The Industrial Revolution and the Death of Craftsmanship
by Jeffrey Dale Starr
“A chicken in every pot! A car in every garage!” …and, you can add, junk made out of fiberboard in every living-room.
There’s no doubt that the Industrial Revolution was a two-edged sword. The benefits have been obvious: through efficient means of mechanization and engineering, products could be made at a much faster rate. Since the greatest expense for most businesses is payroll, it doesn’t take an economics wizard to figure out that a manufacturer who can produce one hundred items a day can sell his wares much cheaper than his competitor who can only produce 10 items a day, all things being equal.
Thanks to visionaries like Henry Ford, plants across the world are running robotic (and now computerized) behemoths churning out consumer goodies like great, wheezing, snorting dragons. Even the lower classes can fill their crackerbox apartments with “assemble-it-yourself” TV stands, end tables, and computer desks.
The downside? These items are 100% junk. Even brand-new, most of these items are wobbly, weak, and drab. But jump ahead a mere year or so and the real nightmare begins: warping, discoloration, small piles of sawdust that would suggest termites (but is actually just the wear and stripping of metal screws against horrific pressed wood fibers).
It never ceases to amaze me when I’m watching “Antiques Roadshow” (especially episodes originating from Europe) when they inspect incredible, handmade furniture that is centuries-old. Armoires from the days of Louis XIV. Chests of drawers dating back to the era of Shakespeare. Glorious Faberge eggs.
So what is the source of this rant? As many of you know, I make my living as a Computer Engineer. Don’t get me wrong—I enjoy my work and it pays the bills. But it is not my first choice as a profession. If I had my druthers, I’d be making hand-carved armoires, chairs, and the like. What a sense of satisfaction to create a piece of usable art that, if maintained properly, could be useful to its owners for generations! It would be such a joy to take time and care with every little notch made in the wood, knowing that it would be appreciated long after I was gone.
But as it is…there is very little appreciation for this sort of craftsmanship in our modern, mechanized, instant-gratification society. The amount of money you would have to charge for these pieces makes it sadly impractical as a means of living. I’m sure there are still fine pieces being created out there (if only by the guys at “The Old Yankee Workshop”), but I’m also sure that they’re the sole possession of the super-rich.
Getting back to the opening comment, the lower classes would be much better off (instead of a living room jammed full of junk from IKEA) with a simple, single, well-made coffee table that would last for generations. And society, if in patience acquired these pieces one at a time, would actually save money in the long run. Have heirlooms to pass on to their children. Every few decades just sand down and put a new coat of stain and varnish, and…oh, who am I kidding? The great metal beast just belched out another fiberboard blob of instant gratification.
Jeff Starr is a San Francisco-based Impressionist oil painter who concentrates on themes of Japan, Dreams, Europe and California.
http://www.jeffreydalestarr.com/
In the spirit of full disclosure, I own some of the junk I rail against. Maybe guilt was part of my motivation!
Ah, so you're a member of the unwashed masses you thumb your nose at. Fun.
From personal experience, IKEA furniture lasts for years if you have the patience and basic motor skills to properly assemble it initially. Railing against instant gratification when you can't even take the time to read three panels of big, simple diagrams is just a bit, ahem, silly.
Don't blame some grand industrial bogeyman when the situation is likely simply PEBKAC.
I don't understand these reactions portraying me as some kind of elitist. I'm a middle class guy from a blue-collar background. Defending the corporate behemoths that spoon-feed you garbage proves what a lemming you really are.
That was great.
[ I don't understand these reactions portraying me as some kind of elitist. ]
Yeah, it's not like multiple references to "the lower classes", coupled with cute aspersions of "crackerbox apartments" and implications that anyone buying from IKEA is defined as nothing by a consumer whore are elitist or anything.
[ Defending the corporate behemoths that spoon-feed you garbage proves what a lemming you really are. ]
This from the guy admits to buying IKEA, then turns around and looks down on people who buy IKEA. Hilarious.
I've personally never purchased anything from IKEA. But out of necessity I do have a crummy fiberboard computer desk, because, yes it was all I could afford. How does that make me a hypocrite? The thrust of my article was not against consumers but a complaint against manufacturers trying to increase their profit margin by selling junk. If you can't comprehend that, I'm sorry for you.
You sound like an elitist who thinks he is too good to use something other than what you admit is becoming very expensive – which is quality furniture.
Moreover, you look down your nose at poor slobs who just need a wardrobe or end tables or a desk, and do the best they can within their budget. In your world, Joe Slob is sitting on the floor propping his plate of food on his knees until he can, someday, with your blessing, buy a lovely real wood handcrafted dining table.
Most of us don't want to be Joe living without furnishings, and rather resent your nasty language about 'lower classes' when directed to people who must choose between living with something less than excellent, or living with nothing.
Wrong. I don't look down on anyone buying these products. I thought I made that clear. I'm angry at the manufacturers who produce shoddy goods just to increase their profit margin. You should be angry too.
