craftsmen/artisans vs Cheap goods

[DWFII]

As to people and prices there is a proverb that says there are only 2 blacksmiths that ever went to hell, one hit cold iron, the other didn't charge enough. In the years that I did the show circuit I found that if I got tired of something not selling, raise the price it will sell before the day was out.

Value is something that people do not understand any more. Value is not price it is utility and quality, something has no value if it does not serve the puropse it was bought for, or breaks or becomes unusable before the job is done.

Weasel :ootd:

It's funny, almost every craftsman you ever talk to will agree and every non-craftsman look at you like you're crazy if you're asking a fair price.

My old motto is "If you value (price) your work low, others will value it low, as well."

[Shanntarra]

Sometime my theater let's actors buy their costumes after a show. This reason, and insurance, I give a listing to the theater of what is a faire replacement value on each costume an actor wears. (Could be $2, could be $200 depends on character)

Before our current show opened one guy asked he could buy his costume. I gave him the price I quoted the theater, $50. He thought I was jokeing. That much for a shirt and pants! He approached my trainnee to maybe make him a simular costume, after the show closed. "Igor" quoted him a price of $20 for the whole outfit including supplies.

After seeing me rebuild/remake other people's stuff that "igor" made after only wearing 4 wearing. He realized that the charge the theater was asking for his costume was actually reasonable given the quality. He tipped me a pint of beer for opening his eyes to this fact.

[Irish in Tacoma]

I have a friend who spent 40 years as a saddlemaker. Now he's retired from production but spends his time restoring 1950s era silver parade saddles (he was also a silversmith). He gets contacted fairly regularly by people who want him to repair their saddles. However, the only way he does business is to buy the saddle from them outright, restore it, then sell it again.

His has found that if he has to price his restoration work by the hour, most people will try to bargain him down or ask him if he will only do XX dollars worth of work. He doesn't need the money, but as a craftsman he is very concerned about the condition of the work that is attached to his name. By buying the saddle outright and fully restoring it, he admits that he will usually make less money on the sale that if they paid for all the hours, but the job is done right. And sometimes he finds a buyer willing to pay him alot more, because they understand not only the value of the antique saddle, but what went into it for the restoration.

[Larry124]

I forget where I first heard or read it but I’ve heard it more than once and believe it to be true.

Those who practice the best artistry or craftsmanship frequently do so because they must – they will settle for nothing less. It’s what they’ve decided to do and to be.
And bless them for it.

But unless it’s a hobby, there will be always be a substantial requirement for the artist or craftsman to be an educator and salesman. And many, perhaps most, don’t like it.
Particularly the salesmanship need.

Quality or (as I prefer) value (quality & utility) is not self-apparent, nor does it sell itself.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Quality or (as I prefer) value (quality & utility) is not self-apparent, nor does it sell itself.

I think it does. Here are three examples:

Wilkinson Sword. Absolute value in terms of quality (unsurpassed) and utility (swords are a tool, after all).

Rolls-Royce. Absolute value in terms of quality (equaled, perhaps, but never surpassed) and utility (it is, after all a motorcar and it does what all other motorcars do).

Hugo Borchardt's Model 1900 self-loading pistol, perhaps better known as the Luger. Absolute value in terms of quality (I doubt few massed produced pistols were as finely machined, blued, and assembled) and utility (the official sidearm of more than a dozen countries, and nearly the official sidearm of the USA).

All three of these items are also possessed of what I consider to be the missing key ingredient in consumer-driven products-- they are desirable on aesthetic grounds which over-ride the (vulgar?) consideration of price.

To paraphrase William Morris, "Own nothing that isn't useful or beautiful." Ideally, at least in my estimation, one should strive to only own those things which are both useful and beautiful.

[Larry124]

William Morris:
If you cannot learn to love real art at least learn to hate sham art.

And also:
No man is good enough to be another's master.

