The Danger of Neo

VaughnT

Well-Known Member
All this talk about neo-tribal and primitive stuff leads to a lot of shoddy workmanship. Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of photos on the web that show poor design, minimal hammer control, sloppy fitting of components, etc. But it's "okay" because it's supposed to be primitive or neo or whatever the catchy phrase is.

Then I see something like Marchand's line of Wilder Tools. They look rustic. They look old. They look professionally designed and assembled.

There's the difference and I would caution new smiths to remember that just because it looks beat up and banged on doesn't mean you can neglect the quality in form, fit and function. An aged patina can be beautiful, but a sloppy gap between the blade and the guard simply isn't acceptable. "Primitive" man built the pyramids in Egypt and South America. They built the Nazca Lines and Stone Henge.

I say that to demonstrate what great things you can accomplish with even the most basic of tools. Tomas Rucker ( http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=19492 ) makes some of the most beautiful knives I've ever seen and has a shop that is as minimalist as you can get, literally taking up the balcony of his apartment. Certainly better than what primitive man had, and it demonstrates that you don't have to have a $2000 grinder to make tools that would be welcomed in any collection.
 
As someone who primarily does Neo-Tribal Metalsmith-style work, damn straight! Look at the work of the guys who founded Neo-Tribal Metalsmithing and you will see that it is as much about high quality craftsmanship that is not dependent on high-dollar tooling as it is about any other aspect. Tai and Tim are masters of hammer control, and it is with a hammer that a Neo-Tribal Metalsmith primarily does his job.
 
They used to say the same kinds of things about impressionist and expressionist paintings. In spite of what critics were saying, some artists were just better at it than others, which is/was the same for any arts and crafts movement. Generally speaking though,… such things are judged by the best of the best, not the worst of the worst.

These types of movements or paradigm shifts, are necessary for new growth in the arts and crafts.

I also think we need to realize that just because a maker doesn’t refer to him/her self as being NT, or use the name to promote their work,… doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t fit the “neo-tribal model" in one way or another. The influence of the NTMs, is very far reaching and some of the very best knifemakers in the world have shown the influence in their work... However, most artists don’t like “labels”.

Another thing is that, so far no one has been able to define “neo-tribal knife making” to everyone’s liking. There is room within the genre for individuality, personal interpretation and expression. I think this is a good thing, although it has led to a lot of confusion. However, in the founder’s original statement it can‘t be overlooked that part of the emphasis of the neo-tribal approach or philosophy was on high quality hand craftsmanship… which I suppose is also open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:
I'd just like to add one thing. Even though I'm a novice smith by all accounts, it's brutally apparent to me that the Belt Grinder is/can be the single biggest proponent of sloppy workmanship. Simply put, it allows the hiding of nearly any flaw, and encourages rough core workmanship. Honestly, on a blade that's had all the hammer marks ground out, with a nice machine polish or even top notch hand finish, you really have zero clue how good a *smith* the maker is.

From what I've seen, most people simply hammer the 2 dimensional profile out. Very few bother hammering bevels in, and generally, it's very rough if they do. Often, they even do a fair bit of profile work when shaping the handle, etc. So how do you know if they have good hammer control? You may simply assume it, since the finished product seems so pristine.

From my conversations with other "blacksmiths" it's pretty obvious that bladesmith's have a reputation of being really poor "smiths" in the scheme of things, because of our reliance on machine finishing for one.


So I'd say that while I agree that some pretty shoddy looking work can come from people claiming to be NT, I'd say there's a distinct advantage in that the difference between a quality NT piece and a shoddy one is glaring. Where as I think it's much more difficult to determine the smith work of knives that are made with use of a grinder. I also believe that the amount of hammer work involved in primitive forging, is exponentially higher on average, and even though a smith's early work in that arena may not exhibit great hammer control or forging techniques, in the long run, he'll end up the better smith, simply due to the amount of training he gets from hammering 10x as much as your average bladesmith.


For me it's night and day, my first lessons were from a prominent bladesmith who started out as a stock removal guy 30 years ago, and he basically just hammers to rough shape. We learned to do it that way, and it seemed very easy to me, and my end results were directly proportional to how much effort I was willing to put in the grinding. I "apprentice" with a bladesmith that studied under Don Fogg, is well known for his exquisite work, with a machinist background, and has all the big toys and likes to use them. I have access to all the tools, but I simply feel compelled to forge the way I am, and the more I'm lucky enough to learn the "right way to do it", the more I want to keep doing it the "primitive" way.

