Dear Bill, and the forum,
After browsing the OTABO site, there's not much for women up there . . . and Bill, I would like to get some Fiberglass Shanks if you know of a source and am still looking for a good heel vendor. Someone needs to add a disclaimer to the order form that . . . airport friendly shoes often result in a vigorous body frisking. . .
Regards,
Lisa
Of interest...
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
Robert,
I had a busy weekend with my oldest step-daughter getting married so I’m just jumping back in. I understand the mixed emotions but I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. As my very wise wife always tells me when I get frustrated, "it is what it is". Everyone has to pick their battles wisely in life. We'll never be the world's leading shoe producing country again but we are the #1 shoe consuming country (until China catches us in that too) as far as the global market goes. So we'll take back some of our market share with craftsmanship, technology, and a blend of both. If it makes you feel better, the main shoe producing region of China (Dongguan province in the South, across from Hong Kong) is getting “too expensive”. The labor rates are going up 20-30% this year. So the buyers are looking at other places. Ironically, Northern China is one but it’s very rural and factories are just starting to take off. Vietnam, India, Indonesia (not quite as much with the terrorist threats), and others are all advancing quickly. And there will always be another developing country ready to step in with low wages when these get too expensive. That’s just the world we live in. “It is what it is.”
And to answer your question, in my opinion, yes, it IS a high quality shoe when it’s done correctly using technology. And just as with any method, it’s a piece of crap when it’s done incorrectly. Some people look at technology (and I'm not lumping you into this category) as a cold, “push a button and a product comes out” way of doing things. For some widgets that may be true but from my experiences in footwear, it takes someone who KNOWS shoes to produce a quality product whether they are using bespoke methods, traditional factory manufacturing, or the latest technology. Every company I’ve worked with that has moved into today’s technology has trained their “shoe” people to use the new systems. Pattern engineers who did it with knives, scribes, and taped shells of lasts learned to do it with 2D pattern engineering software. Designers who sketched with pen and paper learned to use graphic software like Photoshop and Illustrator and now, even more powerful tools like Romans CAD 3D. Last makers use bench model makers as their CAD operators on last development software like Romans CAD-LAST. It’s MUCH easier to teach an artist how to use a computer than to teach a CAD jockey how to be an artist. If fact, I’d say in most cases it would be almost impossible to do the latter. Actually, the only truly successful CAD systems relied very heavily on the knowledge of these experts to develop the programs. Otherwise, they would never work and the path to where we are today is littered with systems and companies who tried to do it without learning the industry they were trying to “help”.
I’m not sure what shoe CAD systems you’ve seen or how recently but there really have been some exponential advances in recent years. If I end up doing a last making seminar somewhere I’ll try to have a side presentation on shoe technology in general with movies of automated leather cutters, CAD systems, etc., etc. Even with the improved products, using computers and automation to make a shoe (custom or mass production) just isn’t going to be accepted by everyone and that’s OK. If we all agreed on everything, we’d all be wearing the same brown, emotionless shoes and everyone reading this (and the guy writing it) would be out of a job.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
I had a busy weekend with my oldest step-daughter getting married so I’m just jumping back in. I understand the mixed emotions but I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. As my very wise wife always tells me when I get frustrated, "it is what it is". Everyone has to pick their battles wisely in life. We'll never be the world's leading shoe producing country again but we are the #1 shoe consuming country (until China catches us in that too) as far as the global market goes. So we'll take back some of our market share with craftsmanship, technology, and a blend of both. If it makes you feel better, the main shoe producing region of China (Dongguan province in the South, across from Hong Kong) is getting “too expensive”. The labor rates are going up 20-30% this year. So the buyers are looking at other places. Ironically, Northern China is one but it’s very rural and factories are just starting to take off. Vietnam, India, Indonesia (not quite as much with the terrorist threats), and others are all advancing quickly. And there will always be another developing country ready to step in with low wages when these get too expensive. That’s just the world we live in. “It is what it is.”
And to answer your question, in my opinion, yes, it IS a high quality shoe when it’s done correctly using technology. And just as with any method, it’s a piece of crap when it’s done incorrectly. Some people look at technology (and I'm not lumping you into this category) as a cold, “push a button and a product comes out” way of doing things. For some widgets that may be true but from my experiences in footwear, it takes someone who KNOWS shoes to produce a quality product whether they are using bespoke methods, traditional factory manufacturing, or the latest technology. Every company I’ve worked with that has moved into today’s technology has trained their “shoe” people to use the new systems. Pattern engineers who did it with knives, scribes, and taped shells of lasts learned to do it with 2D pattern engineering software. Designers who sketched with pen and paper learned to use graphic software like Photoshop and Illustrator and now, even more powerful tools like Romans CAD 3D. Last makers use bench model makers as their CAD operators on last development software like Romans CAD-LAST. It’s MUCH easier to teach an artist how to use a computer than to teach a CAD jockey how to be an artist. If fact, I’d say in most cases it would be almost impossible to do the latter. Actually, the only truly successful CAD systems relied very heavily on the knowledge of these experts to develop the programs. Otherwise, they would never work and the path to where we are today is littered with systems and companies who tried to do it without learning the industry they were trying to “help”.
I’m not sure what shoe CAD systems you’ve seen or how recently but there really have been some exponential advances in recent years. If I end up doing a last making seminar somewhere I’ll try to have a side presentation on shoe technology in general with movies of automated leather cutters, CAD systems, etc., etc. Even with the improved products, using computers and automation to make a shoe (custom or mass production) just isn’t going to be accepted by everyone and that’s OK. If we all agreed on everything, we’d all be wearing the same brown, emotionless shoes and everyone reading this (and the guy writing it) would be out of a job.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
Lisa,
I'm not sure what your point is about Otabo using Flash movies on their website. The way you wrote it, your post sounded (at least to me) as if you were saying they were using "smoke and mirrors". That's not the case of course.
Otabo has taken a very wise approach to "crawl", then "walk", and then "run". They focused on mens shoes first, with a limited style offering and, though it's not on their website, I believe they are beginning to put together a womens line.
As for the airports, I didn't mind the frisking until they were forced to use same gender officers. Someone had to complain and spoil it for the rest of us!
I recently located a heel source who is willing to deal with smaller quantities such as the ones you and other people reading this post would most like be intersted in. This vendor also has good connections to companies that produce molded insoles, shanks, and other components. Needless to say, I'm not talking about a domestic company. Contact me offline and give me an idea of what you want and what kind of numbers you might be talking about and I'll see what I can do.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
I'm not sure what your point is about Otabo using Flash movies on their website. The way you wrote it, your post sounded (at least to me) as if you were saying they were using "smoke and mirrors". That's not the case of course.
Otabo has taken a very wise approach to "crawl", then "walk", and then "run". They focused on mens shoes first, with a limited style offering and, though it's not on their website, I believe they are beginning to put together a womens line.
As for the airports, I didn't mind the frisking until they were forced to use same gender officers. Someone had to complain and spoil it for the rest of us!
I recently located a heel source who is willing to deal with smaller quantities such as the ones you and other people reading this post would most like be intersted in. This vendor also has good connections to companies that produce molded insoles, shanks, and other components. Needless to say, I'm not talking about a domestic company. Contact me offline and give me an idea of what you want and what kind of numbers you might be talking about and I'll see what I can do.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
-
walrus
- 3
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:00 pm
- Full Name: Larry Waller
- Location: Delavan, Wisconsin, USA
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Bill
On your post to Robert "Amen" it was spot on .Its not the machines its how you use them .
Thanks again
Larry Waller
Walrus Shoe & Leather Co.
On your post to Robert "Amen" it was spot on .Its not the machines its how you use them .
Thanks again
Larry Waller
Walrus Shoe & Leather Co.
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Bill, Larry,
I agree with you...it really isn't the method so much as the intent and the knowledge that lies at the heart of the process. But...it seems to me it begs the question(s)...
First, what happens to the process and, more importantly, the physical "realization" of the *best* of intentions, when the after a generation or two there is no longer a pool of "old timers" who understand the foot and the process of assembly from the ground up, so to speak--when they are **all** just CAD jockeys?
Second, do either of you think that the "decision tree" that sprouts from the initial decision to make footwear using a manufacturing philosophy differs significantly from the decision tree that results from choosing "bespoke" methods? And to what end?
Third, what happens when the standard of quality is dictated solely by what is mass produced--when there is no "higher" or older standard of quality? Does mediocre quality become the de facto "good quality?"
I'm posing questions, not making a value judgment either way...as you say Bill, "it is what it is."
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
(Message edited by dw on May 04, 2005)
I agree with you...it really isn't the method so much as the intent and the knowledge that lies at the heart of the process. But...it seems to me it begs the question(s)...
First, what happens to the process and, more importantly, the physical "realization" of the *best* of intentions, when the after a generation or two there is no longer a pool of "old timers" who understand the foot and the process of assembly from the ground up, so to speak--when they are **all** just CAD jockeys?
Second, do either of you think that the "decision tree" that sprouts from the initial decision to make footwear using a manufacturing philosophy differs significantly from the decision tree that results from choosing "bespoke" methods? And to what end?
Third, what happens when the standard of quality is dictated solely by what is mass produced--when there is no "higher" or older standard of quality? Does mediocre quality become the de facto "good quality?"
I'm posing questions, not making a value judgment either way...as you say Bill, "it is what it is."
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
(Message edited by dw on May 04, 2005)
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
DW,
I would like to think that each generation would be trained not just in the CAD processes but also in the actual footwear techniques, whether that be measuring the foot, designing the shoe, creating the patterns, making the last, or anything else. It’s equally (if not more) important to know WHY you do something as opposed to just what you are supposed to do.
We were extremely fortunate at JV during my 21 years there in that the experienced, journeymen and master model makers went against the grain in two important areas. First, for the most part, they embraced technology rather than fear or fight it. This helped the inevitable and necessary blending of the old methods and new to be implemented much more smoothly than it might have been. Second, they were not afraid to teach us young pups the skills that they had learned over the years....probably because they took a look at long haired guys like me and figured they were in no danger of losing their jobs to us (he said with a sly grin on his noticeably less hairy head). This certainly was not the case at another last company I worked with later (which shall remain nameless) and I don’t believe it is normal in any industry, unfortunately.
That is why it is so important for newcomers to learn as much as they can from people like you and why we need to keep programs like the one at OSU alive. We need the technology for the industry to survive but with or without it, if the skills that craftsmen like yourself and others on this forum are blessed with aren’t passed down to the next generation, the industry will die anyway. I think each generation can be highly skilled artists that just happen to paint on two canvases, one leather and one digital.
