“Camoflaging of courses to make them appear vocational is becoming an art of its own, and it is amusing to see colleges listing the only vocational benefit derivable from their courses of art as that of teaching art.
“If a course is limited to training teachers and those teachers are to teach others, just when will the vocational practice of the individual begin? How some schools do hate to roll up their sleeves and begin on the dishes!
“They will teach the lofty principles, only the theory, and George can flounder around and find the application later. And that is just why all the American Georges are about fifty years late in industrial art today.”
— Pedro J. Lemos, Leland Stanford Junior University, “The Industrial-Arts Magazine,” 1919.
I wonder how it can be possible to teach “theory of woodworking” without teaching “woodworking”.
Maybe it’s time to quote Santayana (roughly): “They who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them”. Speaking of lost art, I’m amazed at three fairly recent discoveries: 1. The tool kit that the “Ice Man” carried with him, 2: the Viking-era toolbox dug from a bog, 3: the astronomical calculator found in the Mediterranean Sea. Sometimes things we find seem to be anachronisms, until we learn more of the story.
I know I’ll get dinged for saying this, but I think there is a fair amount of “theoretical” woodworking being taught on the forums and on some blogs.
While there are a lot of extraordinary woodworkers who post blogs and on the forums, there also is a subclass of people who enjoy talking about the craft and its tools. Perhaps their jobs prohibit shop time and encourage computer time. Perhaps they are unable to work in the shop for some physical or financial reason.
I agree with the “theoretical woodworking” remark, but also think that was always the case. For instance, how many places have you seen the assertion that panels need to be glued up with the heart side alternating up and down, or even that wide boards should be ripped narrow, and glued back up to reduce cupping? Those are very old myths. Some things seem to make sense while sitting at our desks, but anyone with practical experience would know how ludicrous such things are. But those with no experience read them, agree they make sense, and it becomes gospel. I love reading about woodworking, but you need to practice to find out what works and what is hokum.
As a woodworking blogger myself, I couldn’t agree with you more Chris. I specifically chose video blogging, so I could show people what I do in my shop, not at my keyboard. This way, I could never be accused of being an armchair quarterback. That being said, I never profess to offer instruction, but rather just document my processes based on what I feel is the best technique given my set of tools and background. If I can offer some perspectives or provoke thought, I feel I’ve accomplished my goal. But I also try to highlight my mistakes, as I think those are some of the best learning moments. With “theoretical” woodworking there are never mistakes, because no wood is ever harmed during production.
Heh, it’s often easier to write about woodworking than to actually do woodworking! That’s why I try to maintain a balance and blog about things I’ve actually done. Otherwise it just turns into pontification. I do like to try a broad range of things to examine multiple ways of doing them, so some of those may prove more theoretical than practical.
I don’t think that you should be dinged for telling the truth. I will step up and admit to being more on the theoretical side than pure experience. Yes, I can hand cut dovetails, I can hand cut mortise and tenons and many other things as well. I do however lack the time and practice to honestly claim a high level of proficiency. I work on projects that take me months when a dedicated professional could knock it out in a day or two. Very few of us can compare with the level of even modest tradesmen who have gone through years of training and practice through an apprenticeship.
I think you are right on but have left off one large segment of us theoretical woodworkers. Some of us study and read what the experienced write. We watch the videos. We take what classes we can to progress. We do also share what little we have gained of knowledge among others who are stumbling along as well. There are tons of materials for those looking for beginner level knowledge. There is practically nothing for those who have moved beyond the basics. We go to the forums and blogs to discuss things because it is such a Lost Art (nudge nudge) that we may not know more than one or two people in our immediate circles to share and learn from.
That said, when evaluating anything, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Some are right on. Some are full of crap. Some of the myths and nonsense have been propagated to maintain the mystique of the artist craftsman, along with marketing tools that are not really better or even needed. It happens in just about every area, not just woodworking.
This is off thread but i heard a rumor that you are writing a book about early southern furniture & if so, whats the deal on it?
James,
Actually, Robert Lang and Glen Huey are working on this book at Popular Woodworking. It’s based off the amazing archives at MESDA. I’m building one of the projects that will be in the book – a Charleston side table. The book should be out before the end of the year.
Right now I’m just working on other people’s books….
I believe a few of the editors from Popular W
oodworking are writing that book.
Looks like you are making a very nice Shaker Side table based on the picture in the Blog. Mark (aka Thomas)
What does “American Georges” refer to?
