classical vs "modern" furniture

Re: sweeping indictment

Dave Mount

>Bill--

Interesting perspective. I'll admit that I also personally prefer historically-inspired designs and build almost exclusively along those lines.

That said, I think the quote you posted might throw the baby out with the bathwater. My office chair is decidely modern (not something I built) and is without question the most comfortable desk-type chair in which I have ever had the pleasure of placing my kiester (much more so that the very nice mission chair I'm sitting in now).

Taking another example, a pole barn can't hold a candle aesthetically to a traditional design wood barn (IMHO), but for modern agriculture, the pole barn is far superior (I built a wood barn just the same, but not for functional reasons).

There are definitely pieces I've seen that fit the description of trying to "challenge" the observer, but I don't think I'd drop all modern furniture in that bin. I don't aspire to own a Maloof rocker, but I certainly don't find it offensive and I marvel at the craftsmanship.

Dave (who's keeping his modern bed and leaving the great-grandparent's spool bed with the rope "box spring" in the basement)

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Sam Simpson

>Hi Y'all,

Bill I know just where you and the writer are coming from. This is a subject that I am often prompted to ponder and to conjure up satisfactory explanation.

Over the long haul I have come to the conclusion that modern art is not always as defiantly in your face as it sometimes seems, though there are definitely those times when it is unmistakably so. And will defy you to coexist with it.

When I look at the old masters I see that they are complex, to such a degree that they cannot be fully absorbed and understood in a single sitting. They contain masterful manipulations of form, balance, story, and wonder that can take many sittings to absorb there full magnificence. And they are designed in this way because of whom they where intended to inform. They unfolded over time as the viewer exchanged emotions with them.

Living here in Houston I am often reminded of Rothko. He is the painter who first became famous for painting a single colour on a canvas. I'm sure many folks remember the outrage when a local Houstonian paid millions for an all white canvas in the 1970s'.

Since that time I have tried to understand what that was all about. It boils down to something extremely over simplified. Rothko was communicating the idea that colour alone was capable of emitting emotion. And that, in the presence of one of his works, the viewer could commune with his own soul. Well,! AT&T where, at the same time, informing us all that their beige phone was good for a business attitude and their green phone was relaxing. So Rothko was kinda getting over paid. This great discovery that he had made is just one of the many minor nuances that existed in, and was fully understood by the old masters.

But I use that as a simple entry into my main point. Which is, that in modern times we have all become conditioned into expecting more and more instant gratification and understanding. A sort of billboard mentality. The, I want to understand it now, attitude.

As a result art has become more instant. It didn't just start with the television. It has been getting that way since we discovered how to draw in perspective, and three dimensions could be expressed on a two dimensional surface. Bright Colored Frescos, realism, expressionism, impressionism, cubism, All ways to say" here, see what I mean?"

When the artist does not know the time period in which he has his audience captured, he will rush to give you his message. And the results are often not appealing to the artistically educated. Who tend to expect a greater degree of sophistication from an artist.

The only way I know to counter the trend, is to assume that your work will last for a long long time. And to provide interest within it, both for immediate interest, and long term study of it.

Regards Sam Simpson.

Not so simple for me - moderately long

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>(Bear with me here: this ramble does have a point, and it eventually ends) I have a friend who retired early from teaching (Health Sciences and Physical Education or, as it is now named, Kinesiology - body mechanics, adaptive PE, lots of stuff, even training future HS PE teachers) so he could pursue his secret love of sculpture. His signature piece is a complete abstract of a pole vaulter that makes me wish I had the $1500 his pieces cost every time I see it. It's just stone cut in two curves in tension against each other - the crass would say it looks like two really curvy bananas glued together, but with even less surface texture - that captures the physicality and grace of a pole vaulter right at that moment before the pole and the vaulter begin to straighten out to get maximum height over the pole. It's just flat beautiful.

Now, I'm generally rather sarcastic about modern art, because I think a lot of it is self-indulgent and undisciplined - but his work is very disciplined, and he works really hard at distilling the physical center of a sports event into an abstraction that just plain grabs the viewer, but then contains enough resonance (can't think of a better word) to keep the viewer viewing and thinking about the piece. You can see his admiration of the athlete's intensity, and, in the process, he shares with you some of his own delight.

