While at North Bennet Street School I learned fine furniture in general is defined by five key characteristics that need to be properly executed. Failure in any one of these characteristics could eliminate a piece from being considered fine furniture.
In my words they are:
1. A Hardcopy Plan: The design is well thought out balancing form and function. This can include traditional, contemporary, or custom designs.
2. Thoughtful Material Selection: High-quality, materials are selected having premium grain, and color, and often include rare, exotic or figure woods in to express the designer’s vision.
3. Craftsmanship: The construction involves meticulous attention to detail, proper milling, accommodations for seasonal movement, and well executed and proper joinery techniques to ensure durability for generations. Thoughtful hardware selection and installation is included here.
4. Finish Preparation: The wood surfaces are properly readied for finishing to look their best and for finish to adhere properly.
5. Finish: The finish is carefully selected and applied to enhance the natural beauty of the wood; protect the wood from dirt, chemicals and grime; and reduce movement of moisture. Often hand-applied techniques are used.
Replies
Since I haven't used plans other then crude line drawings with dimensions, I guess I've never made fine furniture.
I was today years old when....
I am with you!
I would argue a sketch could constitute a sufficient plan. After second thought, I’d remove the term hard copy.
Rex, I have to assume this is in response to STL320.
I like this list a lot, but there are certainly pieces I can think of that this list would eliminate that warrant being called 'fine'. Anything by Garrett Hack comes to mind.
You know I LOVE NBSS, but this feels more like a curriculum than a real-world definition—at least in its rigid presentation.
Ben, I bow to your breadth of observations and experience working with many highly successful and qualified pros. My list isn’t meant to be rules, but are only guidelines and are not imply full scale drawings.
You are correct, it is curriculum based and my wording could be better. Good discussion, but help me understand why it would rule out Garrett Hack’s work? Could it be the artistic creative design element? I’ll be the first to admit NBSS does not emphasize creative design in its curriculum to the extent RISDI, Krevnov, or Center for Furniture Craftsmanship does. NBSS leaves that design topics exploration to each student.
FYI, just finished reviewing Garrett Hack’s article re: Developing a Design Style in FW Issue 194, will review his Hunt Table Design discussion in Issue 187, going to Garrett Hack’s Design Webinar, and am scheduled to begin working on Pekovitch’s Furniture Design for Woodworker’s Workshop in a few days. Hopefully, I can get my arms around the creative design topic.
FWIIW, I am inclined to agree with all but the first point, but accept that at least in the school setting, there is value not only in making something beautiful, but making what you intended to make.
Intention runs through all of fine craftsmanship regardless of the discipline. It is one thing to make a beautiful box, but if you intended to make a sideboard and the box happened due to milling errors, it's not quite the same. Still a fine box no doubt, but unintended.
You make a valid point. I would hope with some design, thought throughout, and quality craftsmanship most pieces would successfully be executed. I concur, if not the materials could be repurposed into a fine piece.
This has spurned on so many great talking point.
I'm pretty sure I extrapolated your first point into a NBSS style full-scale drawing. You didn't say that. Apoligies.
As far as I know, Garrett has a tendency to design while building. I've heard many of his innovations have come from possibly building himself into a corner and needing to work his way out of it. A skill I've only half figured out (I'm great at building myself into a corner at least).
Ben, just completed watching and taking notes on Garratt Hack’s Design Workshop. Very good material. I hope FWW includes more NH and other known furniture master’s workshops on design. Best wishes.
Glad im not the only one having a crisis over these rules.
I understand, its a tough topic, but what steps would you suggest a crafts person take in making fine furniture?
Well I'm definietly no expert. a mere noob. a rookie. If i was lucky enough to have one of the fine experts and masters here guiding me then an apprentice.
But my 2 cents is fine woodworking is art. and art knows no bounds.
So to have 5 requirments to classify "Fine" woodworking seems inherently flawed.
