Making is not Designing- Ian Kirby

Re: Making is not Designing- Ian Kirby

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

I appreciate, Bill, that you continue to raise this question; it's one I think about, too.

I don't know the answer to why making is more frequently written about than design. I suspect part of it is that it's easier to talk about how you did something than it it to talk about how you made design decisions. Design is a bit more ethereal than "pick up the wood and run it across the table saw." But those articles get boring after a while.

Ethereal ?

Joe shelton

I made two dead-on cuts today with a panel saw.

That is why I'm here. I'll follow my tools anywhere...

Mechanics + aesthetics = art.

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

A man after my own heart!

Design is not simply how one comes up with the appearance of a piece of furniture, but also the decisions made in designing its construction, choosing the joinery, and executing this efficiently.

One would imagine that this should make for great discussions on woodworking forums, and sometimes it happens. Not enough - it is easier to copy than create. There is more show-and-tell for this reason than describing the decision-making process.

Here is a link to the article: https://www.woodshopnews.com/columns-blogs/making-is-not-designing

Thanks for the thread, Bill.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Making is not Designing- Ian Kirby

Sgian Dubh

"The remaining step is to teach these makers how to design stuff to make, by some means. Magazines and classes come to mine.

I yearn for this training. Unsure how big the market is though for furniture design training at the hobby level."

The vast majority of questions or topics on woodworking forums, for instance, concern technical issues: how do I make this joint?; which tool is best?; 'my first dovetails ... what do you think?; what wood species/board material should I use?; the never-ending 'what's the best sharpening method?', and so on. Yes, design issues are raised, but again they tend to focus on practical solutions to achieve an already formulated plan/design: e.g., should I use an M&T/biscuit/dowel/domino joint; is this shelf thick enough for a bookcase?, etc.

If you look at your own work I've noticed you frequently mention you need or want to make something in which to 'put socks' for a family member. In effect, by stating that, you've entered into your version of a design process, because you've created a parameter which leads to further requirements that need to be satisfied - how many socks?; where's this sock storage thing going to go?; what space is available?; tall or short?, deep or shallow?; what material?; bang together quickly with nails/screw, or incorporate higher levels technical input (dovetails/ M&ts, etc)?.

Long time reading of your posts here suggests to me that you already have some (maybe most?) essential 'designer's' attributes in place. You perhaps lack a little confidence to explore the 'needs' of the project and marrying those needs to aesthetic preferences or a design philosophy that you can call entirely your own; one that you've developed through looking, experiment and self-reflection to find solutions using drawing to explore potential solutions and appropriate forms, i.e., end results, including shape, texture, finished appearance, and so on. I suspect that you tend to fall back on traditional and existing furniture styles to provide the basis to both fulfil those 'needs' and for building a piece.

It seems to me that you already have a set of design skills, and a philosophy that matches your preferences, but if you want to break out of the constraints that your topic seems to suggest you feel trap you I think the solution would be found through you using a pencil and pad to draw what comes out of your head, plus through trying to draw design items and motifs that you find interesting.

But just how big the market might be in the amateur woodworking world for design training or guidance I think is hard to assess. Many of the published articles I used to write were about furniture projects, and I nearly always included some discussion on the design decisions ... the reason(s) for the form being what it was, and what drove material choices, and so on. Several of those articles are still out there if you know where to look for them. If magazine editors made cuts to the article prior to publication, interestingly, it was the design philosophy bit that was most likely to be shortened or lost altogether. I even wrote a couple of articles on brief writing and design development, but for whatever reason, those were articles that didn't get published.

Ian Kirby's article is interesting because he describes a quite poor competition design brief, and compares that to a good one. The former brief is very loose and offers little guidance - basically you can make almost anything that could be called a seat, as long as there's a bit of cloth involved, and raises the question for judges of how to compare one submission to the next when the required criteria are so poorly defined. The second brief sets out a series of existing conditions that have to taken into consideration and details the requirements for a proposed solution in a tight presentation format, which gives several key factors that an assessor, client, or judge can use to assess if a proposed design solution fulfils, either in part, or completely. Slainte.

I hate design rules

Thomas Skaggs, Foothills of Mount Level

I read that article and cannot personally relate to it. Everything I make is my own design. If I am making work for a gallery then the design is entirely based on my vision and expression. When I am done, if it pleases me, then it is a successful design. If I am making a piece for a client, then I make it to please them. If it pleases them, it's a successful design.

I could not care less about rules or what judges somewhere might think or say. I work in my shop, free of rules. The only exceptions are for the regard of the movement of wood and structural integrity. That's it.

I have never created a working drawing. I only make sketches. I make a full size outline on brown construction paper just to test the proportions. The final details are determined during the building process. The building process for me is a very fluid and organic process that allows for change at any time.

