Kilroy: Unnecessary Work

The question you posed on the '36 thread -- is the extra work necessary? -- reminded me of this.

Design author David Pye made the observation that what we consider "craftsmanship" is the presence of unnecessary work. That is, after you've made something that serves its purpose, you may go on to polish it, or grind its welds smooth, or pinstripe it. None of this is likely to affect its performance, but observers will say that it has fine craftsmanship.

I think that if Troy builds a curved spreader bar, or Cole recontours a tail pan, it's a similar thing. They are refining the piece for aesthetic reasons, and the knowledgeable observer will give them extra credit for that extra work.

It's also been true of custom car show judging that more mods = more points. So the most modified car, unless the builder has no taste, is the most highly valued custom.

On the other hand, there have been a few cars that benefitted greatly from a small number of particularly effective chages (Moonglow comes to mind). Perhaps this demonstrates that less can be more.

Doncha think?

 

I couldn't agree more....especially this sentence :

"On the other hand, there have been a few cars that benefitted greatly from a small number of particularly effective chages (Moonglow comes to mind). Perhaps this demonstrates that less can be more."

In addition, when I see welds that have been ground and Bondo'ed over I can only assume that they were shitty welds to begin with....

 

My graduate committee chairman in college when I was working on my Master of Fine Arts degree used to ask students; "If you were the last person on earth, would you paint your house?"
Early man probably started out chipping at the walls of his cave so they were smooth, or smoother than the Cro-magnon in the next cave...
It might be like the Peacock with the prettiest tail gets all the Peahens. or some other form of "I have a mo-betta gray matter and better dexterity in my newly opposable thumb than the average primate, so I'm going to show off, by painting stuff on the walls while I'm cooped up during this darn ice age".
At some levels, like paint jobs on NASCAR cars, it can be sort of like having a coat of arms on a shield when going into battle, so other's know who they are dealing with and "friends" don't commit "friendly fire".

On the Moonglow, less is more. You're talking about a particular car that is still being robbed of it's trim, grill, lights, etc. to put on other cars to make them "custom" so changing it wouldn't make it better, just different.
Not many people have made an early 50s Buick better looking by removing the "swoosh".

I remember Wife pointing out the scrolled flourishes and occasional clawed foot of the cast orin legs on the early mills and lathe bases on the '19th century machines on display in the Henry Ford Museum.
They were as beautifully ornate as furniture of the time.

There's also the difference of importance, the value different people put either in looks or performance or both.
Seems to me when race cars are "average" what things look like is down played "If it don't go, chrome it" kind of attitude but when a car gets way up into the most susccessful and fastest categories, like land speed record cars, for the most part, most every part of those cars starts attaining that jewel like level of finish again. As if the looks is and must be melded with the function in order to really be at the zenith of the art.

50Fraud,
Thanks for starting this thread, I hope it goes far.

 

Interesting, John. Reading your post led me to think specifically about decoration on custom cars. For the moment, I'm ignoring body modifications that revise the contours or proportions of the car.

- In the forties and fifties, customizing typically included the removal of ornament: badges, bezels around lights, sometimes even side trim. Removing the maker's mark gave the car exclusivity, and customizers routinely referred to bright trim as "junk" or "gingerbread" (this was a bit disingenuous, as one car's side trim was often replaced with that of another, the only apparent motive being to make it look different).

- From the late '50s into the '60s, scallops, panel painting and other decorative treatments became popular. Candy paint and metalflake appeared, as did chrome tape and color chrome. With the body shapes and trim generally left alone, cars of this era were often more ornate that stockers.

- From the early '60s until the mid-'90s, American Carmakers were somewhat less flamboyant in their body sculpting and decoration (who said boattail Riv?). This matches the period that the popularity of customizing itself was depressed, so cars in general were not heavily decorated.

- When the nostalgic appeal of customs returned, some of us built cars that were clean in the tradition of the '50s, and others built cars with flames and scallops on surfaces that had their jewelry removed -- replacing one kind of ornament with another.

- In the last decade, patina and primer have become alternatives to shiny paint for the embellishment of the body's surfaces.

So what's the point? I guess that, among our group who enjoy having distinctive vehicles, there are many ways to decoratively skin (or dress up) a cat: subtraction, addition, polishing or antiquing, all of them unnecessary work to create something uniquely different from others.

