of the stuff a little. Aren't you pleased for me? :->
"At the very least, the predelictions of the software writer will manifest."
This goes back to what I was saying before about the dovetail jigs. The more versatile and flexible the tool, the greater variety of work that can be produced, and the less the limitations of the tool affect the finished product. So it is with CAD. The most powerful CAD systems get in the way of the designer's intent the least.
Tool design is always a compromise. SketchUp, as an example of CAD, is extraordinarily simple to use, compared to most other similar software. Its designers managed to do a very good job of tackling the difficult problem of how to express three-dimensional intent using two-dimensional input devices. But it has its own limitations as well: Forms that are curvilinear (but not conic sections) are usually represented in CAD as Bézier or bicubic surfaces, which SketchUp doesn't support directly (although there are some plug-ins that help). So SketchUp is not the ideal tool for modeling a Maloof rocker, for example (see Tim Killen's blog post).
-Steve
Beckum writes, "CAD is the pencil and paper of this day and age. It is no different learning to use a CAD program then it is to learn how to draw with more traditional instruments. Think about it .... How good do you think Rembrandt, Van Gogh, or Da Vinci were when they were learning? As with any "new" tool, there will will always be nay-sayers. Just like when I was growing up, calculators were just beginning to be excepted as a main stream work tool over the slide rule. Today, very few students get through their day without doing their math via a calculator...."
Development of a design is just one part of the actual production of a piece. The process of that development can create a mindset or even parameters for the final production. The US Mint stands as an excellent example of this. There's a good NPR story about the Mint engravers and the switch to CAD for coin design at:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103013029
After the story are you impressed? I was. Then I reached into my pocket and pulled out a new quarter, the end result of their CAD efforts. I'm completely underwhelmed. Give me the quality of the old Walking Liberty half dollar any day.
View Image
"Then I reached into my pocket and pulled out a new quarter, the end result of their CAD efforts. I'm completely underwhelmed."
How do you know that you're not mistaking "different" for "inferior"? After all, artistic sensibilities have changed quite a lot in the last 75 years.
And how do you know that any differences that you see are due to the use of CAD, as opposed to some other reason (e.g., budget or time pressures)?
-Steve
Different from inferior? They, themselves, call it sculpture. Sculpture is supposed to have a three dimensional quality. The cheapest play money I've ever seen had deeper impressions than our new coins. Once the die is produced, what's the cost savings? The deeper the relief, the longer the die will last because a deep relief can still hold detail with small amounts of collapse. We used to rent shop space from a small private mint and I was exposed to quite a bit of their work over the years we were there. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the process.At least we agree on one thing, the net result of retooling the US Mint's engraving department for CAD engraving was less than positive.
I disagree that CAD kills craftmanship. In my opinion CAD improves craftmanship because it accurately portrays a drawing to scale much better than pencil and paper. In which case you get a better understanding of how the parts fit together before you build it. I have drawn many projects by hand which turned out like junk, until i used CAD. It may take some time to fully understand how to use it, but a little patience is all you need to make some really nice things.
I learned AutoCad back in 2002 and found it fascinating. Undoubtedly valuble and a quantum leap in drawing for civil engineers and machinists etc. where precision plans can be drawn quickly with amazing accuracy. Dimensions are automatic. 3D views can be generated with the click of a mouse. In short, it was a revelation initially. I drew plans for built in cabinets easily and quickly. The lines were all vertical or horizontal as the cabinets were very straight forward except for the veneering I added. Later, I learned sketch-up from google because of it's simplicity with the idea that I could create furniture designs easily. After several completed drawings, I realized something was missing for me.
I'm now back to graph paper, pencil and colored markers. It has something to do with the creative process I can't quite explain. The drawing is almost as important as the piece I make and the process of drawing on paper much more satisfying than any CAD program. My design is much more creative than anything I ever did with CAD. The time I take to draw is something I look forward to as part of the project as opposed to something I need to do so that I can generate a plan. I wish I could explain it better. Thanks for your post.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled