Critiquing our Builds:

So I’m finding this topic a very difficult one to write. You will rarely see me evaluate work on the internet as I do not want to be misinterpreted. I have sent personal e-mails that evaluate. Quite a few months ago, the Popular Woodworking Blog mentioned using the book “The Fine Points of Furniture” as an evaluation tool (at that time, I posted a comment of the importance of critique and the lack of good critique) to critique audience work. There is another way that will make us better evaluators no matter where we evaluate a builder’s work.

Given Tommy’s mantra that we want to be the Forum of choice by the internet woodworking community, one area that is a major weakness of the internet woodworking community is properly critiquing our builds. No forum has addressed this, so lets be the first. As the forum gets older we all should have new work to present, let’s position ourselves to discuss an object with the goal of making the “builder” and T’s forum the place to grow your woodworking skills. I’m documenting to footnote the date here for the woodworking internet community July 20, 2008.

But where do we start??? This is no easy task. While scouring the many woodworking forums, when a piece is presented, the critique usually is “……that is cool”, “WOW that’s really nice”, or “….as usual your work is magnificent”. But what do those words say in helping us to make ourselves better woodworkers??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! So the first observation towards being able to critique/evaluate our work is to develop a descriptive vocabulary full of the elements of design. In essence we create a form of “design speak”.

Let’s face facts; it is very difficult for anybody to present their work for critique. When a picture is shown on forums, the viewers already know of the “effort one has put forth”. But the work is done, there is no way to evaluate “effort and good hard work” until what was learned is implemented into the next build.

As we develop our approach to positively evaluating our work with the goal of personal improvement, I do know 2 issues I can address up front and now.

1. the most important part to your critique, is the description you provide to your
work seeking critique. Mentioning constraints, material, reason for building; if
the description is clear, our discussion will be clear and able to provide solid
feedback. In the description, you must provide clear photography to enable the
design elements to appear in discussion.

2. we must remove the “I” word. The minute an evaluator says; “I would have….”
is the minute the critique goes into the “dumper” period. After all, who the heck are you to tell me
where to place hardware, screw you, and go build your own piece.

So this is what we know: evaluating an individuals build on the internet is useless because we have no vocabulary to do it, the manner in which the builder presents his piece with a very powerful discretion is tantamount to the process, and the evaluator’s must leave the “I” word out of all discussion.

No woodworking forum is addressing this important aspect of creating. I have spoken to T-Mac and he is aware of my present inability to get a handle on this but is encouraging the effort. I’ve spoken to Chuck who has very good ideas for implementing and e-mailed Doc who just the fact that he is discussing the topic is an indication we are headed in the right direction. I have also test evaluated non-aquaintance individuals work via e-mail and await feedback as to my approach. It’ll surely need tweaking.

Evaluating our work for better work in the future is very, very important. And a missing part to internet woodworking.


Let’s open this up for discussion.

How will we implement a forward thinking evaluation forum tool.

Creating the vocabulary is not the issue right now; let’s get some thoughts!!!

Great thread.... Here is my take on applying a formalized vocabulary to the area of subjective assessments. Critiquing a persons work is so tough due to subjective and objective facts and opinions.
When it comes to constructive criticism I can only think about how tough I am on my own pieces. We are our own worst critic since we know what happened during the build. Here is the basic list of qualities that are important to me and I feel that they are all essential aspects of a successful build and they easily provide a basis for a "critique" checklist.

I always start with high level qualities such as proportion, how does the piece feel in relation to its size and thickness of materials. It shouldn't feel chunky or look flimsy, it shouldn't feel too top heavy or bottom heavy. For this I'm a fan of studying the classic proportions used since ancient times the golden proportion which really cascade into most 18th century english and american pieces. Whether the pieces being critiqued are a 18th century reproduction piece or a contemporary piece such as a Krenov inspired cabinet the fundamentals of good proportion still apply. Bad design is bad design and the quickest way to create a piece that dates itself and becomes associated with a trendy phase in furniture design is to create one that doesn't follow the basic principles of good proportion.

Second is the craftsmanship of the piece. Are the joints cut clean and tight, does the piece contain dents or dings due to rough handling during construction. Does the piece still show machining marks introduced by the tablesaw, planer or joiner.