As far as the differences in the “decision trees” you mention, I would have to add a third “root”. Bespoke methods are always going to have (one would hope) the fit and comfort of the end user as the primary driving force. That high lofty ideal is only truly possible when you are working in a one on one environment or something very close to it. Mass production is mass production and the “fit” goal is the mysterious 80% of the public. In my mind that goal has never come close to being reached, mainly because the other driving force is to make as much money as possible with as few returns as possible. In reality though, that is the bespoke goal too or everyone would just do it for free, right? However, companies like Otabo are trying to find a reasonable compromise between mass production and true custom. The goal here seems to be to fit each customer much better than they have ever been fit before at a retail location with shoes coming out of a factory. However, I doubt that any of the entrepreneurs who are working on this (and there are others besides Otabo) would try to say that they can give each customer the one on one service they get from most of the people who will read this post. It becomes a compromise of time, cost, and volume, things that often dictate what goes on in our imperfect world.
Finally, I don’t think mediocrity will ever be the only quality level that is available. But, it’s up to all of us to pass down what we know to those willing to learn in order to prevent this. That’s been true in every industry since the first cave man carved a wheel out of granite and rolled it down to the repair shop because he got a recall notice in the mail.
Regards,
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
I would like to think that each generation would be trained not just in the CAD processes but also in the actual footwear techniques, whether that be measuring the foot, designing the shoe, creating the patterns, making the last, or anything else. It’s equally (if not more) important to know WHY you do something as opposed to just what you are supposed to do.
We were extremely fortunate at JV during my 21 years there in that the experienced, journeymen and master model makers went against the grain in two important areas. First, for the most part, they embraced technology rather than fear or fight it. This helped the inevitable and necessary blending of the old methods and new to be implemented much more smoothly than it might have been. Second, they were not afraid to teach us young pups the skills that they had learned over the years....probably because they took a look at long haired guys like me and figured they were in no danger of losing their jobs to us (he said with a sly grin on his noticeably less hairy head). This certainly was not the case at another last company I worked with later (which shall remain nameless) and I don’t believe it is normal in any industry, unfortunately.
That is why it is so important for newcomers to learn as much as they can from people like you and why we need to keep programs like the one at OSU alive. We need the technology for the industry to survive but with or without it, if the skills that craftsmen like yourself and others on this forum are blessed with aren’t passed down to the next generation, the industry will die anyway. I think each generation can be highly skilled artists that just happen to paint on two canvases, one leather and one digital.
As far as the differences in the “decision trees” you mention, I would have to add a third “root”. Bespoke methods are always going to have (one would hope) the fit and comfort of the end user as the primary driving force. That high lofty ideal is only truly possible when you are working in a one on one environment or something very close to it. Mass production is mass production and the “fit” goal is the mysterious 80% of the public. In my mind that goal has never come close to being reached, mainly because the other driving force is to make as much money as possible with as few returns as possible. In reality though, that is the bespoke goal too or everyone would just do it for free, right? However, companies like Otabo are trying to find a reasonable compromise between mass production and true custom. The goal here seems to be to fit each customer much better than they have ever been fit before at a retail location with shoes coming out of a factory. However, I doubt that any of the entrepreneurs who are working on this (and there are others besides Otabo) would try to say that they can give each customer the one on one service they get from most of the people who will read this post. It becomes a compromise of time, cost, and volume, things that often dictate what goes on in our imperfect world.
Finally, I don’t think mediocrity will ever be the only quality level that is available. But, it’s up to all of us to pass down what we know to those willing to learn in order to prevent this. That’s been true in every industry since the first cave man carved a wheel out of granite and rolled it down to the repair shop because he got a recall notice in the mail.
Regards,
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
-
marc
- 5
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:00 am
- Full Name: Marc Carlson
- Location: Tulsa, Ok, USA
- Been Liked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Just to add a bit of rambling. I keep running into the question of “well, why should we care about the medieval stuff anyway?" Most of the people in this group are dealing with techniques and traditions that are at risk of dying out -- I'm trying to do justice to a corpse.
And it’s not just about the shoemaking -- as little as we -actually- know about medieval shoemaking*, we know MUCH less about medieval lastmaking. [Note: and lest anyone question how little we collectively know, I will mention that in the past few months I’ve been asked questions like just how many threads would a shoemaker from Madrid in 1200 have used to make a thread for a sole seam? Or a A Roman in Ostia in the 2nd century? What exactly goes on a Viking’s shoe threads?]
In both shoe and lastmaking, there is either evidence or there isn’t. In the absence of evidence, we tend to assume that it was done the same way it’s always been done – or at least that it was done in the same way that, say, Diderot described it in the 1770s. And that's all we have to work with, so those assumptions are fine as far as they go.
However, as new ways of doing things, come in, old ways fall away and are forgotten. For example, it is popularly thought that before the mid-19th century shoes (and therefore lasts) were made undifferentiated, and the unspoken assumption keeps creeping in that they were always done that way - which is not true, of course. There were differentiated shoes and lasts in the Middle Ages, and apparently at least as far back as Rome to judge based on the few wooden lasts surviving. Before that there’s just guesswork. However, there were also occasionally undifferentiated lasts and shoes as well (in medieval Greenland, for example, where wood was at a premium, there are several examples of rights and lefts (one really nice one, and several apparently trying to emulate it - but the only surviving shoe sole is a straight). So I think it would be safe to assume that straight lasts were part of the “tool kit”, even if they weren’t the preferred way to do things.
Now to make the sorts of footwear I do, I really need to be making them on correctly shaped lasts, which means making those as well. While I’m reasonably confident about the shoemaking – I’m groping in the dark with the lasts. I can reproduce the shapes of the examples and drawings of examples I’ve seen, but beyond that I’m groping in the dark. There is no information on what decisions the lastmaker made to come up with this shape or that shape, and sizing is at best catch as catch can. I have some theories that have come up about things, but really – that technology is gone. No one recorded it, no one retained it. That’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact.
Now, there’s a gentleman who would like to do top of the line medieval shoes for re-enactors, and he’s got some folks lined up in Asia someplace who say they will make them for him for peanuts. Now issues about foreign outsourcing and exploitation of the workers aside (and believe me, I have major personal issues here), I’m reasonably certain that if I send him a sample of what things SHOULD look like, and step-by-step instructions of how to do it, that isn’t what they are going to do. A proper round closing can’t be done on machine (the last time I checked), and I’m not certain if medieval lasts are even scalable with modern technology. Maybe I’m just being cynical this morning, and these won’t be an issue. . Even if this stuff can be done, though, what will be turned out won’t be the same as what was being done historically. Too much has been lost, and there will be details that won’t be obvious to us, but would be glaringly apparent to people of the period if they saw them.
On the plus side though, machine made modern repros are harder to sell as forgeries.
What does this have to do with the overall shipping shoemaking off to China, and whether technology should replace the old ways? At best, nothing. At worse, it’s a vision of the future, as more things are lost because it’s cheaper to do it some other way.
Marc
And it’s not just about the shoemaking -- as little as we -actually- know about medieval shoemaking*, we know MUCH less about medieval lastmaking. [Note: and lest anyone question how little we collectively know, I will mention that in the past few months I’ve been asked questions like just how many threads would a shoemaker from Madrid in 1200 have used to make a thread for a sole seam? Or a A Roman in Ostia in the 2nd century? What exactly goes on a Viking’s shoe threads?]
In both shoe and lastmaking, there is either evidence or there isn’t. In the absence of evidence, we tend to assume that it was done the same way it’s always been done – or at least that it was done in the same way that, say, Diderot described it in the 1770s. And that's all we have to work with, so those assumptions are fine as far as they go.
However, as new ways of doing things, come in, old ways fall away and are forgotten. For example, it is popularly thought that before the mid-19th century shoes (and therefore lasts) were made undifferentiated, and the unspoken assumption keeps creeping in that they were always done that way - which is not true, of course. There were differentiated shoes and lasts in the Middle Ages, and apparently at least as far back as Rome to judge based on the few wooden lasts surviving. Before that there’s just guesswork. However, there were also occasionally undifferentiated lasts and shoes as well (in medieval Greenland, for example, where wood was at a premium, there are several examples of rights and lefts (one really nice one, and several apparently trying to emulate it - but the only surviving shoe sole is a straight). So I think it would be safe to assume that straight lasts were part of the “tool kit”, even if they weren’t the preferred way to do things.
Now to make the sorts of footwear I do, I really need to be making them on correctly shaped lasts, which means making those as well. While I’m reasonably confident about the shoemaking – I’m groping in the dark with the lasts. I can reproduce the shapes of the examples and drawings of examples I’ve seen, but beyond that I’m groping in the dark. There is no information on what decisions the lastmaker made to come up with this shape or that shape, and sizing is at best catch as catch can. I have some theories that have come up about things, but really – that technology is gone. No one recorded it, no one retained it. That’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact.
Now, there’s a gentleman who would like to do top of the line medieval shoes for re-enactors, and he’s got some folks lined up in Asia someplace who say they will make them for him for peanuts. Now issues about foreign outsourcing and exploitation of the workers aside (and believe me, I have major personal issues here), I’m reasonably certain that if I send him a sample of what things SHOULD look like, and step-by-step instructions of how to do it, that isn’t what they are going to do. A proper round closing can’t be done on machine (the last time I checked), and I’m not certain if medieval lasts are even scalable with modern technology. Maybe I’m just being cynical this morning, and these won’t be an issue. . Even if this stuff can be done, though, what will be turned out won’t be the same as what was being done historically. Too much has been lost, and there will be details that won’t be obvious to us, but would be glaringly apparent to people of the period if they saw them.
On the plus side though, machine made modern repros are harder to sell as forgeries.
What does this have to do with the overall shipping shoemaking off to China, and whether technology should replace the old ways? At best, nothing. At worse, it’s a vision of the future, as more things are lost because it’s cheaper to do it some other way.
Marc
-
erickgeer
Re: Of interest...
I only have a couple of minutes before I have to run, but I have to say a couple of things.
Bill (I think) mentioned that the main manufacturing sectors of China are becoming too expensive, but the same articles say that a chunk of it isn't going to move (right away) because these factories have bult themselves the capability to do quality work where the new factories don't have the experience or quality standards yet - so at least some people on that end of the trade are concerned about keeping quality and experience.
What concernes me is that (I think) most equipment being made these days is geered towards using unskilled labor with little or no training. We are going to get a black hole between the knowledge of the shoemakers, machine makers and the operators- a person can only figure out so much by tearing apart specimens (Marc - am I just repeating you?).
What is going to happen when the people that taught the machine designers go their way, and then the machine designers go their way? The factories can keep making the machines, but they may not know why, so they start taking shortcuts and inadvertently cut off important components/processes.