I do not oppose the methods outlined in the article. But I merely wish to convey that there are other ways of doing things and other approaches to design.

T.

Lack of demand...

David Weaver

Some things need to be push marketed, but I don't think this is something that will have success.

Various design books and DVDs have come out, but the follow-on demand isn't there. Two reasons, I think:

* the number of people who can build is much greater than the number of people who can come up with a good design

* most people getting up to go to the shop to build probably don't want to come home and sit at a desk or table and design (without building on a given day).

Good designers also have a mental reference library of things they've seen and learned, and it takes effort to build that up. The chance of coming along knowing almost nothing and drawing out something lovely and functional at once is just about zero.

I favor the classical sense that George Wilson would favor. Maybe it seems more unattainable and that's why, I don't know. Industrial design and modern stuff just has no appeal - it's fine that it does for others. One of the hundreds of things that George has that I don't have is the ability to draw a flowing curve in one motion and not have to correct it. I asked him about that (he values that, too, since his training wasn't in woodworking, but in design at William and Mary), and he said as a kid, he had books that had pictures in them (one of ships, etc) that he traced over and over until he could trace them swiftly and then ultimately draw the ships freehand in good proportion.

I don't think it's that well understood by most people that the tracing and the repetition actually builds neurons (neural density?) in your hands and brain, and those things all accumulate and you can't just get them off of a DVD.

I take design rules with a grain of salt

John K Jordan

Similar to woodturning. When I started turning the design police on forums and in person informed me of the "rules": aspect ratios, lid to base ratio on turned boxes, base to diameter ratio on bowls, wall thicknesses, the means of treatment of the bottoms of bowls and platters, more and more. Those are someone's ideas, not mine and I always listened and considered then ignored them. I've been told things like "history has shown certain classical shapes are better" and derided about deviating from their vision. I've been told "that will never sell" although I don't turn to sell.

None of this bothers me a bit - I'm going to continue to sketch and design and turn and I KNOW by sight and touch if I like or don't like the result. If not, I can learn from that and think of and try variations. Some of my turning failures go into my "box-o-shame", some to the burn barrel, some for pet food.

I find real value of visiting galleries and museums and looking a huge variety of turnings at symposiums. I make sketches and take photos and save photos I find on-line of things I like. I see many things I don't like, furniture, turning, artwork (or even music, poetry) even from some very well respected people, but unless someone asks for my opinion I'm not going to volunteer criticism. There is plenty of room for every idea. However, I have noticed that a few of the most avid rule-followers sometimes produce static and unimaginative pieces (in my opinion!). Some of the most creative people I know seem to be rule-breakers.

JKJ

All of my Best Ideas were stolen by the Ancients..

Barry Irby

This may have something to do with t he difference between Engineering and Architecture.

I have lots of technical skill and cam make many things but have difficulty designing. Don't think you turn to someone and say "be creative" and get an instant result.

We are all fettered by some constraints like the tops of tables need to be nearly level. Dining table tops must be higher than the seats of the chars for the diners. Most of the storage type furniture is something like a bunch of boxes. A chest of drawers is a bigger box containing smaller boxes.

Then there is existing aesthetic considerations such as styles like Shaker, or Campaign, Chippendale or what ever.

Some of the mathematical constraints are derived from long examination of things that proved to be durable and pleasing. Some of it is stuff like it must be small enough to get out of the shop and into the house.

I interpreted the essay differently

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

1.This essay appeared in a publication geared to commercial woodworking, not gallery art. I did not detect anything Ian had to say about "rules". In the context of the article Ian is limiting the discussion to designing to meet a specific requirement, customer driven design. The design is driven by successfully meeting a function for a customer. By far the most of woodworking falls into this line of work. I suppose, therefore, this facet of design is what is taught in the design part of woodworking programs, where Ian taught, and what he most knows about.

I have inquired about attending a design class in the local college art department and was told it would not meet my needs. If I was coining definitions I would call what you all are explaining as "creating art". I have a book called "500 Cabinets" , a collection of pictures assembled by some noteworthy artist of people's interpretation of a "cabinet" . About 4 of them would provide a place someone would likely buy to store their socks. It was useless for inspiring customer driven designs for my sock storage woodworking.

2. I thought the inspiration for the essay was what Ian thought a misnamed "design"contest that is part of an industrial woodworking show where the work had few design boundaries and judging had vague criteria. I think he did not think the contest tested the relevant design skills of a woodworker doing the kind of work these students would encounter in a commercial shop. That said, there would be no entries if the contest proceeded as Ian illustrated. To get participation the contest needs to be show and tell. It could be renamed?