And by the way, a lot of people seem to be making assumptions about who I am and where I come from. I grew up among the "lower classes" I spoke of and am not ashamed of it. Even now, I'm middle class at best. I guess prejudice is alive and well.
I didn't mean to suggest that everyone should only buy handcrafted furniture. In my article I point out that only the super-rich could really afford such things these days. But you have to admit – 150 years ago, before there was any mass-produced crapola, even simple people like farmers had well-made stuff. Even though it was cheap, it was still well made. Now, there are two extremes of choice: 1) super expensive and well made or 2) affordable junk. I'm not criticizing the average guy, I'm defending him – against being force-fed, planned obsolescence.
[ I'm not criticizing the average guy, I'm defending him - against being force-fed planned obsolescence. ]
And your "solution" was to buy one piece of "super expensive and well made" furniture every few years. Sorry, but most people would rather not live in a place with just two pieces of furniture for years. From your own moral weakness in giving into the grand evil of IKEA, you don't even have the strength of will to actually abide by your ideals, just barely enough to rant self-righteously about them.
Nice mis-quote. I never said that someone should buy a piece of "super expensive" furniture. Most people can't afford "super expensive" anything. I also wasn't criticizing the masses for buying IKEA products. I'm criticizing IKEA and their ilk for selling junk. If that bothers you, you must own stock in the company or be suffering from extreme guilt because you know I'm right.
I didn't know copy-paste uniquely creates misquotes on your website. Interesting.
[ I never said that someone should buy a piece of "super expensive" furniture. Most people can't afford "super expensive" anything. ]
And you yourself stated there were only two choices: super expensive or IKEA-esque junk. You apparently sneer at buying IKEA, so, by your own binary declaration, we're left with the only other choice as your point of advocacy. Feel free to retract your binary declaration if you find it no longer convenient at this juncture.
[ I also wasn't criticizing the masses for buying IKEA products. ]
Nice try. You said:
"… the lower classes would be much better off (instead of a living room jammed full of junk from IKEA) with a simple, single, well-made coffee table that would last for generations. And society, if in patience acquired these pieces one at a time, would actually save money in the long run. Have heirlooms to pass on to their children. Every few decades just sand down and put a new coat of stain and varnish, and…oh, who am I kidding? The great metal beast just belched out another fiberboard blob of instant gratification."
You're either blaming IKEA's customers for their weakness for instant gratification, or trying to finagle some strange "IKEA products are mind-control devices" argument from your rant.
[ I'm criticizing IKEA and their ilk for selling junk. ]
Supply and demand. Maybe you've heard of it. It's curious how you try to blame IKEA for the woes outlined above while claiming that "real" furniture is now only for the super-rich, yet avoid criticizing artisans for charging so much for their work. Well, I suppose that'd interfere with your superficial hipster cred, and we just can't have that, now can we?
What's interesting is if "IKEA and their ilk" simply disappeared. Again using your own binary declaration, that leaves "super expensive and well made."
I still don't see anything even remotely resembling a solution.
[ If that bothers you, you must own stock in the company or be suffering from extreme guilt because you know I'm right. ]
By your own admission, you support the company with your money. Some people abide by the principle of "put your money where your mouth is." Apparently, you're not one of those people.
And that's exactly what it is, "planned obsolescence." I was listening to NPR the other day and they were saying that over the past ten to fifteen years, companies have departments and committees devoted to "planned obsolescence. " The automobile industry…the computer industry…the wireless phone industry especially. People who sit down and decide which parts / products / pieces of equipment they will design to have a short life-span or become antiquated so they can sell more stuff to the same consumers.
Jeff, was it your goal to sound like an offensive and unrepentant snob? If so, congratulations.
I have some lovely real wood furniture that has been around many years, will last more years, will see me out of this life and then go to …well, nobody, because I have no children. I hope someone buys it from my estate that will love it.
I also have a few pieces of Ikea that are perfectly serviceable and solved space and storage functions. I don't think it'll be fought over at the estate sale when I kick the bucket, but it could certainly work for someone as it has for me.
Can we talk about my beautiful English Real Antique Real Pine dining table that is warping more by the day?
If you don't like Ikea, Swedish design, or particle board, then don't buy it. Not everyone's family is going to have heirlooms or be able to buy something of heirloom quality. Young married people need wardrobes and desks and such too. Please forgive them, Jeff, they know not how they offend you.
Again, I'm confused by the reaction to my article. Don't you think you should be getting higher-quality goods in exchange for your hard-earned dollars? Personally, I don't think forking out $150 for a piece of shelving is any real bargain. I think for that price you should get a solid product made of quality wood that will last as long as you want it to. The cheaper quality of wood (fiberboard is NOT wood) that you're getting for your money should make you angry. How does that make me a snob? When our great-grandparents bought something they expected it to last. Not because they paid a fortune, but because a few generations ago EVERYthing was built to last. This isn't about snobbery…it's a lament about the death of quality. That should make everyone angry…it's not an elitist attitude.
