|
|
Post by tusses on Aug 17, 2008 17:55:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cnc paul on Aug 17, 2008 18:05:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 17, 2008 18:17:22 GMT
I wonder if they ever sell for those prices. I guess they do and good luck to them. Work must be sporadic, mind. My guess is the makers don't have a wife or kids and can live on dust and biscuits until the next 'commission' comes in!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 17, 2008 18:58:50 GMT
There's a coincidence! As it happens I was looking at this www.celebrationofcraftsmanship.com/Annual_exhibition.htm over there and wondering what it is about that sort of stuff which makes me puke. Well just read the intro. What pretentious boll**x. Basically what it adds up to is very expensive gift-ware for people with loads of dosh, but not necessarily loads of brains or good taste. BLING's the word  . That's OK of course, they can spend there ill-gotten gains how they like, but what's odd about it is that a large number of woodworkers and other crafts workers think this sort of stuff is good design, to be admired and imitated. Remember Tony's crap furniture thread over there? Yes it is often "clever" and beautifully made but it just shouts too loud for me. Tarty bling for wealthy tw*ts ;D ;D Mind you if you can get in there and make a few bob - go for it! cheers Jacob |
|
jrm
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by jrm on Aug 17, 2008 19:42:17 GMT
Hi everyone, I've been lurking a while and just joined. Sorry to just jump in but I couldn't resist.
Actually, it must be an effective strategy for anyone who's in the business of offering training in fine furniture to litter their website with examples priced in the tens of thousands; because the advertising is directed at the students (who pay the bills) not the 'clients'. It's the woodworking equivalent of all those stories about plumbers riding around in porches and playing golf for half of the week. Any prospective student could be forgiven for thinking, "what a great way to make a living!". Certainly, it's a more effective way of prising that £16000.00 training fee cheque out of their hands than telling them that they'll probably spend years perfecting their craft, sink an unimaginable amount of their wealth into setting themselves up, then earn a relative pittance for all that effort and risk.
Just a theory. Or am I being cynical?
John
|
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 17, 2008 19:52:41 GMT
Hi everyone, I've been lurking a while and just joined. Sorry to just jump in but I couldn't resist. Actually, it must be an effective strategy for anyone who's in the business of offering training in fine furniture to litter their website with examples priced in the tens of thousands; because the advertising is directed at the students (who pay the bills) not the 'clients'. It's the woodworking equivalent of all those stories about plumbers riding around in porches and playing golf for half of the week. Any prospective student could be forgiven for thinking, "what a great way to make a living!". Certainly, it's a more effective way of prising that £16000.00 training fee cheque out of their hands than telling them that they'll probably spend years perfecting their craft, sink an unimaginable amount of their wealth into setting themselves up, then earn a relative pittance for all that effort and risk. Just a theory. Or am I being cynical? John Sounds spot on to me! Mind you I'm generally cynical about the whole "service" side of the amateur woodwork scene - the media, the courses, the books, the flash tools, the "personalities" and the bol**x. I suppose this is the difference between us and them over there - they seem to lap it all up gratefully and fork out the cash whilst pulling their forelocks! cheers Jacob PS and all that Parnham House boll**x was based on very high fee paying students, who didn't materialise so it folded. The plot thickens. The whole of the blingy furniture world a big rip-off! |
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 17, 2008 20:30:50 GMT
I do like some of these 'designer' pieces and certainly the reason I'm doing this as a hobby is to break away from 'the norm' (and Norm). But a piece has to be functional aswell as beautiful. Sometimes art becomes wacky, that's when I loose interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulchapman on Aug 17, 2008 20:53:21 GMT
and all that Parnham House boll**x was based on very high fee paying students, who didn't materialise so it folded. I'm not sure that there was much wrong with Parnham House. It turned out some superb furniture makers who are now making a good living producing excellent stuff. Cheers  Paul |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 7:20:15 GMT
and all that Parnham House boll**x was based on very high fee paying students, who didn't materialise so it folded. I'm not sure that there was much wrong with Parnham House. It turned out some superb furniture makers who are now making a good living producing excellent stuff. Cheers Paul Well you are probably right but there's something about all the hype and the "aren't we wonderful", which I find really odd. Somehow it's a smug self propagating bubble quite separate from the mainstream - or the great tradition of the age of wood, or the history of design for that matter. I can't quite put my finger on it. cheers Jacob cheers Jacob |
|
jrm
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by jrm on Aug 18, 2008 7:42:37 GMT
It's true that many of the larger makers were trained at Parnham. But that course was over two years, with excellent tutors and with a succession of visiting lecturers of international renown. Expensive but pretty good value when you compare many of the alternatives and given that, as Paul says, it seems to have stood them in such good stead.
|
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 18, 2008 7:59:54 GMT
what is this Parnham you speak of??
