Purism and Pragmatism

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

David Barnett - Venice, Florida

>I must admit you took it well, Adam, with grace and wit. And yeah, I think you've just expressed purist tendencies in a positive context. That's an interesting continuum, purism----------------pragmatism. I think I'm somewhat bipolar on that line, more sporadic than oscillatory, I'd say. Sometimes I seem to learn more at one pole than the other. Sometimes I get stuck. Rarely am I at equipoise, but that's pretty much my stochastically shaky nature.

Of course, one can find genius at either pole, and inflexibility can almost be a virtue in that regard. It takes a lot of passion, perserverance, and courage to create at the fringes, whether it's the manifest recombinant inventiveness of the pragmatist or the rarified sublimation of form and essence for the archetypal purist, probably the more alchemically spiritual of the two. I can't help supposing that the purist needs a double dose of courage, though. I also suppose purism has its own continuum, the immovable sitting Buddha at one end and outright disillusioned errant prig at the other, especially so when 'purist' is meant in its common and rather limited linguistic and lexical sense. Of course, the purist has more to lose than the 'adaptive' pragmatist*. I have to agree with you: one does smell a possible sellout, hence justified suspicion. Funny though, when I really think about it, in one's fantasies and dreams one is almost always surely a purist.

*Adam keenly observes: "At some point the pragmatist is going to stop pushing the envelop and switch something on. So we must be suspicious, as I said, about where that line of compromise is."

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I think it's very difficult to define a purist in this context, particularly sawing. For example, you once said you thought cabinet makers probably purchased dimensioned wood. So is the woodworker who uses powered saws for dimensioning lumber and does the remainder with hand tools a purist or pragmatist?

Pam

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Adam...

I don't believe you've taken much (or any) flack for it...Moses, rightly or wrongly seems to be the "marked" man at the moment. I do think (IMHO) sometimes you attempt to be too "snarky" in your posts and eventually one of those comes up smelling bad or is taken offense to by someone.

I think that's what Moses reacted to, and frankly I don't feel he was any more or less snarky than you were or have been in the past.

I may be misreading your postings, but I'm relaying what I often read them to be, even if that's wrong and not your intent.

I'm not going to defend my opinion of what I read into your posts - or the prior threads content. It is what it is. Perhaps it's flat wrong, or stupid or crackpot. Whatever it is, it is my view, and I just want to share that view with you so that you can take it for what you will and change or not as you see fit.

Back to the topic...

As for the "purist" viewpoint. Sure, if you want to know how the guy does it without sandpaper as a purist, then asking the guy who absolutely refuses to use sandpaper may give you insight on how he may get by. But often that makes as much sense as finding out how the nudist survives in the Artic year-round.

I guess someone just *must* be a nudist in the Arctic it might be helpful - never mind how ridiculous it might be.

I think most of us, however, are looking for some idea of what's the best or most sensible way to do things, rather than how to do them the "right" or "one" way, come hell or high water.

So, a purist can provide the viewpoint of the "hell or high water" way, and then the more pragmatist of us will provide counterpoint. The end result is that, like always, the reader can decide which view they'd like to adopt as their own and do so.

From that perspective the purist is only one voice of many. While it may be pure, it may be of disharmony to the listener.

FWIW, I like to hear *all* the voices, purist and not, *without* peanut gallery commentary on each contributors "worth" or "good-old-boy" status. The reader can then decide which is of most worth to them. (I'm not claiming you're part of the peanut gallery here...)

Too often here, though I don't think you're at all responsible for it, I think things degenerate into a popularity contest with all dog-piling on those who don't fit the mold and demeaning their input. (Obviously I bring my baggage here as being often labled the swiss-army-plane-guy - virtually all without any merit arguments given - just the "...well he doesn't fit in - ya gotta have a lot of planes to make anything other than dimentioned pine shelving...")

