“To a certain extent, our endeavors coincide with those abroad, in particular with ones in Germany, but we feel they are working on a more primitive basis regarding the use as well as the working out. Apparently they have jettisoned all traditions, starting from scratch. “What is a chair?” it is asked, where and in what way is the construction influenced by pull and pressure, etc. It is a laudable way of procedure, but a troublesome one, because in all probability one will not get answers to all the questions.
“In preference to what is modern, one loses one’s view and precludes the best aid, namely to build on the experience gained through the centuries. All the problems are not new, and several of them have been solved before. These movements all over the world are, however, useful: it is no longer fashionable to surround oneself with antiques. A real interest in modern cabinetmaking has appeared and we welcome it sincerely.”
— Kaare Klint
Get it? Got it. Good!
I read you loud and clear good buddy. >
Godwin’s law?
He’s like a chairmaking Wendell Berry.
While I personally feel the need to start from scratch vs. reproduction work in most cases, the point made here is true. For instance as engineering models (CADD & FEA) get increasingly sophisticated, there is a tendency to disregard old designs, only to later learn (by failure) of a variable that wasn’t included which had driven old designs refined over time.
“In preference to what is modern, one loses one’s view and precludes the best aid, namely to build on the experience gained through the centuries. All the problems are not new, and several of them have been solved before.”
I daresay this describes every disastrous “ism” of the entire 20th century.