 

I think this is worth more discussion, from various contribuors.
What yall think?

 

I definitely think that craftsmanship takes time. Like good whiskey, or the finest music, perfection takes time.
-Crew

 

I think two items are being described here...
CRAFTSMANSHIP is being confused with VISUAL DETAILING.

You CAN polish a turd...but it doesn't give it craftsmanship.

The best way to identify craftsmanship is to look for simplicity and durability...in combination.
Thats the way my minimalist brain sees it anyway.

 

I equate craftmanship with skill. Going the extra mile to grind a weld dosen't make one a craftsman. Laying down a bead of perfect proportion does.

 

"If you were the last person on earth, would you paint your house?"............YES.

You are aright Bill ,you CAN polish a turd. But at the end of the day...it's still a turd!

And I see what you are saying Radman, but why does laying down a bead of perfect proportion make a craftsman...and not just a really good welder?

 

IMO, when a good craftsman makes someting like a bracket to hold a part, it will be strong enough to do the job without being overbuilt.
Nice welds, straight cuts, etc.
If possible, it will be easy to work on.
And once its on the car it disapears, with that I mean when you walk up to the car, that bracket isn't the first thing that catches your eye...

 

I've been around various skilled mechanics, engineers, builders and artists and have observed a few things from a comparative standpoint. That is, I would compare my work to theirs. Some of the few truly gifted "craftsmen" would build wonderful things in the simplest most direct manner and produce an excellent finished part in a relatively short amount of time. These parts had that indefineable quality that makes normally non-art objects art and they always worked well. Among other builders you might find a very fast mechanic, very clever engineer, very skilled polisher, very capable but slow builder... or any combination of same.

Satisfying an innate aesthetic need resides in some and not in others. This would tend to turn back the "unnecessary work" aspect under discussion among the needy "some". Some of us would paint our house for the practical as well as aesthetic reasons.

Satisfying mere utility is not an overriding human need... but beauty seems to be important to most of us. I offered the idea once that a "perfectionist" was a person who sought God or wished to be god-like, knowing that this was unattainable. I'm not sure how this applies to our hotrods and how we build them, but it is interesting. himmelberg

 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, when a good craftsman makes someting like a bracket to hold a part, it will be strong enough to do the job without being overbuilt.
Nice welds, straight cuts, etc.
If possible, it will be easy to work on.
And once its on the car it disapears, with that I mean when you walk up to the car, that bracket isn't the first thing that catches your eye...


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you are LOOKING for that detail(bracket)
The SMALL stuff,is what I look for............
Hell,anyone can mount a SBC in a 1932 frame.......
I look at how they did the SBF,or the SBM...........

 

[ QUOTE ]
"If you were the last person on earth, would you paint your house?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell no! I'd find someone else's place and move there.

 

It may be trite but...form follows function. Some of the most elegant shapes came to their form because it was the most direct end to a functional means. The swoosh on the 50 buick comes to mind, sometimes the function is aesthetic and is meant to accentuate the form as a whole. Some of the gingerbread seen on old cast iron machinery was in fact craftsmanship in that the ornate designs were really structural members that reduced the volume and weight of material used.

Now if you really want to hear about something unnecessary we could discuss the test tube at Henry Ford's Museum that holds Thomas Edison's dying breath! Anybody else see that when they were there?

 

Working as an architect, I find myself less interested in minimalism and more interested in reasons for doing what you do. Less can be a real bore; -in no way will it guarantee a good result, -just a fear of actually creating something.
At the same time; additions or changes for their own sake isnt any good either, -but everybody knows this I guess.

The swoosh on the Buick would be better if it was removed completely in a minimalist world. The car doesnt need it to function. But the swoosh has a good reason; even if this is esthetical.

The Moonglow. Every change done to it (at least in its early configuration) had a good reason. Nothing was changed for changes own sake, but the reasons for the changes done was purely esthetical. In a minimalist world there wouldt not be a need to replace the taillights with the upside-down Chrysler-units, or add the Appleton spotlights or Larry watsons "nude ladies"pinstriping.

Minimalism, if persued with no compromise, usually ends up in a formula, -be that a empty white room or some other object stripped down to the absolute esentials. The formula will be repeated the next time a similar designtask has to be performed. Boring stuff really.