Purists DO bring a unique viewpoint to the discussion. So do non-purists and the purists on the other side. What each brings to the table in terms of useful information and such should be left to the reader.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

paul womack

>All this is to say that I found it very clever of Bill to seek a specific type of answer by recognizing the different conclusions resulting from pragmatic and purist approaches.

Heh. How many times, Adam, over the years have I already pointed out to you that much of your advice, whilst presented as "universal" or "obvious" is actually only fully valid within your (rather unusual) context?

Further "purist" and "pragmatist" also beg further qualification; if your purpose is the best route to a smooth board, the plane is merely a means to an end. But if your purpose is to analyse the whys and hows of planes, the plane is the matter at hand. A a "pragmatist" plane designer views as "practical" any feature which increases sales.

Leaving features off because they're not essential (from his point of view) would be "purist" !

BugBear (who believes context is all)

Good point

Adam Cherubini

>

Ego and agenda

Bob Hackett

>Probably the two biggest stumbling blocks to real progress and resolution of disagreements.

BTW-Hard to stay to the purist line in all replies when the post states Bill was removing marks left by power tools with that plane.

Just furthering my own agenda while feeding my ego.

Another tip Adam,sometimes not everybody gets you hard edged wit.It doesn`t mean it`s not witty,it just means they don`t get it.Let them sort it out with the rest of the info.

Mainely,Bob

Another perspective (or maybe not)

mike recchione

>I've read a lot of woodworking books and articles over the years, and sometimes what I read doesn't match my experience, or, when applied, doesn't work very well. This doesn't only apply to woodworking - many writers attempt to cover historical techniques without any real firsthand knowledge, and they just plain get them wrong. I think this happens because the people in question think they understand the technique intellectually, but have never really had to rely on it to accomplish anything, and their knowledge has critical gaps or inaccuracies that they've never been forced to work through.

I'm sure Norm Abrams has used a handsaw on occasion. But he doesn't regard it as a real tool for serious people - it's a curiosity to him, an archaic artifact that woodworkers used until something better came along. "Real Woodworkers" use an army of powered devices to cut wood, and maybe they have a "toolbox saw" handy for those rare instances when the batteries are dead and there isn't an outlet handy. They may, for fun once in a while, pull the vintage Disston that's hanging on the shop wall for color, and work up a sweat doing things the old way. They might even write an article for a woodworking magazine about it, like "Who'd of thought it? You can actually cut wood with a hand saw! (Hint - the teeth should always face the wood)" But when the going gets tough, they'll stop the foolishness and use a "real tool".

I have a friend who considers himself a woodworking hobbyist, and he makes a fair amount of stuff - probably more than I do. He's got a shop full of machines, and his projects tend to go a lot more quickly than mine do. I asked him about sharpening chisels one day. He told me that he had tried it once, using some sandpaper technique he'd read about. It sort of worked, but he couldn't understand why anyone would go to the trouble - after all, a chisel costs a few bucks at Home Depot, they're sharp when you buy them, and when they get dull you just throw them away and buy another. Besides, how sharp does a chisel need to be to open paint cans, anyway?

I would no more ask such a person for advice about handsaws than I would ask Martha Stewart for advice about bowhunting deer and preparing pemmican. (BTW - don't flame me for bambicide. I've never killed an animal with fewer than 6 legs in my life.) It's true, Martha might just have picked up a rare tidbit of bowhunting knowledge somewhere or other, and might just have the one piece of information I really need. But what are the odds? I'd rather go ask somebody like Adam. Someone for whom there is no "real tool" to turn to, and has learned how to get professional results without a safety net.

Even if I were a pragmatist myself, I would probably try to "locally optimize" each part of the process, i.e. I would want the advice of a handtool purist for the handtool parts of what I intended to do, a Normite for the power parts, and maybe the advice of some other pragmatists about where to draw the line.

