tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2976499952885642848.post7238400046610698977..comments2022-02-25T10:50:38.538-08:00Comments on Oregon Woodworker by Andy Margeson: How about a 3/4" stool leg?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2976499952885642848.post-64299946042170509942016-12-12T12:28:14.357-08:002016-12-12T12:28:14.357-08:00Hello Andy,
Thanks for sharing your views.
As I ...Hello Andy,<br /><br />Thanks for sharing your views.<br /><br />As I see it, " maximize strength subject to appearance or maximize appearance subject to strength" should be the same thing. When I build a chair or a grand cabinet with drawers behind the doors, I do not let one of the two above factors result in a weak build or an unappealing piece. <br /><br />We probably build furniture with different approaches, but I'd not worry about over-building (joinery, lumber thickness, etc.) as long as the final piece is pleasing to the eye (of my clients). In fact,designs are very subjective and personal while joint strength is not. If it fails, it is there for everyone to see (and agonize over). Beauty? We can only please those the items are made for, and nobody else. I have built something that I'd never put in my family room myself, but the client loved it so much that I'd make sure the construction was robust enough to support his idea of a perfect design. <br /><br />RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2976499952885642848.post-31460348755904928262016-12-12T11:40:26.698-08:002016-12-12T11:40:26.698-08:00I respect your view, especially as it is the one I...I respect your view, especially as it is the one I often take. However, I think it is useful to take the other perspective. To use the language of mathematical optimization what are we trying to do: maximize strength subject to appearance or maximize appearance subject to strength? One is the objective, the other is a constraint. I'd say sometimes one, sometimes the other. Yes there is a lot of broken furniture out there, just like any other man-made object that is either faulty in design or misused. There is also a lot of old, beautifully designed furniture that is still going strong. I tried to point out that there are beautiful designs that simultaneously incorporate strength, the cabriole leg being the best example I can think of. The tremendous strength of the joint is what makes it possible to eliminate stretchers, which makes the design of the leg truly outstanding.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394365117138074832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2976499952885642848.post-35131112092199412922016-12-12T09:43:42.424-08:002016-12-12T09:43:42.424-08:00There are many more examples of joint failures in ...There are many more examples of joint failures in furniture than over-building. Just ask those in the furniture repairs & restoration business.<br /><br />Bad appearance? Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? <br /><br />Structural integrity is the first and most critical factor in any build (function) and appearance is secondary. Having said that, I am not suggesting the appeal factor is not important. Quite the contrary as I'd never build an ugly piece. But there are all kinds of techniques that we can use to make a piece strong and attractive. A good furniture school teacher, for example, will illustrate how to use chamfers to make legs look slimmer or a thick and heavy top appear in balance with the rest of the table.<br /><br />Michael Fortune is one of the best furniture makers out there and he is not shy from using the biggest and strongest joints or construction techniques, but his designs always convey the full sense of elegance. Sam Maloof also spoke of use of strong joints and materials in one of his interviews.<br /><br />Overbuilding? I think many failed chairs, drawers and cabinets, fine in looks, pointed to the opposite. <br /><br />RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com