Gotta go,
Erick
Bill (I think) mentioned that the main manufacturing sectors of China are becoming too expensive, but the same articles say that a chunk of it isn't going to move (right away) because these factories have bult themselves the capability to do quality work where the new factories don't have the experience or quality standards yet - so at least some people on that end of the trade are concerned about keeping quality and experience.
What concernes me is that (I think) most equipment being made these days is geered towards using unskilled labor with little or no training. We are going to get a black hole between the knowledge of the shoemakers, machine makers and the operators- a person can only figure out so much by tearing apart specimens (Marc - am I just repeating you?).
What is going to happen when the people that taught the machine designers go their way, and then the machine designers go their way? The factories can keep making the machines, but they may not know why, so they start taking shortcuts and inadvertently cut off important components/processes.
Gotta go,
Erick
-
marc
- 5
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:00 am
- Full Name: Marc Carlson
- Location: Tulsa, Ok, USA
- Been Liked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Marc - am I just repeating you?
I think we're just sort of aiming in the same direction.
If the knowledge goes away, it's left to shmoes like me to try to piece it together sometime later - and what comes from that won't even be "mediocre", but a bare reflection of "mediocre"
Marc
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Marc, Erick, Bill...
At the risk of straying too far from a neutral position, I have to say that both Marc and Erick raise the same sort of questions that I have. My supposition, based upon talking to Al and Marc and others, is that contrary to the future you postulate, Bill, the old knowledge **never** survives. Not really. Or if it survives, it survives only as guesswork and incomplete supposition--which may, in fact be worse than losing it altogether.
Another thought that sort of fits in with all the rest, including decision trees and quality standards, is the issue of human resources and how we value them. Maybe it's already too late. Maybe...to be really cynical...that *devaluation* of the individual is what is wrong with our society at its roots.
When a machine replaces a man--and all the knowledge, experience, wisdom and intuition that a skilled craftsman can bring to the process--not just the man is lost...gainful employment and such...but the skills and wisdom are also lost...probably forever. Except perhaps among dilettantes such as myself who are selfish enough to sacrifice the well-being of their wives and families to pursue something that is otherwise of no material interest to the rest of society. But even there, I seriously doubt that any boot company or last company will ever ask me for my expertise or insights despite the fact that I have devoted the last 30 years to the Trade. Neutral question: Is it just me? Or is that the historic trend?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
At the risk of straying too far from a neutral position, I have to say that both Marc and Erick raise the same sort of questions that I have. My supposition, based upon talking to Al and Marc and others, is that contrary to the future you postulate, Bill, the old knowledge **never** survives. Not really. Or if it survives, it survives only as guesswork and incomplete supposition--which may, in fact be worse than losing it altogether.
Another thought that sort of fits in with all the rest, including decision trees and quality standards, is the issue of human resources and how we value them. Maybe it's already too late. Maybe...to be really cynical...that *devaluation* of the individual is what is wrong with our society at its roots.
When a machine replaces a man--and all the knowledge, experience, wisdom and intuition that a skilled craftsman can bring to the process--not just the man is lost...gainful employment and such...but the skills and wisdom are also lost...probably forever. Except perhaps among dilettantes such as myself who are selfish enough to sacrifice the well-being of their wives and families to pursue something that is otherwise of no material interest to the rest of society. But even there, I seriously doubt that any boot company or last company will ever ask me for my expertise or insights despite the fact that I have devoted the last 30 years to the Trade. Neutral question: Is it just me? Or is that the historic trend?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
relferink
Re: Of interest...
Bill, congratulations on your step-daughters marriage. I can imagine the planning that’s involved. Better you than me
Very interesting discussion going on with a general consensus and fear that it’s just another step in eliminating the skills that we so cherish.
“it is what it is” should not be an excuse not to try to better the world or at least the couple of square feet we can control. As I said before, being a player in this multi million dollar production is not for everyone but I still like to think that I know what I’m talking about and to someone (even if it’s only myself) my opinion matters.
It may not be completely clear from my prior post that I do understand that the computerized tools are just that, TOOLS. Just as a craftsman can not deliver without good tools, just good tools don’t make shoes.
The problem I have is that all the CAD-CAM equipment I have been exposed to is fairly rigid in how to achieve a result. Whoever designed the software has a process in mind and that’s how it is going to be done. For example, I work on a regular basis with a CAD-CAM system to design and produce custom foot orthotics. I’m lucky to be in the position that I am familiar with the processes of making these orthotics both from the German and the American prospective. Without stating that one is better compared to another the way they generate an orthotic is like day and night. The German system generally works of a 2D Harismat imprint the American way is to take a 3D foot mold in Subtalar neutral. This difference in approach requires different tools be successful. The way the company adapted is by using a modified German approach. The pedorthist who’s only practical experience is working on this system, not the “old fashioned” plaster-of-paris way has a lesser understanding of why things are done and does not know how to address problems outside the scope of the CAD-CAM system. Making the tool “smart” takes away from the skill of the operator.
The trend of replacing knowledgeable labor by machines has started well before the heyday of domestic production. By taking someone that only needed to be trained in one aspect of the job and mechanization cheaper labor could be used.
The thing that’s been playing in the back of my mind is where is it all going? Are we going to a time where every shoe is custom or customized to the customers specifications? Wouldn’t that be great? It’s not feasible to think that if we go that way there is enough skilled labor to make those shoes and with technology it may be possible. Hopfully there will continue to be a couple of nutty people around that value the skills and will try to keep them alive.
One not quite related question: how about traditional Chinese footwear? What was that like and is anyone trying to preserve those skills?
Rob
Very interesting discussion going on with a general consensus and fear that it’s just another step in eliminating the skills that we so cherish.
“it is what it is” should not be an excuse not to try to better the world or at least the couple of square feet we can control. As I said before, being a player in this multi million dollar production is not for everyone but I still like to think that I know what I’m talking about and to someone (even if it’s only myself) my opinion matters.
It may not be completely clear from my prior post that I do understand that the computerized tools are just that, TOOLS. Just as a craftsman can not deliver without good tools, just good tools don’t make shoes.
The problem I have is that all the CAD-CAM equipment I have been exposed to is fairly rigid in how to achieve a result. Whoever designed the software has a process in mind and that’s how it is going to be done. For example, I work on a regular basis with a CAD-CAM system to design and produce custom foot orthotics. I’m lucky to be in the position that I am familiar with the processes of making these orthotics both from the German and the American prospective. Without stating that one is better compared to another the way they generate an orthotic is like day and night. The German system generally works of a 2D Harismat imprint the American way is to take a 3D foot mold in Subtalar neutral. This difference in approach requires different tools be successful. The way the company adapted is by using a modified German approach. The pedorthist who’s only practical experience is working on this system, not the “old fashioned” plaster-of-paris way has a lesser understanding of why things are done and does not know how to address problems outside the scope of the CAD-CAM system. Making the tool “smart” takes away from the skill of the operator.
The trend of replacing knowledgeable labor by machines has started well before the heyday of domestic production. By taking someone that only needed to be trained in one aspect of the job and mechanization cheaper labor could be used.
The thing that’s been playing in the back of my mind is where is it all going? Are we going to a time where every shoe is custom or customized to the customers specifications? Wouldn’t that be great? It’s not feasible to think that if we go that way there is enough skilled labor to make those shoes and with technology it may be possible. Hopfully there will continue to be a couple of nutty people around that value the skills and will try to keep them alive.
One not quite related question: how about traditional Chinese footwear? What was that like and is anyone trying to preserve those skills?
Rob
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
Wow! Stay away for a couple of days and there’s more to follow up on than you have time for. Thus, I will add my two cents worth in a series of short (as short as I’m capable of anyway) notes.
First, thanks Robert on the wedding congrats. Both of my step-daughters are very, very dear to me but on this, her special day, Missy truly looked like an angel dropped from heaven. All went smoothly and I can take credit for absolutely none of it except going over and feeding the cat while they’re on their honeymoon.
OK, these comments will be in no order regarding importance or when the subjects were last discussed.
1) Overall “old versus new” debate. I think it’s safe to say we need to have a healthy respect for the way things WERE done, ARE done, and WILL BE done and if we’re truly successful, there will always be an element of all three in our thinking. Being a traditional shoe maker using your hands and skills doesn’t necessarily mean your work will be quality any more than working in a factory and using technology means you will put out inferior products. The first pair of custom boots I ever had made for me were nice enough looking but I could not wear them for more than an hour or my feet would be killing me and the maker was in no mood to fix the problem. We have to be careful how we stereotype people and their ability to get a job done just because they don’t do it like we do.
2) Regarding the idea that these new “machines” are made to be simple so that you don’t have to be skilled to run them is just not true. Computerized machinery in a shoe factory is not simply “put the cow in....push a button....voila! out comes a shoe”. They may be different skills but regardless of the operation, you don’t walk in off the street and do it without lots of training. That’s why it’s so important to use people who already know how to do it the traditional way of possible. I am not naïve enough to think that the skill of running a computerized leather cutter that allows the operator to place different parts on specific areas of the hide using a mouse wheel is akin to learning to make custom shoes by hand but it’s not like being a trained monkey either.
3) As for the systems being rigid and only offering one way to do things, I guess I’m spoiled. That may be the case with most CAD systems and indeed, I’ve seen a few that are very inflexible. However, I’ve only worked with Romans CAD for the past 10 years and so that’s what I base most of my opinions on. When I first looked at RCS (Romans CAD Software) in 1995 I had been studying various systems for about 7 years as part of my job at Jones & Vining. I had found that whenever I asked a CAD vendor if his system could do something, the answer was always “yes”.....no matter WHAT the question was. So I asked Strategies (the company that actually develops RCS) if the last development software could do something (I don’t remember exactly what I asked about now). They revived me about 10 minutes after I hit the floor, which was about 3 seconds after I heard the answer.....”No and I don’t think any CAD system will ever be able to do that”. As it turned out, I not only had found a company that would be honest about their product but over the next 10 years I’ve seen Strategies develop function after function because customers in a particular region of the world, or even one or two specific customers requested it. There are ways to do things that apply to Europe and in the same software, different ways to do the same thing that are more suited for America or Brazil, etc. You can develop a sole using 2D templates or blueprints or you can do it using the 3Dsurface of a last that has been digitized. That’s just one example and probably a poor one but it’s late and I want to get all of this in before I shut down.
4) I think everyone involved in this current discussion (and many who haven’t chimed in yet) are doing their very best to make sure that the skills and methods in use today are passed down and committed to history so that they will not be lost. Technology will do nothing in and of itself to keep that from happening. To the contrary, the fact that so much information in our world today is digital will go a long way in preserving things that were lost in the past because records weren’t kept or someone didn’t want to share their knowledge. It’s just up to everyone to keep “telling the stories around the campfire” to make sure they are preserved.