Clearly, 17th Century woodworkers turned out all the work they needed to using the tools they used. They weren't supermen, with super-human strength and stamina. They were people like us. Somehow, they found ways to do all their cutting with handsaws, all their smoothing with planes and scrapers, etc and so on. They turned out beatiful work - beautiful enough for us to want to copy it today. And they found ways to do it quickly, efficiently and without breaking their backs. This is the kind of person I want to tell me about saws, planes, scrapers, and so on. Someone else might know the answer too, but this guy knows the answer for sure.

I wouldn't go to him for advice about plywood, about sprayed-on finishes, about Arts&Crafts furniture that requires 1000 identical parts to look right. But I would go to him about ways to smooth stuff without sandpaper.

My two cents.

- Mike

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

mikew

>Adam,

I think the very word, "purism," is in itself misleading, as is most words one could substitute such as "traditionalism." It probably is also a hot-button for some.

You have in essence created your own traditionalism and or purism in your approach to woodworking. It is neither to be despised nor placed upon a pedestal as a higher form of expression in methods. Your choice of tools and methods from the period in which you work in was in the process of being replaced by wood workers. In the same period of time workers were using tools that themselves were being made more and more by machines, as well as the product they were making.

Where we each draw the line of hand tool vs. machine is not really important. Nor is it which hand tool: vintage or reproduction or entirely a new take on a traditional tool. It only matters to the person making the purchase--or to those having an agenda.

As to methods of work and corresponding philosophies, each one is selecting what period of methodology and further refining that choice to a subset. So when one says to me that they are being a purist or traditionalist in their tools or methods, one has to ask: Who's tradition? It varies in each time period.

Personally I think Pam's view is the balanced thought in all this. We all choose to what degree we enter the hand / machine / vintage tool / new tool matrix. Most of these choices have existed for as long as this country has in one form or another.

You have decided your path, and I would bet it has evolved over time--and will continue to do so. I have chosen mine, and it too has changed and change is ahead. Mine is no more pure than another's--but is no less so either. It might be different, but purism is a ghost. It doesn't really exist except in a *selective* view of a given period.

I thank you for sharing your thoughts and views on this matter, and I share some of the same sentiments in so far as asking / giving advice. Heck, maybe even some tool and methodology issues.

Mike

C'mon, Bob...

David Barnett - Venice, Florida

>Give them the benefit of the doubt! Yeah, I first took Bill's thread title to mean, somewhat irritably: "Okay, you wise guy 'purists' who claim to finish direct from your smoothers... what gives?" At least that's how I read it. Not the first time I took something in a more cynical manner than it may have been intended.

Adam took it to mean something very different, indeed, ascribing a more interesting philosophically investigative intent than sarcasm or chagrin. And as Bill claims it was his precise intent to convey this deeper meaning following Adam's expository epiphany of positive purism, I'd say we take him at his word.

Re: Another perspective (or maybe not)

Adam Cherubini

>While I agree with everything you said Mike, I just want to make it clear, that my interest here lies only in recognizing and understanding the effect of that line between purism and pragmatism. As we all attempt to learn more about any subject, I think its important to find that line. In my experience, I’ve overstepped the line many times and found (as you eluded to) the advice that seemed to work okay before I got to the line, wasn’t worth beans on the other side of it.

Tage Frid and my brother Steve sharpen their chisels on a belt sander, never touching the back of the blade. I really fall for stuff like that because of my prejudice against purism (I think greg sloop is in that boat with me). But as all of you know, such a technique can only take you so far. In my experience it wasn’t far at all. It wasn’t until I read about Dunbar counting his nose hairs in a polished back that I realized what sharp was, and that opened doors for me.

I think some of the ire I accidentally raised was a misinterpretation (my own fault) that the subject was do-ers vs. thinkers. Though I understand where you’re coming from, I’m unwilling to ask for credentials as someone else said, since credentials are absolutely no guarantee of accuracy or merit. I’m with Bill who said sometimes beginners fresh from a class are better teachers than more experienced folks. We all know there are folks here who never build anything yet know how to tweak a plane like nobodies business. I don’t think any rationale person here would ever suggest not listening, not respecting, not valuing these folks.

