I recognize the "architectural"...
quality of the Parson's table. It is as close as one could come to the architypical image of the notion "table": a raised part of the floor to a suitable height in order to accomodate a seated person. Constructively it is not only a challenge, for a trained eye...and probably an un-trained one to, it looks weak. I for one prefer tables that express better the challenge of creating a sturdy horizontal surface. As a matter of fact, for those who remember the ones SDR showed some time ago, I prefer that approach.
It is funny AZ that you would mention your fathers scepticism toward architects. My father who was a cabinetmaker worked mostly with architects and making a "dutch" play on words he called them "Archi-slecht" meaning litteraly: "very bad". It refered of course to something we experience in the industry to, that those who have to make the things we design are not always impressed by the way technology is understood and used.
p.s. I do not want to ad to the thread with congratulations on the award that is mentioned on DA's home page. It does not mean that I am not pleased with your congratulations, I just want to avoid the attention....so thank you so much! The award itself came as a surprise considering that I left Belgium more than 40 years ago...and there is no shortage of excellent designers...
Tsk-tsk
[Well, your modesty becomes you, it has to be said. What else should we expect. . .?! ] Welcome home !
It is surely true that architects as a group have their share of skeptics among the building trades -- including cabinetmakers. And the reason is, as you suggest, that the lofty designer seems to have too little an idea of how his designs are to be realized. Architects seem largely to be taught detailing by default -- or by the product manufacturers' literature !
As the profession moves further and further from "the ground" and into an electronic and legalistic ivory tower (?), so building becomes more and more a matter of satisfying minimal standards. As for furniture and cabinetry, I have long argued for a more hands-on understanding of the possibilities and the limitations of our craft.
At least the shop-drawing process, apparently a widely-practiced method of verification, gives us a chance at improving on the architect's "plans and speculations" !
For a current (and heated) discussion of the architect's place in the scheme of things, and the means to his/her education, see the link below:
http://www.designcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8449
All of this crabbing between Architects and craftsmen reminds me...
of something Harrison Ford allegedly said to George Lucas when they were shooting the first Star Wars. Ford was struggling with speaking the lines of the screenplay authentically in a scene. "George," Ford said, "Just because you can write this shit, doesn't mean somebody can say it!"
IMHO, intepreters of other's work have a long history of bitching and complaining about the difficulties of executing other's work.
But here's the thing: it is precisely because creative artists think new things that there is something to complain about regarding execution.
The Army in WWII came up with a wonderful acronym for the way things were when they were executing one of the generals battle plans: SNAFU aka Situation Normal All Fucked Up.
Great generals, leaders, architects and creative artists create new problems in attempting to solve existing ones. Its organic to the process. Great foot soldiers, citizens, and cabinet makers, interpretative performers, respectively, are able to operate effectively despite SNAFU.
Alas SNAFU also occurs when one is subordinate to incompetant generals, leaders, architects and creative artists. In this case they create new problems while failing to solve existing problems.
The only solution is to try to work for the best generals, leaders, architects, and creative artists you can.
SNAFU holds across the board.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com