An Oral History of the Furniture Society

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

Building Community: An Oral History of the Furniture Society

Generous support for this project was provided by Vin Ryan, Ron Abramson, and Toni Sikes. The Furniture Society expresses its gratitude for their vision and financial contributions.

Narrator: Bebe Pritam Johnson (BPJ)

Interviewer: Jonathan Binzen (JB)

Date: October 16, 2016

Location: Mount Desert, ME

Subject: Furniture Society Oral History

Duration: 01:25:45 00:00:00 JB: Here we are on October 16, 2016 in Mt. Desert, Maine, and we’re recording for the oral history project for the Furniture Society. Anything else? BPJ: No. I think that establishes who, what, where. But the why part we haven’t… JB: No, we haven’t. What is the why? BPJ: Why are we in conversation? JB: And we’re in the sun, outside, on a beautiful day. I was wondering if you could talk about how you first became aware of the Furniture Society and how that went. Maybe a little about what you were doing when you first heard about the idea. BPJ: Well I recall vividly where I was and what I was doing. I had been invited by Albert LeCoff, Woodturning Center, to give a talk in Philadelphia. I don’t remember what the occasion was exactly, but he wanted the subject of the talk to revolve around collecting. A subject I felt I had—this was now some 20 years ago, plus--little enough to offer. So I knew that I would have to do research. I would have to invest some time in coming up with a 40-minute talk on a subject that he gave me more credit for having knowledge of than I actually deserved.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

And I worked hard on that talk, and I delivered the talk. And, you know, after the talk a few people come up and they say a few kind things. And there was one person who came up, a quiet- spoken man, he had white hair. He didn’t say anything about my talk—I was a little disappointed, because I had put a lot of thought into it. But he was talking about something else--it was like a parallel conversation we were having. He was talking about this organization, not yet completely an organization, but in the process of becoming one. And he wanted me to become involved in this organization. He spoke very quietly but persistently. And then I realized that I better start listening closely to what he was describing. Because it was an organization in which furniture makers had already come together and had a meeting, actually, in Philadelphia. He referred to them as a steering committee. He didn’t have a name tag on that I could read, and I finally said, Well, don’t you think we should introduce ourselves? I’m Bebe Johnson. And he said, I’m Dennis FitzGerald. So he stalked me, I would say, to become involved in this organization that he and Sarah McCollum, and Peter Handler, and he named other people—none of whom I knew. And I didn’t have an instant understanding of the need for such an organization. I’d never been involved with a start-up organization. But for some reason, the words at our initial meeting and…our initial communications…he got me engaged to come to the first conference, which was held at SUNY Purchase—what would that have been, 1998? 00:05:47 I somehow got myself to Purchase, and I started bumping into people that I did know, or had heard of. Like Garry Bennett, or Ursula Newman—she was at the American Craft Museum…and I realized that through all of the cacophony there was some kind of a seed of active engagement. There were so many different things going on simultaneously: you had shop demonstrations, you had lectures, you had artist presentations. Three or four things happening at the same time. Programmatically I couldn’t figure it out. But you were just swept away into this extremely well- thought-out, highly intelligent program of activities over three intense days. And then of course the sidebar conversations with the furniture makers or the other dealers or curators, or writers. And Ned Cooke and I, I think, landed there at about the same time. I suspect Ned’s experience— I bet it was with Dennis, too—parallels mine, that there was the invitation to come, but it wasn’t an easily ignorable thing. There was something compelling about the reason to be there, and once you were there in the midst of it, you began to see why such an organization was needed. I learned later that other mediums, like glass, and clay, and metal and fiber all had standing organizations that spoke for—that were really advocates for the material that the artist-craftsmen chose to work with. And furniture makers didn’t. I think it was Kristina Madsen who put it so well, she said there’s such an inbuilt comradery among furniture makers. It was so clear that there was a thirst for this kind of gathering, communal sharing of values, and why are we doing what we are doing. And it was the Furniture Society in many important ways that quenched that thirst. I think after Purchase I never questioned why such an organization was necessary; we just took that as a given.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