Anyway, as far as the purism thing, I really feel strongly about this and am appreciative of Bill for enlightening me. I now realize this line between purism and pragmatism is the trouble I have with the workbench book, and (truth be told) more and more of Taunton’s publications. The latest FWW article on hand tools is a great example. (2 issues ago). They are pragmatic enough skills that will take you just so far. Beyond that line, it looked to me as though few of those techniques would actually work. I certainly could do what I do with those techniques (The sawing techniques looked particularly problematic to me- Maybe they are a good start. Maybe they are the right place to start.)

Adam

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

Adam Cherubini

>Mike,

I don’t mean to play dumb, but I’m lucky to have the notion I have. I simply cannot comprehend the effects of traditionalism on any of this.

Obviously we are each perceived differently than we perceive ourselves, right? I don’t see what I do as purism in any way. It’s a practical means to a desired goal and it has worked for me. Moreover, I’m admitting to you that I have a negative prejudice against purism. I am in no way the paragon of this enlightened philosophy. As such I’m as much a part of the problem as anyone, as Bugbear has rightly pointed out time and time again. What I have to say is only true within some (often undefined) box (formerly the line). To take advantage of what I have to say, you have to know not only that's there's a box but exactly where it is. Don't try to apply my techniques to mass production or to solid ebony furniture.

The advantage I see in the purists’ approach is that YOU get to draw the line when you’ve had enough sole flattening, back bevel calculating, and water stone preparation. Does that make sense?

Adam

Want vs. Need (LINK)

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Hi, Adam! I've never met you but I'm learning to love you like a brother! ;>) My .02¢ follows.

"At what price point exactly does a smooth plane’s functionality increase peak? Do you really need a $3000 smoother for example?"

I believe that similar maximum functionality can be achieved from a $30.00 Stanley or a $3000.00 Holtey.

At that point, I choose to pay the extra $2970.00 for what I "want" since I have already secured what I "need" with the initial $30.00.

The precise 'price point' will vary with each individual's unique perspective.

Sometimes, when someone's 'perspective' is confronted that person may perceive it as a personal attack and respond in kind; when, in effect, no initial attack was ever intended.

Many times I want to experience that intangible 'something' when using some instrument or even just looking at or holding it. Perhaps someone else 'could care less!'. I generally find it very easy to let me be me; a tad harder for me to let you be you ;>)!!

Want vs. Need - Beg to differ

Denis Chénard, Orléans, Ont.

>"I believe that similar maximum functionality can be achieved from a $30.00 Stanley or a $3000.00 Holtey."

I don't know exactly what you mean by "maximum functionality". If you mean that both planes can make a shaving, sure. If you want a plane that can smooth the gnarliest grain, then "no way, José".

If you used as a basis of comparison a Sauer & Steiner (at half the price of a Holtey) or an Anderson (about half the price too), then the "need vs. want" makes a lot more sense.

In Derek Cohen's review of the Veritas BU smoother, a Stanley Bedrock couldn't hold a candle to the Veritas. But in that case the Veritas is probably less expensive, so that's a bonus. I'd like to see a Veritas vs. LN/Holtey/S&S/Anderson planes, just to find out if there's a marked gain in performance, or if the expensive planes justify their stratospheric prices by their "work of art" status...

If one's willing to pay more for the same performance, then that's clearly a "want" issue...

DC

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

mikew

>Adam,

A lot of this is the problem of semantics and definitions. Including my own . And I probably won't try to define either of the words used (purism/traditionalism). Attempting to define them in an absolute way can lead to confusion in a forum, especially as threads drift.

But, imo, without defining what we each mean by these words, misunderstanding will continue (well, probably anyway).

For instance, you say

"I don’t see what I do as purism in any way. It’s a practical means to a desired goal and it has worked for me."

And later

"The advantage I see in the purists’ approach is that YOU get to draw the line when you’ve had enough sole flattening, back bevel calculating, and water stone preparation. Does that make sense?"

