Fetish

As part of his 'Law of Three Stages' the 19th century philosopher, Auguste Comte considered fetishism to be the lowest form in the Theological stage of societal development. Just as Theology would evolve into Metaphysics and thence into Science, so fetishism could be observed to evolve, he contended, into the higher forms of polytheism and monotheism.

Well, he may have been one of the founding fathers of the field of sociology but Monsieur Comte, clearly, had never experienced the process of building a guitar.

A 'fetish' (from the Latin: facticius, "artificial" and facere, "to make") is an object believed to have supernatural powers. More particularly, a fetish (and its near-cousin, the talisman) is a man-made object considered to be the seat or 'house', of a spirit, and thus containing and conferring power over the material and spiritual worlds to its owner. A beneficial thumb on the scales of existence, if you like. So it follows that the practice of fetishism is that act of attribution of inherent value or power to an object.

To construct a fetish one begins with a purpose, held firmly and clearly in mind. One then selects and combines constituent materials (bone, wood, blood, skin, et cetera) with intent, diligence and reverence, inviting — through one's focused concentration and will — the spirit whose power you wish to benefit from to enter the object you have made.

If you have done well, your fetish and its attendant spirit will reward you with blessings and grace in full measure. A talisman or fetish (or 'amulet' if you want to wear it round your neck) is a potent object. Personal. Resonant. Transcendent. It has a 'field' — simultaneously electric, magnetic and transforming. It hums with an independent vitality of its own.

Sure. That's what a fetish is alright.

Because none of us thought of that *other* definition of 'fetish', did we? That definition which is all to do with unhealthy obsessions and the misattachment of certain...values...to certain...things...and anyway, even if we did think of that definition, I'm sure none of us engage in anything even remotely resembling the sort of sordid, unhealthy fixated behaviour it describes.

Now this all came to mind simply because one of our commenters (hi there, Mats!) recently raised the question of customisation vs design. Basically, he said, what's the point of customisation (along various degrees of 'pimp my ride') when fundamental design flaws remain unaddressed? Well that sounded like a very interesting question to me so I thought up some distinctions.

CUSTOMISATION, I decided, is about uniqueness. It's about identity and differentiation. On the other hand, DESIGN is about functionality and fit-for-purpose. The direction of customisation is outside in. The direction of design is inside out.

A. The work of design will reliably deliver the goals of customisation as a natural, parallel effect.

B. The work of customisation will deliver the goals of design only by infrequent and happy accident, if at all.

So that's the first thing. Although their values are at odds, design and customisation are still not quite opposites. They're not even quite two sides of the same coin. The second thing I realised is that those distinctions between customisation and design, lovely as they are, are all about process and intention.

Because of this I now have a theory about what happens when you embark upon the building of a bespoke instrument. It is this:

While a client and luthier may have plenty of choice about the practicalities of building an instrument — what you do with what materials and how — the fact is that psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, you have no choice at all about the class of object you're going to produce as an end result.

Like it or not — whether 'designing', 'customising', 'crafting', 'building' or just throwing bits together at random — you're only ever doing one of three things:

• Constructing a fetish
• Feeding a fetish
• Or both

Comments

[Dave M]

Brings to mind a quote from Ecclesiastes; "Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." :)

[Mats]

Oh, thanks for an elaborate explanation and then some. I didn't know my comment should be causing all that much. But thanks, now I get it.

[Gethyn]

Hi Mats

I just thought you asked a brilliant question, mate.
It made me think - and when I do that I seem to end up writing long blog posts... :)

I'd hate to think I'd explained anything, actually.
As if what I wrote is 'the right answer' or something.

I'm sure there's still plenty more to talk about in this idea, and it would be far more interesting to be entirely 'wrong' about the whole thing.

Incidentally, isn't that Les Paul image just the funniest picture ever in this context? Makes me chuckle every time I look at it. :D

[Ola Strandberg]

Gethyn, hi!
I like your parallel a lot. I would also add that there is a temporal aspect of design taking place before the fact and customization taking place after the fact so to speak.

The contradiction of "everyone" wanting to:
a) fit in and have/behave/look the same as everyone else, while
b) being unique

probably drives the latter.

[Mats]

Agree complelety Gethyn. That Les Pauls placement is certainly tounge in cheek. and then some.

Agree, (2nd agreement) that I would too, ever so often, be questioned, and actually "wrong" about my comments. I just have the natural ability (or uncanny knack, depending on your point of view) for balancing any statement (like established "facts" about guitar designs) with the other or opposite view. So we all can read and see the balance, with views from the other side. Leaving no stone unturned.