I think the steering committee did a masterful job. I don’t know where they got the experience; I don’t know where Dennis got the experience. Or Sarah. But in the structuring of an organization, the intelligence of how they went about doing it. Of course, for the conference to happen annually; to have the conference broken into the workshops and demonstrations, the hands-on satisfying a great quotient of the membership; the more theoretical, conceptual, with Brian Gladwell and Ned pioneering the Critical Discourse series. The exhibitions, which always were in attendance with conference. Exhibitions broken into the Members Gallery, where you could just pull whatever it is you’re working on from your shop and have it put on show. The invitational or juried shows got a little more esoteric, but they were always made to be joined at conference as part of the mainstay conference structure. 00:10:45 Then the publications—John Kelsey and Rick Mastelli, of course knowing each other from Fine Woodworking days, brought a very powerful dimension and depth to the Furniture Society. The need for print to actually document the passage of time that these furniture makers were bringing with them. To document their experience into print. And then I remember the first board meeting. The thing about the Furniture Society—and I’ve served at Haystack on the board, and the difference between the two organizations is absolutely amazing. Haystack is extremely well organized, extremely well funded. Under Stu Kestenbaum extremely well directed. There was a consistency of directorship, because Stu was there for 25, 26 years. I always got the sense when I showed up at a board meeting that pretty much everything had been determined. And I wasn’t every quite certain why I was there. I was on the program committee, but it seemed to me the programs had already been determined for the next three, four years henceforth. As contrasted to the Furniture Society. As a board member everything had to be done. Programs, exhibitions, nominations. I was also on nominations at Haystack and I got the sense the names were already pretty well cast. With the Furniture Society the net was open; you were always casting for those who would be willing not just to sit at the board, but to work. And I think you always felt, as a member of the Furniture Society board, that there was something that needed to be done. And if you were committed—as the boards, as far as I know, are pretty well committed—there’s no slack. I remember Ron Abramson, who I cajoled to get onto the board, he came to visit Warren and me and he said—because I became such a voice for the Furniture Society, and I was talking away at it—and Ron said, I’m not worried about this board; I’m worried about the next board and the next board. Are you going to be able to have that same kind of energy and commitment? And of course it was a question I couldn’t answer. But as years went on, I began to see the wisdom of the question. So I’ve now forgotten what your question was, Jon.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

JB: Well it was just pull the thread, and there we go. But one other question I had was what your role was at the beginning. Were you involved with the Furniture Society before the Purchase conference, or were you just attending and that conference was what really enlightened you about what the Society was and whether you’d want to be involved. BPJ: The latter. Dennis’s job, I think, was to get me to the conference, and then he probably felt pretty confident, since he was the conference chair, that programmatically there would be enough there that it would engage somehow. And he probably then, being an extremely capable vice-president…could recognize worker bees and non-worker bees. And probably figured, well, we want to have exhibitions…he probably had in mind that as a dealer, that was a role that I could fulfill. I was pressed into service after the Purchase conference, but that was my orientation, for sure. 00:16:12 JB: So did you join the board? BPJ: Yes. JB: Did you have a particular role on the board? What were the things that you took on at the start? BPJ: Possibly the first role was, I was made an officer; secretary. That involved for the most part the recording of the minutes. And I had never done anything like that. But it occurred to me that if I was just recording the motions that had been passed, it was a very simple thing. But I decided a supplement to that report of motions passed would be some sense of the discussion that led to the motion. To give the environment in which the motion that’s discussed passed. Which took considerably more time and thought. And during that process of writing the minutes—the supplement to the motion approach--I realized that you really could affect things by how you reported what actually happened. There were nuances. There were actually—very few cases— but some argumentation over a direction, or.…and I thought, hmmm, that’s interesting, you could shade it one way or the other! So I was having my secretarial moment of solipsistic fame. And I never progressed beyond being secretary. I took the role very, very seriously; took copious notes. And to this day my constant complaint with the board—this board that I truly respect and have a great deal of admiration for , the current board—is, how do you…You’ve got a board of advisers; you serve your term as trustee and then you turn off and you become an adviser; ipso facto, it just happens. And in the days when we used to print things like press releases and so on, the list of board members was going from ten to eight point type to get everyone on. So you’ve got this well of human resources that aren’t tapped. And I have argued to each new president, make the minutes available. What’s the secret? Are things transpiring in your board meetings you can’t let your advisers know about? And then all of a sudden you tap an adviser and you expect them to feel connected to the organization long after they’ve served as a trustee. It’s just a simple thing. I think you’re required to write, as a non-profit organization, have a transcript of motions passed, even if you don’t do it as I did, with supplementary notes. But just make it available to your advisers; which they’ve never done. I still can’t figure that out.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

