Earlier, there was a thread on Michael Fortune?s ?design for production?. An example of his approach - the design of a hand mirror and the jigs to permit relatively unskilled people, using readily available and relatively inexpensive hand held power tools, to produce multiples of them. Morris Dovey noted that a CNC machine could make them without all the jigs Fortune came up with. My repsonse was that what would distinguish the hand and jigs pieces from the CNC pieces was soul, one would have some and the other would not.
That raised an interesting question. If it?s OK to use power joiners, planers, table saw, bandsaw and the like to do the ?grunt work?, where does the grunt work stop and the craftsmansip, with the ?soul? that goes with it, begin?
Morris asked if the grunt work stopped - say at 0.0012? from the final finished piece. He implied that once the concept was developed to the point that a CNC machine could be used to make the piece - the rest was grunt work -the ?soul? in a piece coming from the mind of the designer, not his or her hands, or anyone else?s hands for that matter.
I noted that there are some things that don?t lend themselves to CNC machine work - undercuts, flowing curves and the like. Morris noted that a 3 1/2 axis CNC machine, with the right tooling, could do that kind of thing as well.
I thought about that. With enough technology - and money - almost anything a craftsman could do could probably also done by automated machines. So what was it that was missing with the automated approaoch?
I found the answer in the March-April 2006 issue of Woodworker West
In the article, Edwards presents David Pye?s distinction between ?hand work? and ?machine work? and Pye?s definition of ?craftsmanship? as the ?workmanship of risk? as distinct from the ?workmanship of certainty?. In both cases, he?s talking about production work, be it with hand tools, with machines or a combination of the two. Remember that pre-power tools furniture makers, like their power tools successors, made their living producing furniture, with the emphasis on production. Pre-Industrial furniture makers who used efficient methods and procedures to produce their furniture while maintaining their quality standards prospered just as their successors have.
Pye boils ?craftsmanship? down to answering the question ?Is the result predetermined and unalterable once production begins??
If ?risk? is involved, and the opportunity to modify either the method of work (what tool to use in a specific situation and method of using it) or the original design is modified to adapt to specific conditions at hand, then it?s ?craftsmanship?. If not, it isn?t ?craftsmanship?. Both ?workmanship of risk? and ?workmanship of certainty? can result in wonderful pieces of furniture - or crap. But I think that ?workmanship of risk? allows for more opportunities to create a great pieces than does ?workmanship of certaintly?.
And that gets us back to today?s automated production methods and, specifically, the use of CNC. CNC tooling and the capabilities of CNC machines make it possible to manufacture just about anything a furniture designer can come up with. With good quality control of both the the raw materials (wood) and the machine processing, high quality furniture can be produced at a price point significantly below that of anything a small ?workmanship of risk? shop can produce.
So why go the ?workmanship of risk? route rather than the ?workmanship of certainty? route? Isn?t it the idea for a piece, developed to a sufficient level of detail to have a CNC machine ?do the grunt worka?, where the ?soul? of a piece is instilled in the piece?
I think that the answer is no - and here?s why.
?Risk? implies not only the opportunity for mistakes and perhaps failure, but also the opportunity for success, to ?produce? a piece better than the original ?plan?.
?Producing? nice/good furniture involves far more than coming up with an idea, drawing it in sufficient detail to describe what the componets dimensions are, what goes where and how the parts are joined together. Beyond The Measured Drawing(s), there are a series of critical decisions that must be made on the way to the finished ?production? piece, some of which MAY result in minor, or even major modifications of the original ?plan?.
The decisions begin with the wood. Go with one for all the visible parts or go with multiple woods? If multipe, which woods would compliment each other the best - fo this piece? This one?s a push since both approaches, risk and certainty share this / these decisions.
When you get to stock selection and parts layout the two approaches diverge significantly. While both can account for grain orientation, even the better sheet goods/ply ?cuts layout? software has this capability, the type of grain and the location of the figure in a particular part can?t be selected by a machine. Even if a machine could ?see? the grain pattern/figure, could it select the best area of the raw stock which would be both most pleasing to the eye AND be harmonious with adjacent parts? After all - we?re talking about furntirue made of wood. THAT is the first major difference - for wood, unlike metal or ?wood products? is not uniform nor homogeneous, either structurally or in appearance.
So parts layout is a significant difference. With the ?risk? approach, ?optimization? of the use of the wood is a consideration, but not the over riding consideration. One may chose to ?waste? some wood to get a nicer looking part that goes better with adjacent parts. In normal handcrafted furniture Ive heard allowing for 10 to 15% for waste. In higher end shops it could be 25% or more (though ?scraps? and ?cut offs? seldom go to waste).
For me, parts layout/selection is a fun process of getting out a bunch of ?candidates?, moving pieces around, flipping one or more over, rotating 180 degrees, slipping and sliding to get close to some combination that may ?work?. Then I make a ?viewing frame? for the part?s size, appropriately using framing squares, and slide my ?window? around ?til I see something in it that ?fits? and ?works? for the piece I have in mind. I start with the major focal point(s) of the piece - door panel(s), drawer face(s), table top, then the ?support? parts - literally or figuratively.
Sometimes this process may change the original design, maybe merely modifying the size of the piece or the proportions -or - become the beginnings of an idea for a completely different piece. This is just one of the things ?workmanship of risk? has over ?workmanship of certainty?- It?s adaptive - throughout the process of ?producing? a piece - Pye?s differentiating question - ?Is the result predetermined and unalterable once production begins?? answered.
And that adaptation throughout the process of ?production? in the ?workmanship of risk? approach may, or may not, fine tune and improve the original design and plans. If you?re preparing the stock for a piece at ?human speed?, be it with handtools or with handheld power tools, one may see - or feel something in the wood that suggests either an eminent problem or a possible improvement and make a choice. As edge treatments, sometimes very important in a piece, are worked on - the wood of one piece may indicate that something other than a 45 chamfer might bring out a pleasing grain, or remove some less than pleasing grain - or maybe a sap pocket or the like. The closer the method of working the wood comes to human speed with tools that allow the human to sense changes both visually and tactily, the greater the potential for incremental improvements - or screw ups.
Rather than continue, let me repeat - at some point, the method of processing the parts of a piece in the ?production? process begins losing ?soul? as the human ?maker? gets farther and farther from the wood.
What say you?
charlie b