Of course, no one is right or wrong, there's only mutual consensus. I do miss that someone should really get on to a real battle with me! :-) Convincing me that I am all wrong. But mostly, I just question things without having an answer of course.

The Fetish thing is the most striking comparison I've ever seen. For posers (like those with fast and expensive luxuory cars) who likes to brag or strut about which guitars they own. How many, and how expensive. But mostly when they play them, they're mediocre. But alas, people most have the right just to collect fancy guitars (or cars or anything else) for the sake of collection. That's fine with me. But when - the same people - throws themselves into a debate about the drawbacks or negatives about headless designs, I'll just question their competence and credibility in THAT regard.

You just don't have to be able to drive like Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher, Kenny Bräck or any other F1-guy in order to deserve to own a Porsche or Ferrari. But when most sports car accidents happen due to errors on those cars drivers "mis judgement" and overspeeding, they sure has hell doesn't know how to handle them... go figure.

Well, translate that into guitars. And you know what I mean. You said basically the same about the Ukulele thing.

But anyway it was fun reading. Now I have to find a way to transtale that fetish thing into swedish, and make it float too...

[Mats]

Reminds me of Spinal Tap thing, or line:

"Ehh....don't even look at it!"

when displaying his array of guitars, and their values, and his amp that goes to eleven.

[Gethyn]

Ola, hi

"there is a temporal aspect of design taking place before the fact and customization taking place after the fact so to speak."

Can you go into that a bit for me, please?
I'm not quite sure I follow what you're describing.

[Ola Strandberg]

Hi Gethyn,
my thought was that "design" (the verb) is an activity intended to find a solution to a problem, whereas the act of "customization" implies that there is an existing "design" (the noun) to customize. To "design a custom instrument" is different than "customizing an instrument"...

Having said that, English is my second language ;-)

[Rick Toone]

I love fetishes.

Sometimes I even fashion them into instruments.

Figure the average hand-built instrument I make requires 200-500 hours of my life, in the form of intense concentration. Thought. Skill. Muscle. Sweat. Wresting art from raw materials. Serious spiritual energy in the finished piece.

And — properly cared for — will last generations after my bones are dust.

[Gethyn]

Ah, yes, makes perfect sense.

That 'custom' vs 'customise' terminology is part of the trickiness of it all too I think.

English is my second language

Ola, the fact that you can identify the difference between the same word used as noun and a verb already puts your english at a higher level than most of the population of England. :)

[Gethyn]

An argument blew up recently on Saville Row in London - you know, the street where all the high-class tailors ply their trade.

The issue was all about who could use the term "bespoke".
As in, "bespoke tailoring", "bespoke suit".
A distinction was being drawn between "bespoke" and "custom made" or "tailor made".
The "custom made" guys wanted to call themselves "bespoke tailors" and the true bespoke tailors were furious about it.

Why?

Because "custom made" means I have a range of patterns for a suit, you say 'I want that one', then I adjust the pattern to fit your measurements. I might do it by hand with years of experience, but it's still to a template. Anyone with the same chest, height and inside leg could wear it.

"Bespoke" is where you come in to the shop, choose the *fabric*, then I measure you up and down and turn the raw material into a suit that can only be worn by you (because your left leg is slightly longer than the right and you need a bit of extra room at the belly let's say).

Now that's actually a slightly different argument than the design vs customisation one, but the point remains that these distinctions matter, I think.

[Gethyn]

Exactly.

[Rick Toone]

These distinctions absolutely matter.

In the lutherie world it is a very different thing to modify a template vs. dream an entirely new design. The requisite contrast in time commitment is immense.

Most luthiers — even exceptional designers — usually develop only one really significant design breakthrough: Fender, Les Paul, Steinberger, Teuffel, Klein, etc. They've devised archetypes from which most other designs (including their own) are derived. This is in part because it requires a career of thought, effort and refinement to perfect a new archetypal design, bring it to production, then market and distribute.

This business cycle may change (and speed) as micro-markets emerge and CAD-linked production becomes commonplace and affordable.

By contrast a bespoke luthier is constantly seeking to devise a new archetype with each commission. Every instrument is a prototype. Different mindset. Danny Ferrington is a great example of the thinking required. His book is well worth reading: http://www.amazon.com/Ferrington-Guitars-Book-Cd-Danny/dp/0060168978