Anyway, I think that was my first role, was secretary. JB: And beyond that, what were some of the things that you did at the beginning that most engaged you? Or that you feel had the most impact. BPJ: Exhibitions. I think that probably took as much—and this was all new experience. Just because I had a gallery didn’t mean that I had any experience with a more formalized approach to an exhibition of objects. 00:21:06 So I had to learn about a juried show. And the first juried show—I believe I worked with Craig Nutt—The Circle Unbroken; it wasn’t juried, I think it was just a members show. I could be mistaken in that. But I do remember the first time I worked with a jury. And this is how Andrew Glasgow came to the Furniture Society. He was the assistant director of the Southern Highland Guild at the time; and Ursula Newman, who was assistant curator at what was still then the American Craft Museum in New York, and Charles Hummel, Charlie Hummel, from Winterthur, he was chief curator there, I think. They were called to Purchase and they were to look at a huge number of slides, unbelievable—we were doing slides at that time. And poor Craig—and Dennis—because I was responsible for the mechanics of the thing as well as trying to keep the thing running smoothly—we didn’t need any outside stimulation by me with those three, of course…but I didn’t know how to do the tabulation. And I was the only one in the room who was supposed to deal with the slides. Poor Craig was long distance, trying to show me how you do the first batch of 1,300 slides, and then each juror rates it or gives a value to it, and then you do the next round, deleting all the slides that have been juried out. But that was Andrew’s introduction to the Furniture Society. And when in fact it had been determined that what the organization then needed was an executive director—I thought it was doing fine without an executive director, but wiser minds on the board said that they thought that we needed an executive director. Not a heck of a lot of people, maybe five, applied for the job, one of them being Andrew. And he had called me, because I was the one he knew, and asked if I thought he should apply for the job. And I said absolutely. And he got it. So my initial responsibility was exhibitions. And there were a couple of good shows, I think. JB: What comes back to you in terms of a show… BPJ: I thought The Right Stuff, which debuted at the Wisconsin conference, I thought there were some very good pieces. Dennis reminded me about the Curvature show… You know, when you’re selecting jurors, which was my responsibility, you always try to balance geography, gender, aesthetic approaches to object making. That’s the Furniture Society way. I was trained by Dennis to think that way, and I think it’s been a very helpful, very useful tool that keeps alive the idea of diversity within a cohesive organizational framework. JB: I was wondering what you feeling is about the diversity or lack within the Furniture Society in terms of its academic quotient of members and leaders. And how successful it’s been in its mission in terms of attracting people outside the academy to it.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

BPJ: Or inside the academy. JB: Both, I guess. BPJ: Well I think they’ve been much less successful in attracting people inside the academy. On the other hand, as a general qualifier, say that the Second Generation furniture makers with whom Pritam and Eames has largely been associated, are the college-trained furniture makers. And I was always interested how few of them really joined the Furniture Society. And that has nothing to do with academic content that the Furniture Society represented or offered. The Boston RISD groups, RIT groups, just never really joined or supported the Furniture Society. I don’t know why. I think San Diego, simply because of the energy and leadership skills of Wendy Maruyama, was a much more active institutional participant. To the extent, of course, that they sponsored a conference. Whereas RISD never has, RIT never has. And the PIA program was obsolete by the time… 00:27:44 I have some ideas as to why. Maybe to some it didn’t quite smack swell enough to be of interest. Or maybe the P&E people were more professionally established, situated, so that they really didn’t need the community support that the Furniture Society offered. I don’t know. But I noticed that there was not…and it surprised me. People like Garry Bennett and Alphonse [Mattia] are—Garry not any longer, nor Alphonse, but they initially were very, very supportive and Garry, in particular, very generous in donating things to auction and such. The other two roles that I had, principal roles, Jon, for the Furniture Society, I was on nomination committee with Peter Handler. And I found him an extremely effective chair. I learned a lot from Peter. One of the things he told me is that the nomination committee is the most powerful standing committee of any organization, because it really shapes the future. I thought, well that’s interesting. And then Peter’s trusteeship ended and I became chair of nominations. I think my sole contribution as nomination chair, as I say, was cajoling Ron Abramson to come on board—it was short-lived, because Ron didn’t have the patience. He had the interest, he certainly had the feeling for the organization, but he just couldn’t be involved with board meetings and so forth. So he was more nominally a trustee. And then the third, which came to me at the Toronto conference, maybe a little before, was such a compelling simple idea, and that became the Award of Distinction. JB: That was my next question. BPJ: I feel, as I listen at various board meetings to things the Furniture Society needs to do to reach out or extend itself to become more vital…and I thought, you know, if you’re not strong at your center, if you’re constantly striving to be outside of yourself, to be other than who you are, organizationally speaking and personally speaking, you’re never going to be strong; the stem is the core, where you’re strong. So why wait for other organizations, like the American Craft

