Replies

1. 
   DonC | Oct 10, 2003 04:40am | #1

   I have read the articles you mention and found that the "Golden Rectangle" applys the most in my designs. Pillar proportions I don't really find all that helpful.

   I also have purchased an excellent book that can be used for all furniture design, not only Peroid Furniture. It is called "How to Design and Construct Period Furniture by Franklin H. Gottshall.

   I own most of his books and those of Lester Margon. These ol' timers really knew how to write. You can find them at your local public library.

   Don

1. 
   DustyTom | Oct 10, 2003 03:18pm | #2

   I don't have any Gottshall books yet, but I do have one of Morgan's. He was a master at drawing furniture. I do agree with the golden rectangle. It is very usefull. Recently I've stumbled into the column proportions. In an article by Mack S. Headley Jr. called "Applying Classical Proportions - A tea table built to 18th-century rules" (reprinted in FWW on Making Period Furniture) he used the proportions to define the details of a cabriole leg: the size of the carvings at the knee and foot as well as corner carving size on the top. He also used the proportions to establish the "poitive and negative" space. It just looks so pleasing that I thought I would explore some more on the internet.

1. 
   DonC | Oct 11, 2003 11:17pm | #3

   I agree.

   By the way, I built the tea table you refer to. Also did a similar one to fit in a corner and it has a triangular drawer that swings out.

   Don

1. 
   Biscardi | Oct 12, 2003 03:30pm | #4

   Pillar proportions are the key to everything. Pull out Chippendale's Director. All the moldings and different components of the pieces are multiples of "modules" derived from columns. It isn't at all apparent that that is the case when you first look at it, but nevertheless it is. Break the rules and it looks poodoo.

   On a more mundane level, I usually dig through some of my furniture books to find a piece similar to what I want to make and just use the proportions from that.

   Frank

1. 
   jazzdogg | Oct 15, 2003 05:55am | #5

   Biscardi,

   "Pull out Chippendale's Director"

   Do you also like the work of Thomas Affleck (Philadelphia. Died in 1795) ?

   Just wondering,PaulWhether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.

2. 
   4DThinker | Oct 16, 2003 11:47pm | #6

   Pillar proportions, the golden ratio, the square root of two, the Fibonacci (sp?) series, and several other strategies I often apply in my own designs.  Classic pillars have useful proportions, but does anyone know what THEY were based on?

   I ran a little test once, to see what height to width ratio for a chest of drawers would appeal to the largest percentage of people.  I made two chests.  One was 30" wide and 48.5" tall (golden ratio).  The other was 48.5" tall but 34.3" wide (sq.rt of 2).

   The drawers for each were progressively sized, with the largest at the bottom. Each had four drawers, but the each was proportionally smaller than the one below it. The progression was either a golden ratio progression or a sq.rt. of 2 progression, depending on the chest.  All detail, colors, and materials were the same.

   While the sq.rt.of 2 chest yeilded a more useable series of drawers, the golden ratio chest was preferred by 78% of the (mostly design students) that compared them side-by-side.

   4DThinker

3. 
   Biscardi | Oct 17, 2003 12:22am | #7

   It is all very interesting. I am always amazed at how bad it looks when someone trying to use a column in a building breaks the rules.

   Sachs book on Early Americal Furniture (AKA Good, Better, Best) shows similar pieces and explains to you why one piece looks better than another. Typically it is an issue of proportions.

   There must be some neuro -cognitive thing in our brains that tells us all- "Yes, that is good. That is less good."

   Frank

4. 
   jazzdogg | Oct 17, 2003 07:55pm | #8

   4DThinker,

   "Classic pillars have useful proportions, but does anyone know what THEY were based on?"

   My college design instructor gave us an interesting handout that discusses the proportioning of classical columns as well as the design of the Parthenon.

   They have to do with the difference between the way we percieve objects when looking straight on at a tidy little drawing, versus the way we perceive them based on our relative heights, and the resultant angles at which we view them from our positions "on the sidewalk."

   Columns built exactly as drawn tend to look oddly distorted when viewed looking up at them from the sidewalk.

   His handout also showed how the Parthenon had to be built with subtle curves, instead of straight lines, so the lines would appear to be nice and straight when viewed by humans "from the sidewalk."

   Here's a book you might enjoy: "On Growth and Form" Cambridge University Press 1961, by D'Arcy Thompson. The author discusses the mathematical analysis of biological growth patterns in nature.

   Have fun,PaulWhether you think you can, or you think you can't, you're right.

5. 
   4DThinker | Oct 17, 2003 09:56pm | #9

   Thanks for the book tip, Paul.

   Design based on the expected point-of-view is something I teach my students in many subjects.   When we are drawing perspectives of a view, the "setup" of the perspective can change the outcome, and some outcomes are better for viewing at different distances.  So I teach the students how to anticipate the distance their drawing will be viewed at, and tweak it for the strongest presentation and least amount of distortion at that distance.  When I teach processes for coming up with an attractive furniture design, I have to insist that the student sketch in 3D(perspectives), and try to create images of their design idea as it would be viewed in use.  Often a design extruded from a side or front view ends up appearing oddly distorted once built and viewed from a human's perspective.

   Then again, many of the most original and surprising pieces I see have evolved from nothing more than a poor scratching of lines on a napkin.  And I never know if the student is as surprised as I am, or if they knew all along what the thing would look like.  I suspect they knew, but many aren't yet well connected between mind and sketching hand.

   4DThinker