Replicating Historic Designs

[sbarton22]

This topic comes from listening to an older episode of Woodtalk...a few months back when they were at a hand tool convention.

They were talking about modern design and how some of it has no historic base. The conversation took a few turns,and was quite interesting. It really got me thinking about why so many folks build projects that are replicas of some older style...Shaker, Greene + Greene, Maloof, etc... as opposed to designing their own thing.

I came up with a few reasons.

First, obviously, is style. I suppose some folks just like it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Next, obviously there is something to be learned by removing the "design eye" and concentrating only on the construction. I have used this learning method many times.

I suppose that there is also a market for it, so that is a nice clear cut reason.

From here, it starts to get blurry for me. I understand that maybe some people might not think they can design something, so they repeat what they have seen. To me, that becomes some sort of exposure issue. The answer to that is simply to spend more time looking at chairs or tables or whatever you are deciding to build.

Maybe it is because there are no plans to guide people through the design process??

As an architect, my training teaches me to analyze, deconstruct and reconstruct the project. What does it mean to be a chair? Why 4 legs? Why not 1? why not 15? What does it feel like to sit on wood? What does it look like? What angle is comfortable? So on and so forth.

I tend to rebuke the answer that "it has all been done before" or "people have been making chairs for thousands of years and they all look like this for a reason." While I ABSOLUTELY do not disagree that both of these statements are very true, that does not answer why people would make a shaker chair.

The other piece of evidence I would propose is that there was a furniture design revolution from the 30's through the 60's. We saw designs that no one had imagined before and it happened for all sorts of different reasons. Yes, chairs were all still chairs. They all still looked like chairs, and they all still served the function of chair. But they did not look like the chairs before them. Their "chairness" somehow came through despite their new forms.

I'd like to hear opinions on if/why people think furniture design has to have some historic base (not necessarily talking about proportion) or why some folks build historic replicas.

I'm not poking fun or starting a fight. I am truly curious and would like to get some insight into this perspective as my training steers me away from this direction.

[jHop]

I think that, for some people, it is harder for them to experience the design aspect than others. Some of us (myself included) feel a design block approach when we attempt to do something that we have not seen examples of.

As an architect, you were exposed to various elements of style and form. You were also exposed to resources to search out others. Not all of us have had that benefit of experience. Yes, I know that there are places to look, resources available to everybody to research these things. But not everyone had the benefit of someone pointing these out.

One reason I build what has been built is that it is a confidence booster. To have a plan, and follow it, you get a project where the mistakes are all in the execution of design, not concept. You have a tangible image of what it should look like before you begin. And you can get help from many sources more readily, as others can recognize what you are making. When you are creating something new, you have to explain the concept to some before they feel qualified to help you.

Another reason is that I can explore what styles I enjoy, and find something I'm comfortable with. A few years ago, I would have turned my nose up at Bombay style furniture. Now, I appreciate the curves. There's something about the Greene & Greene style, however, I am not satisfied with. Does not mean that it's bad, just not my particular taste.

But Greene & Greene has elements that are easy to duplicate, for building purposes. By learning the Greene & Greene style, I feel more confident that I can do finger joints and plugged holes, for example).

A third reason is that someone else has done all the hard work figuring out all the aspects. Learning how to make a joint between two boards is easier than trying to figure out what joint would work best. Some people were just born followers, and others born leaders. Most of us fall somewhere in between.

One reason that should not be discounted is the emotional one. Sometimes, a person can recall the emotions of seeing that particular style for the first moment when they are in the process of building one example of it. For example, I would love to recreate a colonial style bookcase that I saw when touring an historic site near me, more because it was a reaffirmation of my love of wood and woodworking than because it truly was the best example of book case I've ever seen. I still like the style, but it's not the fanciest thing out there.

Perhaps some of us are just waiting to have that seed of design grow from the fertile grounds of other styles and imagination. It takes some longer than others to develop a personal style. And they may develop it by borrowing elements from several styles, combining them into something unique. (I'm a long way from that, myself. But others may not be.)

[sbarton22]

Great input!

The emotional attachment to a piece is a really interesting perspective. I can see really getting into the active participation of a past memory. There is something very poetic about that.

Yeah, I'm going to think about that quite a bit. That is very fertile ground for reflection. Let me chew on that for a while.

[bois]

This is a fantastic question, and one I've asked myself a number of times so I can't help but share my experiences here.

I recently displayed a writing desk at the Boston Wood Expo, and half of the space was given to students at the North Bennett Street School. The school teaches classical joinery and techniques, with the basis that if you can build period pieces, you can build anything. But in talking with one of the students, there is a real lack of resources (at the school or even in books and courses) that teaches design principles. George Walker has done a DVD and puts out a column in PWW that addresses the topic, but I find he's one of the few that does. In talking with a lot of other woodworkers, there is a real challenge for some folks here, and it relates to the fact that such a broad and almost impossible skill set is required to succeed in woodworking beyond a hobby. Too many people think knowing how to build something well is 80% of the job, but I'd argue it's about 30%. Pure woodworking stills are table stakes, and won't differentiate you as a woodworker. Differentiation, in reality, comes from design (plus efficiency, sales, and marketing, but that's an entirely different post).

Unfortunately folks, there is an EXTREMELY small demand for reproductions. People want innovative designs. To put this in perspective, I looked at the top google search terms related to "furniture", and #2 on the list was "modern furniture" with about 35,000 searches per month. "Antique furniture" doesn't show up until the second page with only 8,200 searches. "Stickley" is a bit further down with 6,600. "Wood furniture" and "fine furniture" are way down the list at 3,500 while "Period furniture" got exactly 350 hits. (If you really want to be depressed, "discount" and "cheap" furniture ranked #3 and #5 respectively).

The bottom line is that design is what gets noticed. In the Wood Expo, I was amazed at the incredible talent on display by the students, but the attendees gravitated to the more unique interesting pieces outside the student section. I talked to one student who was very concerned that the lack of design resources and training will be a real hindrance to his ability to go out on is own once he graduates. He recognized that most people don't feel a connection to period styles nor does it fit into their decor, but it's all he has been taught. Sure, he has the skills to build absolutely anything he wants, but if he can't design compelling works or sell and market them, where does that leave him?

I personally get little gratification out of building a design someone else came up with. It's much faster and easier, but I get so much more out of bringing my own concepts and designs to life. I am not disparaging folks who like and want to do reproductions of period or arts and crafts, but know that you're only honing that 30%.

[cmbp]

It is a great question. There are millions of people who can sing, but relatively few who can write a great song - and even fewer that can define a new genre. And for lots of people, just belting out a song is what they get enjoyment from - writing would be work.

With wood working - it's probably very similar. Also - there's the fact that 20th Century design came with a great increase in the variety of materials used in furniture. In fact, Chemistry gave us a whole bunch of new materials period. Anyhow, the further back you go (up to a point), the more likely you're going to find wood as the medium - and we're fans of working with wood.

[Beechwood Chip]

I agree with everything here, but I'd add...

Even if you are a jazz musician, who art is all about improvisation and doing your own thing, you can benefit from playing classical, romantic, baroque, pop-tunes, etc. Not just listening to, but really practicing until you can play them decently well. You'll get those styles "into your blood" and that will broaden your range in your own original work. I'd guess it's similar with wood working or most art forms.