RE: [MedievalSawdust] Re: over-engineering something on prupose
- Geoffrey wrote, "We, as craftspersons in the realm of historic reproduction (new and seasoned woodworkers) , have an obligation to put forth products to support our society and customer/user base that provide the proper medieval aesthetic. To do less, seems to me to be misleading, or even deceitful. So, there's my challenge: Contribute to improving the historical aesthetic; learn how they did it first, then do it how then did it, THEN after you are proficient - interpret."
I sincerely applaud Geoff's post... althought I might take a minor quibble at one very small point (I believe there had to be some elements of rebellion and creativity in play... or else progress would not have occured... yet, I do believe this creativity came into play in the context that Geoff notes above... a skilled artisan in the foundational skills, practiced in the foundational skills... THEN 'innovate' v. 'interpret'...).
But I would also observe that the validity of one's work is is relative to it's intent. If one's focus is purely 'historic recreation' then the path is clear... do as they did... period. However, if one is NOT building something historical... but rather a modern piece with historic elements... then it's a totally different game and needs to be judged by a totally different yardstick.
Yet... there is one consistant yardstick that can be applied to both the recreationist and the 'inspired creativist'... and that is craftsmanship. Regardless of what "style" of woodworking you do there is one bottom line... is the work skillfully and rationally done and appropriate to the intent?
We've all heard the old saw about art being 5% inspiration and 95% persperiation... I feel that applies to the current disussion. The "5%" represents the research and accademics we engage in to understand one or another 'period forms', the techniques used, the environment, the mindset, etc., etc... the "95%" represents the departure from the accademic to the practical... the picking up of the tools and our ability to exicute our mental visions on the practical palate of timbers... and the practical pallate is the truest yardstick by which, in my opionion, the accademic should be measured.
... great post Geoffrey... great post...
- Maybe some. I went last November and plan on trying to do a set of diagrams and things based on my pictures, which I haven't uploaded anywhere yet... Some of the people I was travelling with have some online, however. The bed is in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum. Here's my travelling companion's photos, along with her "measuring device".
I took a ton of photos of this bed, crawling around on the floor and scaring the museum curators. As soon as I can find some time, I plan on adapting it and replicating the design for my own use and will do a writeup of it. As I get things together I'd be happy to post them here.
--Alysaundre Weldon d'Ath
Barony of Adiantum, An Tir
Bill McNutt wrote:
Any pictures of this online?
“That said, there are some period designs that do lend themselves well to our needs, as well as some period furniture that was specifically designed with similar needs to ours such as a "campaign" bed in Munich, dated 1600, where the entire thing, including the canopy, comes apart and has hinged panels, hooks, etc, to allow it to fold and collapse for ease of transport. “
I, for one, would like to acknoledge and agree with Conal on this point. We do suffer a great difficulty in balancing what we do in the SCA with Medieval practice. The vast majority of surviving medieval furniture was not intended to be significantly portable, let alone stored for extended periods of time and hauled out and set up on odd weekends, outdoors, throughout the year in a range of conditions. The needs of period furniture wasn't necessarily the same as ours. That said, there are some period designs that do lend themselves well to our needs, as well as some period furniture that was specifically designed with similar needs to ours such as a "campaign" bed in Munich, dated 1600, where the entire thing, including the canopy, comes apart and has hinged panels, hooks, etc, to allow it to fold and collapse for ease of transport. The other factor that we have to account for, at least for those who are building furniture, not for their own use, but for sale or at the expense of others, is a realistic assessment of what the customer wants and what can be given to them within the range of what they'd be willing to pay. Conal's initial design excelled on this front in that it could be made with basic, readily available dimensional lumber, a couple of cuts with a powered miter saw, and a few passes of a dado blade on a table saw. The hinge was a good, quick way to solve the problem of holding it together but still allowing it to be easily disassembled. Mortises are definitely more period, and in this case would have been stronger, but without a power mortising machine (and as someone who has one, even with) making the mortises would have been much more time consuming than the minute it would have taken to cut the slots with a dado. As someone who is building a bunch of faldstools, right now, though of a period overall design, I'm not cutting tenons and mortising the feet and armrests onto the legs, but am rather using a Festool Domino to cut floating tenon slots and gluing in the tenons. This is the fastest and easiest way for me to put these together, especially when I'm trying to make 10 in one go, with a time limit of having them done by the end of this month.
I also don't view the path to a more period encampment as an all-or-nothing process. It is far easier for most to take steps along that path a bit at a time. I'd rather see a non-period chair made of period materials (wood) than a non-period chair of non-period materials. that is also often a step that people take in their path towards a more authentic experience and is a step usually driven more by economic concerns than desire. Anything we can do to encourage progression further along that path is a good thing. This is why the "stargazer" chairs and plywood "thrones" are a good thing. They aren't period, but certainly help move in that direction.
--Alysaundre Weldon d'Ath
Barony of Adiantum, An Tir
Conal O'hAirt Jim Hart wrote:
I've come up with a differing design that does not have the notches.
But I would like to point out that I think the part where I
said "simple and quick" was overlooked, along with "not a
bag chair" and "cheap"
I think that period benches would be the most attractive way to
provide seating but not in this case the most practical given the realities
of the way it will be used, transported and stored.
Baron Conal O'hAirt / Jim Hart
Aude Aliquid Dignum
' Dare Something Worthy '