While these statements may not be in conflict, it does appear different than labeling oneself as a pragmatist--unless purism (whatever that means to you) is your goal or path and the means to achieve it is, well a pragmatic method. From what is written, I believe that is what you are saying. That is, you have a desire to work within a certain historical context and you seek to achieve it via the most pragmatic means--the tools and methods of work you have determined will achieve that goal.

My opinion is that to one person a pragmatic approach to working within a given historical context is traditionalism/purism to that historical period. None of this really matters to me other than the interest I have in understanding what is being said.

Our paths are not that different, Adam. Our methods may still be divergent...or maybe they are merging. I don't know. I don't know you well enough from your writings, and the reverse is even more true. Sorry , but as the saying goes, you don't know me from Adam. Ultimately, my path is just that, mine. As is yours.

What I do know is that I whole heartedly support you, as I do anyone, in their personal pursuit of their method of work.

Mike

I think I get it

Adam Cherubini

>Mike,

Bugbear's probably having a field day with this thread. Everything I've said so far really needs qualification. I'm only talking about woodworking methodologies. Esthetically, I'm a purist. You're right.

But that has no bearing on how I prep a board or how I cut a joint. I don't think anyone here is interested in philly vs. newport base construction.

Okay?

For me, this discussion is now and has always been only about the line as it pertains to tool selection, technique, etc. That Bill can say where he wants the line to be when he asks the question. Its not about esthetics, its not about doing vs. thinking, and its not about assigning a value to one extreme or the other except to say, where I was prejudiced against purism yesterday, I see its advantages today.

But you're right about the historical-purism connection. I just don't talk about that here.

Adam

Re: I think I get it

William Claspy in Cleveland

>I don't think anyone here is interested in philly vs. newport base construction.

I think you might be incorrect. :-)

Bill

(who has been reading the companion volume to the Metropolitan's Townsend exhibit)

Re: I think I get it

mikew

>"But that has no bearing on how I prep a board or how I cut a joint. I don't think anyone here is interested in philly vs. newport base construction."

Well, maybe for the purposes of this discussion, but as I didn't know of a difference, you have now piqued my interest, so yeah, sometime it would be a nice discussion.

"For me, this discussion is now and has always been only about the line as it pertains to tool selection, technique, etc. That Bill can say where he wants the line to be when he asks the question."

Absolutely. I think we all have the right to ask for specifics and set parameters. In fact, it would be nice if more people would do so in asking their questions.

And I think your original point of who responds or the type of response is important. I should state whether I have experience in XYZ method or whether it is theoretical knowledge when I respond. Most often I do, sometimes it seems of little consequence and so do not.

When I seek forum advice, I usually accept the fact that some information may not be applicable to *how* I wish to do something, but it is the result I am seeking. Though some would disagree, I'm a smart feller and can sift through the responses and adapt my methods to the advice. Rarely am I as smart as Bill in phrasing a question in a forum context.

When something of *how* has as much importance to me as *what*, I usually directly contact those whom have faced this, using the methods I desire to use. Failing that, I contact people who, while maybe not familiar with how I wish to do sommething will respect my choices and help me reason through it or point me where I can find the imformation.

Who knows. Maybe I'll start pestering you with questions directly .

As always, thank you.

Mike

I love threads like this

Scott in MN

>I don't contribute much - but it's discussions like this that keep me coming back again and again.

thanks to everyone for their honest and open discussion!

Oh, yeah, Adam's definitely wrong about that.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Years ago over on the porch a little long

Ron in Kokomo

>We had this conversation over on old tools a lot

This discussion surfaces (in many guises) all the time. WE have to always understand that this forum draws really expert woodworkers whose knowledge of the collectibility.history of tools is not too good. I am continually amazed by the quality of work exhibited here.

We got extremely knowledgeable tool collectors who have never built a bread box.

WE got all gradations in between, but like Toby Keith, " I like this bar".