Third is the use of materials that make up the piece. Is the selection of wood used and the layout of the boards complimentary to the final piece when thinking about the final aesthetics of the piece.

Fourth is the design of the piece and whether of not the joinery will be able to compensate and handle wood movement. Is the joinery, materials, orientation of long wood and short grain appropriate for the design, will it be able to bear the stressed considering its use?

Fifth is the finish of the piece. Does the finish enhance or detract from the materials used. Is the finish splotchy or show signs of brush marks.. etc.

I'm sure additional items could be included to my personal list since we all lock onto certain aspects of a pieces design and overall presence. To create a consistent vocabulary you must first come up with an established list of requirements that will be used to review or critique all projects. The rules can't change from piece to piece and the rules need to apply for the different levels of experience. In a past thread I mentioned how I've personally incorporated aspects of an industry standard software development methodology into my woodworking but now I'm going to point you to another established methodology that applies to the teaching profession. My wife teaches High School art and she is required to build a list of basic expectations and requirements that all students no matter of their artistic talents will be graded upon. This levels the playing field when discussing a piece with someone of amazing talent or experience to a novice that is just starting out. Following a set checklist allows individuals to be sent a constructive criticism based on expectations.

What my wife creates for critique purposes what is called in her business a Rubric. Here is a link to the Rubric wikipedia page and I welcome feedback if people think this basic concept could be applied here to create a better mechanism for this forum to provide the greatest value to each other and help us all work on our areas of weakness through constructive criticism.

Wow, I haven't heard this kind of talk since art school.
Have you guys ever read "Ways of Seeing" by John Berger? I think it may be up your alley.

i feel it is my responsibility to post the 1st piece for this thread....it is a linen press and vanity i made about 5 years ago they were mea't to be in the bathroom of my down stairs bath room..so thet were made for a particular place....i chose to concentrate on the wood grain and texture...i feel the proportions are pretty good....but like i said...i built it a while ago when i had little exposure to designing my own stuff...funny i built it after the blockfront and now i am in the middle of another one...plus a bunch of matching pieces for a bedroom set..i think it will be fun to see if i grew at all in 5 years as a designer ...i will be sure to post the bedroom set as soon as it is completed...dont be shy i can take a good critique....and as soon as we get all of my other work on the site ....dont hold back...i mean it...i want this to be pure....no B.S.

i am working on the photo gallery ....the images will be bigger..

I have no idea how to give a proper critique. I am new to this type of woodworking. How much if any of the critique is based on personal feelings? Do you only comment on aspects that can be proven congruous/incongruous by physical means? For example, the panel has sander marks or a leg is too long.

An agreed upon Rubric would be very helpful. It would make for a much more organized and efficient discussion. Maybe Tommy's post could be the guinea pig?

-frank

Tommy,
? for you. And this could be a answer as simple as lack of knowing better. It is what I had to build it with and it was for yourself.
The Vanity, why doesn't the grain run from left to right. Why are the drawers one piece of wood and the center another piece. Or am I just seeing something wrong here. Is there a possibility I am looking at the wood running all the way throw the front but the drawer fronts got flipped around. What i mean is Center is "face out" and right drawers have the "face in" making it look darker.
I know it is just a vanity and no one would ever say anything but I guess thats the Idea of the thread.

Is this what you mean by critiquing or am I just being a picky a hole.

A very fine line it is Neil,

Justin

Is the 3rd drawer on the linen press glued up? The line interrupts the flow of the drawers. It reads as a zigzag pattern through the first 2 1/2, then the line, then the grain flows through the last 1 1/2.

Also, is there any concern that a knot like that will split over time? Or does it depend on the shape of the knot hole?

Eli

wow...good feed back....first off justins question...i made sure the grain in that board wrapped around the piece...i might have gotten the board flipped around...but i dont think so...the center piece is just a block..it hides the sink....the drawers on both sides work...the bottom ones are 3/4 bigger than the top....ok eli...i meant the grain to do that through the drawers...i wanted the grain pattern to continue through the dividers...i also was looking to create a hering bone type pattern out of soild ....i wanted it to look veneered...i was trying to uniquely put solid wood together so it had its own presence ..making it "stand alone" or stand out in its surroundings.......hey frank...i dont know how to do this either ...but if you have a question about this thing ask away....i am sure none of us are in the practice of properly critiquing work but the guid lines neil is laying down are a good start....i think it might be o.k. to tell if you personally like it or not...but neil will have to clarify...good job...keep the ball rolling...

