As the title says: This may be a n00b question, but...why do all of Ed Fowler's knives look EXACTLY the same?
I'm a regular Blade magazine reader, and this is something I've wondered for a while. Okay, I get that certain knifemakers have a certain "signature", something that unmistakeably identifies a knife as theirs. I get that some knifemakers have a certain style, something not so identifiable, but fans can generally tell that maker "X" made a particular knife. I get that some makers are proficient at one particular style, and stick to making that kind of knife. That being said, every one of Ed Fowler's knives that I have ever seen (and I quantify that statement by reiterating that I am a relative newcomer to the world of knives) all seem to be the exact same knife: Sheephorn handle, single brass guard with wheat (or something) engraved on it, slight drop point with really long choil. Even his star pupils' knives, the ones featured in Blade, look just like his. I'm guessing that's the one style he teaches.
Regardless of all of that, none of this would have bothered me until an article came out about a month or so ago in the December 2009 issue of Blade, the main page of which I've included below.
The article in question is about "copying" knives, how some makers decide to reproduce a "special" knife that has some sort of personal or historical significance to the maker. Ed describes copying a knife, how a maker might see a knife, be influenced by it, and want to reproduce it. He states that some makers will make an almost picture-perfect replica, down to the measurements and angles, while others will take what they see and reproduce or reimagine it while interjecting their own thoughts and feelings into the knife. The latter, he says, is more of a "true art", because an exact copy many times lacks "emotion", "vision", and "soul". This is his preferred method, and in fact, towards the end of the article he says, "Copy becomes art when your 'copy' has liberal portions of your personal emotion and well-developed knowledge supporting it."
My issue with this (no pun intended) is that he provides an example of a knife he says he had always thought was beautiful and from a special time, and one that he wanted to copy. It is a boy's knife, the kind made by Case, Ka-Bar and others, from the days when a young boy wearing a sheath knife was no cause for alarm. Included in the article is a picture of a Ka-Bar boy's knife, and below it are pictures of his "versions" of the boy's knife...knives which look EXACTLY like every other knife he makes. In fact, he describes his process in "copying" the knife:
I understand artistic license, artistic liberties, influences and injecting one's own style into something...but this is the equivalent of a tailor saying, "That's a really nice winter coat; I think I'll make my version of one," and then proceeding to sew together a t-shirt. "Oh, I decided to remove the sleeves, not include a collar and and use a different material...but I was thinking of a winter coat while I made it. And by the way, I'm a full-time t-shirt maker. This just happens to be my version of a winter coat."
Friends, what are your thoughts on this?
PS: I will say that I am a fan of Mr. Fowler's monthly articles (although I can do with a little less with his referring to knives as women: "She took my hand and danced with me, whispering coyly to me her secrets" etc etc.) and I read his articles religiously. I just have an issue with his claiming his "copy" of the knife in question has anything to do with the original.
I'm a regular Blade magazine reader, and this is something I've wondered for a while. Okay, I get that certain knifemakers have a certain "signature", something that unmistakeably identifies a knife as theirs. I get that some knifemakers have a certain style, something not so identifiable, but fans can generally tell that maker "X" made a particular knife. I get that some makers are proficient at one particular style, and stick to making that kind of knife. That being said, every one of Ed Fowler's knives that I have ever seen (and I quantify that statement by reiterating that I am a relative newcomer to the world of knives) all seem to be the exact same knife: Sheephorn handle, single brass guard with wheat (or something) engraved on it, slight drop point with really long choil. Even his star pupils' knives, the ones featured in Blade, look just like his. I'm guessing that's the one style he teaches.
Regardless of all of that, none of this would have bothered me until an article came out about a month or so ago in the December 2009 issue of Blade, the main page of which I've included below.
The article in question is about "copying" knives, how some makers decide to reproduce a "special" knife that has some sort of personal or historical significance to the maker. Ed describes copying a knife, how a maker might see a knife, be influenced by it, and want to reproduce it. He states that some makers will make an almost picture-perfect replica, down to the measurements and angles, while others will take what they see and reproduce or reimagine it while interjecting their own thoughts and feelings into the knife. The latter, he says, is more of a "true art", because an exact copy many times lacks "emotion", "vision", and "soul". This is his preferred method, and in fact, towards the end of the article he says, "Copy becomes art when your 'copy' has liberal portions of your personal emotion and well-developed knowledge supporting it."
My issue with this (no pun intended) is that he provides an example of a knife he says he had always thought was beautiful and from a special time, and one that he wanted to copy. It is a boy's knife, the kind made by Case, Ka-Bar and others, from the days when a young boy wearing a sheath knife was no cause for alarm. Included in the article is a picture of a Ka-Bar boy's knife, and below it are pictures of his "versions" of the boy's knife...knives which look EXACTLY like every other knife he makes. In fact, he describes his process in "copying" the knife:
Changing the handle, changing the guard, changing the blade. Doesn't that equal: NOT the same knife? Not even remotely? As you can see in the picture, his "versions" of the knife pictured above his creations look absolutely nothing like what he claims he copied, have nothing to do with what he copied, and to the contrary, look like every other knife he makes. He says his "emotion" was in the creation of the boy's knives...what is that supposed to mean? He was "thinking" of a boy's knife, all the while making the exact same knife he always does?
I understand artistic license, artistic liberties, influences and injecting one's own style into something...but this is the equivalent of a tailor saying, "That's a really nice winter coat; I think I'll make my version of one," and then proceeding to sew together a t-shirt. "Oh, I decided to remove the sleeves, not include a collar and and use a different material...but I was thinking of a winter coat while I made it. And by the way, I'm a full-time t-shirt maker. This just happens to be my version of a winter coat."
Friends, what are your thoughts on this?
PS: I will say that I am a fan of Mr. Fowler's monthly articles (although I can do with a little less with his referring to knives as women: "She took my hand and danced with me, whispering coyly to me her secrets" etc etc.) and I read his articles religiously. I just have an issue with his claiming his "copy" of the knife in question has anything to do with the original.