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

Council, to recognize those people, the very people who have made us who we are. Wait for them to recognize them? We know who has really exerted profound influence and effect on the way we think about furniture today. Let’s celebrate them. It was that simple. And I got Ned on board, and then that proposal was made to the board at Toronto in the year 2000. Ned and I worked very well together. And we both had a pretty sure sense…and that was the easy part, frankly, the progenitors. That was easy. Miguel Gomez-Ibanez has critted the Tempe ceremony, because it had five recipients. Two of whom were not there. Tage Frid because of health issues; his son Peter Frid was there to accept the award on Tage’s behalf. And Krenov, who just had one of his churlish fits; and David Welter was there to accept the award on Jim’s behalf. Jim, by the way, later—I think it may have been you, who said, or perhaps it was Jim himself to me—said that he regretted, that he should have been there. Should have been. But Miguel’s point was, Five, you’re going to run out of people—you shouldn’t have blown the whole thing in the first… Ned and I were very very mindful of what we were doing. We didn’t know if there would be a conference the next year and people were in their 80s. So that the first award ceremony was recognition of Sam Maloof and Art Carpenter, of Wendell Castle, and Krenov, and Tage Frid. And I think, probably, to Miguel’s point, we could have held Wendell over to the next year. But it was truly, in our small field of artistic endeavor, I thought, a momentous moment. Because you did have the recognition of some of the towering figures. And even if the outside world wasn’t aware of these names and their sphere of influence in how we think about object making, we were. I felt strongly at least in subsequent years that possibly the selection could degenerate into a popularity contest as we got closer and closer to those peers with whom we rub shoulders in the shop, the studio. 00:34:50 So this year, the 2016 awards, the Furniture Society had asked me to come back as chair. And I thought I would do it, because I wanted to make sure there wouldn’t be the danger of him versus her and it would become a popularity contest. So with my esteemed colleagues Brian Gladwell and Dennis FitzGerald we came up with a plan—this is on our road trip where we met you, finally, down south—we came up with a plan, a proposal, where we would have a jury of three, one member of which would have been a past Award recipient. And, in true Furniture Society thinking, the chair would be non-voting, but would select the three jurors. And once again, like when I buy flowers I buy odd numbers—I took the opportunity to have three people, invite three people who I felt would have a very strenuous review system just ready-made for the candidates, the nominees, and who would not easily fold unless they felt the arguments were persuasive. And it was Peter Korn, who is the director of the Center for Furniture Craftsmanship here in Maine; and Brian Gladwell, up in Saskatchewan; and Wendy [Maruyama] from San Diego. They all have very, very different approaches to object making. So I felt very assured that it would balance—everything I was trained to do by the Furniture Society experience, in how you put together a committee, or in this case a jury. And they worked beautifully. So the award recipients this year were Tom Hucker and Ned Cooke.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

JB: You were the chair, so did you come up with a list of people for them to consider? BPJ: No, the names, the nominees, come from the membership. So there was a call for nominees. This time I added a feature that was partially successful. And that is, I asked that each member nominating a person write a statement of support. Don’t assume that the three jurors are intimately connected with the person. Give the reasons, and help your candidate. Give the jurors the information that you feel really qualifies your nominee. For those who did that—it was helpful for me, at least. There were things I wasn’t aware of for some of the candidates. And all of the nominations that were looked at, evaluated for this year’s program will be held in reserve so that the next awards jury doesn’t have to start from scratch; but they do have to start from scratch on a fresh evaluation of the candidates. JB: How is the process that you developed for this year different from the way they started—or the way they developed? Like how did it happen the first year? BPJ: Well, it was just Ned and me. And I make a distinction between a committee and a jury. And I think Ned and I were a committee. Rosanne joined that committee. I was the chair—of a two person committee! And we invited Rosanne to join in the early days. But it was pretty much what Ned and I thought needed to be covered and who needed to be honored. And then Miguel took over the awards. 00:39:54 Oh, another part—which Dennis gives me much more credit than I deserve—is the fund raising. Somebody’s got to pay for those awful box lunches. And you’ve got to pay for the room and board of the recipients, their presenters. That was another thing. It’s not just the awards recipients who are on stage. Ned and I asked this out—I thought it was a good plan. Let’s say we say to Garry Bennett, Ok, you got the Award of Distinction—which, in fact, he did receive, in Savannah—who would you like to present the award to you? I don’t know if Miguel followed this, but it was always hugely important to me that the recipient be comfortable with the person making the presentation. There could be some ancient, buried, annoying thing otherwise that you wouldn’t be aware of. So at least in the cases where I was involved it was always in consent with the recipient. JB: So you were on for the first…do you remember how many years before Miguel took over? BPJ: I would say six years? Six or seven? Oh, the fund-raising aspect for Awards. And that’s a thing that I learned with the Furniture Society. You could be chair of a thing, a standing committee, but it went way beyond just being nominally a chair. There were responsibilities that were way under that…and in the case of Awards, raising funds. So that the recipients really did have a sense that they were being honored was hugely important, I thought. And that was my job to tap those resources. Which is where my experience at Pritam and Eames came in handy. Because I was in touch with a number of people who actually knew who Ned Cooke was or Tom Hucker or Sam Maloof, and