I wouldn't cross the street to spit on most "modern" furniture if it was on fire, but when it's got grace, spirit, and texture, the best stuff can stand up proudly next to classical furniture. And we have to remember that the classical stuff isn't always successful either; most of our mental models of classical furniture are based on the good work, not the oopsies. I've got a book (that I'm too lazy to get out tonight) with a little occasional table of classical intent that is one of the stupidest designs I've ever seen, just horribly proportioned.

I'm still not sure what all makes one piece work and another fail, but the era isn't as important as whatever those factors are.

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Todd Stock

>There must have been a 'first' Queen Anne highboy or Shaker candle stand, both of which probably looked different but right. And I have little doubt that Maloof's rocker will be featured in Lester Margon IV's 'American Furniture Treasures of the late 20th Through Mid- 21st Century.'

I do know what does not work - California Roundover and anything stack laminated, to judge from FWW's Design Book 2

I think Dunbar had a good article in FWW a few years back that defined 'classic' - still a good guide.

very cogent Sam

Tom Sontag - St. Louis

>As usual, an interesting and thoughtful reply by our man Sam. However, I respectfully disagree or do not understand this part:

'As a result art has become more instant. It didn't just start with the television. It has been getting that way since we discovered how to draw in perspective, and three dimensions could be expressed on a two dimensional surface. Bright Colored Frescos, realism, expressionism, impressionism, cubism, All ways to say" here, see what I mean?" '

Artists create to express themselves and they are constantly looking for new ways to say it. This is not the same as "becoming more instant". In fact, plenty of folks who do not appreciate "modern art" get lost right at the point where art begins to require contextual knowledge by the viewer, where it becomes *less* "instant".

Minimalism and conceptualism, and I include Rothko in those groups for our purposes here, are special types of "modern art". They tickle a different corner of the brain versus impressionism, which everyone seems to understand (now), or expressionism or pop art, to name just a few. Overpaid or not, I begrudge noone whatever rewards come to them for a truly original thought expressed clearly. Besides, minimalism is extremely hard to get right - go ahead, anyone, take a blank sheet of paper and draw only 2 or 3 lines and see if you can match Picasso's elegant seated woman.

As to the letter and furniture, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some are even valid, if they have taken the time and effort to understand. But whenever someone walks up and says "I do not know much about art, but I know what I like and that sucks", I have nothing pleasant to respond.

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>There are organic forms which are not human; and the best of contemporary architecture and art utilizes those forms as well as human. A person would feel an affinity for those designs.

Pam

Re: very cogent Sam

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Ten or fifteen years ago I heard some rumblings about a research project around the appeal of art, or, "why does this work?" I think it was done by a Dutch group. The work revealed that apparently all extremely appealing art had something like 20 turnings. I never could find the book/study, so I'm not exactly sure what defines a turning, but it sounded like a point of departure, say a curve turning back on itself, a color transforming into another, etc. Are you familiar with this?

Pam

Re: classical or "classic"

paul womack

>There is a distinction (certainly over here in fuddy duddy Europe) between "Classical" which means essential Greek or Roman, and "classic" which means (more vaguely) anything that has stood the test of time.

For instance Arts and Crafts designs are certainly "classic" but definitely not "classical".

Taking these definitions, I do not at all agree that all furniture (nor architecture) should be classical.

And (given the definition) virtually everybody likes classic; it's a kinda' circular argument.

BugBeasr

Function first

Mark Harrison -- in Sydney, Australia

>Interesting thread and I thought I would dip my oar as well.

The first test of an object intended to be furniture is that it fulfils the desired function. For instance; You've probably seen the chair with ball and claw front legs where the ball had slipped out and the front leg was reaching out for the ball.

It's a great piece and from what I can see extremely well executed. However, it isn't furniture because (unless somebody knows something I don't) it is not functional. You couldn't sit in it for the same reason that you wouldn't use a dining chair with a broken leg.

So what is this object? I guess it is sculpture, in the absence of another candidate name. Sculpture is an art form I hold in high esteem so the question is then; Is this good sculpture? I can't answer that question definitively for the human race. Each of us get to answer that question for ourselves.

There is one extremely practical problem that sculpture has; it competes for space. I don't know how you folks live in particular but I have a strong suspicion that, like me, you don't live in a large manor house with room for sculptural "frivolities", as much I would like to be surrounded by them. From a sales point of view sculpture automatically has a smaller potential set of buyers. This is even more so for objects that must be on the floor.

Anyway, my 2c worth.