Customs should be unique cars imho. The Moonglow is the Moonglow, -not a standard kustom 54 Chevy. We still discuss it on here 30 years after it was scrapped.
I think it all comes down to think each mod carefully through and figure out what purpose they serve, -and at the same thime never lose sight of proportions, balance, lines.

As for "overdoing" it when it comes to details; an interesting thing is all the small stuff a typical magazine kustom would have in the fifties (amon them Moonglow). In the trunk there would be white t'n'r uppholstry, chromed tools and chromed oil and gascans with pinstriped lettering. These things would give more points at show, but they would also build up under the outlandish luxury feel one also see in the all white interiors (with phones connected to nobody) and fully chromed enginebays. Hardly minimalistic or practical, but very cool in my book.
Viva la magic.

 

I think it's all about putting your mark on a particular thing.
Painting, sculpture or hot rod/custom.

For me, hot rods are the melding of several different areas where creativity is combined and different parts of it become the whole.

I like to make the brackets and small machined pieces that give the car character, but better yet - for me and I suspect for many others - makes the car different enough that most would have a hard time duplicating it.

Moonglow was an excellent example to point out.
Too many customs have stuff that doesn't fit or doesn't belong and takes away from the design/lines as a whole.
Sometimes I think it's an exercise in the owner just sticking stuff on to be sticking stuff on.
End result can have excellent bodywork and paint, but if the parts don't flow, why bother?

I like to look at brackets and the like on cars that are a little different than most.
Seeing a particularly well thought out and well made piece makes my day.

It's the simple stuff that's the most difficult.
At least it is for me.
Perhaps, like the masters of old we need to learn to toss a project out when it's not working.
Paintings or brackets.

Most times the Mark 2 version works better and almost always the Mark 3 version is the best as far as fit, finish, design and how it works goes.
Along with that I like to make one item do two or three jobs where I can.

My goal is not to have a car loaded with nice machine work or even filled up with slick bracketry.
Rather to have a rolling piece of art that stops onlookers in their tracks making them think that here's a reasonably well built car and there's something there I can't quite put my finger on . . . but I like it.

Toss a little performance - or a whole lot - into the mix and that would do it for me....

 

Looks have always been more important to me than speed. I build hot rods for their looks. Hot rodding got started by people that wanted to go fast. They didn't chop tops to look cool.

It's only my theory that the same guys that took the time to round the corners and grind the edges of a bracket to look good, were the same guys that put the same amount of detail into their race tuning. I think it soon became aparent that the detailed cars were also the fastest. The detailing didn't make it faster, but the attention to detail by the builder did.

I was looking through an early 60's hot rod. In the "green pages" feature cars was an altered or a gasser. The interior shot clearly showed where they took a torch and cut away the frame flange for clearance. They didn't even bother to knock off the slag. Let alone grind the edge. In the 50's and 60's this was pretty common. Back then we had a saying... If it don't go...chrome it.

The bar for craftsmanship keeps getting raised every year. I wish I could reach the level of craftsmanship that gets displayed on this site. It's not just hand eye coordination. It's that rare combination of artistic talent, mechanical ability and the willingness to spend the time on the details that separates the artists from us hacks.

I'm a better hack than I used to be thanks to others craftsmanship.

 

The definition of customize is "to make or alter to individual or personal specifications."

So when you are building a custom car, you make or alter the car to suit your individual or personal specifications. Necessary work depends on the wishes of the owner or builder.

If the personal specifications call for a top to be chopped "just so" then the work is necessary. It's still going to take a craftsman to get it "just so".

I always thought it was kinda strange to judge a car "Best Custom" without the owner being around to ask if the car is exactly what the owner wants in a car. If a brown '86 Toyota Corolla, with an aftermarket cassette player in it is the absolute perfect car for a person wants and needs, is't that the "Best Custom" for that person?

Maybe I'm just weird.

Craftsmanship? it's the human element when you build, design or assemble something, it's the little extras that are not on the blueprints that make the whole project better.

