Marcus Sly - Furniture Making and Design

What is the weakest link in your woodworking?  I bet that for a majority of woodworkers an honest answer to this question would be "design".  Technical competence among woodworkers is on the whole very high, but often this competence is somewhat wasted on pieces whose design is not worthy of the skill used to create them.  There seems to be a growing awareness of this problem at the moment, and this DVD from the Lie Nielsen Toolworks makes an excellent start in improving matters. It also left me with a few niggles, but let's start with the good stuff, of which there is plenty.

The DVD is focussed on 18th century American furniture, which tended to be designed using the classical rules of proportion.  In other words the pieces were based on the system of proportion used in Ancient Greek temples - which was later taken up and further developed by the Romans.  This system underlies a great deal of historic architecture in the West.  Its longevity is an indication of its effectiveness.

George Walker describes and explains the classical proportions and how they can be applied to furniture design in a very entertaining and accessible manner.  Along the way he introduces basic design concepts such as symmetry, contrast and punctuation.  If you are someone who finds the design phase of building a piece the most daunting, then the DVD is worth buying on the basis of these explanations alone.  They will introduce you to ways of thinking about design which can help to underpin the process and give it some structure.  This is a whole lot more fun than being faced with a blank sheet of paper and a feeling of uneasiness!

The DVD is beautifully produced and put together, with each part related to the whole and leading logically on to the next; rather like one of the pieces of furniture Mr Walker so admires in fact.  Towards the end, he pulls everything together by designing a chest of drawers in real time.  Cleverly he splits the design down the middle with each half done in a different style but using the same proportional system.  One side is in a traditional style, the other in a "studio" style. 

Part of the intention of this is to demonstrate how classical proportional systems can be effectively applied to very different styles.  This is quite true, but it was here that I started to feel some niggles arise.  These were to do with the use of the term traditional, with how mechanical the design process was, and with how the limitations of the classical design system were not discussed - particularly in relation to "studio" furniture.

I'm very conscious that the DVD was made in America and that in much of the USA the word "traditional" equates very strongly with things designed with the use of classical proportions.  The reasons for this are historic.  America is a relatively young country and was growing into statehood and laying the foundations of its traditions at the very time in which sober, classical architecture was re-establishing itself as the international style of choice after the excesses of the Baroque.  As it happens this style was perfectly suited to the needs of a growing nation with a diverse population, and space to fill.

One of the greatest strengths of the classical system (and also one of its greatest limitations) is that it simplifies the process of design.  Applying the classical proportions consistently works, in that you tend to end up with things that are fairly harmonious and pleasing to the eye almost by default.  It is a very fast and efficient way to design things that look good.  Furthermore it is easy to apply on any scale, from the smallest house to the largest state building.   As an additional bonus, things designed using the system tend to harmonise with each other, so it can provide architectural cohesion at the level of the town, state or country as well.  All these factors made it ideal for a nation that needs to do a lot of building quickly in order to accommodate a rising population, and to create an identity and social cohesion while doing so.

Watching George Walker draw on screen I was very struck by the speed with which he was able to design something that looked harmonious.  I was also struck by how mechanical much of the process was, and by the lack of a living relation to the material that was to be used.  Only once the design was finished were various types of timber suggested, and these were presented in almost a “mix and match” type of way.  The design itself depended much more on mathematics than on a living and indivisible relationship to the particular timber it was to be made from. Of course there was creative input and judgement, but a very significant part of the process was applying rules and formulae.  It was this that made me question the application of the principles to a pieces of "studio" furniture. 

If by studio furniture we mean ordinary design "jazzed up" with a bit of fancy timber and contemporary mouldings then I suppose the approach makes sense.  However to me this is to waste one of the most important contributions that studio furniture has to make.  One of the primary differences between studio furniture and everyday furniture is that in the studio the focus is less on speed and more on exploration.  The furniture studio is a place to make discoveries. It is one of the few arenas where we can engage in a tactile, intuitive and direct relationship with the work and the material.  We have the chance to have a "finger tip adventure" to use Krenov's phrase, to create unique things that have a radically different quality to those we come across most of the time.

The world is full of beautiful and pleasing things which do not adhere to the classical laws of proportion.  Some were made with approaches that predate even the Ancient Greeks. For example there is the much more intuitive approach to making things which you find in many vernacular traditions.  These often rely on feel, cultural expectation and the judgement of the eye rather than on measured proportion and exact mathematical relationships. Such traditions can create things which are less ordered and rational, but that can also be more soul-full and alive than classical work if approached intelligently.  Another example of an alternate design tradition was the Gothic, which drew on the geometry of the circle in new ways to create soaring creations that mirrored the spirit of the natural world. Gothic architecture doesn’t need a set-square - it only needs a piece of string!

Classical design is perfectly suited for the very necessary and important work of efficiently producing everyday buildings and other items that are charming, well proportioned and beautiful.  I would like to see it used more often that it is because it is a rational and economically viable way to reduce the blight of shoddy and thoughtless design that is overshadowing the towns and countryside near where I live and in many other parts of the world.  But let's remember that there are many other approaches to design - and many other traditions.  We should be aware of them and choose the ones we use as consciously as possible when we enter the studio.