Firewood box

Firewood Box

The temperature dropped down into the twenties today. I suppose I got the firewood box done just in time.

“In October of 1949, at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris, I noticed the large windows between the paintings interested me more than the art exhibited. I made a drawing of the window and later in my studio I made what I considered my first object, Window, Museum of Modern Art, Paris. From then on, painting, as I had known it was finished for me. The new works were to be painting/objects, unsigned, anonymous. Everywhere I looked, everything I saw became something to be made, and it had to be made exactly as it was, with nothing added. It was a new freedom: there was no longer the need to compose. The subject was there, alreadymade, and I could take from everything; it all belonged to me: a glass roof of a factory with its broken and patched planes, lines of a roadmap, the shape of a scarf on a woman’s head, a fragment of Le Corbusier’s Swiss Pavilion, a corner of a Braque painting, paper fragments in the street. It was all the same, anything goes. At that time I wrote: ‘Everything is beautiful but that which man tries intentionally to make beautiful.’ The work of an ordinary bricklayer is more valid than the artwork of all but a very few artists.”

– – Ellsworth Kelly (1974)

Excerpts from Ellsworth Kelly Matrix by Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, published by Matthew Marks Gallery, New York, 2003.

Sawbench

Based on a design from Tom Fidgen's The Unplugged Woodshop
Based on a design from Tom Fidgen’s The Unplugged Woodshop

When I was building this sawbench, I was listening to the Pretenders catalog and wondering why so many people seem obsessed with Instagram-style woodworking photos and shop-fixtures built from precious woods. “But not me baby I’m too precious / fuck off.” The original sawbench design I riffed on for this was made of cherry. I’ve got plenty of it in the shop, but I just couldn’t bring myself to use it for this. I used $16 worth of home-center fir. I suspect it will work just as well, and I have no need to be precious about it.

I’d like to try to figure out some coherent way of talking about tools without being too precious about it; so many people in woodworking are tool collectors. It’s the same in photography, I suppose — herd together a dozen photographers (in the old days at least) and at least six of them would be camera collectors as well. Collecting and using get lumped together too easily, and with that there’s a drive to make everything into a precious object. I just can’t go there with workbenches and tool boxes. It just seems silly to me, though wouldn’t deny others the pleasure.

Getting to work

Changing seasons
Old Chatham, NY, near the original Shaker Museum site

Fall always brings with it a certain sense of urgency, a need to get things in order before the snows begin. I put a coat of oil on the painted firewood box I finished before our final trip to Hancock for the season. No picture of it yet, but maybe I’ll take one tomorrow. Going to the Hancock Shaker Village to look at the furniture and interiors there has been better than reading a hundred books on the subject.

It’s the little things that matter— I made the firewood box (supposedly based on a Pleasant Hill Kentucky Shaker piece) from an article from Popular Woodworking. I noticed that when I compared it to the measured drawings I had of the original, the stock is thicker in the magazine plan (3/4 instead of 5/8). I know it was a concession based on easily available hardware store lumber. If I would have thought about it more, I would have followed the old measurements. I have a planer, it would have taken a few moments to take the boards down that 1/8 inch thinner. Now that I’ve seen the versions at Hancock, I really question both sources. The boxes at Hancock are smaller, not just in thickness but in the top compartment as well. I didn’t measure to check exactly how much, because I’d already pretty much completed the thing before I started looking closely.

There’s also a “flight of shelves” drawing I’ve been looking at in another Shaker book; the versions at Hancock (there are several) are all different, both in size and in construction details. I measured them, and it’s not just a matter of minor differences; it’s a big difference. Most of the Shaker pieces that interest me were never built for manufacture; they’re site specific for a given purpose. Plans are really only for general principles, I think, and cannot provide the real magic that radiates from their household products and furnishings. That takes more work. If I’d never gone over to Hancock, I don’t think I really would have understood that part.

Durable Goods reprise

I once wrote long ago about being interested in “composition” in the broadest sense. At the time, I was thinking in terms of words and images rather than objects. Surrounding the period when my mother died, I began to really consider the concepts surrounding “durable goods” because when confronting just what is important when faced with mortality. Like most people, I suppose, I hadn’t really thought much about the objects that fill our lives, and as my mother’s life was stripped down to the essential goods, I began to wonder about the matter of matter (as opposed to words/images, or more descriptively, eidolons).

In 2010 I came pretty close to putting some perspective on things when I tried to theorize about the relationship of craft to words, images, and woodworking (my latest sidetrack). To bring this decade long obsessive/compulsive spasm up to date, lately I’ve been building and thinking about furniture and household items (treen). I’ve thought several times that I should be compiling a bibliography of sources about this latest phase, which has moved far outside my usual comfort zone of art and literature. Thankfully, my wife has been teaching a seminar on rhetorics of craft which has brought new levels of focus to my scattered thoughts on the subject. We’ve been talking about craft a lot.

It dawned on me a few days ago that one of the reasons for the shift in subject areas (though not in methodology, strangely enough) is because I figured out a while ago that I am happiest when I am where I am. The place I live now was central to the Arts and Crafts movement in America during the early twentieth century. The original Stickley factory is just down the street from me. Consequently, it is all too natural to become obsessed with furniture history. After reading deeply on Arts and Crafts, the last month or so my attention has shifted to the Shakers (the original settlements are not far from me in the Hudson valley). In that shift, there’s been an interesting twist.

I’ve been pretty appalled the constant shilling for products by most writers on woodworking, even those who claim to be free from commercial interest. To acquire the best tools, seems to be a matter of constant worry for contemporary woodworkers. That attitude of connoisseur is pretty pervasive, particularly when boutique capitalism masquerades as anarchism. I haven’t been able to even consider building a thousand dollar workbench in expensive hardwood, or saw benches made of cherry wood, etc.. I really want to build furniture, not a collection of pretty tools. Visiting the workshops at Hancock Shaker Village revealed some unusual things– scrollsaws and lathes in every shop, for one thing. The scrollsaw has become a tool for fretwork alone, these days. But the shakers (who eschewed excessive ornament) still found solid uses for the tool, apparently. And most things in the Shaker shops seemed to be made of dull pine and poplar, not fancy hardwoods.

Shaker furniture used hardwoods when appropriate, but was not shy about using softwoods or paint when they would be suitable as well. Reading about some elements of furniture design in the UK in the early twentieth century, the phrase “fit for purpose” as a slogan appears. The language, taken from consumer protection law in the 19th century, makes sense. That’s a driving element behind twentieth century design in America as well, though it isn’t so clearly stated. I found myself wondering just why the idea of a cherry saw bench bothered me so much. After all, hardwoods are certainly “fit for purpose” for shop fixtures, they’re just expensive. Then it came to me— they are just plain ostentatious— conspicuous consumption of scarce resources for commonplace use. So “fit for purpose” isn’t the only factor in selecting material, it’s also important to me that there me some degree of humility.

Stickley furniture, with its quarter-sawn oak and heft is interesting to me but as a consumer product, it seems unsustainable. Only a select few can afford it. I like the philosophy behind some of it, and its solidness, but I’m afraid I’m slowly drifting away from it. I keep building Stickley style small pieces because they are nicely joined and economical in material for the most part, but I can’t see myself building the major pieces. My heart is headed somewhere else.