The Problem with Sales in a Difficult Economy

I opened a workshop here in Minnesota to produce work that would sell on consignment in local galleries, and doing it this way would allow me to design and build whatever I wanted. This was a model that worked in the past. The recession hit though, and gallery sales slowed way down and still have not recovered. One of the consignment galleries in fact closed this year.

So rather than stay with a model of design-build-sell that currently does not work, I have focused more time during the past few years on workshop and methods development rather than actual output, and some of that work is detailed here. For example, both the light fixture and candle holder projects taught me technique that I applied to the Alice Table commission just about to be completed.

The idea to build the candle holders came from a short pile of imported scrap wood that I had no use for, but felt that such beautiful wood should not end up thrown away. I built ten, and brought five to a retail gallery, but again there they sit proving that not even product mix is the answer.

I was recently asked though to donate something to a benefit auction held on the University campus. Normally this would not have been realistic, but wouldn't you know that I had five small objects sitting in a cabinet back at the workshop that were readily available to use in a perfect sort of marketing experiment. Therefore from the five candle holders remaining at the shop, I decided to donate one small and one large candle holder, being really interested in what value they bring at auction relative to their value appraised by staff at the gallery where the other five reside.

The auction is coming up next week, and its result may give me some useful information back. If not no harm, no foul. If I learn something useful though, I'll provide it in an update.

The Alice Table: Managing Visual Complexity

I completed the woodworking portion of the Alice Table two days ago, and posted a photo of the yet to be finished project. Someone pointed out to me that the table is really a table within a table. That person is correct. The two cross frames support an inner shelf, and that inner structure can be seen as a small table by itself.

The base of the table is made up of two side frames joined together by the two inner cross frames. The two inner frames fill space that would otherwise be empty in many other table designs, and often it is good to have empty or sufficient white space in a design. The inside cross frames though create a certain amount of visual complexity in addition to their practical function as simple structures that physically join the side frame assemblies together as well as support an inner shelf.

Yet the table appears unified because of repetition. Side and cross frames share the same fundamental architecture. The only difference besides being sized differently is in linear movement. The side frames extend from front to back while the cross frames extend from side to side. I designed each of the surfaces they support to convey that same linear movement through grain direction. The grain direction of the inner shelf runs its length from side to side to emphasize the same visual direction taken by the supporting cross frames. The grain direction of the teak panels and joining walnut rails of the table top runs from front to back to accomplish the same visual effect for the supporting side frames.

You might think that there could be tension created by using wood grain in this way. Similarly the two cross frames that fill the inner space could have contributed to a feeling of clutter. Not at all though. The design appears unified and well-proportioned, and does so because of effective use of repetition and linear movement. The table appears simple and foundational despite its relatively complex architecture.

Developing Ideas in the Internet Age

A blog entry appeared in a major woodworking journal recently with regard to a change that has come about concerning the development of ideas, especially with new forms of social interaction brought about by Internet-based social networking. I actually wrote a comment.

The entry can be found here.

http://blog.woodshopnews.com/tbaw/?p=744

The writer's viewpoint is generally in favor of what is now normally referred to as crowdsourcing, where ideas are solicited from a group of people. This is obviously now much easier within Internet groups using Twitter, Facebook, or an online forum for example, and is a concept that has grown in popularity. Read any history about major inventions though, and one gets the idea that sharing ideas so freely wasn't always popular. Most famous inventors were at one time or another involved in a patent lawsuit against a competitor. In fact, patents are specifically awarded to protect someone who intends to materially profit from his or her own unique idea.

So now if someone crowdsources an idea though, then because ownership of that idea no longer belongs to any one individual, I suppose that any profit from that idea would have to come from the implementation of that idea through manufacture. Most practicing artisans I know are both proud and protective of the ideas that give their work its own identity. Ideas are intellectual property, so to me the idea of crowdsourcing may not apply to all people in all situations.