I think as long as its someones passion and they are doing things to the best of their respective abilites, taking their time, paying attention to detail, and infusing their passion into their work then thats what id call "Fine".
I’m no expert either, nor am I a master craftsperson.
STL Episode 320 was an excellent discussion, I was surprised the staff courageously covered this topic, and I was left wanting more from a vocational and applied perspective.
From an art perspective and even from a design perspective I concur with your points. Additionally, I would argue that design is not rigid but continues as the build progresses. These initial 5 statements are guidelines and should be should be considered fluid.
"Fine Furniture" is a descriptive term of the end product. This is not to be confused with or conflated with the process of building the piece.
You can follow all the steps in the OP's post and not wind up with fine furniture at all. There are far too many subjective terms in that list to make any sense at all. High quality materials, meticulous attention, properly readied, carefully selected, all of this is totally subjective to the individuals taste and/or skill level.
Anything can be considered "fine furniture" just as most anything can be considered art.
It's basically a silly argument without some type of guidelines.
Fair enough. Please provide a few descriptive guidelines to help a maker along the path to creating fine furniture.
I think 3 & 4 are a must, but the rest are optional. I argue that 2&5 are obviated with the introduction of paint. Fine furniture has been painted for millennia. I recently just discovered the stunning results that milk paint can provide.
Good points. Paint was not intended to be left out.
Listen to STL 320 with Ben, Vic, and Amanda...they have some interesting takes.
Also, consider reading David Pye's "The Nature and Art of Craftmanship" -- 1968
He outlines the 3 attributes that anchor quality work...which may result in the creation of fine furniture:
1. Intention, vision, decision: clearly articulating what it is that is to be made.
2. Dexterity: the quality of skills brought to the task of creation
3. Commitment to detail: to have the patience, time, and devoting care to achieving the piece in way that achieves the quality of the result desired.
STL's final takeaway arrived at one important word that undergirds much of what permits fine furniture making--"consideration".... that is, taking care to consider all the options before each step in the journey toward a "fine piece" and then executing that step as best one can.
Thoughts?
Good points. What steps would you emphasis a budding woodworker pursue to build fine furniture?
A secondary thought... by this set of rules could one determine if something was fine if it was say "found on the street" or left alone in a gallery with no card on the wall. No marks, No maker information at all. Not even a date. Could examination and inspection alone determine it's status?
Whether a piece is considered "fine" may be decided by the beholder....and not the maker.
When I look at a piece (mine or someone else's) I find myself looking through the lens of a wood worker. If the piece happens to have the characteristics outlined by NBSS then I would say the piece was "well made"...but not fine.
To me, a piece merits the label "fine" when it evokes an subjective emotion....or....an idea in my mind. "Lightness, strength, joy, warmth, simplicity, " are only few emotions that the piece might provoke.
The pieces by Krenov, Nakashima, and Carl Malmstem, I think, can be considered fine, because they evoke, in us, the observers, something more than just their quality of workmanship.
“[Deleted]”
Thanks, these are good points. It seems these are discussion items for design and I completely left that out, but can buy this argument.
I am a designer and, of course, I think the design/creative aspect plays a large part in the "success" of the piece.
I have to disagree with your comment "Whether a piece is considered "fine" may be decided by the beholder....and not the maker." Yes, the beholder should consider it fine but the maker certainly should as well.
In my work, I am the designer as well as the builder, and I strive to create a piece that I love unconditionally.
I concur. There are pieces I’ve made that just didn’t work and ended up in the burn pile.
Why burn?
I find setting them aside and picking a time to learn to fix it whatever it takes can be a very beneficial practice.
It forces you to learn new techiniques and think outside the box which will only make you a better woodworker.
I always finish my pieces. Even if i hate them. Even if I don't fix them to the best of my abilities.
They are constant reminders for me of mistakes that I've learned from.
I also look at them and can see just how far I've come in such a short time, which makes me happy and makes me feel fulfilled despite that particular failure. Or is it a failure at all at that point?