The usefulness of the essay to me was to establish the boundary between what I will now call "functional design" and making. Indeed there is gobs of help out there for the making. As Ian claims, there is little help for design. The part of the extinct Home Furniture I liked the most was the insight the makers revealed of the design process.

I have a friend that designs Arts and Crafts furniture as a hobby and is an artist by profession. What I need can be mentored. When she will critique a design I show her, her input always makes it more attractive. She has not revealed any of the rules you eschew, except every design element must have a purpose and fewer are better than many.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder

Thomas Skaggs, Foothills of Mount Level

What is good art or bad art? What is good furniture design or bad design? Who is it that makes the proclamations?

If you are in a contest, some appointed judge or judges decides. Swap them out with other judges and the outcome might be different. If you win the contest it only means those judges liked yours the best. Does that mean the other contestant's work was of lesser design?

The notion that any work will be judged by the quality of design seems to evoke some idea that there are taste-makers out there who's opinions matter. If you design something for yourself and you like the design, then mission accomplished. Any additional concern whether it is of good design is silly.

If you make work to sell and nobody buys it. Then you need to know why. If your designs are universally disliked, then you need to improve. If your works sells consistently, then you must be doing something right. For me, that's all that matters.

Re: I interpreted the essay differently

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

I am with Bill here.

Ian’s essay is not about critiquing a design. Arguments, such as “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”, miss the point. Ian’s essay is about critiquing the process of design.

Here is a quote:

The point I want to make here is that the working drawing didn’t just appear out of nowhere. We have no insight into the process that leads to the creation of the working drawing or who gets the credit for the design work. What we do see is that the working drawing has its foot firmly in two camps. It comes at the end of the design process and it is the beginning of the making process. While magazines have done an excellent job of describing the making process, they have done nothing to explain or describe the design process.

There are a number of contexts in which Ian provides examples. One was in magazines, where the writer presents a how-to article, and not a how-and-why article. The “how” emphasis can limit the learning process because it takes the “why” to foster the ability to generalise and appropriately apply this knowledge elsewhere. This is little picture vs big picture stuff.

Another example is in a quote for a customer. A design is drawn up. Ideas come first, and then they create problems (of construction) to be solved. Changing a part of the design might alter the construction beyond that one part. How many ways can the design be constructed, and which is the most efficient? These are not just thoughts for a quotation, but also the thought process needed for creativity. The thread weaving its way through Ian’s article (as I interpret it) is towards encouraging creativity.

There is in my book an intimate fusion between aesthetic design and sympathetic construction. Anyone can slap pieces of wood together. The proportions end up poor and result can look clumsy. An example of this is the hall table of a friend, recently posted to this forum, where I was asked to add a drawer. Re-designing the table required starting over from scratch.

Or the method of joinery limits the design range. If one is limited to joinery from a biscuit machine or domino, or dovetails cut by a router, then design is limited to straight lines. In my experience, it is these designs that are likely to end up looking clumsy. I have entered woodworking competitions for many years. I have been a runner up in too many (did win one!). My disappointment is tempered (narcissistically) by the belief that the judges lacked the knowledge and understanding to recognise that my pieces were built with complex joinery to achieve the end result. Should judges work at this level? Is not the end product what they seek? Well, I recall reading about a desk which was built for a final exam in Germany, where furniture designer/makers are required to have a Master’s Degree. The judges took a saw and cut into this finely constructed piece to check whether the joinery was completed as it should have been done. In this instance, the mitres should have been secret dovetails and not biscuited mitres.

I’m going on too long here. It is enough to say I agree with Bill and Ian. Read the article. It is in my earlier post.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ancients..

Joe shelton

Didn't they break up right after the Eagles?

Re: Ancients..

David Yoho

No man... the Eagles never broke up. They just took a 14 year vacation!!

Ian on judging design

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Indeed if the Woodworking contest is among a collection of "show and tell" projects with no rules for judging 10 judges would likely deliver 10 different results. But lets take Ian's example of chairs for the Scratch Bakery.

The competition is held at IWF, a trade show. Judges will be three commercial shop managers whose shops make this kind of product. Entrants will be primarily students training to work in this trade for this kind of customer. Judges will be given these rules for judging- score 25 points for production cost for best, 20 for next best, 15 for best after that , etc.

Score 25 points for comfort, then 20, 15 etc.

Score 25 points for durability, then 20 etc

Score 15 for attractiveness, 10, 5 etc

Score 10 for presentation, etc

I think this is the kind of design competition Ian advocates for this competition, at this show, for these entrants. And I think the judging will be greatly less variant with different judges selected with this judge selection criteria and these rules.