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16 so on and so forth. It wasn’t that I had a particular gift, it was just that by dint of having Pritam and Eames, I had the connections and the ability to call somebody. And then—one last thing, Jon, on this. This was a Dennis and Bebe thing. I became worried at some point. Because I was raising, let’s say 25, 26 thousand a year for Awards. And I was becoming less and less involved. I was no longer on the executive committee. What was happening to these funds? Where were they going? Because there was a surplus of income, definitely, in those days, from those awards. Were they being protected? Were they being treated as restricted funds, as they were meant to be? So, in order to ensure this, it was decided that any surplus of income, over expense, would be channeled to and made available to what became called the Educational Grants Program. So there was, to me, perfect Furniture Society symmetry to me in this. Because on one hand the Awards program recognizes individual achievement and distinction, and the Educational Grants invests in the next generation of makers. So that now, I think, the grants are in 2,000 dollar units, so if you have a project that is approved by the Educational Grants committee, then you get $2,000 to help you realize whatever the goals of the project are. Which I thought was pretty good. 00:44:40 JB: To go back to the beginning, you mentioned that it was at Toronto that the idea arose. And I wondered two things: What was the trigger, exactly, if you remember. And also was there a template, was there somewhere either right at the start or as you were trying to work out what this award would be, was there another organization that did something similar that you looked at? BPJ: No… Well, the trigger was just… It must have been me thinking... Was it at the board meeting? Did it precede? I can’t remember. But I just remember a couple of Furniture Society trustees talking about reaching out, trying to grab some kind of ephemeral endorsement that would somehow be reflected in a positive way toward the Furniture Society. And it just struck me, that if you keep reaching out…it’s much better to be strong and centrally located and people will come to you. That was the very simple context for the Award of Distinction. Let’s recognize the people that we know are responsible for who we are and what we do today. And not wait for American Craft Council or anybody else to do it. We know who they are. JB: Similar question about publications. What the genesis of that program was and what you were thinking at the beginning it could be and what you thought of the way things turned out, the direction that it went. BPJ: That was pretty much always in [John] Kelsey and [Rick] Mastelli’s camp. It was called Furniture Society Journal? JB: Oh, Furniture Studio. BPJ: Furniture Studio. This was clearly such a labor of love, it seemed to me, for John. And it perhaps allowed him to do things that in his role as editor at Fine Woodworking… He did introduce the idea of studio furniture makers within the how-to format of Fine Woodworking, but here was something that he could, from start to finish, pretty well have it the way he wanted it.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

Oh, the other thing, and I consider it comparable to the Award of Distinction for me. Returning to exhibitions. I mentioned there’s the juried show, there’s the invitational, there’s the members’ show, and then there’s another category of exhibitions. And I use Mike Pod’s distinction that galleries have shows and museums have exhibitions. Another simple, simple thought on my part was an exhibition in which you would tell the story—we were still using the term studio furniture in those days—you tell the story of the evolution of furniture making, this kind, this brand of furniture making, through objects. I wrote a proposal to the board in 2002, or something like that, which became The Maker’s Hand. Again, Ned and I worked very effectively together—because he had the contacts at MFA Boston, obviously. And we were able to get that exhibit mounted. I was crestfallen, however, Jonathan, when, at the opening, a couple of the furniture makers who I knew very well, like Judy McKie, came up and just started complaining, ‘I’m just not happy with this.’ And I said, My gosh, why? I mean, I thought for the space—which wasn’t the best museum space, but hey. And who else was bitching about it? Somebody else. Right there at the opening. Because they weren’t asked to do a new piece. For them it wasn’t interesting. 00:50:05 And I was so dumbfounded and hurt. Because they hadn’t understood what the purpose was. This was an exhibit organized for a general museum-going public. It wasn’t addressed to them. Of course they knew what Art Carpenter looked like, or whatever. So I gather it was not as successfully received in the minds of the makers who were involved as the first—which was a seminal exhibit, I agree—the New American Furniture exhibit, that opened in 1989 at the MFA Boston. In which twenty-six furniture makers were asked to take a piece from the museum’s permanent collection, an antique, usually, and make a piece of their own that replied to that museum piece. And that was a much, I guess, generally more exciting exhibit for them. But I thought for what we set out to do, namely to tell a story of an artistic pursuit that has endured for…what did we say, from 1940 to…whatever the dates were, maybe 50 years, something like that. And the catalogue, also, that Ned did, served its purpose: for the record, for the documentation that it provides for future generations. The only argument I had—once the exhibit idea—which was another lesson, it makes perfect sense—once an idea reaches inside the walls of the usually unapproachable museum offices and you actually get consideration of an idea or proposal, you’ve served your purpose. So I knew that once the museum, we got our ideational hook there, that—not Ned, because he was going to be important all the way through—but certainly the Furniture Society, I wanted to be sure the Furniture Society got the recognition for bringing this exhibit to the MFA. What was the point I was laboring after? I can’t think of it now. JB: At what point did you go off the board? I’m wondering what you did after that. It always seemed to me that you were involved straight through with the Furnitue Society, but maybe not? I wonder what your connection was the second decade or so.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