 

I think along these same lines is the look of race cars. The winning cars usually have that something extra in the looks dept. as well as the performance edge. An example is Top fuel racing. Here is a class that has lost the ART part of the equation. Go back and look at the cars Kent Fuller built when his creations dominated the class. They were a form of art in my opinion. Now look at the design of the rear engined cars run today, they don't have any soul IMO, they just do their job, PERIOD. I'm no more interested if watching a Top Fuel race today as I am watching grass grow, but back then I'd stop what I was doing and walk clear across the pits to see on of his cars go down the track. I was not blessed with creative art genes but I know something that has form as well as function and when I see it I'm captivated by it.

Frank

 

Yes--look at the "Big Cars", the sprint and Indy cars from the 1920's through the 1950's. These were long-lived racing implements, sometimes with competition careers lasting 20 or 30 years, run hard every weekend and rebuilt as necessary. The good ones (and the wildly excellent ones, like Millers) were beautifully crafted in every detail, nickel or chrome plated with taste and restraint, and kept looking good because that shine and polish were as important as the speed on the pro racing circuit. Move on from those cars to the Chrisman dragster, itself a retired and stretched thirties sprinter, that broke the "magic" barrier in drag racing. I think the highest grade of early rods, the ones that were truly finished by owners with enough skill and money to carry their ides through, were strongly influenced by the detail of old sprinters. And look at rail dragsters, at least through the classic front-engine cars of the sixties--there were some skags, but the good ones were beatifully crafted and polished. A race car was a naked structure, and it was important for every bracket and fuel fitting to look good.

 

I guess there are many definitions of "necessary"...

In order to find yours you have define "ideal," "beauty," "Perfection" etc...

In our little world you also have to define "traditional." My personal feeling is that the great hot rod/custom/coachwork builders of the past were trying to pay homage to the Bugattis, Bentleys, Alfas, Mercedes, Millers, Offenhausers of the world. The cars that they built were Pure in form and function. They were beautifully purposeful. That's where their style and beauty of form came from. There wasn't a whole lot of embellishment. But there wasn't any compromise either. They were so perfectly engineered and designed that they give you the feeling that they almost have a human soul. That's what all great art does. Only a car has to do it in another dimension. A car has to be mechanically perfect as well as visually, and structurally perfect.

So flash forward a few years to when Hot Rodders and Customizers started redefining not so old cars. I think they would have liked nothing better than to make a '36 Ford look in some small way, like an early Alfa. They wanted their little piece of that perfection. They also didn't see the old Ford bodies as being that pretty as they were and didn't really value the existing lines that much. They did some, but not like today. But given the confines of an early Ford body, you really can only go so far before the whole project loses its proportions and becomes a mess. So great effect was achieved with relatively minor changes.

So fast-forward again to today. Traditional rodding is all the rage. But we are stuck in a different confine than the early rodders. Those old Fords are both valuable and desirable. We have learned to recognize the beauty of an unmolested '36 Ford 3w Coupe. It won't be long till such a thing is just about as rare and sought after, and therefore unattainable as a Daimler masterpiece. So now massive changes to an old Ford comes at a greater price. Our nostalgic eyes prefer minimal changes that allow the early body nuances to show through any customizing that has been done. We don't necessarily want a completely restyled car that is unrecognizable as it's former self. It's important to us that if we want to build a '36 Ford, that it stay a '36 Ford and not be bastardized beyond all recognition.

So the fine line that has to be walked when considering customization is that balance between restyling to positive effect and losing the soul of the piece of art that you started with. That's the question that I raised about "unnecessary Work." I mean at what point do the changes made start to cloud the original beauty of the old car?

 

When it all boils down, ALL of it is uneccessary, because there is no necessity to build a rod or custom. Unless...you hold value to the human need to create. And through the process of creation, you fullfil a need within your soul (or some gaywad thing like that).

"I think it all comes down to think each mod carefully through and figure out what purpose they serve, -and at the same time never lose sight of proportions, balance, lines." -Sailor

"So the fine line that has to be walked when considering customization is that balance between restyling to positive effect and losing the soul of the piece of art that you started with ... I mean at what point do the changes made start to cloud the original beauty of the old car?" -Kilroy

It's a fine line to be sure. That is why when someone rolls out their creation and the balance HAS been achieved, it can be so mind-blowing.