Frank's post above is right on..............we don't know how to critique properly!!!

That is our mission. We need to create an environment that critiques our builds which in turn improves our woodworking skills. This is why we all should in some form want our work critiqued. As Chuck has made me aware, having someone critique "a piece you have spent many hours on can be brutal to one's ego." Let's create a system that removes the harshness and accentuates the design elements that improve our abilities.

We jumped the gun a bit, but heck we are a work in progress here. In essence, we are still in the "design process". The approach that Eli and Justin used was not correct in that, why would somebody want to defend every knook and cranny of a build?.......They wouldn't!!!!

We'll need a form of anonymous rating system. One that as the Swedishiron mentions needs to nullify the experience levels.

Here's an approach:
1. seperate thread only for critiquing.
2. an anonymous rating for (could be 1 - 5) is filled out and comments left for further evaluation. Criteria could
be design and its subsets: the elements - proprortion, visual balance, material, etc. Craftsmanship with
subsets as joinery, surface preparation, wood usage, etc. Form needs work.
3. Once evaluations are complete, they are quantified and a private written evaluation is sent out to the
craftsman, who then decides to make the final evaluation public or not, by copy and pasting in the craftsmans
critique thread.

REMEMBER........Frank's post above is where we want to go!!!! This is a work in progress that brings in Tommy and Trey wondering techinically if we can do this.

Also we need a motivation for us to want to be critiqued. We need as Chuck has suggested, a show of improvement and skill level. Apprentice level, Journeyman level etc. We need work here also.

This isn't something that will happen overnight and we can't be willy-nilly about it. We'll have to stay organized and work through the process.

Any suggestions.... write a post or PM. If it were an easy task, it would have been done already. It is important and an overlooked part of our work.


ALRIGHT now for Tommy:

What the heck are 2 pieces of furniture doing in the post, you want the vanity critiqued or
the Linen Press.........JEEZ.......its always the good ones that give you the trouble.....and what
about the pictures, first we're (well for me kinda) building a Fed Table, then building a step stool
(again I'm kinda) and now you got us standing on our heads looking at door construction, fix that
photo........I got my que from Eli and Justin Surely not the right approach.



Thanks for the support Big-T.......we'll get a woodworking "critique tool" to work!!!!

A separate forum, perfect. This way someone can't accidentally post and it's also neatly organized. Maybe then a user gallery would also have to be added so we could easily assess the individuals development. I assumed this to be a part of the critique.

If we adhere to a strict code of conduct and approved vocabulary the bruising of ones ego can be lessened. Also, if this specific forum is heavily moderated, we can eliminate nonconstructive criticism. This may be quicker/easier to set up initially. If the critiques are analytical without an attack on ones character then it shouldn't be too detrimental. Then again if you can't take the heat....

When the forum is set up and people read the posts and realize that they can learn from these critiques and it's not just a place to have people say "your karate is a joke" or you're a terrible woodworker, it will be seen as what it is. A tool for progression.


-frank

Neil, I think I see what you are saying. We were picking apart things that were obvious choices that Tommy made, not design flaws. Now if he had made tiny OG feet on the linen press or put a taper on the out side of the legs on the vanity that would be more along the lines of critiquing correct. Or am I still out in left field throwing my glove up in the air.

Frank.............Scott (Swedishiron) is working the Rubric to the Step Stool so we all can relate to an object we already have in the shoot . His thinking is that we'll all have a common object in mind as we view his approach creating a rating system, (excellent thinking on Scott's part). We got some good minds noodling this.......we'll have some bumps, but we'll get some system that works. Over the past few weeks, I've privately critiqued work on blogs I follow, my emphasis was on monitoring the time to write a thoughtful critique, making notes to how the piece was presented, and feedback I recieved. The time for a proper critique was too long and cannot be expected by an internet woodworker, the description of the piece shown was usually lacking information, and although long term, the woodworker's will say that the critique was helpful, the immediate feedback was very rough and an indication my mind-set is wrong.