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Ernie Miller Topeka

>I'm not realy sure where you are going with this but. what is wrong with streaching your imagination and trying to do things differant? I don't see Modern as in you face as much as trying to change the lines in the way it is presented? I'm not sure what the hubub is about with the Library is it the building or the furnishings? or both? A chair is a chair a good chair is comfortable a nice chair is comfortable and pleasing to the eye. and that is where things get murky as every one has differant tastes. I think one of the most important things a library can do is make some one think if this design causes people to open there mind than it must be working on the other hand if the furnishings are so distracting that people cannot get comfortable and use the facility as it is intended than it is a failer. Let me know if I missed the point.

nope

Tom Sontag - St. Louis

>I would be very doubtful that any soft science could capture some rules about 'good art'. You and I can discuss what makes a certain piece work or what factors can appeal to a large audience, but for each rule it should not be too hard to come up with an example that flies directly in its face and appeals nonetheless.

What can you say about 'good music'? Melody, rhythm, whatever other factors you want to throw in - they are part of good as well as bad music. Tough to define. I read where some guy fed his artificially intelligent computer only 'good (popular/successful/esteemed) music' and had it learn the characteristics of good melody. He then had it create thousands of melodies, some of which are allegedly very nice. Still, someone had to feed 'good' in and cull the 'bad' out.

This building in particular

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I think a rousing modern art debate is always fun. And I know this isn't the point. But I thought some of you may be interested to view the subject:

The ground rules for the design of this building were:

"Use no columns in the corners, no vertical columns and as few columns as possible. In other words, the project's success depended on making an 11-level, all glass building in earthquake country appear to 'float' without support."

www.spl.org

The interior wiring and networking are all state of the art. The librarians wear communications �necklaces� that allow them to speak to each other plus any outside telephone call completely wirelessly on any of the 11 floors.

Seattle isn�t exactly Philadelphia when it comes to architecture. Looks to me as though this building is relatively harmonious with high tech nature of Seattle. I think the original author was way off base in this particular circumstance.

Adam

Re: nope

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>This particular study was a little more than that. The question asked was something like what produces a physical resonance (sort of) when seen. I suspect something similar could be done for music. Oh, well, the search goes on.

Pam

Re: cogent

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I looked up "cogent" in the dictionary, and it means "compelling belief" or "convincing". A nice word.

I'm pretty sure it was Andy Rooney who did a bit on "modern art". I tend to agree with him on most stuff, and I agreed a hundred percent on this one. I think art should exhibit a certain amount of skill or talent that can be understood by the general public. Andy made the point that many "artists" today can not draw a realistic picture to save their life. They have a lot of "training" but no talent. I think if someone was to learn to draw well first, then they would have "earned" the right to do as they see fit with whatever they want. They would have real talent that they could produce at any given moment. I can look at a yellow banana that is quite ugly and easily make one that is just as ugly. That does not make me a great artist, nor does it mean my ugly yellow banana should earn large federal grants to produce and then display in a public place. That is just wrong.

I am reminded of a story called "The Emperor's New Clothes" . You've probably heard of it. I think it does a pretty good job of describing a lot of modern art.

This may sound pretty harsh, and I do not have training in any type of art; oh well, this is my story, and I'm sticking to it ;)

I've been to it

Steve Elliott

>About a month ago I took a long walk through the new library, just to see what it was like inside. It was as if I had stumbled onto the set of a science fiction movie from the 1960s. I didn't love it or hate it, but it seemed like I didn't belong there. Maybe it was because the new building was unfamiliar to me, but as an ordinary human being, I felt out of place.

I had been a regular user of the old library (on the same site) but haven't made much use of the new one.

This strikes me as one of those buildings that looks great in a photo spread in an architecture magazine, but is only mediocre from a user's perspective. Sort of a Millers Falls Buck Rogers plane.

validity

Tom Sontag - St. Louis

>It is true that many current artists lack classical training and drafting talent. And I agree that this disqualifies many attempts at creating art, but not all. Not necessarily because their rendering of a tree does not look like a tree (we CAN move beyond that I hope) but rather because their abilty to adroitly handle line (drafting talent) is lacking. It is too easy too criticise broadly and one must be careful here or you lose too much valuable stuff.

Each viewer of a work gets to decide if it works for them and if the work is valid. When Marcel Duchamp hung a urinal upsidedown in a gallery (1917) and called it art (title: "Fountain"), the world was outraged. Andy Rooney would have been outraged. But the act expanded the concept and definition of art as including a new way of looking at a common object (preceding pop art by some 40 years).

