Column Orders for height/width

[johnah5]

There was an blog post by Adam Cherubini on his blog concerning the classic column orders.  I am trying to get some advice on using this guide as a way to determine the height/width ratio of legs and other vertical furniture members.

Thanks
John

 

[Mark Arnold]

John,

Try this:  http://www.popularwoodworking.com/blog3/Classical+Column+Orders.aspx

 

[johnah5]

Right thanks,

That blog got me thinking along this route.  I am interested in knowing if people are following these orders for determining the ratio of height to thickness of legs and other vertical members, or if there are other rules of thumb that are being used. 

And if people are using the Column orders which ones for which styles.  Someone pointed out that the ratio Adam listed is per foot.  So the Tuscan for example is listed as 11 which would mean that order states a height of 11 feet for a 1 foot thickness.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Thanks
John

 

[Mark Arnold]

John,

Sorry, I misunderstood your post--I thought you were looking for Adam's chart since the link in your post doesn't resolve.

You should talk with George Walker. He's done a lot of research on this topic. Hopefully he will weigh-in here.

 

[johnah5]

Thanks,

I tried to post the link and messed up.  Thanks for finding it.

Adam posted on Woodcentral on this issue and explained the excel chart he made.  He also said the height listed for the different orders does indeed relate to the width at 1 foot.

Ok, so the only remaining issue is which order if any, was used for which period pieces such as Queen Ann, William and Mary, and Federal.

Best Regards
John

 

[johnah5]

Sorry guys,

I noticed that my question appears to be answered in the posts on "Is there a sixth order" thread previously posted.

It seems according to George and Adam that they have not noticed a particular rigidness in using one order or other on a style, although George suggested certain orders for American builders.

Will try to read everything next time.

Best regards
John

 

[johnah5]

I signed up with Fine and got the article that Mack Headley wrote on building a tea table using the column orders.  I was great and caused me to think of using the orders for horizontal members such as aprons.  It was very interesting however I would like to read any study that someone did examining these rules on different pieces.  I would guess that certain styles like Queen Ann would use one order while William and Mary would mostly use another. 

John

 

[walkerg]

John,

You ask some good questions about the classic orders that I ask myself frequently. By the 17th century the classic orders had evolved into a design system for organizing a composition. The orders were used to size major horizontal and vertical elements. They were also a guide for applying moldings, both in choosing the appropriate molding but also the sizing of moldings. In addition, much of the carving used on 18th century furniture has a classical root that goes back to the orders. The orders also provide information about how to use carving or decorative ornament for the greatest effect. Look at the bands of carving that grace a Corinthian classic order. Notice the bands of carving are separated by areas of plain surfaces. Those plain surfaces actually help the eye pause before taking in another area of carving. Fill the entire surface with carving and the composition becomes a briar patch that is difficult to fathom. This use of the orders to guide in the selection, placement, and size of moldings, borders, and carved ornament can not be underestimated. Compare the forms in Sack’s Good, Better, Best. In many cases the overall forms may be nearly identical. Largely the difference between Good and Masterpiece is the ability to pull together moldings, borders, and ornament.
Concerning what orders may have been used in what period. I can’t detect any preference connected to a style. It appears as though the orders were used more rigidly in  the William and Mary  period and also Queen Anne. Towards the middle to late 18th century designers began to take more liberties often stretching out the heights of columns to adapt to more slender vertical designs. Often you can get a clue to the order based on the ornament utilized in the piece. We often think about identifying an order based on the capital. In reality each order has a distinct entablature with its own distinct ornament, so you can sometimes detect the order based on some of those details used in pediments of large case pieces like a chest on chest.
My own sense is that artisans became familiar with the important proportions within the orders and were adept at applying them to design problems. For example, a rough rule for sizing a cornice is that it should be 1/18th the height of the object it is meant to crown. I know that sounds a bit awkward, but it’s a simple matter of dividing the overall height into six parts, and then dividing the top part again into three. The top unit is your crown.

George Walker 

 

[johnah5]

George,

Thanks for your post.  Couple of quick ones.  Did the builder use different column orders within the same piece?

Also, I get how to use the column orders for the major verticle and horizontal dimensions, but could you explain in a bit more (read slow and basic) language on how to use the entablature and capitals of the columns to determine size of mouldings?