And,
So long as the system of competition in the production and exchange of the means of life goes on, the degradation of the arts will go on; and if that system is to last for ever, then art is doomed, and will surely die; that is to say, civilization will die.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

William Morris:
If you cannot learn to love real art at least learn to hate sham art.

Unfortunately Morris often extended the definition of "sham art" to those items "mass produced"-- as opposed to produced, one at a time, by craftsmen.

And also:
No man is good enough to be another's master.

While at university Morris became a socialist, and flirted with the anarchist movement, before rejecting that theory and embracing communisim.

And,
So long as the system of competition in the production and exchange of the means of life goes on, the degradation of the arts will go on; and if that system is to last for ever, then art is doomed, and will surely die; that is to say, civilization will die.

Morris, who was secure in his upper-middle class upbringing and who was financially comfortable in Victorian England, was friends with both Marx and Engels, as well as the other leading communists of his time. His view on capitalism destroying art, and indeed bringing down civilization, not only parrot Marx, but failed to take into consideration that capitalism is necessary to provide the funding for the arts to flourish. Artists must eat, and factory workers must be paid if they are to purchase a ticket to a concert or wish to buy a print of a painting-- provided of course that they have not been indoctrinated to hate the "sham art" of the print, and would rather stare at the bleak walls of their home, distracted only by Mr. Morris's wall paper.

[DWFII]

William Morris:
So long as the system of competition in the production and exchange of the means of life goes on, the degradation of the arts will go on; and if that system is to last for ever, then art is doomed, and will surely die; that is to say, civilization will die.

I know who William Morris was (at least I think I do), but I didn't know he was so pithy.

I particularly agree with MOR's quote...and this last one. Thinking about it I would have to say that Morris's prediction is already upon us--there is no standard of civilized behaviour that someone, somewhere...and increasingly in high-exposure circles...will not gainsay or deride.

Just as there is no standard of excellence or quality that someone, somewhere, will not gainsay or deride.


Without civilized behaviour, there is no civilization; without a standard of excellence everything is reduced to the mundane and vulgar.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Without civilized behaviour, there is no civilization; without a standard of excellence everything is reduced to the mundane and vulgar.

Precisely. The problem is in deciding who sets the standards, and what those standards are, and what, if any penalty attaches to the breach of those standards.

By my standards a man never wears a hat indoors, unless he is attending a religious observance that requires him to cover his head. He should also stand whenever a woman enters and leaves a room, unless her coming and going is a part of her employment, and he should not answer his cell phone when he is engaged in conversation with others.

The list goes on, but until such time as the penalty for breaching these standards becomes not only enforceable but truly draconian --hand me my Borchardt, Hudson, I see a man at the other table wearing a hat-- civilization will be pulled down by the vulgarians, the gum chewing mouth breathers who feel entitled to do as they please because they don't know any better. Nor do they want to learn.

And, as far as I can see, their passing would only be lamented by the makers and purveyors of the cheap and tawdry...

[DWFII]

Precisely. The problem is in deciding who sets the standards, and what those standards are, and what, if any penalty attaches to the breach of those standards.

By my standards a man never wears a hat indoors, unless he is attending a religious observance that requires him to cover his head. He should also stand whenever a woman enters and leaves a room, unless her coming and going is a part of her employment, and he should not answer his cell phone when he is engaged in conversation with others.

The list goes on, but until such time as the penalty for breaching these standards becomes not only enforceable but truly draconian --hand me my Borchardt, Hudson, I see a man at the other table wearing a hat-- civilization will be pulled down by the vulgarians, the gum chewing mouth breathers who feel entitled to do as they please because they don't know any better. Nor do they want to learn.

And, as far as I can see, their passing would only be lamented by the makers and purveyors of the cheap and tawdry...

MOR,

Spot on, as always. I have a quick and dirty gauge for deciding standards however--I think we let history and tradition set those standards, always with an eye towards the betterment of the individual and the society from which he springs.

Never, ever, let "filthy lucre" and the vulgarians even have a say.