|
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 8:32:15 GMT
what is this Parnham you speak of?? Poncy woodwork school set up some years ago by John Makepeace, with much hype, big grants, massive fees (rich kids only!) but folded - I presume because there weren't enough rich kids, but I don't know. Back to the banana stand - if it was only £35 it wouldn't look out of place in a typical gift shop, amongst the mugs with faces, pottery gnome castles, quirky bits of driftwood sculpture etc. You'd probably pick it up for less at the end of season sale. cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 18, 2008 8:47:27 GMT
I'm not sure that there was much wrong with Parnham House. It turned out some superb furniture makers who are now making a good living producing excellent stuff. Cheers Paul Well you are probably right but there's something about all the hype and the "aren't we wonderful", which I find really odd. Somehow it's a smug self propagating bubble quite separate from the mainstream - or the great tradition of the age of wood, or the history of design for that matter. I can't quite put my finger on it. cheers Jacob cheers Jacob Mr Grim - it's clear that you never went to Parnham (neither did I for that matter) but I did visit it when the school was open and would have gladly given my back teeth to have been on one of the courses there. Agreed, a lot of the stuff produced (like these banana tables) is pretentious crap that doesn't have the right ingredients to make it 'last' and turn it into a classic piece...and that happens all too rarely. Just occasionally though, something is produced by one of these makers which does have the everlasting 'wow' factor which makes it an instant classic. If you look at chairs, there were only half a dozen designs in the last century that had this appeal ( the Barcelona chair, designed in the 1930's and Wenger's dining chair from the late 40's to name two) and from the 19th Cent the outstanding example is Thonet's Bentwood chair. What makes these pieces special, apart the design is that they (or clones of them) are still in production today. So yes, I agree that a lot of stuff will fall by the wayside, but sometimes a gem is produced along the way which makes the production of all the other less worthy furniture worthwhile, 'cos without folk 'pushing the envelope'  these future classic pieces wouldn't emerge - Rob |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 9:02:40 GMT
No I didn't go to Parnham how did you guess!
Agree about classics, but they come from many sources by different routes, architects, designers, industrialists, craftsmen, etc.
Somehow doesn't take a Parnham to produce them.
As a matter of interest; are any there classics in continuous production originating from Parnham?
cheers
Jacob
PS Bauhaus a totally different thing - much like a big wide-ranging art college with industrial design, architecture, the whole works, democratic.
Parnham; small, smug, complacent, narrow outlook, eliteist.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 18, 2008 9:29:58 GMT
No I didn't go to Parnham how did you guess! Agree about classics, but they come from many sources by different routes, architects, designers, industrialists, craftsmen, etc. Somehow doesn't take a Parnham to produce them. As a matter of interest; are any there classics in continuous production originating from Parnham? cheers Jacob PS Bauhaus a totally different thing - much like a big wide-ranging art college with industrial design, architecture, the whole works. Parnham; small, smug, complacent, narrow outlook. Again, agreed it doesn't take a Parnham to produce a classic...the whole point is it might have done, which was justification alone in my view for the college to run. As someone else said though, the very healthy bespoke furniture industry today is a direct result of the efforts of John M at Parnham. Before Parnham got going, the situation for this sort of work was a bit dire. As to your idea that it had a '' small, smug, complacent, narrow outlook'' I think you're way off. Had you visited it, and seen the makers at work and the permanent exhibition, you would have changed your mind! It's on record that Robert Ingham (who now writes for F&C) made no reference to any text books (aka Scrits list) when tutoring students at the college as the stuff they were making transcended the information in the books...they were working so 'ouside the box' that much of the stuff in books would have hindered rather than helped them...so they didn't use any - Rob |
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 18, 2008 9:37:02 GMT
what i think you are missing jacob is that before parnham, britain had suffered from the massive decline in interest in hand made wooden furniture. unlike bauhaus which was state sponsored to offer the then very strange german state a way of producing designers post all the problems of the weimar state, parnham was privately funded at a time when shabitat, and mfi were promoting more and more factory furniture with only the occassional glance toward design. parnham should have been rather like Christian Dior rather than a freestanding organisation. ie produce outrageous catwalk designs backed by a less dramatic production facility. for whatever reason it did not happen, but at least jm did understand woodworkin. high value cabinet making (in terms of price not necessarily quality) is still not very profitable in britain unless you are david linley, whereas it is more nearly so in america. parnham was a plan to publicise and promote this. i agree with rob, it is easy to knock something of this sort that you have never properly investigated, rather than say well it was an interesting idea, shame it did not work properly. paul |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 10:07:56 GMT
what i think you are missing jacob is that before parnham, britain had suffered from the massive decline in interest in hand made wooden furniture. Really? I thought designer/craft furniture had been going strong sice W Morris, Cotswold school, Barnsley, Heals, Gordon Russell, and dare I say it: HabitatBauhaus one of the most important contributors to modern design historyLoads grant money I believe.Don't know the details.I wonder if Parnham and the whole high profile/price furniture movement was/is actually a diversion, a backwards step and there is more to be gained from more humdrum art colleges and similar. The Bauhaus had strong connections across the various industries and other institutions. That's interesting. I've often said that the great weakness of much modern stuff (old Jim K especially) is down to ignorance of the great tradition. Not knowing how stuff is made, coupled with the notion that you can do it creatively from scratch, seem to be enormous handicaps for many amateur and developing woodworkers. Maybe that's the thing I'm trying to put my finger on ;D (see above) Re-inventing the wheel is a fool's errand. cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 18, 2008 10:40:46 GMT
Mr Grim wrote:
The point you miss completely is that all the lectures at Parnham were fantastic craftsmen to start with. While the students were there to learn, the masters certainly didn't need to re-invent the wheel. It follows then that once the students had completed their courses, they again didn't need to make reference to books and probably still don't...