If this is getting to esoteric please send any thoughts to my email address.

[email protected]

Thanks
JH

 

[walkerg]

John,

Concerning using multiple orders in one furniture piece, I have not run across it in work that I have studied. It was common for architects to use multiple orders in a building but they typically were not in the same horizontal plane. The colesium in Rome uses a Doric order on the first floor, Ionic on the second and Corinthian on the third. Typically in a classically designed Georgian interior, the designer would choose one order to key the design of the whole room. Often the order might only be tipped off by a pair of small columns the flank the fireplace, but all the paneling, window and door treatments were based on the inherant proportions of that order. For example the chair rail and dado below it might corespond with the pedestal in a classic order that would stretch from floor to ceiling. My own thought is that furniture was designed much simpler than an entire building and the artisan would have used one order.
I finally got around to looking at Adam's blog. Unfortunitely he has his terminolgy stated incorrectly and his aproach is much more complicated than need be. What he calls a capital is actually the entabliture. A capital is the decorative terminus at the top of the column. What he calls a base is actually a pedestal. The base usually refers to the decorative terminus at the bottom of the colunm. All of these major divisions in an order have very simple ratios, no need for calculators beyond the digits on your hand. The pedestal in all orders is one fifth the entire height of the order. That also happens to be a really good starting point to decide the height of the feet on a bureau. The entabliture is one fifth the height from the bottombase of the column to the tip top on a Doric and one sixth for the Ionic and Corinthian. I have looked at some chests on chests from Philly that the pediment was one sixth of the entire height. My guess is they used an Ionic order to block out this major element. These proportions of either one fifth or one sixth are known as punctuation and are used to either define a clear begining and ending or to define a border. Paladio wrote that to size the moulding that frames a doorway, divide the opening by six or no heavier than five to establish the door frame. I have an article in the upcoming jounal where I'll try to flesh this out with a few illustrations. You might also want to pick up " The Architecture of the Classic Interior" by Steven Semes, published by Norton. He gives some really good insight into the application of the orders as well as moldings and applied ornament. 

George Walker

 

[Adam Cherubini]

John, if you look at Chippendale's orders, you'll see he has dimensions (in minutes and seconds unfortunately) of moldings.  With a calculator, you should be able to get height to width ratios for crown moldings and others if you like.  I usually choose moldings based on what plane I have that looks kinda like it.  But using the orders is probably a better way. 

Maybe if our children become woodworkers, they will get into this level of detail.  I'm just not there yet.

If George is working on an article on this subject, I hope he includes a few simple examples of major mass, legs and feet, but also details like moldings or carvings. 

Also, George, if you need pictures, I'm going to be out at Mount Pleasant in a few weeks.  I'm pretty sure the front door was designed using one order and the back using another.  Architectural drawings from the 30's are available online (part of the library of Congress H.A.S.).  I haven't found great photos of the house online, so if you'd like me to snap a couple shots for you I will.

Adam
The picture attached is of the dining room in Mount Pleasant.  Here you can see an arch topped false door which matches an arch topped niche on the rhs of the fire place.  The raised panels were clearly hastily dressed on this side, and pit saw marks, possibly machine cut, are evident.  The carved border around the fireplace is being reproduced to match the original, which was carved by famed Philadelphia carver Martin Jugiez.  Jugiez worked for many notable Philadelphia cabinetmakers.  I believe Thomas Affleck employed him for the Cadwalader contract.  I think sometimes when you go and marvel at Affleck's beautifully carved furniture, as I recently did, its easy to forget that the parts you like the best were farmed out.  Its a lot to ask one man to build carcases like Affleck and carve like Jugiez.  I know some of you can indeed do that, which I find really impressive.

Mt Pleasant is a fantastic place to study 18th c classically inspired woodwork.  I can only think of a few buildings more stately and more highly tweaked than this one. Its builder apprenticed under the guy who designed and built Independence Hall, another striking beauty in my opinion.

As I said I'll be there in a few weeks (check adamcherubini.com for links) working for the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  That's going to be a pretty great event if you live in the area.  Chris Storb, who made the carvings in the attachment and who's carved many notable parts of the furniture in the Museum's collections,  will be demonstrating.