Adam: A&M article question

Re: Adam: A&M article question

Adam Cherubini

>I was tryng to show the width to height relationship only. Your observations are correct. For that section of the article, you can ignore that middle line. I was only trying to superimpose a grid.

On the chippendale piece (attached) the waist is indeed gs down from the top of the upper case. That center line is really misleading as it doesn't indicate any physical feature of the piece.

So step one is the development of the major mass or sillouette. If the customer wanted an 8' piece or wanted something no wider than 42" to fill a space, this "rule" would be the place to start the design.

The next step would be to determine the waist location. The goal of course, is to determine how big to make the upper and lower carcases. That's really what we want, because that's where the work really begins (or with the legs?).

Sometimes I work backwards from the stock I have available. That's certainly what I did on the standing desk. What you don't want to do is wing it or eyeball it. Or at least, that choice, perhaps more than anything else, seperates the masterpieces from the naive furniture. Rest assured that that distinction isn't made based on tightness of dovetails.

Adam

Wm&Mary

Adam Cherubini

>Remember that none of these cartoons are designs I made up based on some dellusions I had. These are all blurred photographs of masterpieces that I didn't have rights to publish. There is some variation between the theoretical perfect and actual dimensions, but not much. Its pretty clear to me that the masters who made these pieces were working from established proportional parameters.

Adam

Now I see...Thanks!

John Hoffman

>

Re: Wm&Mary

JohnJesseph

>Do you think that's the way your subconscious mind's eye divides that piece of casework? Do you think the original designer took that relationship into account? What's the ratio of top to bottom, the much more obvious relationship?

Re: Wm&Mary

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Do you think that's the way your subconscious mind's eye divides that piece of casework? Do you think the original designer took that relationship into account?

John,

There's no way to know for certain what they did. This article presents my findings that states that having looked at several masterpieces, I found that they all exhibited these same proportions to some surprisingly high degree.

This may be because all of us have the same subconcious mind's eye and we've chosen to save and revere the pieces that fit the rules I identified. But I suspect period craftsmen did use these rules. Carpenters certainly did and there are many obvious examples. I'm heading to one this weekend, Mount Pleasant in Fairmont Park in Philadelphia. The builder apprenticed under than the man who designed and built Independance Hall, another fine example.

Medieval furniture strongly exhibits architectural influences. 18th c casework clearly continued in this tradition, not just in the adoption of architectural proportion rules, but in the use of architectural motifs like pediments, columns, arches, etc. These things didn't spring up fully formed in the 18th c, but were rather part of a 1000 year tradition. So I think a good case can be made for the understanding and use of proportion rules by 18th c cabinetmakers.

What's the ratio of top to bottom, the much more obvious relationship?

Are you asking about the upper to lower case heights? Wm & Mary seemed to be 1:1, Chippendale golden section, Queen Anne 1:1 or golden section.

You're right that that's an obvious relationship, and an important one, but its not alone sufficent to be of much use. The height to width is what we really see. Its amazing how even the smallest changes are noticeable- i.e. will look too skinny or short and fat. If you take the time to follow through the algebra, you will find its possible to arrive at the dimensions for the individual carcases fairly easily. The results are robust (i.e. results in a template that fits over many pieces) as well as good looking, which, in the final analysis, is all that really matters.

Adam

Further info *LINK*

wilbur

>For an excellent discussion on the Golden Section, watch "Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land", which I remember from grade school. Some of the objects based on the Golden Section mentioned in this movie include the Mona Lisa, the Parthenon, the cathedral of Notre Dame, and the U.N. building.


Donald Duck in Mathmagic Land