A simple bracket - so perfectly thought out, tapered radiused, perfect welds, ease of assembly, attention to metal fatigue, beautiful form - can have a whole group of people standing and pointing in appreciation.

It is easy to spot perfection. Creating it yourself can be much more elusive - and alluring.

 

"So the fine line that has to be walked when considering customization is that balance between restyling to positive effect and losing the soul of the piece of art that you started with ... I mean at what point do the changes made start to cloud the original beauty of the old car?" -Kilroy

Its hard not to be sympathetic to these thoughts; at least as seen through our 2004 eyes, where the cars we base our kustoms on is getting older and older; -and some of them are valuable and good looking classics in stock form as well; a 36 Ford Coupe is a good example. Even the newest possible kustomfodder (the boattail Riv comes to mind again) isnt just used cars anymore.

But Im not sure this has anything to do with overdoing things or not. Im not convinced a kustom 55 Chevy needs to keep looking like a 55 Chevy to not be overdone. Maybe it can just serve as a platform for something completely differant, -which in its own right was wellbalanced, tasteful, dramatic or wild, -like Bill Cushenberrys Marquise where only the roof reveals it as a radically sectioned 56 Ford. Making a seriously radical kustom out of a complete, healthy 50ies hardtop do seem a bit of a waste of good metal in 2004, but thats because of other reasons than estetics, lines, proportions and so on. At least thats the way I see it. I would love to see Mark Moriarity build a carbased bubbletop.

This used to be a 55 Chevy.

 

Craftsmanship...

Does that really require paint and polish etc?

I don't think it does.
We have all seen items sold in the Streetrod world that are absolutely stunning to look at...yet not really up to the task of being reliable over the long haul.
To me that does not show true craftsmanship...despite the beauty of the parts.

Craftsmanship HAS to offer more than just beauty or individuality!
The work of a true craftsman doesn't even require paint or chrome to make it beautiful!
The aluminium of a P 51 Mustang fighter or a metal fabbed Cobra...a handhammered alloy gas tank...Coles 5 window/3 window chop...who needs paint?

As it relates to cars mechanicly, it needs longevity in its lifespan, durability, reliability AND most importantly perhaps, it needs to properly perform the job it was designed for in the first place.
Do those things right and the beauty is there without planning for it or going overtime on the spit and polish.

A leadslinger CAN be a craftsman can't he? Yet his finest work is often covered with paint so no one sees it anyway...still, he performs his work to the best of his ability, even knowing this will be the case. The proof in his CRAFTSMANSHIP is the resulting durability...not the smoothness of the paint. You can put smooth paint over filler or rust just as well.

I'm always caught up in the construction stage when I think "craftsman"...I don't see the whole...I prefer to see only the individual items.

Are the (TV)crew at Boyd's craftsmen? The cars sure look nice once they're finished!?!?
Some of them really are I'm sure...but not all...and you can see it in the individual parts.

Craftsmanship isn't in the eye of the beholder...it's in the part itself...and longevity, durability and reliability are the only "judge" it answers to.
Paint and polish, at the mechanical level anyway, is only there to aid the durability issue.
It prevents corrosion.

I'm not saying any of this to piss anyone off or start an arguement BTW...just to help define a very difficult subject and continue this interesting discussion!

 

Wow this is a pretty interesting thread. A truly international discussion. There has been a lot of contemplation on these posts. The attempt to define quality was a task Bob Pirsig wrote about in 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. There is a reason that this book is found under philosophy and not under transportation or maintenance.
Individually we define what is, and is not craftsmanship. The factors we base this on are influenced from many sources and change with us. This is not my original idea, I think many of the previous posts support this.
We can find generally acceptable modifications - Chopping a top on a 32 3 window. Most will say on a hot rod it improves the look. This is kind of tangible. Exactly how much to chop the top becomes more difficult. Is it the same all around or do we vary from front to back. Outside influences - what theme will the car be? Fenders?
A belly pan on the right car 'works'. It might have no real function.
It may be easier to see an example of how it does not work. We have all seen the chopped fat fender car that does not seem to have the right roof proportions, yet the workmanship of the finished product is nearly perfect, but it looses something. Setting up a deuce grill has a right and wrong height, we have seen both, but go to describe it and it becomes more difficult.
The difference in perception between us will make this more difficult. Radman likes a smooth weld - maybe like a bracket is actually part of the frame, where Road Apple may appreciate the informity of a perfect TIG weld. Personally I don't think either is wrong.