5) It’s true that many of the factories ingrained in Southern China won’t be going anywhere immediately but Northern China, other regions I mentioned and others yet to come will eventually replace them. Keep in mind many of the companies that have been producing in Southern China for the past 5-10 years were entrenched in Taiwan and Korea 15-20 years ago and everyone thought they were invincible then. The world keeps turning and changing and that’s what makes it interesting.
6) Finally, regarding the devaluation of life and taking advantage of people by “forcing” them to work in factories for low wages. In my opinion, our society and it’s need for instant gratification has led the way in the devaluation of life and everything else. We throw away food because we can. We throw away children because we’re too busy. We throw away possessions, not because they don’t work or have lost all value but because we found something we like better. We do the same with relationships and on our streets, in our schools, and every single night on the news, we see lives thrown away because they have just become another thing that doesn’t matter to so many people today. We have devalued life, quality, and everything else but it’s certainly not because of technology. It’s because we think we are more important than we really are and we forgot that we were created for some other reason than to satisfy ourselves. And don’t believe everything Michael Moore (or Rush Limbaugh for that matter) tells you. I’ve been in a lot of those “sweat shops” and I can tell you the people that work there are more often than not more proud of their jobs than a lot of us are. We have to remember that they were working in horrible, often outdoor, unsanitary conditions before they went to the factory. And IF they were working at all they were making far less money. Sure, $80-$100 a month sounds like robbery if you’re a union worker over here getting $25 an hour and 90% of your pay if you go on strike but EVERYTHING is relative. Are there some abuses? Sure. Are there unsafe conditions and injustices right here in our own country? The answer is “yes” or we’re paying a lot of people to work at OSHA and other agencies for no reason.
OK, I’ve said my piece and I’m late for bed. I apologize for this being so long. I’ve got more lasts data to convert and some new data to create and another shipment coming in soon to inspect and send out. If I don’t get back into this it’s not because I’m offended......just busy. Thanks for putting up with the rant.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
First, thanks Robert on the wedding congrats. Both of my step-daughters are very, very dear to me but on this, her special day, Missy truly looked like an angel dropped from heaven. All went smoothly and I can take credit for absolutely none of it except going over and feeding the cat while they’re on their honeymoon.
OK, these comments will be in no order regarding importance or when the subjects were last discussed.
1) Overall “old versus new” debate. I think it’s safe to say we need to have a healthy respect for the way things WERE done, ARE done, and WILL BE done and if we’re truly successful, there will always be an element of all three in our thinking. Being a traditional shoe maker using your hands and skills doesn’t necessarily mean your work will be quality any more than working in a factory and using technology means you will put out inferior products. The first pair of custom boots I ever had made for me were nice enough looking but I could not wear them for more than an hour or my feet would be killing me and the maker was in no mood to fix the problem. We have to be careful how we stereotype people and their ability to get a job done just because they don’t do it like we do.
2) Regarding the idea that these new “machines” are made to be simple so that you don’t have to be skilled to run them is just not true. Computerized machinery in a shoe factory is not simply “put the cow in....push a button....voila! out comes a shoe”. They may be different skills but regardless of the operation, you don’t walk in off the street and do it without lots of training. That’s why it’s so important to use people who already know how to do it the traditional way of possible. I am not naïve enough to think that the skill of running a computerized leather cutter that allows the operator to place different parts on specific areas of the hide using a mouse wheel is akin to learning to make custom shoes by hand but it’s not like being a trained monkey either.
3) As for the systems being rigid and only offering one way to do things, I guess I’m spoiled. That may be the case with most CAD systems and indeed, I’ve seen a few that are very inflexible. However, I’ve only worked with Romans CAD for the past 10 years and so that’s what I base most of my opinions on. When I first looked at RCS (Romans CAD Software) in 1995 I had been studying various systems for about 7 years as part of my job at Jones & Vining. I had found that whenever I asked a CAD vendor if his system could do something, the answer was always “yes”.....no matter WHAT the question was. So I asked Strategies (the company that actually develops RCS) if the last development software could do something (I don’t remember exactly what I asked about now). They revived me about 10 minutes after I hit the floor, which was about 3 seconds after I heard the answer.....”No and I don’t think any CAD system will ever be able to do that”. As it turned out, I not only had found a company that would be honest about their product but over the next 10 years I’ve seen Strategies develop function after function because customers in a particular region of the world, or even one or two specific customers requested it. There are ways to do things that apply to Europe and in the same software, different ways to do the same thing that are more suited for America or Brazil, etc. You can develop a sole using 2D templates or blueprints or you can do it using the 3Dsurface of a last that has been digitized. That’s just one example and probably a poor one but it’s late and I want to get all of this in before I shut down.
4) I think everyone involved in this current discussion (and many who haven’t chimed in yet) are doing their very best to make sure that the skills and methods in use today are passed down and committed to history so that they will not be lost. Technology will do nothing in and of itself to keep that from happening. To the contrary, the fact that so much information in our world today is digital will go a long way in preserving things that were lost in the past because records weren’t kept or someone didn’t want to share their knowledge. It’s just up to everyone to keep “telling the stories around the campfire” to make sure they are preserved.
5) It’s true that many of the factories ingrained in Southern China won’t be going anywhere immediately but Northern China, other regions I mentioned and others yet to come will eventually replace them. Keep in mind many of the companies that have been producing in Southern China for the past 5-10 years were entrenched in Taiwan and Korea 15-20 years ago and everyone thought they were invincible then. The world keeps turning and changing and that’s what makes it interesting.
6) Finally, regarding the devaluation of life and taking advantage of people by “forcing” them to work in factories for low wages. In my opinion, our society and it’s need for instant gratification has led the way in the devaluation of life and everything else. We throw away food because we can. We throw away children because we’re too busy. We throw away possessions, not because they don’t work or have lost all value but because we found something we like better. We do the same with relationships and on our streets, in our schools, and every single night on the news, we see lives thrown away because they have just become another thing that doesn’t matter to so many people today. We have devalued life, quality, and everything else but it’s certainly not because of technology. It’s because we think we are more important than we really are and we forgot that we were created for some other reason than to satisfy ourselves. And don’t believe everything Michael Moore (or Rush Limbaugh for that matter) tells you. I’ve been in a lot of those “sweat shops” and I can tell you the people that work there are more often than not more proud of their jobs than a lot of us are. We have to remember that they were working in horrible, often outdoor, unsanitary conditions before they went to the factory. And IF they were working at all they were making far less money. Sure, $80-$100 a month sounds like robbery if you’re a union worker over here getting $25 an hour and 90% of your pay if you go on strike but EVERYTHING is relative. Are there some abuses? Sure. Are there unsafe conditions and injustices right here in our own country? The answer is “yes” or we’re paying a lot of people to work at OSHA and other agencies for no reason.
OK, I’ve said my piece and I’m late for bed. I apologize for this being so long. I’ve got more lasts data to convert and some new data to create and another shipment coming in soon to inspect and send out. If I don’t get back into this it’s not because I’m offended......just busy. Thanks for putting up with the rant.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Bill,
I sure do agree with you about devaluing folks and throwing away everything of real, human value. Almost word for word, I couldn't have said it any better.
I know you probably won't get back to this but if you read it, at least, I have another question for you...
What motive...**other** than "instant gratification"...can there be for taking a perfectly good process (such as making shoes by hand) and computerizing/mechanizing it?
This may seem like a simple question and one easy to answer...or deny...but if you think about it, doesn't it all come down to "instant gratification...???
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
I sure do agree with you about devaluing folks and throwing away everything of real, human value. Almost word for word, I couldn't have said it any better.
I know you probably won't get back to this but if you read it, at least, I have another question for you...
What motive...**other** than "instant gratification"...can there be for taking a perfectly good process (such as making shoes by hand) and computerizing/mechanizing it?
This may seem like a simple question and one easy to answer...or deny...but if you think about it, doesn't it all come down to "instant gratification...???
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
lancepryor
- 7
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:42 am
- Full Name: lance pryor
- Been Liked: 3 times
Re: Of interest...
DW:
I think it is incorrect to assert that the only rationale for automation is the desire for instant gratification.
The reality is that, as technology evolves, processes that are not automated will grow increasingly expensive relative to other goods (there is a 'law' of economics that asserts this, but I don't recall what the law is named). If all footwear were still handmade, the cost of footwear would be unaffordable for most people. Look at the average footwear worn by people several centuries ago -- it was, for the average person, terrible, and, I should think, in large part because quality footwear was so expensive. So, the economic reality is that footwear production must be automated to retain its affordability versus other goods. Aren't the sewing machine and the outsole stitcher forms of 'automation?' If so, why do we use them? Because they increase quality in an absolute sense (yes for the former, no for the latter?), or because they offer such a superior value, when the required cost recovery is factored in (i.e. your time is worth more than the incremental value of hand-sewing outsoles)? I think, for outsole stitching, the latter. So, let's not impugn all automation as being without merit.
Now, that being said, I do agree that part of the problem here is that most people do not understand what quality footwear is, so they won't pay for it; it is this ignorance that has helped drive the US shoemaking business into virtual extinction. Plus, a fashion-driven sense of style and, yes, the desire for instant gratification have made footwear disposable, which increases the price sensitivity of the customer, leading to greater need for cost reduction/automation.
In a commercial world, anyone offering goods or a service have to consider the 'value' they offer, relative to competing goods and services. I think a key to survival of the handmade footwear business (and, more broadly, the quality footwear business) is education of the customer -- a.k.a. marketing -- so that the customers' value equation is changed to reflect fit, durability, beauty, etc.
I also think the internet offers real hope in this regard; it is a way to educate and spread the word about what real value in footwear is. See this custom-clothing blog, which has apparently dramatically increased the blogger's business and also, I think, educated people about the superior 'value' of custom clothing, notwithstanding its very high price. http://www.englishcut.com/
Just my two cents worth.
Lance
(Message edited by lancepryor on May 06, 2005)
I think it is incorrect to assert that the only rationale for automation is the desire for instant gratification.
The reality is that, as technology evolves, processes that are not automated will grow increasingly expensive relative to other goods (there is a 'law' of economics that asserts this, but I don't recall what the law is named). If all footwear were still handmade, the cost of footwear would be unaffordable for most people. Look at the average footwear worn by people several centuries ago -- it was, for the average person, terrible, and, I should think, in large part because quality footwear was so expensive. So, the economic reality is that footwear production must be automated to retain its affordability versus other goods. Aren't the sewing machine and the outsole stitcher forms of 'automation?' If so, why do we use them? Because they increase quality in an absolute sense (yes for the former, no for the latter?), or because they offer such a superior value, when the required cost recovery is factored in (i.e. your time is worth more than the incremental value of hand-sewing outsoles)? I think, for outsole stitching, the latter. So, let's not impugn all automation as being without merit.
