James Krenov and art furniture

A recent discussion about James Krenov sent me to his Web page. I can not, for the life of me, understand the appeal of those curious little curio cabinets he builds. The bases seem totally out of scale with the cabinets that sit on them.

After a day of playing in the shop, I sat down last night and started looking through some old issues of Woodwork magazine. There seems to be a lot more emphasis on design in this magazine than in most others. I looked at many of the highlighted pieces they showed and, while I am sure the joinery was fine, many of the pieces were merely objects d'art. I realized that I held these pieces of "art furniture" in scorn since there seemed to be little function to complement the form.

Why, I wonder, would a person like Krenov who has the skills required to build beautiful AND functional furniture limit himself to building trifles.

Dick Durbin Tallahassee

Reply to
Dick Durbin
Loading thread data ...

And up until this point, I thought I was the only person who thought that.

It's art. It doesn't have to *do* anything, it just has to look impressive. ;-)

Just guessing... but the "trifles" probably sell for a *lot* more.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Reply to
Doug Miller

"Initial reaction to the painting is overwhelmingly critical. The German fair guide calls Guernica "a hodgepodge of body parts that any four-year-old could have painted." It dismisses the mural as the dream of a madman."

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

To each according to his own tastes. I've always admired Krenov's designs, but I generally dislike woodworking as "art" and not getting anything functional from it. For the most part his pieces offer both. Some are more functional than others though. Take a look at some of his older work (like one of his silver chests) for great technical, aesthetic as well as functional values. For me, I like the more contemporary designs of Krenov, Maloof and Nakajima but when I look at a piece of Federal or Baroque furniture - I admire the technical of it, but hate the designs. So like I said, everybody has their own tastes.

Reply to
Gary

I happen to agree with you, But do understand that "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder" I have seen a lot of people make a name for themselves doing this kind of work and we will never know whether the designs are any good because that wont happen for at least 100 years. I doubt anyone of us will be here to admire or critisize. A lot of what is called great art today was not in its day, it has to stand the test of time to realy be called art. Right now to me its Oh well that surely is differant,

Reply to
George M. Kazaka

This discussion leads to a very interesting point about furniture. Unlike most of the other decorative arts, furniture has a "functional" component that most other disciplines do not - jewlery making, ceramic, painting, etc . . . A chair has to "sit" right, be durable. A dining table needs to allow people the room to sit comfortably, not bang their knees together, be durable etc . . . While hopefully fulfilling some functional role, furniture also has the capacity to rise to the level of "art" - i.e. some type of self expression that is reflective of the maker - All of these topics of course are subject to individual interpretation - especially the "art" component - but that is what makes furniture so enduringly interesting to me. The body of work which has a function, and achieves some degree of "self expression" (Krenov's work being an interesting example - some I like, some I don't), is IMO, the most interesting. It's what I strive for in my own work. Everyone is free of course to interpret any given design and piece as it suits them

- good or bad - funtional, or non-functional - wll crafted or not -

Glad to see an interesting thread for a change on the NG.

BTW, the Furniture Society is a great organization if this topic is of interest to you.

formatting link

Reply to
Rick Stein

You've missed my postings then ? 8-)

Can't stand Krenov's work myself, particularly the "flared jeans" legs to so many pieces. But read his books, because there's a lot you can learn from them.

Reply to
Andy Dingley

I agree, and thank heaven that it is. I'm glad there are people who appreciate what I create, and I'm glad that there are people who create things I can appreciate.

| A lot of what is called great art today was not in its day, it | has to stand the test of time to realy be called art.

In a certain sense I agree with this, but I can't fully. I suppose it matters whether one's personal definition of art requires a critical mass of appreciation substantial enough to ensure survival. True, in art collection circles one generally holds on to an obscure piece in the hope it will eventually become widely appreciated. But for my purposes, as both a producer and consumer of art, there is a much more personal aspect to art.

To qualify as art for me, something merely has to have an aesthetic component. Something has to appeal to the senses in a way that provokes an emotional response. Now there are certainly many things -- a Gaugin, for example -- that have nothing but an aesthetic intention. And there are things at the other end of the spectrum, such as architecture, in which we typically allow the functional aspect to dominate.

I'm in a "small clock" phase right now. The project plans for those are easy: Get a hunk of interesting wood, render it into an interesting shape, create an interesting and complimentary finish, gouge out an appropriately-sized hole with a Forstner, and tap in the pre-manufactured clock insert. The function of the clock is provided almost exclusively by the assembly provided by someone else; all I've done is arrange for that to be held at an appropriate height and angle.

Now there's an ulterior motive to that phase. As I posted some weeks ago, I'm trying to get finishing experience using techniques I've not previously tried. This lets me do that for a minimum of expense and effort, with the off chance that someone might actually be interested in the final product. My most eye-grabbing effort to date is simply what happened when I attacked a chunk of highly figured maple with a band saw, without even attempting to think of a design first. It looks like something from Dr. Seuss, and honestly it's not something I'd be proud to put on my own mantle, but a couple of people have complimented me on it.