Building a hot rod we are faced with artistic and mechanical challenges, we become both creator and critic. Regardless of your skill level the creation becomes satisfying when you are pleased with your results.

Maybe we should get drunk and start a fight, so people don't start thinkin we are respectable.

 

I'm enjoying this!

Just me, but I think 'craftsmanship' is the notion of someone crafting something. Crafting, versus building, engineering, designing, etc. is that the subject, be it a bracket, a chop, suspension, whatever it may be, has no flaws. It's perfect.

Perfection, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The previous mentioned chop...if it's executed well, but is a goofy proportion, the guy doing it is a good bodyman, but has no eye; if it's poorly executed, but it is right on proportions (especially if it's something that hasn't been done before), the guy knows art, but not the science. If the chop is right on, never done before, and the bodywork looks good in bare metal...it still depends...if he did it four times to get it right, he's a perfectionist. If it came out that way the first time, because that's what he envisioned, and that's what he's capable of, he's a craftsman.

Dick Bertolucci's roof on the Buddy Ohanesian Merc is the pinnacle of this to me. I don't think craftsmanship is necessarily the result of extra work on the item. It's the extra eye/mind/soul that says "this is what will be right", and the extra ability that allows the person to accomplish it...that's craftsmanship.

Steve

 

I think that Cleatus has it right: none of this is necessary. There is no need for hot rods or customized cars, but there is something wonderful about creating them.

I am sixty-four years old, and my professional career is over. Most would say that I was successful and did good work. But I have never been more proud and satisfied with my work than I am with stuff that I've done to my cars.

My own skills and craftsmanship are insufficient to do fabrication, metalwork and finish work of the quality I want, so I've gotten help from people whose work I admire. Having somebody skillful realize my design is nearly as satisfying as making it myself.

It may all be unnecessary, but it is surely a great pleasure.

Thanks to Dr.J for reawakening this thread.

 

Very good post. And as Recedacoupe mentioned,robert pirzig wrote a pretty good book concerning some of this things.
For those of you that havent,,....Read it.
Concerning craftmanship,It appears to me like a evolving thing.
A true craftsman will always stribe to be better than the last time he created something. After a while,when all the basic skills are perfectly learned,he(she!) will use his talent to make things appealing to the eye.
He(she) will let the design take more control of his work,as his thoughts no longer has to stay focused on the basic needed skills.
Its there somewhere the craftsman performes art.

Some of you have probably noticed,that
some brackets and parts ,kind of demands a certain shape as you create them.
If the skills are there,you can give them the shape they deserves,even if they would have worked just fine with some easy,quick fix.
You are now doing it to please yourself,and to use all your talent.
Zen.

 

I've always equated craftsmanship with taking pride in your work. The true craftsman does something because he WANTS to, and because it means something to him. That drive pushes him or her to do the job to the best of their abilities, and to strive for visual and functional perfection.

John Buttera wrote once that he feels that it is essential to make each and every part to the best of one's abilities...if you bend up a hard line that isn't quite right, or shape a fender that's just a bit off...take the time to fix it or to make a new one until the final result exhibits the best effort you can put forth. That mentality sums up the philosophy of a true craftsman, in my opinion...anyone can make something 'good enough' and move on to the next task, but a craftsman will sweat the details until everything meets his satisfaction with no compromises for the sake of saving time or labor.

It's just a matter of taking pride in what you do.

 

This is a great thead..

I agree, there is no true reason for the 'changes' we make in projects ..
Another thought that came to mind for me is the personal gratification of building/crafting something.
I'm NO master of anything, but i do enjoy setting goals for myself when it comes to projects.
And with those goals come's the desire to better my skill's with every job i do.
Spending the time to make sure something is not only built well, but has pleasing and tastefull asthetics can be a real job.but well worth it in the end.

seeing something just thrown together has never really done it for me..
Show me something that has had some real thought, effort and quality put into it and i'll alway's take the time to check it out..
To some it's deffinately like fine art, if people didn't spend the time and do the 'unnecessary work' for the masses to see, there may not be anything for us onlookers to admire and strive for in our own projects..

Tony