I vote you finish the next one and keep it around. A burn pit is a sad place for anything, and your work deserves more than that, no matter how bad it is or isn't.
I wish I could do that. All my work contains so many flaws, I stuggle to “love” any of my pieces
Great! Enjoying your work is the most important.
I would hope “fine” could still be determined regardless of setting.
I doubt paper large enough to do a full-size plan of even the NBSS tool chest was readily available to Phyfe, Hepplewhite, or Chippendale.
To judge whether a piece is "fine" based on the teaching style at a modern school is ridiculous.
Acceptable. How would you suggest judging a piece is fine?
I dont think we should be judging if a peice is fine or not.
Why cant we judge it as a peice.
If the maker says its fine then its fine.
It can be low quality, it can be terrible even.
Why cant i bring my work to be judged somewhere? its "fine" to me. its the best i can do. i gave it everything i have.
Its certainly "Fine" work to me and likely to EVERYONE of my skill and xp level.
However mj here would likely see it as very flawed and overall bad in most ways.
The quality is up for judgment on many metrics.
As I think about this more, your observation is accurate and it encourages me to abandon the word altogether. When images of "fine furniture" come to mind it often are period pieces --Federal, Chippendale, Versailles, etc. Shaker style pieces don't come to mind to others, yet they were truly wonderful pieces,crafted with great care.... in fact, it is that style I now concentrate on when making furniture....may be it is my Maine heritage talking.
Perhaps it IS time to abandon the word.....
Bentusi, I agree with you that the inclination to make pronouncements of what's "FINE" would devalue most work (the majority of mine at least) which is "just fine". If you want your work judged seek out competitions and try to win a ribbon.
I disagree that I would find fault with your work. I have the first piece of furniture I ever made and it still lights me up, warts, dowels, and sticky drawers included. My just fine work fills my home and impresses visitors.
My work will be judged when I'm gone. The pieces that might one day be considered FINE by others will be argued over by my family as it picks over my carcass, and others will be sold for less than the lumber cost at the estate sale.
I think I know which are my best pieces, and each was made with the intent that it be good. I think starting a project with the thought that it must be FINE is a good way to spoil an enjoyable weekend in the shop.
For me, "fine" implies that the piece went beyond mere utility (not that there's anything wrong with that). How it went beyond depends on the maker's goal: highlight the beauty of the wood, create pleasing angles, surfaces and features, add illustrative elements like carving or stringing, and so on. For me, all of that implies intentionality: the maker has taken what nature gave and shaped and finished it to create a look.
I'm also a musician, and the NBSS definition sounds like what a classical musician might say. But jazz and many other genres can also achieve fine art status in the right hands.
well said
Good points.
I played drums and my high school jazz teacher for 3 years let us do what we felt.
we abondoned sheet music completly. we used our personal influences and made amazing music. we won state comps every year with unique and very unconventional "jazz" with a heavy influence from metal and rock in the rhythm section.
The judges did not say we werent a jazz band because we were different. They loved our playing. The audiences went freaking wild on our solos (Again not convetional jazz solos, heavily influenced).
My 4th year we got a new jazz teacher.
He wouldnt let me set the drums up my way because it wasent a "jazz" set up. we had to read the sheet music.
We were essentially barred from anything that wasent textbook jazz.
Im sure you can guess that we were a terrible band. never went to state or won anything. I was expelled from the band for not complying. the other drummer and the rest of the rhythm section accepted castration.
Your notes about being a muscian instantly reminded me of this.
Constraining art of ANY kind of art is a massive mistake. Thats why even though i think some of the OPs points may be decent.
The act of constraining a class of art like that is a logic flaw
Rex,
I'm enjoying the way you've got us all thinking about this and continuing the discussion from STL, thank you. And I've enjoyed your interviews on the MWA podcast too.
Thanks. Another MSA interview will be forthcoming in a month or so.