BPJ: I think when Miguel became president, my sense is I was less and less involved. There were a couple of conferences I didn’t attend; which, as a board member, it really was your responsibility if not obligation to be there at conference. Again, without having committee responsibilities or duties I became a name among the many many advisers on the letterhead. So that there was a period at which I became less involved. As long as Dennis was involved, I was involved. But there were a couple of presidents that I felt were…they were capable, but they were not strong leaders. It seemed like a lot of lost energy organizationally speaking. Having Andrew on board, one sensed that there was a direction to the organization that was occurring. And I know I was still a trustee when Andrew was there. I thought he was an effective director. One of the lessons I learned—unlike what Warren was describing with his father’s company— you don’t hire from within. And you have to hire, for a non-profit, a director who can have conversations with directors of other non-profits and be on an even keel. So that’s very important. There were a couple of people who were very involved with the Furniture Society who wanted to be the director, but I think that was very wise that you hire from outside. 00:56:10 JB: Did you also raise money for anything other than the Award of Distinction? BPJ: I don’t think so. Nothing comes to mind, Jon. No. JB: How about the second conference at Purchase, and what your involvement was with that? BPJ: Oh that’s right. I was program chair—and I think you were on the committee. I had a committee of silent men. A great group of individuals, but I couldn’t get much out of you. But that was fun. Dennis had the hard work. He was conference chair. And that’s dealing with rooms and acoustics. It was frankly a nightmare experience. The school did not welcome the… The keynote speaker, at my invitation, Paul Harper, had just flown in from England the day before, he had a head cold, and anyway he speaks quietly to begin with, but there were no acoustics for his keynote address, which was quite cerebral. And I could just tell the audience was…I said, oh, gee, that wasn’t quite… Whereas if Kelsey and Odate had been the keynote—which I think was Dennis’s wish, but he didn’t override me—it would have been better; the importance of keynote can’t be overestimated. It really sets the tone and the demeanor for the conference. JB: What were some of the memorable ones, for you? BPJ: I happen to love the Dave Hickey one at San Diego. He was the senior art critic for Art in America. And you may recall he was dressed in New York black. He was a large man who smoked probably two packs of Marlboros a day, he could barely trundle on the stage, you could tell with the wheezing and so on. But he delivered, to me, the best line I’d heard in a long time.

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

And he was talking about artists, not furniture makers, but artists artists artists, and he said, “You know, what they all want, they all just want to be loved.” There’s a certain fictional quality to keynote speakers, too. A lot of people would, I bet, say the man at the B.C. conference—First Nation spokesman—was marvelous. And he was as a speaker, but I was left afterward wondering what his experience had to do… You know, he was one of those people who seemed to be very practiced at giving his life story, but how it related…it either was too large a life story, or too small a life story for me to intersect; although I enjoyed the oratory. I think if we had begun with—did you hear the John Kelsey introduction to Toshio Odate? JB: No. 01:00:33 BPJ: Oh, it was fabulous. At Purchase. It was the second Purchase conference. And they were a featured presentation. Masterfully handled between the two of them. Because John, I think, considers Odate quite the mentor. And then just the pacing, the cadence of the way Odate speaks, very full voice, and his stories that I think any furniture maker—it was just perfect for the audience. An example of a very poor, in my opinion, keynote speaker was at the conference in Philadelphia. It could have worked, it should have worked. He’s the designer king, he’s in New York. But giving a talk—that’s another of the life lessons that I thank the Furniture Society for—is so difficult. Not just to have the message you want to convey, but to have a sense, an appreciation of the audience. I mean, the audience generally wants you to succeed in what you’re trying to convey. And when it happens it’s really a beautiful thing. I would think of a successful example of that, which I know in Philadelphia you didn’t hear, was Wendell’s talk. I had asked him if he was going to do the same kind of talk that he did at the MAD Museum of Arts and Design at the opening of his exhibit there, and he said, Oh, no. This is different. It was personal. It was self- centered but not self-absorbed. There were always little take-aways that I thought most members of the audience could appreciate and find something in tune with. Coming from somebody who so much has been written about, and he has talked so much about what it is that he does and why he does it, and so on, he still, as I was saying last night, I think remains to many an enigma. Which I don’t think he works at. Over Martinis, you know, he’s as fluid as anybody else… But it was nice to see that, and I think it was important for him, too. JB: What about some of the people that you met through the Furniture Society that maybe you wouldn’t have otherwise, or you wouldn’t have worked with or gotten to know as well, who stand out in memory? BPJ: Well, my colleagues Dennis FitzGerald and Brian Gladwell, whom I admire greatly. The eloquence and intellectual skills of Brian are almost unmatched. And Dennis’s organizational skills and deep-seated knowledge—without any training; he just has it—of the whole and the

