Official Luthiers Forum!

Nicely done, somewhat pop-psy discussions of why we treasure the things we make (for values of make that range from finished parts assembly to wholly scratch built). The second video is focused on niche interest in fountain pens, but Mr. Goulet does a nice job of extending the discussion into the OCD space that comes perilously close to what I've seen in some of Greenridge's customers.

YouTube: The Science Behind Our Niche Interests (Compilation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvdT75eNng&t=0s

YouTube: The Psychology of Niche Interests - Brian's Two Cents

https://youtu.be/p0QQp-w8CCY?t=63

_________________
For the times they are a changin'

- Bob Dylan

Thanks Woodie. I enjoyed that and I find the subject interesting. I love a bit of philosophy mixed with luthiery. BTW the first link seems faulty and took me to an unrelated video, but that doesn’t matter as the second one shows the relevant bits of the first one, with the added bonus of the lovely Mr Goulet.

I was most interested in the bit discussing the psychological motivations for making something yourself; the “endowment effect” and the additional value we perceive from contributing our own labour in the production of something. Interesting that this has the modern label of the “IKEA Effect”. It is actually borrowing a lot from Marx’s theory of alienation and the value of labour, but as his name cannot be uttered in polite society in your country I guess it is safer to rename the ideas in honour of Swedish peak capitalists.

People, by nature, are free, creative beings who desire some control of their world and the things in it. You can only get a certain amount of personal joy or control from buying stuff that has been made for you. The modern, technologically developed world is increasingly beyond our full control. Although workers produce things for the market, market forces, not workers, control things so that the worker lacks a feeling of agency. We seek that elsewhere. Hence the value that I perceive in making a guitar instead of buying one - even though an objective assessment would probably judge my product to be inferior to what the market is offering.

It looks like I was able to fix the link.

I have to admit experiencing the beginnings of a panic attack when you noted the link to an 'unrelated video', as I had posted to the Doug Proper's Workstation Vise thread just prior to that, with inspiration from a current sewing project (a princess-darted Victorian foundational garment). I was imagining the clever excuses to be employed... but thanks for the catch.

Fully agree with your sentiments re: things we craft for ourselves and others. We saw our share of early efforts by local hobby-oriented builders appear at Greenridge for remediation, and no matter how challenging the work appeared to have been, I was always struck by the shear degree of spirit and presence of the maker imbued in the work as compared to the supposed perfection of factory-created instruments.

_________________
For the times they are a changin'

- Bob Dylan

Really interesting. Thanks. I was taken with the idea of agency when building or assembling something yourself.

I once worked for a computer company in California. One of the factories was next to the building I worked in, and I'd often be summoned to look at a problem an assembler was having putting a computer together. The assemblers were responsible for the whole computer. They were structurally fairly complex, with a chassis that would accept the major modules, like the monitor, drives, power supply and several circuit boards, plastic covers, logo, etd. Each assembler would start with the first piece of the chassis and build the entire computer, then put it through its final testing, only handing it off to someone else for packaging. The computers were touted as being hand made.

Later, I took a better job at another factory in the same company where the people on the line were called operators (the term indicated a lower level of skill sets). Again, I went out to the factory floor often, when certain problems arose. It was a more traditional factory operation, where each operator performed one small task repeatedly, on a cycle of about 30 seconds.

The assemblers in the first factory seemed to get more pride and satisfaction from their work. Although they sent their computers off to someone else to be packed and shipped, there seemed to be some attachment for the assemblers. In the second one, the operators usually had no involvement with the outcome and were concerned only with their small 30-second participation with the construction of the computers. Only those at the tail end of the process dealt with a whole or nearly whole computer, but had no involvement leading up to its completion, except for the very last few steps; they had no history with it to speak of.

I didn't do any formal evaluation of the two groups, but it was obvious, to me at least, how much more connected the assemblers in the first group were to the products they built. There was more job satisfaction and sense of responsibility. To be sure, their work was more complex, and they were granted more agency to make many more decisions than the second group. Which method was superior I think is a topic for another discussion.

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com

https://medium.com/not-so-different-eme ... 0620f95aa9

Thanks Woodie for initiating this important discussion. You, and those following it, may already be familiar with David Pye's book "The Nature and Art of Workmanship". But if not, I think it would be top of the list of required reading for anyone with an interest in these things. For me, as for many, reading it was a transformative experience. He deals with the fundamental differences between the factory produced (the workmanship of certainty) and the product of the craftsman (the workmanship of risk). And also with the importance of the evidence of the human hand in the aesthetic quality of the work. I find it interesting that in the guitar world, amateur and professional makers, as well as players. seem, in general, to have a preference for the aesthetics that certainty produces. Whereas in the world of the violin and the cello, again, both for makers and players, there is an overwhelming preference for the evidence of the human hand. Especially, but not necessarily, when beautifully, skilfully done.

Is this a subject for hobbyists too, or just professionals? I originally read the subject title as, The Science and Psychology Behind Nietzsche Interests. I'm glad I went back and read it twice.