Is there a difference between "well made" and "fine"? Yes there is I would say. Fine implies it is well made, the craftsmanship is good. But also implies a pleasing design for its function, with species and grain well thought out and easy on the eye with appropriate details and scale. Finally fine means it has to work and last the test of time. Will it be around and operating as intended in 20 years? I have more respect for a well made table and chairs that lasts a family 20 or more years than an art piece that sits on a shelf. Of course this is related to craftsmanship. If that is good, it should last. As for judging, craftsmanship we can see with our eyes and feel with our hands. Poor joints, finish issues, etc. Easy to judge. Design is harder. But we all know beauty when we see it right? Subjective. And as for time, let us talk in 20 years and take a look?
Well said. Thanks.
I think the drawings are for working out complicated pieces. I don’t see why a drawing would be required for a table. It would however be useful for designing a chair. Then there are pieces where angled tenons are used or when patterns are needed.
You could have a finely crafted piece of furniture with a plastic looking finish, a maker could have used a wood that turned an ugly color, or the grain patterns used detracted from the overall appearance.
And then of course if the proportions aren’t appealing to a curious eye then that would diminish a piece.
Thanks. All good points. I would also suggest that even with a drawing a maker has the option to add or subtract from the design during a build.
You are spot on that it is the piece that is deemed “fine” or not “fine” and not the process.
The original statement is neither right or wrong, it’s one way to produce fine furniture . My definition of fine furniture comes from a different perspective, I judge from the piece of furniture I am looking at, irrespective of the means taken to get there like having a hard copy drawing to start with. If the piece has the right proportions, is fit for purpose, proper joinery, wood figure, finish and style, it’s fine by my standard.
I think most would agree with you.
Those are rules that apply to people who need order between the ears. Wood is simply a medium to art, and creating anything with wood is an art. Top chefs don’t rely on cookbook recipes any more than top woodworkers rely on these “rules”.
It is a school and you have to teach something ordered but in the real world in most industries, the rules are really guidelines and don’t always apply.
Good wood is expensive and a plan helps to mitigate waste. I guess it depends on how skilled you are.
sjeff70. When my instructors created a plan for a project new to them they only sketched up the portions they needed. Their plan was in no way a formal drawing set. Thus, the word “plan” is meant as a very broad term encompassing from a set of formal drawings to an image in ones head.
I hope as I build more, I can spend less time in the drawing stage, but maybe not.
I’ve been designing for over 35 years and never found the process easy. On the other hand, I’ve had very creative colleagues and partners who could seemingly design great work relatively easy with great success.
I concur with your statement regarding the need teach in an ordered fashion. Creativity was also encouraged. Although period reproductions were acceptable, we were able to thoughtfully push the design boundaries, sometimes successfully and sometimes not so. However shoddy craftsmanship was not acceptable.
We all have certain gifts. If we’re lucky our gifts will match our interests. Of course it helps if we can discover them early in life to reap the greatest benefit.
I like it.
I have thought about this now and then.
And, may be in the vicinity with a few projects.h
At least that is what a few friends have said.
And some have asked me to teach a class.
But I propose a simple two words which clearly and concisely
define "Fine Woodworking"- Chris Becksvoort
That is a distant accomplishment for me but a worthy goal.
Very good. If you have been asked to teach a class, I would wager you have thought of a pointer or two to guide students forward. If you don’t mind, could you share a couple general guidelines?
"Fine art" is a Western cultural construction of a concept, like a thousand other such concepts. It references stuff and activities in the real world but it arbitrarily differentiates "fine" from "not fine" according to long traditions of prominent makers, critics, commentators and a whole Fine Art Establishment that sets the differentiating parameters.
"Fine" mostly has to do with how well the piece accords with various then current fashion preferences along with a maker's ability to accord with those fashions whilst doing so with an amount of skills that reduces the flaws of the making and presenting processes to near nil. It often ignores utility.