Now, that being said, I do agree that part of the problem here is that most people do not understand what quality footwear is, so they won't pay for it; it is this ignorance that has helped drive the US shoemaking business into virtual extinction. Plus, a fashion-driven sense of style and, yes, the desire for instant gratification have made footwear disposable, which increases the price sensitivity of the customer, leading to greater need for cost reduction/automation.
In a commercial world, anyone offering goods or a service have to consider the 'value' they offer, relative to competing goods and services. I think a key to survival of the handmade footwear business (and, more broadly, the quality footwear business) is education of the customer -- a.k.a. marketing -- so that the customers' value equation is changed to reflect fit, durability, beauty, etc.
I also think the internet offers real hope in this regard; it is a way to educate and spread the word about what real value in footwear is. See this custom-clothing blog, which has apparently dramatically increased the blogger's business and also, I think, educated people about the superior 'value' of custom clothing, notwithstanding its very high price. http://www.englishcut.com/
Just my two cents worth.
Lance
(Message edited by lancepryor on May 06, 2005)
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
I agree with Lance. There really would be no way to supply the world's demand for shoes without automation. It's been a long time since a town could be shod by a few shoemakers doing it all by hand. When I think of "instant gratification" I think of things like running up huge credit debts to buy things we WANT but don't really need or someone having an affair, or me buying my Peanut M&Ms at Sam's in 3.5 pound bags instead of the smaller ones you can get anywhere. It does make economic sense though, right? Anyone? I'll admit it. I need help. "Hi, my name's Bill and I'm a chocoholic."
The only part of our scenario that lends itself to "instant gratification" is how we let Madison Avenue lead us like sheep to the alter to be sacrificed to whatever whim they're selling this time. Good grief, people are sitting at home now, watching TV and suddenly being told that they should ask their doctor about a medication who's purpose they have no idea about but they figure it must be good for that ailment that they didn't know they had until the commercial came on. But, we do the same thing in political campaigns when we vote for a guy because someone tells us he's the right choice or because we want to be part of that 52% majority in the latest poll.....of 929 people.
I'm getting way off track here and just found myself looking for a soapbox so, back to work.
Bill
The only part of our scenario that lends itself to "instant gratification" is how we let Madison Avenue lead us like sheep to the alter to be sacrificed to whatever whim they're selling this time. Good grief, people are sitting at home now, watching TV and suddenly being told that they should ask their doctor about a medication who's purpose they have no idea about but they figure it must be good for that ailment that they didn't know they had until the commercial came on. But, we do the same thing in political campaigns when we vote for a guy because someone tells us he's the right choice or because we want to be part of that 52% majority in the latest poll.....of 929 people.
I'm getting way off track here and just found myself looking for a soapbox so, back to work.
Bill
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Lance, Bill,
[I hope no one will object if I pursue this just a bit further...]
I wouldn't disagree with either of you. But doesn't it beg yet another question?
How can anyone make a real and clear distinction between what we are calling "instant gratification" and other degrees of material gratification? Or, more to the point, the economic model that we seem to agree is the foundation of our society?
It's no accident that in this country one of the most widely accepted axioms of wisdom is that "time is money." (and by extension "money is time.")
Consider...many, if not most, shoe/bootmakers will tell you that a wooden last is superior, yet we buy plastic lasts because we are not willing or patient enough to source wooden lasts. We buy plastic lasts because we are not willing to invest our time/money in wood. And the lastmaker works with plastic because he is not willing to invest his money/time in wood...which takes inordinate amounts of time/money to bring to market. So the whole cycle revolves around minimizing time (and money) invested, nevermind quality or even availability...which to this old country boy sounds like as good a definition of "instant gratification" as you can find.
Think about this...it doesn't end there...it doesn't really even begin there. In my opinion, in order to really and truly understand what is wrong with our society we need to understand how pervasive this attitude is. It affects everything from the way food is grown and marketed to environmental concerns to educational opportunities to the way old people are used up and "thrown away" (as Bill said) or warehoused in "retirement homes." Almost every choice that we make in our ordinary lives (and sometimes even in our professional lives) involves some sort of impulse to the lowest investment of time and money possible...unless we make a conscious effort to choose quality.
At the same time, Bill has it right, it probably wouldn't be possible to clothe or shoe the general public without mass manufacturers. I don't begrudge them their niche. But each and every one of them started out with the idea of making the "highest" quality boots, but with the lowest possible investment of time and money...fast, in other words...faster than you and I can make them. And each and every one of them in this field (and every other that I can think of) ultimately bowed to the bottom line--the minimization of invested time and money for the maximum return. Is that instant gratification? I think so...or it's the pursuit of instant gratification, at the very least.
So...I'm not casting aspersions or making a value judgment in terms of whether mass manufacturing or manufacturing procedures should, or will, continue to exist..."it is what it is." Again, I don't begrudge them their niche (although I do begrudge them mine). The way that our economy is structured has made life **easier** for all of us...but better?
I question that.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
[I hope no one will object if I pursue this just a bit further...]
I wouldn't disagree with either of you. But doesn't it beg yet another question?
How can anyone make a real and clear distinction between what we are calling "instant gratification" and other degrees of material gratification? Or, more to the point, the economic model that we seem to agree is the foundation of our society?
It's no accident that in this country one of the most widely accepted axioms of wisdom is that "time is money." (and by extension "money is time.")
Consider...many, if not most, shoe/bootmakers will tell you that a wooden last is superior, yet we buy plastic lasts because we are not willing or patient enough to source wooden lasts. We buy plastic lasts because we are not willing to invest our time/money in wood. And the lastmaker works with plastic because he is not willing to invest his money/time in wood...which takes inordinate amounts of time/money to bring to market. So the whole cycle revolves around minimizing time (and money) invested, nevermind quality or even availability...which to this old country boy sounds like as good a definition of "instant gratification" as you can find.
Think about this...it doesn't end there...it doesn't really even begin there. In my opinion, in order to really and truly understand what is wrong with our society we need to understand how pervasive this attitude is. It affects everything from the way food is grown and marketed to environmental concerns to educational opportunities to the way old people are used up and "thrown away" (as Bill said) or warehoused in "retirement homes." Almost every choice that we make in our ordinary lives (and sometimes even in our professional lives) involves some sort of impulse to the lowest investment of time and money possible...unless we make a conscious effort to choose quality.
At the same time, Bill has it right, it probably wouldn't be possible to clothe or shoe the general public without mass manufacturers. I don't begrudge them their niche. But each and every one of them started out with the idea of making the "highest" quality boots, but with the lowest possible investment of time and money...fast, in other words...faster than you and I can make them. And each and every one of them in this field (and every other that I can think of) ultimately bowed to the bottom line--the minimization of invested time and money for the maximum return. Is that instant gratification? I think so...or it's the pursuit of instant gratification, at the very least.
So...I'm not casting aspersions or making a value judgment in terms of whether mass manufacturing or manufacturing procedures should, or will, continue to exist..."it is what it is." Again, I don't begrudge them their niche (although I do begrudge them mine). The way that our economy is structured has made life **easier** for all of us...but better?
I question that.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
das
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:00 am
- Full Name: D.A. Saguto--HCC
- Has Liked: 149 times
- Been Liked: 136 times
Re: Of interest...
DW & all,
Consider this:
====================
In general, rituals are highly conservative in nature and must be performed in the right way, which is the same way they have been performed in their past. If rituals involve language, the most important of them use sacred languages. For example, Brahmanic rituals in India use Sanskrit, a language which is no longer spoken except by Brahmins, and the Sanskrit phrases must be pronounced the correct way in order for the rituals to be effective. We find a similar practice in a Christian context. The Coptic church in Egypt dates back to ancient times when Coptic was the spoken language; so in modern Cairo, you can attend a Coptic service and the language you hear is the otherwise dead language of ancient Egypt. The survival of ancient Egyptian in the Coptic liturgy was one of the important clues that enabled the unraveling of the language of ancient Egypt with the help of the Rosette Stone. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox church uses Old Slavic, and, until recently, the Roman Catholic church used Latin. There are hundreds of such examples.
Ritual acts must be performed with the correct movements, gestures, words, and music throughout the world. The same pattern is found from one country to another as participants perform the ritual in the same way it has been performed countless times in the past. When people are asked why they do this, they frequently say that this enables them to participate with their ancestors or predecessors. So rituals have a kind of deliberate and conscious evocation of memory, right back to the first act. If morphic resonance occurs as I think it does, this conservatism of ritual would create exactly the right conditions for morphic resonance to occur between those performing the ritual now and all those who performed it previously. The ritualized commemorations and participatory relinking with the ancestors of all cultures might involve just that; it might, in fact, be literally true that these rituals enable the current participants to reconnect with their ancestors (in some sense) through morphic resonance.
—Rupert Sheldrake, 'Society, spirit, and ritual', Psychological Perspectives, Fall 1987
=======================
On one level some of us are clearly doing bootmaking-as-ritual, i.e. getting/keeping the details just right, and maintaining the traditional, materials, ways and techniques. We all know what a hot-button our trade terms are; a "sacred language" of sorts, or to others, "historical accuracy". Anyway, reading this the other day got me thinking about the possible connections.
As a kid and young adult, I cut my eye-teeth on wooden lasts. In fact, as Bill will attest, I'm still hankering after them, probably in vain; but not really just "wooden lasts" you see--custom turned Canadian Rock Maple lasts as turned back in the 1970s, and before, as I see them in my mind's eye--like artisans such as Jim Bowman, Carl Lichte, and Donald MacKay used to make for me. There's an aesthetic here (for me), plus a sentimentality, but what are the advantages? Plastic lasts are ugly, weigh a ton, and are hard to stick fittings on to. Okay, but they are far more dimensionally stable than maple, more durable, less fragile (cracking, splitting, etc.), but moreover, they're cheaper and above all readily available. Canadian Rock Maple lasts are g-o-n-e, because the "industry" turned away from them in the 1960s in favor of plastic, and even the small army of custom makers wasn't enough of a market in N. Am. to keep it going indefinitely. I think one of the aspects we're skirting here is just a basic resistance to "change", and frustration because our favorite brand/flavor/style/TV show, is no longer being made. I, for one, have argued forever that there's a basic difference between (mere) "change", and true "progress"--one is novelty for no demonstrable reason, and often arguable in its benefits (like fads of all sorts). The other is methodical, measurable, and, well... progressive. IOW, one is just silly, the other is sensible. Some, it might be argued, might take the position that our preference for wooden lasts is a "fad" of sorts, pursued out of a cultic devotion to the "dead guys", the historical past, or just our own sentimentality. Or, to put it another way: you can get on the phone with Bill, or other suppliers, and order a truck-load of plastic lasts "overnight"; but if you want wood anymore, you gotta send Yankee dollars overseas, take a crap-shoot chance on some weird-ass, non-Canadian Rock Maple timber, cut any ol' way out of the log, and pray they've got no inclusions, or are bark-sided. How much is our aesthetic worth to us? How much to those we serve, our customers? How much "ritual" can we afford to maintain?