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16 component parts of the Furniture Society. There probably aren’t many other areas, or subjects, rather, that we can stray out on, other than the Furniture Society matters. But with Miguel there are always more humanizing subjects that…and in some ways borderline philosophic questions that we can… I’ve always felt very comfortable and interested in what Miguel’s take would be. 01:05:14 JB: What about Kelsey? Could you say a bit about him? BPJ: Well John, even though he disavows it, was principally responsible for guiding us to open Pritam and Eames back in the late 1970s. Warren was involved in documentary films, he was working in Connecticut at the time, and teaching. And he got this idea of doing a documentary on furniture making—I don’t know why. So he went to Kelsey, who was then editor of Fine Woodworking. And as we write in our book, Kelsey largely put aside the question of a documentary on furniture making, but began announcing that what’s really needed in this world was a showcase for the work that’s being done. He said there’s really good work being done, and at the end of the meeting—that John determined was the end—he gave Warren a couple of the Design Books and said, here, look at these. So I always have carried an affection for Kelsey, just based on the fact that he really gave us the pathway. And when he was at the Furniture Society I found him to be a good editor. But not one that I personally am that attuned to. A great deal of respect for his experience. A little closer to Mastelli; I thought Rick had more nuances, and maybe a subtle…not a red pen, but... But for me, I thought they were such an important addition. Addendum. I think from the beginning Publications was seen as one of the fundamental, elemental programs that constitute the Furniture Society. Exhibitions would be one, Conference would be one. That was the three- legged stool upon which the organization rested. JB: I remember in Philadelphia, before the Furniture Society started. There was some meeting that I went to, and one of the reasons given for why we need this organization and what it ought to do was to promote the work of the members. And raise the level of skill in terms of marketing and selling your work. And I wonder if that was on your radar at the beginning or ever and whether you think that happened at all. Was it an organization that is more of a community, or more than that? BPJ: I think maybe Dennis’s reasons for inviting me to become involved were pursuant of just that. What he thought I could contribute. It wasn’t my interest, though. Because I couldn’t in good faith promote a juried show where I felt the work was so uneven. You know, out of ten pieces, maybe these were the five best, but they weren’t the five best pieces ever made. It was sort of working in opposition to what we were doing at Pritam and Eames, which was pruning, pruning, pruning. And this was adding, including, embracing. 01:10:18

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16

But I never felt the Furniture Society to be in conflict; it was just a different way to approach things than my natural inclination, which is to be highly selective. And this was the opposite. It was very ecumenical, and that was kind of joyful. Again, I say that, although I was out of touch with the organization for a period of time before the 2008 Purchase conference, and became reattached to them in this most recent, 2016, just for the awards, but I have such high regard for the…I would consider the younger, trustees. I remember when I wrote the proposal that was to become the basis for the call for entries for the Award of Distinction and I used the term studio furniture it was pointed out to me by three or four of the younger trustees—Steffi Dotson, Forrest Dickey, and maybe Corey weighed in on this, I’m not sure, that that was a term that no longer had coinage. And this precipitated—which I loved—a huge thread of conversations with Dennis, Brian… poor Steffi got roped in on this— here she’s got a baby and here are reams of paper on what are we, do we need to have a name, what is it exactly that you are doing at the Furniture Society since you failed to inform us lowly advisers? It was fascinating. It would be a good record to have published, actually, particularly coming from Dennis and Brian; well, all three of us, actually. And this was all trying to get at a description for the call for proposals for the Award of Distinction for 2016. You’d think, well, that’s simple. But then, what’s to say that Marc Newsom couldn’t be a viable candidate? Who’s to say? Please, tell me what the parameters are. I’ve agreed to chair it, but I need to know what it is that we’re really talking about. And I’m effective when I work within a perceived parameter; what I understand to be the outline. Then I’m effective. I can work very well within that perceived outline. But if you’re not going to come down and say who can qualify, then you’ve got some work to do, semantically speaking. It’s beyond semantics. But I think the new board—that’s the long and short of what I should be saying—is doing a really fine job of treading that until the next definitional term to replace studio furniture comes up. They’re doing a good job. JB: Anything else? BPJ: Oh, your question about friendships, or relationships—they’re two different things; I discovered that since we closed Pritam and Eames. That so many, which I knew would be the case, of the foundational relationships that absorbed us for 35 years—you know, a furniture maker comes, they have no place to stay because it’s so expensive, so they’d stay at our place— that a lot of that, if it wouldn’t disappear, would certainly ebb and flow and diminish with the basis of the relationship, which was dealings with the gallery. But I find that there are friendships that endure. There are people that… I of course have always felt very strongly about Judy McKie’s work, but in truth, one of the things that is most satisfying about my relationship with Judy is that I love to hear what she has to say about people and things. It’s often so fresh and unexpected. And I have such high personal regard for her, having known her for now 40 years, and the way that her humor, which is delicious. Her husband Todd’s humor can sting. It does sting. Judy’s humor is laced with perception, but it’s never at the expense of anyone. But she still gets the point across. She would be an example of someone who has never been involved with the Furniture Society, really. I’ve always thought that if some of the people would have been more involved it could