Having caught you hook, line and sinker the other day ;D ;D over JK's books, I'm not going to get drawn into another 'discussion' over the merits of JK. TheBloke 1...Jacob 0 ;D - Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by tusses on Aug 18, 2008 10:46:56 GMT
so _ obviously assuming my work is ok - would it help my business launch if I did a few one day courses,
then on my fancy web page I could list all the top names I have trained under, along with taking a few pics of me training !
would this allow me to charge extra for my work ?
you know - talk the talk and walk the walk etc etc
I know at the end of the day the finished work would have to live up to the hype - but at the moment I have no portfolio .
|
|
|
|
Post by paulchapman on Aug 18, 2008 11:05:18 GMT
I see the Grimsdale record is still stuck in the same old groove ;D Cheers Paul |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 11:43:46 GMT
I see the Grimsdale record is still stuck in the same old groove ;D Cheers Paul And Rob, Paul and yourself in another old groove ;D |
|
|
|
Post by paulchapman on Aug 18, 2008 13:06:33 GMT
;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 18, 2008 13:16:07 GMT
i think jacob personally that bauhaus rather like bugatti was an example of what now happens in too much government sponsored theatre, the idea has to be new to give it some weight. whilst william morris etc al did a lot, in fact they were very much in the area you denigrate, ie the toffs, since basically the working man rarely at that time owned his own house, thus was unable to keep and maintain furniture that was not "sturdy and workmanlike" in case it got broken when they did their relatively regular "moonlight flits" ;D even barnsley was aimed at the relatively small upper middle class and toff market. it was only after 1935 when metro land and so on made owning your own house a practical reality for many working people, that it became possible for them to buy lasting furniture that had style. post war the first 10 years were so much about survival, that it was not until the 60's that people in great numbers were able to afford better furniture, and by then too many english factories had turned to so called designer stuff made of ply and with welded steel legs. or they went toward the plastic things that were a product of the "swinging sixties". the whole barry bucknell thing made antiques of lesser value, and people went more for bland stuff with only the occassional blob of colour to enhance the space. although conran went to design school, his woodworking skills are not exactly legendary, and much of his wooden furniture at the beginning does not stand the test of time in terms of constructional facility. you jacob make great play of not re-inventing the wheel, but ignore the fact that even chippendale and his acolytes used plywood or at the very best veneered surfaces to achieve what was not possible with solid wood. cheaper wood at the back with the worst joinery hidden, then as the "show" becomes more apparent, the glitz is on the front. modern production techniques mean that modern wood is not as good or well seasoned as it was even in the 50's so modern design must take that into account. restoration of the fabric of a house is a different kettle of fish from trying to make for instance a dresser fit more effectively into a modern house, whilst still showing off the fact that it is hand made, and not just bought from ikea or cargo. parnham was a brave experiment, but like so much which would have been helped by proper sponsorship from industry, it was lost because too many accountants took over british business in the late 60's and early 70's. since they only deal with history, and not with quality, the manufacturing was outsourced, and although the prices came down, so did quality. paul paul |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 14:40:09 GMT
Thats an unusual view of the Bauhaus you have Paul. Not shared by many, except Hitler and the nazis. Hmm. ;D ;D We are talking about this place not some manky rock band! cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by Sgian Dubh on Aug 18, 2008 15:51:14 GMT
Jacob, I suspect you are doing one of two things in this thread, and perhaps the same in similar threads on design issues, namely: - Playing Devil's Advocate
- Keeping your eyes firmly shut
From here it's hard to tell which you are doing, but I think it has to be borne in mind that artists, designers, crafts people, etc, have always attempted to push at the limits of their various disciplines, whether they work alone or collaboratively, eg, the designer that engages the builder to bring to fruition the design. In making this statement I'm assuming that the artist, designer, maker, etc, is asked to do something more than create a humble utilitarian item, ie, include something to uplift the spirit in some way, or find a quicker or better way to do it, or perhaps include both those criteria in the piece, and maybe further qualities not mentioned here. Is modern design all 'fur coat and nae knickers' to you, or perhaps you suspect it is the 'two cars on the drive and an empty fridge' syndrome? If that's the case I suspect that if you were working in the mid-eighteenth century you'd be dismissing those upstart designers and makers of ugly, over the top gee-gaws with their ridiculous adherance to proportioning systems along with their unoriginal copyist tendencies; I mean of course those distinctly modern upstarts of the mid 1700s, Messrs R Adam and T Chippendale. Awful bloody modernist rubbish. What's wrong with a bit of traditional walnut stuff? This fancy new wood from over the Atlantic, mahogany, or whatever it's called? Slainte. |
|
.
these future classic pieces wouldn't emerge - Rob