This is where the minds of this forum are coming together, kinda smooth tthe critiquing out.....fun stuff!!!!


Justin......... Exactly, now you are starting to hit the design elements. If Tommy where to have tapered inside and outside (same stock dimension we see), the piece would look top heavy, teetering on 4 points. You would question a double taper in a manner such as this: The added line as observed in the outside taper to the object's leg style, appears to bring the object out of visual balance. We must always try to bring the object into discussion by using the elements of design, rather than the builders approach. This is the vocabulary I referr too. Even done in this fashion, as Chuck mentions, "ego's get brusied". You might referr to this as building maturity or design maturity, as you get more confidence and learn to evaluate your own work, you eventually want the criticsm not just an "atta boy", after all we are our own worst critiques. Can't over emphasize how important this is to our future work.

Neil,

Man, you opened up a can of worms here. It reminds me of art history in college a hundred years ago.

One thing about critiquing another person's work is that it's not meant to be personal. It's personal to the person doing the critiquing, as this is where all of us are different in our likes, dislikes, styles, proportions, levels of experience, etc. It's very tough to exclude our personal preferences as that's what we base our critiques on. One person might not care for Tommy's use of the herringbone pattern on the drawer fronts, whereas another might love it. It's tough to make that distinction. How many times have we seen a movie that we liked and the "critics" panned? Same with what we have here.

I think (yeah, the "I" word ) is that we should maybe "question" the use of techniques, styles, embellishments, etc. to get a better understanding where the designer/craftsman was headed with this project. I completely agree that this is extremely difficult in a forum/internet setting.

Also, I don't think anyone here is that much of an a-hole to just rip someone over what they've done. We're all here to learn, and the various levels of experience can be of great help to all. It can also be a bit of a hindrance in that, for example, in school, those in Advanced Basketweaving, already have a certain bit of knowledge about the subject, whereas a beginner would be lost in the Advanced class. Here on the net we're all tossed into one "class" and it can become a bit confusing at times, but through good communication we can all be on the same page.

Sorry for the rambling. Neil, I like how you keep me thinking.

Michael

Following a list of criteria like Neil suggested seems like an effective solution because it would get everyone to evaluate a piece of work with some common guidelines. The alternative is what we have now - a guy's project gets praised because of some unique aspect such as a clever detail without regard to the oveall form, function, and finish. There's still room for subjectivity which is good, but it would encourage people offering their "critique" of someone's work to firstly acknowledge the piece against those standards that all pieces would be viewed against.

If you really wanted to establish some standards for critiquing, it would be good if there was a requirement to complete a rating sheet with the standards bulleted, a field to enter a score plus a field to put your comments for that rating. Like voting threads in other forums, the thread would require a person to complete the critique form before they reply to the thread or see the rating given by the forum participants to the piece.

wow good job guys i think we are on the right path....we will be working on a page for all these ideas ..i think this one will give trey and the guys a headache ...but i know it will be rocken once the forum gets it down to a concrete approach...good stuff....

Critiquing our Builds: ……..July 30, 2008


So where are we in figuring out an approach to this vital aspect of critiquing our work.

Forward for sure. The idea of an Excel spread sheet has surfaced and makes a lot of sense to quantify a score of 1 thru 5 or 1 thru 10. The key here would be to have an Excel pdf , where we could fill-out in essence the “Critique Form” , which in turn would have fields that matched a master spread sheet. The forms could be imported into the master where all calculations would be performed. The comments section of the critique form would have to be individually read resulting in a subjective opinion based on a group of 3 to 5 individuals.
QUESTION: The surveys that you see on blogs and forums, Can they be formatted to a rating system????

Between the quantified evaluation and the interpretation of the “jury” a written critique will be provided to the craftsperson in a private manner. The craftsman will have the option as to posting his/her critique.

Regarding the approach to a critique, I found this statement interesting as stated by ba-doyn (AKA” Michae):

One thing about critiquing another person's work is that it's not meant to be personal. It's personal to the person doing the critiquing, as this is where all of us are different in our likes, dislikes, styles, proportions, levels of experience, etc.