Scarf up all the 2nd.-hand maple factory last runs you can. Nevermind they might not be the exact style you'd prefer, or that the bottoms were long-ago tacked-out and plugged with plastic dowels, or that the hinges are loose and rattling, or that they have iron plates you'll have to remove, or that you'll have to refinish them to get the dents out, or... Anything but plastic
How practical is that? Aren't shoe and bootmakers touted in literature for being the definition of practical men of affairs? There's got to be a commercial aspect to our trade, or it's no longer a viable trade, but some artso-fartso, self-indulgent hobby. If profits don't matter, then what is this, "art", like so many Bohemian sophists dipping live cats into house paint, then letting them scamper across a canvas, and calling it "art", and selling it to some rootless yuppie with more money than sense?
I firmly believe artisans--makers of stuff--possess a different and inevitably pragmatic world-view than the average person. And the fewer of us there are (outside of the slave-labor dormitories of China, where, in deferance to Bill, I've heard very grim eye-witness accounts from shoe industry colleagues), the rarer this world-view is. We see things as processes, not just inanimate objects. We see materials, utilitarian potentials, tools, and even techniques, in a different way, as we're constantly evaluating the world around us mechanically: "that's a weak joint"; "this material is too thin/thick"; "that method was not right for that purpose", "that's an awkward clumsey-looking thing", etc. etc., etc. We look at things and how to use them to make other things too--DW's "decision tree" (a cool term). But, at the same time we're consumers. We don't raise, slaughter, or tan our own cattle into leather; raise our own timber and carve our own lasts; forge our own tools; spin our own flax or hemp, or even render our own pine pitch. So, in that way we are at the mercy of others who supply this stuff, over whom we have no control and little influence really. When they go out of business, "change", or even occasionally "progress" off in another direction, we're like kids crying for our favorite flavor or TV show that's now gone. How practical is that? Should we knock it off? NEVER. That's all that keeps the ritual "pure".
Consider this:
====================
In general, rituals are highly conservative in nature and must be performed in the right way, which is the same way they have been performed in their past. If rituals involve language, the most important of them use sacred languages. For example, Brahmanic rituals in India use Sanskrit, a language which is no longer spoken except by Brahmins, and the Sanskrit phrases must be pronounced the correct way in order for the rituals to be effective. We find a similar practice in a Christian context. The Coptic church in Egypt dates back to ancient times when Coptic was the spoken language; so in modern Cairo, you can attend a Coptic service and the language you hear is the otherwise dead language of ancient Egypt. The survival of ancient Egyptian in the Coptic liturgy was one of the important clues that enabled the unraveling of the language of ancient Egypt with the help of the Rosette Stone. Similarly, the Russian Orthodox church uses Old Slavic, and, until recently, the Roman Catholic church used Latin. There are hundreds of such examples.
Ritual acts must be performed with the correct movements, gestures, words, and music throughout the world. The same pattern is found from one country to another as participants perform the ritual in the same way it has been performed countless times in the past. When people are asked why they do this, they frequently say that this enables them to participate with their ancestors or predecessors. So rituals have a kind of deliberate and conscious evocation of memory, right back to the first act. If morphic resonance occurs as I think it does, this conservatism of ritual would create exactly the right conditions for morphic resonance to occur between those performing the ritual now and all those who performed it previously. The ritualized commemorations and participatory relinking with the ancestors of all cultures might involve just that; it might, in fact, be literally true that these rituals enable the current participants to reconnect with their ancestors (in some sense) through morphic resonance.
—Rupert Sheldrake, 'Society, spirit, and ritual', Psychological Perspectives, Fall 1987
=======================
On one level some of us are clearly doing bootmaking-as-ritual, i.e. getting/keeping the details just right, and maintaining the traditional, materials, ways and techniques. We all know what a hot-button our trade terms are; a "sacred language" of sorts, or to others, "historical accuracy". Anyway, reading this the other day got me thinking about the possible connections.
As a kid and young adult, I cut my eye-teeth on wooden lasts. In fact, as Bill will attest, I'm still hankering after them, probably in vain; but not really just "wooden lasts" you see--custom turned Canadian Rock Maple lasts as turned back in the 1970s, and before, as I see them in my mind's eye--like artisans such as Jim Bowman, Carl Lichte, and Donald MacKay used to make for me. There's an aesthetic here (for me), plus a sentimentality, but what are the advantages? Plastic lasts are ugly, weigh a ton, and are hard to stick fittings on to. Okay, but they are far more dimensionally stable than maple, more durable, less fragile (cracking, splitting, etc.), but moreover, they're cheaper and above all readily available. Canadian Rock Maple lasts are g-o-n-e, because the "industry" turned away from them in the 1960s in favor of plastic, and even the small army of custom makers wasn't enough of a market in N. Am. to keep it going indefinitely. I think one of the aspects we're skirting here is just a basic resistance to "change", and frustration because our favorite brand/flavor/style/TV show, is no longer being made. I, for one, have argued forever that there's a basic difference between (mere) "change", and true "progress"--one is novelty for no demonstrable reason, and often arguable in its benefits (like fads of all sorts). The other is methodical, measurable, and, well... progressive. IOW, one is just silly, the other is sensible. Some, it might be argued, might take the position that our preference for wooden lasts is a "fad" of sorts, pursued out of a cultic devotion to the "dead guys", the historical past, or just our own sentimentality. Or, to put it another way: you can get on the phone with Bill, or other suppliers, and order a truck-load of plastic lasts "overnight"; but if you want wood anymore, you gotta send Yankee dollars overseas, take a crap-shoot chance on some weird-ass, non-Canadian Rock Maple timber, cut any ol' way out of the log, and pray they've got no inclusions, or are bark-sided. How much is our aesthetic worth to us? How much to those we serve, our customers? How much "ritual" can we afford to maintain?
Scarf up all the 2nd.-hand maple factory last runs you can. Nevermind they might not be the exact style you'd prefer, or that the bottoms were long-ago tacked-out and plugged with plastic dowels, or that the hinges are loose and rattling, or that they have iron plates you'll have to remove, or that you'll have to refinish them to get the dents out, or... Anything but plastic
How practical is that? Aren't shoe and bootmakers touted in literature for being the definition of practical men of affairs? There's got to be a commercial aspect to our trade, or it's no longer a viable trade, but some artso-fartso, self-indulgent hobby. If profits don't matter, then what is this, "art", like so many Bohemian sophists dipping live cats into house paint, then letting them scamper across a canvas, and calling it "art", and selling it to some rootless yuppie with more money than sense?
I firmly believe artisans--makers of stuff--possess a different and inevitably pragmatic world-view than the average person. And the fewer of us there are (outside of the slave-labor dormitories of China, where, in deferance to Bill, I've heard very grim eye-witness accounts from shoe industry colleagues), the rarer this world-view is. We see things as processes, not just inanimate objects. We see materials, utilitarian potentials, tools, and even techniques, in a different way, as we're constantly evaluating the world around us mechanically: "that's a weak joint"; "this material is too thin/thick"; "that method was not right for that purpose", "that's an awkward clumsey-looking thing", etc. etc., etc. We look at things and how to use them to make other things too--DW's "decision tree" (a cool term). But, at the same time we're consumers. We don't raise, slaughter, or tan our own cattle into leather; raise our own timber and carve our own lasts; forge our own tools; spin our own flax or hemp, or even render our own pine pitch. So, in that way we are at the mercy of others who supply this stuff, over whom we have no control and little influence really. When they go out of business, "change", or even occasionally "progress" off in another direction, we're like kids crying for our favorite flavor or TV show that's now gone. How practical is that? Should we knock it off? NEVER. That's all that keeps the ritual "pure".
-
lancepryor
- 7
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:42 am
- Full Name: lance pryor
- Been Liked: 3 times
Re: Of interest...
DW and all:
First of all, if one equates "instant gratification" with material gratification, then I guess by definition it is responsible for the changes (decline?) in this and most other businesses; that is the nature of capitalism, for better or for worse. To (mis)cite one common statement about capitalism, 'it's a deeply flawed system and one that I will gladly reject as soon as you can show me one that is better.' Certainly, we can find other systems that lead to greater adherence to tradition/custom/respect for the past, but on the whole are they better than what we have? I don't know, and I tend to doubt it, although the question of happiness vs. material riches certainly is a good one -- read about Bhutan sometime, a very poor, tightly controlled traditional society yet one in which most of the residents seem truly happy (is this ignorance = bliss, or a higher level of social consciousness?)
Also, though, I think it is important to distinguish between the desires of suppliers/producers and those of customers/consumers. I think we need to see the customer as the ultimate determinate of what happens in the marketplace; suppliers will find a way to serve the customers' desires. And yes, of course, suppliers are in business to make money and to maximize return on investment, so they will always be looking for ways to make things faster/cheaper. But (and this is a major BUT), they can only do so as long as the customer is willing to trade off lower prices for lower quality. Look at the YUGO -- it was the cheapest car (in terms of price) by far back when it was imported, but it failed because the public wouldn't accept the cost/quality tradeoff. Also, in most markets, there are suppliers at all points along the cost/quality continuum. So, it is up to the suppliers of high quality goods to figure out how to educate customers as to why their goods are superior, provide incremental value to justify the price premium, etc. Customers aren't interested in paying the cheapest price, they are interested in the greatest value, which reflects both price and 'quality,' which has many subcomponents.
Are custom bootmakers artists, or are they craftspeople? I think this is a key distinction; artists' products sell for prices unrelated to their cost of production (why is a Jeff Koons artwork worth 100X that of another contemporary artist? Certainly not because of cost of production differences.) The factors that determine a customer's willingess to pay a given price for a work of 'art' are difficult to establish, and the comparison across different artists' work is well nigh impossible, plus the products are in no way fungible; so, remarkable price differences exist. On the other hand (IMO), a craftsman's work is much more readily compared to another craftsman's work, in ways that can be more effectively (though not necessarily precisely) quantified; this, in turn, tends to drive the market to greater efficiency, in that prices become closer to cost of production, since the value of different producers' products can be compared and purchase decisions based thereon. Therein is a quandary -- I think most bootmakers want to market their boots to be worn by real people, and not to be treated as 'works of art.' Perhaps one way to salvage or safeguard the trade is to market the boots as artwork, but most bootmakers might deem that outcome to be as bad as the trade's extinction!
