Burton
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,695
- Reaction score
- 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton
This is the most inane and useless thread I have ever seen. This artiticial conflict between men and machines can only be debated by those that do not understand 1) what modern manufacturing machines are capable of and 2) how shoes are actually made. In an era where so few have ever stepped foot into a manufacturing operation, I am not suprised. The beauty of hand made shoes is that they are hand made--they are creations of the mind of the maker, the craftsmen. Those craftsmen cannot compete with the perfection that a machine can create. To discuss these things in threads likes this is to debase both the craftsman and the maker of the machine--who is also a craftsman.
No. M. Foo, you equate obvious flaws, which clearly should be caught in QC (and which shoes should then be sold as seconds), as personal touches of the shoemaker. A silly and false argument which should not be made by one who spends 40 pages or so ripping on a suit maker for imperfections in a shoulder. Tsk. Tsk. Quite hyporcrital. No. The argument goes like this: One could make a perfect replication of the mona lisa with a machine. One cannot make the orignal mona lisa with a machine--at least not yet. Quirks of design or limitations of human dexterity are interesting, obvious flaws are not. To be specific, confusing Alden's lack of quality control with craftsmenship is silliness.
Originally Posted by Burton
This is the most inane and useless thread I have ever seen. This artiticial conflict between men and machines can only be debated by those that do not understand 1) what modern manufacturing machines are capable of and 2) how shoes are actually made. In an era where so few have ever stepped foot into a manufacturing operation, I am not suprised. The beauty of hand made shoes is that they are hand made--they are creations of the mind of the maker, the craftsmen. Those craftsmen cannot compete with the perfection that a machine can create. To discuss these things in threads likes this is to debase both the craftsman and the maker of the machine--who is also a craftsman.
This is more or less what I've been saying, no?
No. M. Foo, you equate obvious flaws, which clearly should be caught in QC (and which shoes should then be sold as seconds), as personal touches of the shoemaker. A silly and false argument which should not be made by one who spends 40 pages or so ripping on a suit maker for imperfections in a shoulder. Tsk. Tsk. Quite hyporcrital. No. The argument goes like this: One could make a perfect replication of the mona lisa with a machine. One cannot make the orignal mona lisa with a machine--at least not yet. Quirks of design or limitations of human dexterity are interesting, obvious flaws are not. To be specific, confusing Alden's lack of quality control with craftsmenship is silliness.