Thanks for the heads up on the article. I totally agree with her
assertion that, to paraphrase her, there's not much new under the
sun. I think "creativity" is actually just synthesis - putting
things together in a new way, all the components/parts already
But, rather than styles, which do come and go and come back again,
I'm interested in the underlying commonality - the proportions,
the symetry or asymetry, the wood selection, grain orientation,
the visual flow of the design and its execution, the selection
of joinery to literally and figuratively tie all the pieces
together to make a whole rather than a group of parts. The
goal, as she stated, being to make pieces which transcend style.
The question is - what are the commonalities of the various
styles and why do they work? I still think there are universal,
brain stem level components and some culture specific components
to "transcendent" pieces. Identifying them is the hard part.
BTW-in an earlier post I mentioned some of the "trcks" visual
artists use to catch and hold the viewer's interest. One was
the spiral. A recent issue of Fine Woodworking had a pharmicists
drawers inspired piece that was obviously and intentionally
asymetrical with an underlying spiral viewing path, lead by
the drawer pulls. I don't know if the latter was intentional
but the pulls do lead the eye along a spiral path rather than
jumping around between the asymetric groupings of drawer faces.