I am not arguing with the enduring value of solid wood furniture (with the exception of my table that's going to require major bucks to redo). I'm stating that I live in the real world, where $150 is not going to buy you hand-crafted solid wood furniture that can be used and appreciated for generations. And yet, people still need furniture. At what point do your rarefied sensibilities give way to reality?
[ Don't you think you should be getting higher-quality goods in exchange for your hard-earned dollars? ]
Then take that up with real-wood furniture makers who apparently charge too much for your liking.
[ I think for that price you should get a solid product made of quality wood that will last as long as you want it to. ]
Feel free to encourage quality-wood furniture makers to lower their prices to your personal level of comfort.
Neither of those points have anything at all to do with IKEA.
I'm not sure the expensive furniture can be sold any cheaper, to be honest. If it took you 3 months to hand-make a wardrobe, what would you charge for that? If you wanted to make a decent living, say $60k, you would have to charge $15k for that wardrobe. Who can afford that?
My beef is with the manufactures of mass-produced furniture, who could dramatically increase their quality by reducing their profit margin. We've all heard enough stories about Nike shoes being made in the Far East for $3.00 and being sold to Americans for $125. Same idea.
I agree about the manufacturing cost for high-end artisan furniture. However, do you have any information regarding exactly what IKEA's profit margins look like? I've bought TV stands and coffee tables from them, and those things are shockingly inexpensive, yet (at least in my usage) show no signs of subpar durability.
Also, regarding Nike, Nike's prices are part of why people buy Nike. They also sink millions into product R&D (and advertising), but even aside from that, casual consumers buy Nike because the brand cachet, not because they shoes cost $100 to manufacture. Nike could very feasibly see a substantial LOSS in market share if it dropped its prices to, say 20% of its current prices.
People buy Nike because Nike positions itself as a pseudo-luxury trendy brand. People, at least Americans, buy IKEA because it's aesthetically well-designed and cheap. Two different ideas.
You know what this article reminds me of? That time you got rid of your economy car and bought that 1960's Cadillac…I remember saying "Jeff…this car is cooler than the other side of the pillow, but is it practical?" You said "Practical?! Ask yourself this…how many people who have practical cars want a classic Caddy…then ask yourself how many people with classic Cadillacs want a Nissan Sentra. Yeah, that's what I thought…"
ROFL
So this guy deliberately chooses retro-cool but impracticable and/or pricey items of 'value' (as defined by him) and preaches to us that we should all do the same?
Nice.
You guys are all insane. Anyone getting this worked up over their crappy Ikea furniture has never lifted a hammer and has no idea what real quality is. You guys defending Ikea are all ridiculous college kids plugged into the Borg and you haven't had to go out and even get a real job yet. Put down your 5 dollar cup of coffee and learn how to do something for a living you bums!
Did you just type that?
How embarrassing for you.
Ok, Jeff, but without particle board I wouldn't have any furniture! My family’s hand-made stuff would have to be shipped from Romania, and includes wood-burning stoves.
– This is "Jack," using an IntenseDebate account now.
[ I've personally never purchased anything from IKEA. But out of necessity I do have a crummy fiberboard computer desk, because, yes it was all I could afford. ]
Ah, thanks for the clarification. It gives your rant a bit more solid footing.
However, there's no advantage to be had in persuading existing "junk" manufacturers to lower their margins by using better materials. As such, your rant seems pointless, and because of that, sounds haughtily pretentious. You're better served by ranting against real-wood manufacturers who charge high prices for their work. The profit-margin argument works just as well against them.
You make a good point about the high price of quality merchandise. And if an armoire takes 4 months to build, I guess the builder has to charge an exorbitant rate. I guess there should just be a middle ground. I think if manufacturers of mass produced furniture upgraded their quality, it might mean reducing their profit margin from 70% to 50%. I just wish consumers would demand that sort of thing instead of just laying down and saying, "oh well, guess that's just the way it is".
If you grew up 'lower class' than what the hell are you doing using snobby language like …. calling people 'lower class' ?
I've seen mass-produced real-wood furniture. It's still several times more expensive than IKEA's stuff, though much less than one-off artisan pieces.
IKEA has simply dominated a low-end niche that happens to have a huge market: they've generated a lot of supply for what has proven to be massive demand.
Farmers in medieval times built furniture out of solid materials that lasted partly because fiberboard and massive economies of scale did not exist back then. As such, it's naive to think that the psychology of consumerism was invented by modern advertising simply because conditions in the past did not allow for the expression of such consumerism. Advertising naturally helps it along, but so does the ability to buy a wide variety of goods at a price point which makes rapid obsolescence economically feasible.
Thus, the question becomes: are consumers simply laying down and tolerating consumerism, or have their own mentalities caused the rise of consumerism-friendly manufacturing?