LA Times article on Woodworker

[Brian Kent]

Check out the article on Patrice Pinaquy, a Los Angeles woodworker.

http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-pinaquy-0411-pg,0,3056114.photogallery?1

[Jon van der Linden]

Fascinating series of photos. As usual in such articles it's a glimpse of something more. I'm sure we'd all love to see more of the tools and see them in use.

For me this kind of article is also reminder that we don't live in the 18th century. What I mean by that is the feel of the design is totally different than one would expect from 18th c. work. When I look at the Louis XIV tea table (photo #3) it hurts my eyes. Why? Because the panels are set up in a way that doesn't make sense to the 18th c. eye. When you look at the relationship of the legs to the three vertical grain panels there is a problem with the scale of detail. If you look at 18th c. work (I highly recommend the out of print book "Jean-François Oeben" Rosemarie Stratmann-Döhler, 2002) you will see that normally panels like this would have a small parquetry pattern in the fields.

Nonetheless a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

[Samuel Brooks]

Thanks for sharing.

Sam

[Brian Kent]

Jon,

I posted the LA Times link because it looked interesting but not because I have any knowledge of the era.

So I have been reading your words and trying to learn. What I found first was a picture of a "commode" (bureau?) at the Getty museum made by Jean-François Oeben. I see that the panels are covered by an intricate pattern that I assume is the parquetry you are referring to:

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=6200

Same with the writing table:

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=6157

Is this what I should be looking for?

[Jon van der Linden]

Brian,

The article is quite interesting. My point was merely that just because something superficially has the form of an 18th c. piece that doesn't mean it has the aesthetics of that period. Inevitably we are all part of our time, so it is natural that modern sensibilities will creep in. We also don't know the circumstances around the commission. Lack of detail in an 18th c. style work can be from a lack of money, time, or a conscious design decision.

The pictures from the Getty are works by Oeben. As you might gather, he was one of the greatest furniture makers / designers of all time. Although you will inevitably find him listed as French, he was in fact a German working in Paris. (Think Roubo's German workbench....)

As to the panels themselves, yes, the parquetry in those examples is typical of the best work of the period. You shouldn't expect all examples to be that ornate, but these are really the highest level. When looking at the example on p.3 in the article you will immediately notice how the center is almost like a blank canvas in comparison. The level of detail around the edges is far greater than the center, which makes no sense in a classical composition.

It takes a lot of looking to develop an eye. The best suggestion I have for that is to spend a lot of time looking critically at things. I learned about critical viewing from a combination of a serious study of Italian renaissance art and more cursory studies of ancient Greek art as well as 18th c. decorative arts. If you're interested in reading that might give you some ideas for critical viewing that are not furniture related pm me and I'll send you a list.

If you're interested in French furniture or court furniture in general the best source for books on construction and how to is:

http://www.editionsvial.com/

Naturally the books are in French but you can also learn a lot from the great illustrations even if you don't read the language.

I think Mr. Pinaquy would be pleased to know that the article has started people thinking about French furniture and design.

[Bryan Burns]

I also thank you for sharing this. Rather in depth for a newspaper article. It's reminiscent of a Fine Woodworking article (90's era, not the dumb downed stuff they have now).