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16 have helped the organization a bit, just by lending their name or their stature. But FS has done it on its own, it’s done it its way. And it endures. 01:17:10 JB: So will you be on that award committee going forward? BPJ: No. I think that…there’s a very strong reserve of candidates for the new chair to consider. I already can think of three jury members who I think would be great, but the new chair will have their own idea, and I think it should. JB: And is the plan that every year will be a different chair? BPJ: I have no idea. I think the board…They may be hoping, simply because of perhaps the fund-raising part of it that I will do it, but I think they’ve got sufficient funds in Awards certainly to cover direct and operational expenses for the next, let’s say two years. Oh, what I was going to say about the Awards—the other thought, and I may have already said it—that you have the recipient, and then you have the presenter, who has been determined in concert with the recipient. But the presenter, what we say—say if you were Garry Bennett or whoever—is, bring somebody from the outside in. That’s another lesson that actually I learned from Dennis. Bring in fresh ears, fresh eyes. Which is admirable. And in the case of Awards—who is the fellow who presented to Ned Cooke? Jonathan Prown from Chipstone. That’s actually a fairly easy task, but they don’t stay long; see, that’s the downside of it. And there isn’t enough dedication, I think, on the part of the board to keep those people. But at least for the next occasion on which you need a scholar of American historical furniture you can tap Jonathan Prown. He’s got some investment in the organization. So Dennis’s point is well taken. So I guess I’d like to end with what did I contribute to the Furniture Society?—I’ve just spent an hour telling you what I did. But I guess the quid pro quo are yes the relationships, and a few friendships that have endured, but really the lessons that I was taught as a result of not being particularly an organizational person, not necessarily being that outgoing. Warren says that—he stopped short of saying that I’ve become more strident, but I certainly have become more confident in things that I believe in. It was almost exactly the same kind of feeling, dipping into the same well as when we began Pritam and Eames after Kelsey gave us the path and we began visiting all the shops and studios and homes of people we would represent ultimately. It was so clear to us, it was so self-evident, the work that they were doing, and the value of that work. It was such a noble pursuit and so simple. It combined so many elements. 01:21:27 If I had been on my own I probably would have opened an art gallery. Simply because in terms of my background and the things that throughout my life had really engaged me deeply, it would be art. But furniture, I realized, as soon as those possibilities became available…and to listen to the stories, told simply and with…like Paul Harper…I think Paul’s talk—too bad it wasn’t miked well—had such depth and clarity about what it means. Furnituremakers have to have—it’s not a

Furniture Society Oral History B. P. Johnson 10/16/16 language that’s spoken like art. It’s not based on concept and ideas. But it’s a quiet language, and you just have to learn to listen to it. And I think the value of the Furniture Society in my life is that it taught me that people who I wouldn’t normally have encountered had such good stories. And the work that they do—whether it is David Fleming out in Arizona, or, as I mentioned last week, when I was looking at the ceremony, I think it was a year or two after Jim Krenov died, out in Fort Bragg, and I watched these grown men, for the most part, at this appreciation ceremony, you’re expected to come up to the front and talk about the person who is deceased, in this case James Krenov. Seeing the emotion of every single one, how this man touched their lives. And I thought, how many people who live and work, do the thing, they go to their office, their cubicle, how many people can really, at the end of that very day, say that they’ve touched somebody’s life? And I think the furniture makers, by the sheer dint of making things that will be part of somebody else’s life over time, it’s like that wonderful sewing box in that lecture you gave of the Maine furniture maker— JB: Duane Paluska. BPJ: I never got his name, I just remember the two final stills in your presentation, a picture of the house and the sewing box he made for his wife. And you could see from the shot that you took that her hands had opened and closed that box so many times. And it doesn’t have to be a Damien Hirst or Jeff Koons type of experience. They could never come close to that quiet, intimate exchange. Anyway, that really impressed me so much, the quality of what Krenov did. And I think furniture makers are, even though it’s a tough, tough life, to make a living at it, it’s still I think probably, the idea of the mind and the hand and the material and the process, and the kind of music—I don’t make anything, and I can only stand in admiration of those people that do. 01:25:45 END OF INTERVIEW