For the woodworker the only "purism" that you can justify other that for personal reasons (which, BTW are as legit as any other reasons especially in your own shop) is what is the very best way to do this particular task for this piece of furniture and will it make a structural or observable aesthetic difference. I note that almost all of the persons who are viewed as icons of the craft ( St Roy excluded) use a mixture of hand tools and electrons based on what their training and experience has taught them is the best way to make furniture.

But if a guy or gal is in this just for relaxation and can cut good dovetails with a ch--ns-w... Its his or her shop and wood. Like wise if a guy wants to build a bedroom suit for his wife and goes and gets a pick up truck full of wood and want to size and surface it all with hand tools. Its his time and blisters, and gosh won't he have a sense of accomplisment when all that work is done?

These discussions are fun and even informative as long as we keep in mind that there are a dozen ways to remove feline fur and they all more or less work and the ultimate arbiters are the artisan and the recipient of the work, and possibly the cat.

BTW my shop is slowly coming out of crates and I'll be working in my basement. Hand tools only. I will do some machining..

I am a "purist" about very few things. Three of them are that joining boards at their edges is not done nearly as well as it could be if each bopard has not had a pass ot two with a finely tuned jointer plane with a razor sharp iron, and if you know how to hone and use a smoother, you will produce a more brilliant surface that a guy with sandpaper, and there is absolutely no substitute for proper honing done more often than most of us want to.

BTW my shop is slowly coming out of crates and I will be working in my basement. Hand tools only.. I will do some machining... but in the garage. I hope to get into chairmaking pretty seriously soon... lots of gift potential for family and friends... all hand work with my draw knives and spoke shaves ( do not ask me how many of these I have I am NOT a collector... just a user with too ittle time at the shaving horse) .. and Willy on the Stereo AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Re: Want vs. Need - Beg to differ

Ron in Kokomo

>Remember the tool is the cutting edge, The other stuff is a jig

Re: Want vs. Need - Beg to differ

Frank Mutchler in Colorado Springs

>Dennis, please don't beg! It's demeaning ;>). Webster: "Similar" = alike in substance or essentials.

"Maximum functionality" is Adam's term. I intepreted it as meaning 'most usefull in most cases'.The gnarliest grain may well submit to one plane better than another but that would be the exception, not the rule.

I don't see why the price of an instrument would exclude it from the want vs need comparison. Perhaps a better distinction would be based on characteristics other than price; something like: "I only buy tools I need." = absolutely no frills. While "I sometimes buy tools I want." = same item with frills (few or many).

Re: Purism and Pragmatism

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Friends of ours, back when we lived in Michigan, had a place in the South that they visited every summer. Near the place was a guy who made ladderback chairs the traditional way, complete with bark-strip woven seating (charged about $10 in 1971 - cheap even then). One time when they were visiting, he told Peter, the oldest son in the family, that he'd found this great new material for weaving the seats. As he walked Peter around behind the shop to show him, he explained that he didn't think the tourists would go for it, but it was the perfect material, and he could even get it for free. They rounded the corner, and there was a huge pile of the plastic strapping that companies use to reinforce shipping boxes, strap materials on pallets, etc.

What I say now is not intended as a criticism at all.

With perhaps rare exception, I think purists are exploring experientially how things were done before a (perhaps arbitrarily selected) change point in the development of technology. They will be operating in an environment that is later than that change point - otherwise, what they do is not purism, but merely reality.

This is a very valuable contribution to understanding how things were done and what we might learn from that simpler state of technological development. Indeed, we who visit this forum are all to a greater or lesser degree intrigued by the capabilities of the simple tool.

Re: gnarly grain

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>The gnarliest grain may well submit to one plane better than another but that would be the exception, not the rule.

I'd say just the reverse, it's the rule rather than the exception. Always amazes me (OK, I'm an easy amazer) when I can just pick up another plane, even the most unlikely wide mouth wooden with dullish ancient blade, and it works a charm.

Pam