One more thought -- if everyone is motivated solely by the desire for instant gratification, how has the Swiss watch industry survived and, indeed, thrived over the last 2 decades? Through a combination of selling their product as a luxury good (i.e. something which has value in and of itself, beyond mere functional performance) and as works of art (a brilliant marketing job convincing customers that the mechanical watch movements are products of 'artisans' who make, assemble, and engrave/finish them.) I think the British custom shoe makers (e.g. John Lobb, et al) have done a decent job of making their products luxury goods (they need to in order to justify their prices), plus the assumption in customers' eyes that there is a functional superiority. Still, IMO, it comes down to educating the customer so they understand why they should pay more for the product, so they realize an incremental investment will yield an even greater incremental payback.
Let me reiterate one of my earlier post's points; the internet offers tremendous opportunity for traditional crafts, because it is a great way to educate potential customers. In the past, how could someone learn about why a custom boot is superior to a RTW boot? It was difficult to find this information. Today, it is easy, and people can see pictures and read about the differences in the comfort of their own homes. Properly harnessed, this can really help people understand why they should support your traditional craft.
First of all, if one equates "instant gratification" with material gratification, then I guess by definition it is responsible for the changes (decline?) in this and most other businesses; that is the nature of capitalism, for better or for worse. To (mis)cite one common statement about capitalism, 'it's a deeply flawed system and one that I will gladly reject as soon as you can show me one that is better.' Certainly, we can find other systems that lead to greater adherence to tradition/custom/respect for the past, but on the whole are they better than what we have? I don't know, and I tend to doubt it, although the question of happiness vs. material riches certainly is a good one -- read about Bhutan sometime, a very poor, tightly controlled traditional society yet one in which most of the residents seem truly happy (is this ignorance = bliss, or a higher level of social consciousness?)
Also, though, I think it is important to distinguish between the desires of suppliers/producers and those of customers/consumers. I think we need to see the customer as the ultimate determinate of what happens in the marketplace; suppliers will find a way to serve the customers' desires. And yes, of course, suppliers are in business to make money and to maximize return on investment, so they will always be looking for ways to make things faster/cheaper. But (and this is a major BUT), they can only do so as long as the customer is willing to trade off lower prices for lower quality. Look at the YUGO -- it was the cheapest car (in terms of price) by far back when it was imported, but it failed because the public wouldn't accept the cost/quality tradeoff. Also, in most markets, there are suppliers at all points along the cost/quality continuum. So, it is up to the suppliers of high quality goods to figure out how to educate customers as to why their goods are superior, provide incremental value to justify the price premium, etc. Customers aren't interested in paying the cheapest price, they are interested in the greatest value, which reflects both price and 'quality,' which has many subcomponents.
Are custom bootmakers artists, or are they craftspeople? I think this is a key distinction; artists' products sell for prices unrelated to their cost of production (why is a Jeff Koons artwork worth 100X that of another contemporary artist? Certainly not because of cost of production differences.) The factors that determine a customer's willingess to pay a given price for a work of 'art' are difficult to establish, and the comparison across different artists' work is well nigh impossible, plus the products are in no way fungible; so, remarkable price differences exist. On the other hand (IMO), a craftsman's work is much more readily compared to another craftsman's work, in ways that can be more effectively (though not necessarily precisely) quantified; this, in turn, tends to drive the market to greater efficiency, in that prices become closer to cost of production, since the value of different producers' products can be compared and purchase decisions based thereon. Therein is a quandary -- I think most bootmakers want to market their boots to be worn by real people, and not to be treated as 'works of art.' Perhaps one way to salvage or safeguard the trade is to market the boots as artwork, but most bootmakers might deem that outcome to be as bad as the trade's extinction!
One more thought -- if everyone is motivated solely by the desire for instant gratification, how has the Swiss watch industry survived and, indeed, thrived over the last 2 decades? Through a combination of selling their product as a luxury good (i.e. something which has value in and of itself, beyond mere functional performance) and as works of art (a brilliant marketing job convincing customers that the mechanical watch movements are products of 'artisans' who make, assemble, and engrave/finish them.) I think the British custom shoe makers (e.g. John Lobb, et al) have done a decent job of making their products luxury goods (they need to in order to justify their prices), plus the assumption in customers' eyes that there is a functional superiority. Still, IMO, it comes down to educating the customer so they understand why they should pay more for the product, so they realize an incremental investment will yield an even greater incremental payback.
Let me reiterate one of my earlier post's points; the internet offers tremendous opportunity for traditional crafts, because it is a great way to educate potential customers. In the past, how could someone learn about why a custom boot is superior to a RTW boot? It was difficult to find this information. Today, it is easy, and people can see pictures and read about the differences in the comfort of their own homes. Properly harnessed, this can really help people understand why they should support your traditional craft.
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Al, Lance, all,
[BTW, I didn't get an email copy of Al's posting on this subject. I only discovered it by accident...some sort of temporary glitch, I suppose. But it is well worth reading. It prompted me to a response when I had resolved to pass on this round ]
Al, I agree with both you and Lance..but .let me re-iterate a few points of my own...
1) I don't think that manufacturers are evil-doers. I do think that they have a quantifiably different decision tree than the Tradesman or artisan.
2) I don't think that manufacturing, per se, is the root of all evil. I do think that some of the decisions that spring forth from the manufacturing decision tree/mentality can create recognizable evil. Evil in the sense that, in any decision, and in the result of that decision, where there is an absence of human empathy, there is evil.
3) I readily acknowledge my own pragmatism and my own enthusiasm for plastic lasts and dacron tapers and nylon bristles and such: AND my own desire to make a profit.
4) I reject any notion that I myself am an Artist or what I do is art...although having said that, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
That said, all the defense of manufacturing and of material gratification (instant or otherwise) is moot as far as I can see. The real issue, if I read it correctly--at least the one I originally responded to--was the loss of knowledge, skill, and human resources...maybe even the essential ability of human beings to engage in work that is really and truly satisfying--nurturing to the soul, if you will. It all seems to have been compromised...diminished...what have you, since the advent of our mass manufacturing/instant gratification society.
I would actually be interested if someone could point me to the exception to that observation...to an industry where the both the process and the product are qualitatively better than they were at the start of...oh, let's say...the 20th century--maybe hand tools??? Anyone for a modern pegging awl? Anyone for a pair of bulldog pincers produced in the last six months?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
[BTW, I didn't get an email copy of Al's posting on this subject. I only discovered it by accident...some sort of temporary glitch, I suppose. But it is well worth reading. It prompted me to a response when I had resolved to pass on this round
] Al, I agree with both you and Lance..but .let me re-iterate a few points of my own...
1) I don't think that manufacturers are evil-doers. I do think that they have a quantifiably different decision tree than the Tradesman or artisan.
2) I don't think that manufacturing, per se, is the root of all evil. I do think that some of the decisions that spring forth from the manufacturing decision tree/mentality can create recognizable evil. Evil in the sense that, in any decision, and in the result of that decision, where there is an absence of human empathy, there is evil.
3) I readily acknowledge my own pragmatism and my own enthusiasm for plastic lasts and dacron tapers and nylon bristles and such: AND my own desire to make a profit.
4) I reject any notion that I myself am an Artist or what I do is art...although having said that, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
That said, all the defense of manufacturing and of material gratification (instant or otherwise) is moot as far as I can see. The real issue, if I read it correctly--at least the one I originally responded to--was the loss of knowledge, skill, and human resources...maybe even the essential ability of human beings to engage in work that is really and truly satisfying--nurturing to the soul, if you will. It all seems to have been compromised...diminished...what have you, since the advent of our mass manufacturing/instant gratification society.
I would actually be interested if someone could point me to the exception to that observation...to an industry where the both the process and the product are qualitatively better than they were at the start of...oh, let's say...the 20th century--maybe hand tools??? Anyone for a modern pegging awl? Anyone for a pair of bulldog pincers produced in the last six months?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
BTW, I know that there are exceptions...but, be careful now...I don't think there are many.
It might be interesting to catalogue all we can think of, though.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
It might be interesting to catalogue all we can think of, though.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
das
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:00 am
- Full Name: D.A. Saguto--HCC
- Has Liked: 149 times
- Been Liked: 136 times
Re: Of interest...
DW,
Too short to do justice to your reply, but I see trade-offs. We can longer build a Gothic cathedral, or figure out exactly how the Pyramids were built (apologies to the History Channel), but we have penicillin and lasic surgery. We loose things, we gain things, "it is what it is". Sure, I'm sad at the skills and know-how lost in our trade, but, what was that Elliott Gould movie from the '60s, where he screams: "you can't hold back the hands of time! They'll rip your arms off".
Too short to do justice to your reply, but I see trade-offs. We can longer build a Gothic cathedral, or figure out exactly how the Pyramids were built (apologies to the History Channel), but we have penicillin and lasic surgery. We loose things, we gain things, "it is what it is". Sure, I'm sad at the skills and know-how lost in our trade, but, what was that Elliott Gould movie from the '60s, where he screams: "you can't hold back the hands of time! They'll rip your arms off".
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
I've been thinking about this issue for a week or so...because it's always been one of my "core" issues, if you will. Most everyone who reads this forum knows that I don't have much sympathy for the "manufacturing ethic," so to speak. I have spoken to the point any number of times and in any number of ways. Not many agree with me...maybe I'm digging holes in the lawn; maybe I've never made my point clearly, who knows? But, of course, it's not necessary that others agree. I don't expect it. Time will tell one way or the other.
But thinking about this whole issue...and bearing in mind that we started out lamenting the influx of Chinese shoes...I think it is hard to avoid a fundamental realization if only one thinks through the logic:
Once you accept the idea that more is better, cheaper is better, and efficiency is the ultimate goal, the destruction of our domestic shoe industry by a spate of low cost Chinese imports becomes almost inevitable. Once the American public...you and me...get it into our heads that these "trade-offs" are inevitable or, ultimately, good (or even acceptable) then the standard for quality automatically becomes indexed to the lowest cost. And from that point on, the race is to the bottom, folks.
As the saying goes..."we have met the enemy and they are us." It is the acceptance of the "inevitable," of the inevitabilty of "trade-offs," as well as the pursuit of "efficiency" and the "bottom line" which ultimately so permeates our society that even those of us who purport to be involved in pursuing "quality" lose sight of what it really is and what it really involves. It is that mentality, which we all so casually embrace, that in the end debases our standards of quality, our ability to appreciate quality, our expectations for meaning in our lives, and even our perceptions of our fellow human beings.