Is it art? Does it intrigue you or make you think, expand your mind? Or is it a fraud? If a fraud, can you find anything to enjoy in any pop art? Doesn't the idea of seeing the beauty of form in any common object, aside from its function, dovetail pretty well into what we are trying to do in our craft?

Andy Warhol produced multiple repetitive images (remember the Marilyn Monroe paintings?) in what he called a "factory" to purposely cheapen and make common the image - it was part of what he was trying to tell us. Does that mean it is not art? Does that mean that it is?

That said, there is way too much currently hung in modern art galleries and museums that I don't care for and consider a fraud on the public. Becoming a big and succe$$ful artist has become too much like becoming a pop music star - it is too promotion-dependent and too disconnected from talent. That is why each of us must make our own informed choices about what is art. Andy Rooney's broad brush approach is a little too rigid and easy for me. I know people who are not moved by music without a beat too.

How long has this been there?

Mark Harrison -- in Sydney, Australia

>I don't recall seeing it when I was there (2000).

"Art" explained

Bob Hackett

>Someone once asked a holy man to define art.

His reply;"Art is the smile of God".

Mainely,Bob-Wondering if God has a sense of humor or not.

"for the public"

Tom Sontag - St. Louis

>I forgot to skewer this sentence of yours: " I think art should exhibit a certain amount of skill or talent that can be understood by the general public"

I disagree that it must be understood by the general public. It could be that your young child's drawing on the fridge is one of your favorite artworks and few if any can understand what it is. If you ask me to draw a portrait of you and I draw your workbench with a few tools, the public would not get it without explanation yet you might bond immediately with it.

Rather than "can be understood by the general public" I suggest something like "expresses or emotes in an interesting way".

Re: Not so simple for me - moderately long

Jeremy Osner

>Nicely put, Bill -- I try to avoid the modern art debate because "I don't know art but I know what I like" -- the kicker for me is that much of modern art falls into the "what I like" category. AFA furniture, show me a comfortable chair and I will not waste time fretting over whether it adheres to classical forms or no; same goes for an uncomfortable chair. And I reckon we have all seen and sat in contemporary reproductions of classical furniture forms which, because of inaccuracy in design and/or poor execution, are just not comfortable.

It opened in May 2004

Steve Elliott

>

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Jeff Schmidt (KY)

>There must have been a 'first' Queen Anne highboy or Shaker candle stand, both of which probably looked different but right.

Yes and No. Yes, they had distinctives, yet unlike modern design, they were tied directly to what preceded them.

To quote Roger Scruton,

�I suppose that, in so far as I had received any intimations of my future career as an intellectual pariah, it was through my early reactions to modern architecture, and to the desecration of my childhood landscape by the faceless boxes of suburbia. I learned as a teenager that aesthetic judgment matters, that it is not merely a subjective opinion, unargued because unarguable, and of no significance to anyone besides oneself. I saw�though I did not have the philosophy to justify this�that aesthetic judgment lays a claim upon the world, that it issues from a deep social imperative, and that it matters to us in just the way that other people matter to us, when we strive to live with them in a community. And, so it seemed to me, the aesthetics of modernism, with its denial of the past, its vandalization of the landscape and townscape, and its attempt to purge the world of history, was also a denial of community, home, and settlement. Modernism in architecture was an attempt to remake the world as though it contained nothing save atomic individuals, disinfected of the past, and living like ants within their metallic and functional shells.�

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>How did Shaker designs follow from their ancestors, other than being a negative reaction to ornament?

Pam

Re: classical vs "modern" furniture

Jim Crammond in Monroe, Mi.

>Pam,

Funny you should mentin this because I've been thinking it about it lately as I've been reading 18th Century American Furniture by Jeffrey Greene.

In my opinion, the Shaker craftsman who are credited with creating a new design aesthetic did so based on their training as cabinetmakers in the "World" and Mother Ann's edict that things should be plain.

The fashionable furniture of the 1790's and the early 1800's were Sheraton, Heppelwhite and Federal styles. It is not to much of a stretch to see the similarities of those furniture forms and Shaker furniture styles. The general designs are the same, the main differences are the surface ornamentation or lack there of. Shaker cabinetmakers were also more willing to make a piece solely on need without using a traditional form, but I think they still followed general design parameters that were popular at the time.

At least, that's my take on it.

Jim