Let's see, I had a point here. Where was it?

Oh, yes. Art can certainly be appreciated in its own time, as art. The reason I want to emphasize this is because I don't particularly like the implications of defining art in terms of widespread popular appeal. If you follow that, you get art that is unoffensive, bland, and ultimately unappealing. I believe -- and maybe it's just me -- that the only art that truly has the ability to soar is art that also has the ability to really make you retch.

I grew up in a family of architects. A couple of years ago I was performing a musical work in the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles and so had the opportunity to see the celebrated Frank Gehry design for Disney's theater going up across the street. Architects are polarized about Gehry. They either really like him or really hate him. His stuff is bold -- it

*makes* you either like it or hate it. I think most artists would rather hear that their stuff is unappealing than to hear that it's "interesting".

Where was that point again?

I'm looking at Krenov's stuff now. Some of it I like. Some of it I really hate. And if I saw him to his face, I'd tell him what I like and what I don't like. I'm sure there are people who love ever splinter that has come out of his shop, just as sure as I am that there are people who don't care about anything he's built. That's exactly as it should be.

You can build "safe" furniture or objets d'art according to an aesthetic which ensures popularity -- either in the here and now or according to a hundred-year-old tradition -- and you can be reasonably sure that your work will be well received. And if there is a business aspect to what you do, that may be very important. But *if* you're going to pursue woodworking as an art, then what you create has to be what you feel passionate about. Even if only one other person in the universe appreciates you for it.

--Jay

Reply to
Jay Windley

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:09:45 GMT, Tom Watson brought forth from the murky depths:

formatting link
(scroll down)

4,000 of our tax dollars paid for this tripe.

-------------------------------------------------------- Murphy was an Optimist ----------------------------

formatting link
Comprehensive Website Development

Reply to
Larry Jaques

MIssed your posts on that subject, anyway, Andy. Normally I do read your posts.

Agreed.

-- Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Reply to
Doug Miller

I'd agree with jewlery and painting, but ceramics have a strong functional component.

-Jack

Reply to
JackD

And jewelry doesn't? When you give some to the right person, the rewards can be very functional. Ed

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

Add one more to the camp.

"Art" is never easy to understand.

BArry

Reply to
B a r r y B u r k e J r .

Yep. I'm of exactly the opposite camp. I admire the technical in Krenov's work and also his approach to his work as expounded in his books, but I don't find his style that appealing. I deeply treasure the rich style of the Federal style.

OTOH, I also am of the opinion that they stopped writing music in about 1850 or so, and really the best was done in the 1700's, thus maybe my style esthetics also reflect my musical esthetics. :-)

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Well, he does refer to himself as the "Impractical Cabinetmaker", so I've always interpreted it as him saying, "works for me!"

Reply to
Michael Dembroge

I don't think anyone here could take anything away from him as far as skill, simply meaning that the man most definitely knows exactly what he's doing. However, I personally think some of those things he builds has got to be some of the ugliest stuff I've ever seen. Don't know about you but I wouldn't want one in my house. I was just typing this trying to imagine one of those alien looking cabinets over in the corner and it just doesn't come to me at all. I do admire his attention to detail and the perfection in which each piece is crafted. A++ for that.

Jim

Reply to
James D Kountz

Traditionally, the term art was applied only to painting sculpture and architecture, because they served the purpose of church and state, creating the kinds of visual spectacle that induced a state of reverance and subservience.

When an anthropologist visited Bali, he was told "We have no art, we do everthing as well as we can." So here in the US we have the concept "art" to distinguish between objects done with care, expertise and sensitivity and the vast innundation of things done with little human involvement, sensitivity or personal growth.

The division of things into functional and lacking function is very obscure as well. Paintings add to the environment of a home, providing color and interest.....are those functional purposes?

Words are essentially useless and misleading when describing things like those made by Krenov, Nakashima and so many others. Is it enough to call a rocking chair by Maloof, a chair? Yes, it is one, but could it also be called sculpture? Yes, but could you understand it as sculpture without having a visual image or photograph to understand why it should be called that? Study the words long enough and it makes a person feel like keeping the pen in the drawer and the mouth shut and the eyes wide open.

Personally, I like Krenov, both for the simplicity of his design, and the integrity with which his work is produced. When you get into so many other designs, like Federal, etc., they were all based on wood being manipulated to project the image of being something else more monumental instead of being allowed to be wood in all its natural glory and wondrous humility.

My 2¢

Doug Stowe

Reply to
Doug Stowe

How would you compare Krenov to Nakashima ?

-- Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

Reply to
Andy Dingley

Nakashima seemed much more intune with the humility of the wood.

-Jack

Reply to
JackD

I posted to the original message defending Krenov, but You know what? I admire his skill, but as time goes by, I kind of agree with you. Maybe if he designed a bedroom suite...but art is art and furniture is furniture at some pont. Furniture is in art museums partly because it represents a point in history, but some- times when I see a Krenov piece I think of Jimmy Carter!

Reply to
BUB 209

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.