This statement as I read it, was opposite to my thinking. I always fealt the individual being critiqued took it personal and got bruised and angry, but the personal aspect really is coming from the critic………he/she is the one being personal. I like that line of thinking.

Lets begin to break down the parts:

The Description:

5 good photo’s, material used, constraints (self imposed and encountered), style of piece, particular historic period, is it a reproduction or an interpretation, who inspired this piece. The finish schedule used. The one most difficult aspect in building the piece.


In the description, it is the craftsman responsibility to take away from the critic, the immediate opinion of whether the critic says to him or herself, “I like this piece or not.” Although this should be the last thing a critic says to themselves, you must in the “Description” move the critic away from that opinion. A poorly written “Description” or as seen in internet woodworking “No Description” is the worst final act you can do to your build. Move the critic towards wanting to investigate the piece further. Get the critic in a position to begin to ask himself questions about your piece.

An example to further investigate the piece would be:

Recently, in a poorly written description, I saw the term cosmetic being used in a builds’ appearance. It was to cover (as I view the term cosmetic) poor wood selection.

The critic, if one understands woodworking, has already viewed poor wood selection, when the builder rationalizes using the term cosmetic in the “Description”, he/she immediately puts the critic in a mind-set of “what are you talking about cosmetic, that’s poor wood selection”

Now if in the “Description” the builder describes his constraints as such:

The material used in my ” Memory Box” is selected from one 4/4 board 8”x 120”. The board was one I grew up with in my Grandpa’s basement.

Although over emphasized, the critic immediately knows wood- selection was limited and allows the critique to move forward into the design elements. Proportion, scale, craftsmanship etc.


One last thing…… have you guys noticed Mash (AKA: Aaron) in his writing over in the Local 207

love the legs on those tables. it gives it a slender look while maintaining the solidness of the pieces. I've seen similar pieces where the top was tapered as well (thick on the ends and slender in the middle).

This is the second time I’ve seen Mash, throw-in some nice descriptive terms

Well we got our first Critique Form draft to Tommy and Trey. It should work. We'll all have to begin to develope our Design vocabulary, and a form of Visual vocabulary for the comment section as part of the critique form. I've changed some placement of our vocabulary within the Design Elements in the hopes of allowing us to implement easier. That should keep the design aristocracy on their toes, after all we are Rough Cutters.

Remember when Trey gets us a test form..........the whole idea is to use the critiquing process to push our approaches to the design process forward. We don't want to get bogged down.

The Critique form acts as our guidelines and also allows you comments. As we build the forum long term this should be an intregral part of all our builds. More than anything else, our work should show improvement.

Before closing, I want to Re-Emphasize...............the most important part will be for each of us to think twice about presenting your piece for critique. The Description is so, so important. We'll have to continue to hammer this home.

We're getting there...........pretty excited about it. Once we hear from Trey and any changes that have to be made, I'll start to go over our design vocabulary that we'll need to see and use.

Neil

Are we still going to be able to just post pictures of our work without going through this formal critique thing? I may want to just throw up a pick of some trash can I made but maybe I want to have a chair I designed critiqued. Are you gonna have two places to put up pics?

Yornthor...............couple of posts back we decided on a seperate thread specific to critiquing. Seems the palletmakers 207 is the place to post pictures. Also, although the forum members will be given the opportunity to have input, the final critique is done in a private e-mail fashion. You have the option to "copy and paste" the critique to its' specific thread.

All Forum members.......................... I'm very impressed with the minds hanging out here. Our critiquiing approach is well on the way. Spoke with Tommy today and he mentioned possibly next Friday Aug 22nd, we could have a test version. We still have alot to do, in preparation. After we see what Trey comes up with, we can then see where we go next. Understand please, Trey is figuring this all out with us, it's not like he can go to a template, he has to create what we envision.

We want to thank Chuck for his back and forth input and Scott (AKA: Swedishiron), for his magnificent work toward getting our vocabulary in order. Wait until you see what has been done. We have alot of incorporating of work to do before presentation but be assured we are headed in a very positive direction.

