Replies

1. 
   woonquaker | Mar 15, 2006 09:53pm | #1

   I chose Shaker as my preference but it was a toss up with Arts & Crafts. Both are representative of the "everyman" woodworker in their straightforwardness, clean lines and rural simplicity. Both styles are approachable by the entire spectrum of woodworking abilities. The beginner can find challange w/o being overwhelmed with a  simple foot stool or table while highly skilled and knowledgable  woodworkers can be challenged by projects that require their abilities and have it showcase their skills.

1. 
   Ecbntmkr | Mar 15, 2006 11:32pm | #2

   Holy font Batman! lol"When it comes time to die, make sure all you have to do is die." -Jim Elliot

1. 
   Newlimey | Mar 16, 2006 02:34am | #3

   Hi-A Limey here!  I felt very much the same response, choosing Shaker for its simplicity, but starting by admiring Arts & Crafts - which I now feel is too heavy. Also, Shaker suits pine - easy for me to get hold of! (I've actually spent last year making garden projects in my spare time with pressure treated lumber; good job, as I bought two too many tools for my converted single car garage!) Those projects seemed to design themselves as I went along; very odd! - Quite influenced by Norm and also This Old House, too!

2. 
   pqken | Mar 16, 2006 10:37am | #4

   All depends what I'm making. I'm staying with a natural look on a table I'm finishing up now. Other pieces I've built I've used a Victorian influence, or a simply let the wood speak for itself look...also Shaker influence...Asian or more exact Japanese influence (Asia is a BIG place).

   Bottom line, I'll borrow from anything.

3. 
   jjflamingo | Mar 22, 2006 09:29pm | #5

   i really can get into all styles of furniture as long as i only use my own designs, never have reproduced any piece from any style. all of my pieces are absolutely one of a kind. sadly i have lost some clients because i am so stubborn, but then again it is my shop and my wood ha ha

4. 
   jackplane | Mar 22, 2006 09:33pm | #6

   I prefer what's not listed-

   Art Nouveaux

   But it is rather complex and has compound curves.  I rarely see it in FWW.

    

1. 
   sapwood | Mar 23, 2006 12:05am | #7

   Amazing results, but probably to be expected.There is a lot of talk here on the forum about how individuals wish for their work to endure into the future..... for it to become tomorrow's cherished antiques. But I believe that the work that will be revered is only that of contemporary design. That is, work that is of and about this time. That work uses materials and techniques that are particular to us. It uses designs that are derived from history, but modified to reflect contemporary times.Reproductions done today will be a dime a dozen in tomorrow's antique shops. Nevertheless, that shouldn't stop anyone from doing what one wants. Whatever makes you happy. Personally, I plan to continue making the most of my time and strive for new ideas.

1. 
   Lataxe | Mar 23, 2006 07:17am | #9

   SW,

   You make a good point. 

   Personally I think much of the furniture we all make will pass from the world relatively quickly.  There are a thousand reasons why stuff gets trashed, not least of which is the ever-accelerating change in fashion becaue of modern consumerism.  Modern styles have to be frantically different but they also pass rapidly.  Consumers bin yesterday's fashion in a moment to make room for the new.

   To serve this dynamic market, a lot of contemporary design has more to do with people playing with the medium (wood in our case) than with the fundamentals of utility and beauty. 

   Modern new designs of today may well reflect the times and therefore have more potential interest for the future than repros of already extant styles; but that interest will be historical.  I doubt if much now-modern furniture will be retained by people of the future because they want it in their houses. 

   For example, I look at furniture from the mid-Victorian era or from the 1960s (for example) and think, "Ugh"!  It's best in some sort of museum.  Does anyone produce repros of such stuff now?

   Currently, in Britian there are many very technically proficient makers but their output is more like sculpture than furniture.  Despite all its cleverness or contemporary appeal, much of it looks like a collection of fashion objects, at which we will point and laugh in 30 years time.  Very few contemporary makers are Sam Malloofs or James Krenovs.

5. 
   stantheman | Mar 23, 2006 03:48am | #8

   Thanks for the interesting poll.  I, for one, would like to see more articles on the design characteristics of each of these styles, there construction advantages and innovations, and distinguishing characteristics.  I voted for Shaker, mostly because I can at least recognize it.  But I have two pieces of old furniture for which I need to make accompanying pieces, and I can't figure out to which style period they belong. 

6. 
   WillGeorge | Mar 24, 2006 01:51am | #10

   I just hate these things! But I respond like a old Dog,,

   Asian-inspired contemporary?? What the heck is that?

   I like Asian-inspired 'OLD stuff'! No glue and nice fitting joints!