And to bring it all around...let's say Otabo gets going pretty good. Let's say their way of doing things becomes the new paradigm of industry...how long before the Chinese (or some other highly competitive outfit) figures it all out and begins to offer the same service for less? And that begs the next questions, doesn't it? How long before Otabo (or the process that it represents) is simply another banal victim of the race to the bottom?
BTW, I didn't notice anyone taking me up on my challenge to name an "industry where the both the process and the product are qualitatively better than they were at the start of the 20th century." Lasik and penicillan both came after 1900, if I recall correctly and considering the plethora of antibiotic resistant diseases now rampant, I can't see much real progress even there.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
But thinking about this whole issue...and bearing in mind that we started out lamenting the influx of Chinese shoes...I think it is hard to avoid a fundamental realization if only one thinks through the logic:
Once you accept the idea that more is better, cheaper is better, and efficiency is the ultimate goal, the destruction of our domestic shoe industry by a spate of low cost Chinese imports becomes almost inevitable. Once the American public...you and me...get it into our heads that these "trade-offs" are inevitable or, ultimately, good (or even acceptable) then the standard for quality automatically becomes indexed to the lowest cost. And from that point on, the race is to the bottom, folks.
As the saying goes..."we have met the enemy and they are us." It is the acceptance of the "inevitable," of the inevitabilty of "trade-offs," as well as the pursuit of "efficiency" and the "bottom line" which ultimately so permeates our society that even those of us who purport to be involved in pursuing "quality" lose sight of what it really is and what it really involves. It is that mentality, which we all so casually embrace, that in the end debases our standards of quality, our ability to appreciate quality, our expectations for meaning in our lives, and even our perceptions of our fellow human beings.
And to bring it all around...let's say Otabo gets going pretty good. Let's say their way of doing things becomes the new paradigm of industry...how long before the Chinese (or some other highly competitive outfit) figures it all out and begins to offer the same service for less? And that begs the next questions, doesn't it? How long before Otabo (or the process that it represents) is simply another banal victim of the race to the bottom?
BTW, I didn't notice anyone taking me up on my challenge to name an "industry where the both the process and the product are qualitatively better than they were at the start of the 20th century." Lasik and penicillan both came after 1900, if I recall correctly and considering the plethora of antibiotic resistant diseases now rampant, I can't see much real progress even there.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
btippit
Re: Of interest...
DW,
If I understand your position (that all manufacturing is about more, better, cheaper, greed, watering down quality, etc.) then I can't agree with it but it's just one opinion versus another and like almost everything, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. However, I think the whole debate is a moot point. It doesn't matter that most handmade custom shoes, created by someone who actually works with the end user one on one, are better than most manufactured shoes (and they certainly are). The fact is, our population in the US is fast approaching 300,000,000 people and those 600,000,000 feet simply cannot be covered without manufacturing....no more than all the people can be housed by hand built log cabins, or can get to work on horseback, or all grow their own crops and raise their own livestock. While in the eyes of many, that self sufficiency combined with the knowledge that you had neighbors and friends you could depend on to help you, was a better way of life, it simply isn't feasible for the masses and that's what I think we're talking about here, the masses.
I believe that Otabo and others to follow will radically shift the way things are manufactured in this country and not just footwear, all of what little manufacturing we have left. As for the Chinese catching up and doing it cheaper later, maybe they will but the good news is that they’ve got a billion people of their own to worry about and it’s common knowledge that as they continue to move into a market economy they’re going to be inundated with enough problems of their own that knocking off American products and techniques will be very low on their list of priorities.
As for your challenge of naming and industry whose process and product are better than they were in 1900, I believe there are a number such as transportation, construction, and yes, ESPECIALLY medicine. However, I’m sure because of the fact that all industries have their black sheep there will some who make it a subjective argument that has no winners. However, I think it’s hard to deny one industry that I was waiting for someone else to point out....communications. Can you imagine how we would be carrying on this debate if we were using telecommunications methods that were available before 1900..........I’ve got to go, the Pony Express man is at the door and his horse just made a mess on my porch. Besides, I’m hoping to get a reply to the post I sent to the forum 3 months ago. :-) Take no offense. You know I can’t stay serious too long. It’s bad for the heart.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
If I understand your position (that all manufacturing is about more, better, cheaper, greed, watering down quality, etc.) then I can't agree with it but it's just one opinion versus another and like almost everything, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. However, I think the whole debate is a moot point. It doesn't matter that most handmade custom shoes, created by someone who actually works with the end user one on one, are better than most manufactured shoes (and they certainly are). The fact is, our population in the US is fast approaching 300,000,000 people and those 600,000,000 feet simply cannot be covered without manufacturing....no more than all the people can be housed by hand built log cabins, or can get to work on horseback, or all grow their own crops and raise their own livestock. While in the eyes of many, that self sufficiency combined with the knowledge that you had neighbors and friends you could depend on to help you, was a better way of life, it simply isn't feasible for the masses and that's what I think we're talking about here, the masses.
I believe that Otabo and others to follow will radically shift the way things are manufactured in this country and not just footwear, all of what little manufacturing we have left. As for the Chinese catching up and doing it cheaper later, maybe they will but the good news is that they’ve got a billion people of their own to worry about and it’s common knowledge that as they continue to move into a market economy they’re going to be inundated with enough problems of their own that knocking off American products and techniques will be very low on their list of priorities.
As for your challenge of naming and industry whose process and product are better than they were in 1900, I believe there are a number such as transportation, construction, and yes, ESPECIALLY medicine. However, I’m sure because of the fact that all industries have their black sheep there will some who make it a subjective argument that has no winners. However, I think it’s hard to deny one industry that I was waiting for someone else to point out....communications. Can you imagine how we would be carrying on this debate if we were using telecommunications methods that were available before 1900..........I’ve got to go, the Pony Express man is at the door and his horse just made a mess on my porch. Besides, I’m hoping to get a reply to the post I sent to the forum 3 months ago. :-) Take no offense. You know I can’t stay serious too long. It’s bad for the heart.
Bill
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: Of interest...
Bill,
You're right...but just as your point about "feeding the masses" is correct and can't avoided, so too my point about manufacturing's "bottom line" and the attitudes that it fosters, is unavoidable.
As you said, "it is what it is" on both counts.
And yes, I'd agree that medicine and information technology are probably more advanced than they were 100 years ago...but "qualitatively better in both process and product?" I 'm not sure.
The internet is a wealth of information, we all have access to it. But It is also such a wealth of *mis*-information that you almost have to be a full time scholar to winnow out the truth. And misinformation can be more dangerous than no information at all.
Medicine is an odd-ball because except for HMO's, etc., it is hardly a manufacturing pursuit. In fact, in this country in particular, we have resisted, most vociferously, the trend towards depersonalizing medical care.
My example (that I suggested in passing) has to be hand tools. Or maybe just tools in general. The steel is far better. The precision which tools like really good wood lathes (most of which come from Australia and New Zealand, now) are put together is awe-inspiring.
Of course tools/hand tools almost make the point for me because they are aimed at folks who are going to be using them to make things...and most often one-offs--items that are not commonly (and cheaply) manufactured, in other words.
But again, I'm not condeming manufacturing, out of hand. But if we want to understand why WestTan went under; Why Landis is gone; Why great old American names in wood lathes...such as Jet and Delta...are manufactured in China; Maybe if we want to understand why there is stubbornly unmitigated unemployment and urban slums and barrios and drug use and child abuse, etc., etc. ad nauseum...we could at least consider the factors that contribute to people feeling that they have no place in a society that is increasingly mechanized and depersonalized.
Just a thought....
And Bill...no worries...we're not going to solve the world's problems here on the forum. It's just something to think about and ponder, that's all.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
You're right...but just as your point about "feeding the masses" is correct and can't avoided, so too my point about manufacturing's "bottom line" and the attitudes that it fosters, is unavoidable.
As you said, "it is what it is" on both counts.
And yes, I'd agree that medicine and information technology are probably more advanced than they were 100 years ago...but "qualitatively better in both process and product?" I 'm not sure.
The internet is a wealth of information, we all have access to it. But It is also such a wealth of *mis*-information that you almost have to be a full time scholar to winnow out the truth. And misinformation can be more dangerous than no information at all.
Medicine is an odd-ball because except for HMO's, etc., it is hardly a manufacturing pursuit. In fact, in this country in particular, we have resisted, most vociferously, the trend towards depersonalizing medical care.
My example (that I suggested in passing) has to be hand tools. Or maybe just tools in general. The steel is far better. The precision which tools like really good wood lathes (most of which come from Australia and New Zealand, now) are put together is awe-inspiring.
Of course tools/hand tools almost make the point for me because they are aimed at folks who are going to be using them to make things...and most often one-offs--items that are not commonly (and cheaply) manufactured, in other words.
But again, I'm not condeming manufacturing, out of hand. But if we want to understand why WestTan went under; Why Landis is gone; Why great old American names in wood lathes...such as Jet and Delta...are manufactured in China; Maybe if we want to understand why there is stubbornly unmitigated unemployment and urban slums and barrios and drug use and child abuse, etc., etc. ad nauseum...we could at least consider the factors that contribute to people feeling that they have no place in a society that is increasingly mechanized and depersonalized.
Just a thought....
And Bill...no worries...we're not going to solve the world's problems here on the forum. It's just something to think about and ponder, that's all.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
P.Winthrop
Re: Of interest...
To All,
The last ten years has seen the wholesale destruction of the American Shoe Industry.The Johnston and Murphy Shoe Company moved it,s manufacturing plant to China.
Add J&M to the list of those who have already moved to China or Asia and and you can,t begin to count the number of jobs that were lost because of it.
I wonder if China warned these companies that China turns a blind eye to a massive cottage industry that can make almost an exact copy of anything that sells and for less cost in the process.
China has become a major buyer for resources and that includes leather. We may wake up one morning and discover that the only leather that is available is that which China does not want. Considering all the many items in leather that China makes is there any leather they won't want?
The last ten years has seen the wholesale destruction of the American Shoe Industry.The Johnston and Murphy Shoe Company moved it,s manufacturing plant to China.
Add J&M to the list of those who have already moved to China or Asia and and you can,t begin to count the number of jobs that were lost because of it.
I wonder if China warned these companies that China turns a blind eye to a massive cottage industry that can make almost an exact copy of anything that sells and for less cost in the process.
China has become a major buyer for resources and that includes leather. We may wake up one morning and discover that the only leather that is available is that which China does not want. Considering all the many items in leather that China makes is there any leather they won't want?