Understand too, we'll have to test and fine tune and will be asking for help when we get there. Be assured we continue to move forward.

Hey guys...............an Olympic HaRah for the Swedishiron!!!!!!!!

with much excitement..................Neil

At first I did not like the idea of a numbered scoreboard but it will definitely let us know in what area in which that we are right on track as well as where we need the most improvement. Shouldn't all the critique comments be there for all of us to read? If some people like to comment but are uncomfortable about others reading it then we will all understand. Can't we all learn from each other's mistakes and experiences? To keep things simple a warning statement to all those who wish to post something for critiqueing should be enough of an explanation as to the blunt honesty and constructive criticism. We are not polititians or children and shouldn't be worried about political correctness trying not to step on anyone's toes. If you post a critique be brutally honest but don't comment on something you do not like without explaining how you would have avoided or fixed the situation. Maybe this is a more personal view than others but if you don't like one or more choices of what has been done then say so and say what you would have done differently and why. It will help us to see what other people with different experiences and tastes prefer and why, and who better to hear it from that another woodworker. Many times we do not like or maybe just don't understand what a customer likes or dislikes. This would be a great place to learn about other tastes as well as experiences. The better the detail about the piece being critiqued then the better the critique. Include everything from design, material choice, budget or time restrictions, limited tools, climate changes, finish process, etc. As for level of ability and from a beginner point of view I say go ahead and overwhelm me with a huge list of problems and mistakes on the next thing that I construct. We are not on a set curriculum and we can go back often to reread the comments and and ask for further clarification on others as we learn at our own pace eventually absorbing all of the information. We want to be challenged and given a very high level of craftsmanship to achieve no matter how much improvement we may need.

In a way I do think we will all have opportunities to be critiqued as though we are on the same curriculum, that is what the group projects such as the Federal Table, Step Stool and Blanket Chest offer. In order for this to happen it will be important for everyone before starting to know the set of objectives or expectations a given project has. That set of objectives is what everyone not matter their level of skill would be critiqued against.

Now on the flip side a critique of a one off original design by a woodworker wouldn't have a known set of objectives unless the woodworker presented a self assessment about said piece. The self assessment will provide points that can be add to a base standardized critique. If the user states in their assessment that they were inspired or trying to build a piece influenced by a particular historical period or movement it is now possible for the person performing the critique to add that as an intended objective to assess a level of success.

All Rough Cutters:

Well we missed our dead-line on the first attempt at our Critique form. Tommy is willing to fall on the sword…….and I was just about to say, “would you like me to run that over the Tormek first and provide the proper angle”, but then Swedishiron (AKA: Scott) put it in perspective. I again want to emphasize, Swedishiron has put in many hours on this also. His comments to me were as follows:


I understand the frustration due to the lack of progress but on the flip side things are still in their infancy and evolving. There is still a lot of dust in need of settling. Think of things on the positive side, we have a great foundation being created that we can grow on top of and reference it if we need to.

Scott went on to say:

It was a pleasure to put the time in on the critiquing initiative since I personally benefited from the exercise and was able to reconnect with so many long standing "art critiquing" principles taught in college Art History class.


That was enough for me to feel better ………..for now. We are going to hash a few things around the next few days to see if we can help; by providing a visual, which may in turn help Trey in implementing the forums approach, we all must realize, Trey’s wearing a lot of hats, and it's obvious to me through corresponence, he knows we have something good going:

I haven’t forgotten this but I haven’t had the time I need to figure it out. I am a designer working as producer/programmer/manager/installer/whatever...


Remain patient, we are on this and the glass is half full, sitting on as Swedishiron states, a great foundation.


The ship moves on and will not return to port without the Privateer's Prize.

Still feeling a bit of the wind……………….Neil

PS: I was going to say...... "a bit of the wind ........in me"......
..but I don't trust where you guys would go with that

All..........take a look at Calvin Hobbs piece in the Palletmakers thread. Under "project finally complete", we took advantage of Cal saying to use his work to push our critiquing forward;... so we did.

This link should bring you there.... approach to critiquing is one up from bottom
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=252

Take a look at the direction we are headed in.

Neil