From one point of view, "fine" can be a useful ruleset to provide a maker with a set of standards, both in craft but also in art-tastes - AKA fashion :-) If one wishes to be a good manufacturer of fashionable things that will sell for a lot, try for "fine".
But, as with every other extant piece of human artifice and artefact, a thing "is what it is". Personally I prefer to consider this "isness" without applying too many hard&fast judgemental parameters to the consideration. Even a crudely-made and highly unfashionable piece of furniture can have an immense appeal if the observer groks it.
***********
Objective standards for the various craft aspects of making furniture - this is a different matter from "fine" and one in which its worth copying the techniques, aiming to reach a measurable standard of skilled making generally agreed by those craft traditions. I'd rather not call it "fine" as that word introduces the art-fashion aspect with which I find I have little interest per se. I prefer to grok it, whatever it is, rather than apply some art snobs' fashion-rules.
Thanks for your inout. I’m learning a lot.
Hmm...I think I'm getting a headache.
I have had two pieces featured in Fine Woodworking (not full articles, just half-page blurbs). I guess that makes them "fine" by definition? They certainly weren't my best work, I only submitted them because they were something a bit more unusual (not another Shaker chest of drawers) that others might find interesting.
Personally, I get a lot of enjoyment from the entire process of making something out of wood (OK, other than sanding) - deciding what to make, designing it, selecting the materials, constructing it, and then staring at it after it's done, thinking about what I might do differently if I were to redo it. I never really thought about whether it might be considered "fine". Seems pretty silly to me; why not ask if it qualifies as "marvelous" or "awesome"? Perhaps we could create a lengthy list of ranked adjectives, along with guidelines for inclusion in each category (like the grading of coins or stamps), that we could use to assign every piece someone makes. I propose "stupendous" as the highest category, with "fine" only somewhere in the middle.
Congrats on getting a couple of pieces into FW magazine. I believe that is a worthy achievement.
I appreciate your comments.
I like the idea of the"awesome" distinction LOL :)
That's pretty genius. I will incorporate some of this into my paradigm.
Thanks.
Ditto!
Those steps can easily result in anything but fine furniture. That said Chippendale did write The Director so there’s that. Putting it down on paper rarely hurts the effort.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I’m currently studying Krenov’s first three publications. The more I study this subject, I believe the design aspect is much more significant to creating “fine furniture” and that these steps by themselves could miss the mark.
This is above my pay grade. I decide on a project, mostly from photos, sketch it, come up with general dimensions, usually by ratios taken from a coupe of measurements given on photos, then work out the exact dimensions. Then, I decide what I like and don't like about the sketch and make my changes.
My last cellarette incorporated design elements from 3 federal style pieces not related to cellarettes.
It may not be a very formal approach compared to the above, but it works fine for me.
Interesting subject... not.
I never look at a piece of furniture and say "What a FINE piece of work!" I look at it and say... would Sam Maloof like it? Would I like it in my house?
In other words, is it well built?; Does it make the user feel comfortable using it?; Is it designed for a usable living space?; Does it look nice?
My turnings (thin wall turnings and bowls) are not FINE. But they suit me. They exhibit characteristics that resonate with the artistic sensibilities of my training and my soul. But FINE? no. That's how I look at any piece of furniture in a gallery or museum.
I'd just like to point out how you dismissed the question and then proceeded to fully answer it.
I agree with rwh. When studying Krenov, I began to LOOK at the wood I select and have just begun saying "that piece begs to be the top of a coffee table",etc. but will demand a different design.
I also have begun the journey of creating my own stuff....and THAT is where design begins. Hopefully, each future piece will have my "signature" in its design...something that speaks to me and reflect future steps in my skill building. As I craft furniture and give it away to those in need, I have the freedom to go down "roads less traveled" in design without the constraints that commissioned pieces often require.
Is this a form of "fine woodworking"? Design is where it all starts.