For some, this is not a design competition they would choose to enter. I get that fact. But, this example of design competition is relevant to a large market segment of woodworking, as illustrated in every issue of the trade journal Woodshop News.

We work in a different world

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Derek seems to, and I certainly do, build to meet a tangible need of someone else. This approach to woodworking is different from what Thomas and John describe.

Granddaughter needs a dresser to store her socks. My goal and satisfaction is in serving this need in a way that satisfies her primarily, and satisfies me secondarily. I am as satisfied finding something in a magazine that pleases her and copying it as I would be creating something from thin air. I have almost no motivation for what I build to be "my design".

However, I would like to have the skills/experience to modify an inspiring idea I see somewhere to create something even more functional and/or attractive, or easier to build. I suspect there are "rules" that would aid the designing part of my work. Susan has taught some of them- less is more, don't mix styles, every design element should serve a purpose. I have no desire to risk straying from fundamental design rules.

The artist in the family is youngest daughter, not me, and for some reason she will not design furniture for me to build. A great disappointment.

Once you have a reputation...

David Weaver

...not sure how your daughter feels, but if she has an established reputation or standard that she likes to meet in familiar work, she may not be keen on designing something that feels unfamiliar.

Not unheard of in our hobby, too - especially with professionals picking up the hobby mid-career and then not doing much because they can't handle starting over and dealing with the fact that they're not good at something.

The giant market of quick fix gadgets and method pretty much caters to that ego problem.

Re: We work in a different world

John in NM

Ironically, I'm much more in your world with just enough of Thomas's to make furniture construction unsatisfying for me (hence the gunstocks instead, I can make a decent hobby income there without having to follow fashion).

I would normally be happy enough to make furniture for my wife. The trouble is that I don't care for her taste in furniture or the degree to which she wants it now rather than when I get around to it (aggravated by the problem of not really liking her taste - I stall on her projects).

You are very lucky I think - your family clients seem to pick out things you are inclined to enjoy building (helps a lot that some of them are granddaughters I think). I have to wonder whether if you refined your design notions that would change a bit?

I think you are also very lucky in location - lumber in your area is just about as cheap as it gets, so you can experiment readily without too much concern over waste. Perhaps that is not an accurate assumption I'm making - but I found my view of lumber was very different in a custom shop where I didn't have to buy the stuff. Suddenly every little scrap was not some precious resource to be saved for later, it was junk that would be duplicated 7x over tomorrow by the 7 builders in the shop. I would imagine that living where your material grows would help that along a bit.

I really think you are on the right track, it is one that well suits the little I know of your personality from correspondence. You clearly like what you make, you are far more productive than many of us here, and you have about as much latitude to experiment as any could have (and I'm not trying to say "what are you complaining about?" - I'm trying to say that I think you're doing everything about right).

At the end of this kind of meander it occurs to me to ask something that maybe I should have asked at the top.

What is it that you find lacking in your builds? What is it that you think the honing of design skills would accomplish? Do you find your work lacking in proportion? (I sure don't). Do you worry that the use of antiques as guides is somehow stale? (I sure don't).

Finally, do you see any contemporary furniture that really excites and inspires you? I've seen very little, but I always liked Hank Gilpin's stuff when I saw it.

Re: Making is not Designing- Ian Kirby

Tom G

The way Ian conceptualizes design as a solution to a problem (e.g. the bakery example) is spot on in my opinion. With out an understanding of the problem the design is trying to solve, how can we evaluate teh design. In fact, understanding the problem is often half the battle, so to speak. Here is an example that fundamentally changed the way I think about design when I read about it years ago

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/11/embrace-infant-warmer-creative-confidence-by-tom-and-david-kelley.html

Where we need discipline

jessecloud

I think a big part of the issue is what sequence we follow to build a piece. All too often we are too quick to jump to joinery (the fun part for most of us). I think design should own the process for a while during the beginning. Starting with some very basic functionality needs (is it a bed or a bookcase?) we need to make something attractive, so that people with no idea at all of joinery will find it pleasing. We are a pretty smart group here and can find a way to do joinery for just about any idea that comes up.

I always start with a few pages of quickly done sketches of as many options as I can come up with on what shape a piece with this functionality could have. Then I select a few that have potential, think about what it is that makes them work and try to improve on it. Once I am happy with the shape, I consider some decorative details that could help to emphasize the things I like about the piece, say string inlay to accent a tapered leg.

I have been working wood for about 50 years now, and have always managed to find a way to build whatever I draw - often by coming to WC for advice.

I will admit that giving design its head at the beginning isn't always the most efficient method. Sometimes you need to take a step back and compromise for the sake of cost, material constraints, etc. But I think it is the best shot you have at making something that pleases the eye.

End of rant, thanks for listening.

Agreed