Would Moxon, in effect, be considered a theoretical ww? He was, after all, a printer, not a woodworker.
It’s an interesting point to consider. Moxon is most significant because he was the first to document the trades in the way that he did.
He is most troubling because his text is frustrating from a woodworker’s perspective. The text and drawings don’t agree. Things are missing. etc. If Moxon were working today, I’d posit that he would be most like Mike Rowe – the host of “Dirty Jobs.” Rowe isn’t an expert on lamb castration — but he will give you the down and dirty about it.
Great analogy. I love Mike Rowe. There’s no theory or navel-gazing, just roll up your sleeves and have at it.
Moxon was not a woodworker per se. He designed and hand made astronomical and mathematical instruments of wood and metal as well as being a hydrographer (oceanic map maker). Hardly what I would call a Dirty Jobs sort of wannabe craftsman. He spent considerable time in Holland while avoiding the religious persecution of the time in England. While in Holland, he improved his skills in printing, authorship and publishing as taught by his father as well as from Dutch printing/publishing establishments . His was a time when the intellectual (or philosopher as they all termed themselves) endeavored to become more rounded. Not that all that many succeeded, other than waist girth expansion.
Mechanick Exercises was and is a book focused on the building of houses, not on cabinetry or furniture making. It was also a book intended for the philosophical bunch who sought to learn more of the ‘real’ and present world around them. His subscribers, judging by where he advertised, were the upper class of philosophical thought and not the low ranking tradesman. Moxon himself was often ostracized for his lack of social credentials as well as for working with his hands.
He wrote of what was sought after by his audience as well as to put some final nails in the coffin of the fading control of the Guilds. Was he a genius? Who knows. Was he out to strike back at the English intellectuals and royalty who has spurned him? No doubt about it. As with any book, take it within context of the social, political and economic means of the time period rather than trying to compare it to today.
Moxon was an anarchist of his day. His goal was to end the rule of the religious order in England and to institute that which he supported, thus allowing him to return. Printing bibles of the sort not accepted by England was the families primary business. Once returned to England, Moxon wanted nothing more than to become part of the new order of philosophers, thus ending his anarchistic career. An anarchist is only an anarchist so long as there is someone or something to prevail over.
Is that the project for your upcoming dvd? Looks like Tom’s chicken coop in the background!
Yup. We built a Shaker-style table with a dovetailed drawer (all by hand, natch) for the DVD. It was hot but fun!
I find it interesting that you would use a quote from a lecturer at Stanford University to describe a loss of vocational arts. As outstanding a university as it is, it’s name has always been made with the fine arts, humanities, law and medicine. I love Stanford, it’s my school, but this point might best be made by another craftsman, not an academic.
Theory gets a bum rap. Theory is how we ever manage to extrapolate from our experience and learn anything new. Whenever you’ve asked yourself, “I wonder if it would work better if I did it like this…,” you’re using theory. If you watch someone perform an operation, and then slavishly copy their moves, they’re just giving you a fish. If they explain to you why they’re doing what they’re doing (i.e., presenting the theory), they’re teaching you how to fish.
Someone named Carl once wrote,
“Theory exists to that one need not start afresh each time sorting out the material and plowing through it, but will find it ready to hand and in good order. It is meant to educate the mind of the future commander, or, more accurately, to guide him in his self-education, not to accompany him to the battlefield; just as a wise teacher guides and stimulates a young man’s intellectual development, but is careful not to lead him by the hand for the rest of his life.”
Of course, Carl wasn’t a woodworker, and surely not an Anarchist, but I think the sentiment hold true. Use theory as a starting point, take the good points with the bad, expand your knowledge, and use your MIND.
What is the clamp on the top of the leg for (in the left portion of the photo)?
Most likely to avoid splitting out the sidewalls of the mortise, used either when making the mortise or when inserting the tenon for a test fit.
Or just to keep the leg oriented correctly when cleaning out the mortise.
Actually I split the leg while mortising and you are looking at the repair. Those legs are 1-1/8″ square — very easy to explode.
Thanks Chris. That explains it. It also makes me feel good that you made that mistake, but I didn’t on a similar table I’m working on right now.
Alas, my tenons look like a blind demented beaver gnawed them out. Not nearly as nice as yours. Sigh.
Words, words and more words… Did anyone else notice the fine quality of the photograph? Composition and excellent lighting. Come to think of it… “a picture is worth……… words, words, words.