I can't be satisfied using the grinder for profile work, I don't like using it at all really. Forging consistent bevels has been hard for me to figure out, but each night I spend in there, it gets better. A couple of them I'm working on currently, I've probably spent 10+ hours trying to get the bevels perfect, all that time on the anvil. Although admittedly I've gotten so frustrated because of it, that I quit forging for a week, and when I started up again, I just rough forged and ground one out in a day, because I wanted something easy with a quick reward. Personally though, I know I'll always be coming back to doing it the "hard way".


So all that I guess, to say, that I disagree with the assertion that NT "promotes" bad workmanship. I think like anything, it's what you put into it, but in the end, I'd say that if you're serious about your work, I'd say it promotes the absolute "best" workmanship.
 
Although I have not been at my forge for many years now, I was brought into the world of bladesmithing by the Neo Triabals. What I learned was that no matter what your skill level is, Neo tribal is NOT an outlet for shoddy workmanship. I have worked with Smiths such as Tai,Goo, Dana Acker, and Max Burnett. All have the finate opinion of quality and useability first, and looks second. While I have made many a blade in the neo Style, and then Many more in the ABS "style" I cannot see any lack of quality in either. I produced a cutting piece first and foremost, then looked to astetics. Is one more "Pretty" to the accepted eye, possibly. But i challenge any bladesmith to step away from his (or her) gas forge, Belt grinder, and buffer then look at the diffrence. The Quality is there, the shine and polish may not be there, but the knife is a quality cutiing tool.

God Bless
Mike
 
It seems we are in agreement. It seems Neo Tribal can be mistaken by those new to our knife culture that the style is that of a less skilled knife maker. After some experience and exposure to our knife world, those same people usually change their mind to appreciate the craftsmanship that does go into an NT style tool.
 
Good dialogue, gents. My reason for the OP was that I didn't want to see poor quality be given a name or somehow be made acceptable because it's supposed to be "primitive". We all start out as poor smiths and horrible knifemakers, and that's okay because we're supposed to be bad at the beginning. But what we cannot afford is to allow student to never progress because they are primitivists.

All of us should strive to create the very best works that we can. We know it can be done because we've seen it done by masters before us.
 
I don’t think “primitive” and “neo-tribal” are the same things. The two “labels” have been used interchangeably, but I think that’s been a big mistake. I guess there are a lot of makers who think it’s cool to be primitive, but I’ve never thought primitive really fit what they were doing, since they were using some modern materials and tools. Primitive knifemaking is really more of an anachronism, or anachronistic approach to knifemaking. Although neo-tribal work usually involves some very old or ancient methods and techniques, it’s really more of a fusion between the old and the new. It is pertinent and relevant to the times we live in...

At any rate, crude and shoddy workmanship is just crude and shoddy workmanship, no matter what you call it or what your approach to the craft is. Calling it primitive really won’t make the work any better.

In a lot of cases the word "primitive" is used just out of convinience, but I've never been in favor of it... because it just isn't.

You can't make a "primitive" knife out of a 5160 leaf spring with a modern store bought hammer etc.
 
Last edited:
I can see where you're coming from, hoss. I'm not too worried about what they call it except when they use that title as an excuse to fail. Like I said above, "primitive" man was building pyramids and forging wootz steel. DaVinci didn't have OSX and a laser jet printer. King Tut's kit in that tomb was made entirely without a KMG grinder.

Patience is the keyword, however. Taking another thirty minutes with a file and some sandpaper can make the difference between a sloppy fit and hairline tolerances. But you have to have patience.
 
I'm not so sure anyone has ever used it as an excuse to fail or an excuse for sloppy workmanship, although it may have appeared that way to some people for several reasons...

Primitive knifemaking and/or neo-tribal both have attracted a lot of newbies and recreationalists. I don’t think that too many of these people were really concerned about doing any high level craftsmanship, but just wanted to have fun and see if they could set up a simple forge in the backyards and garages, with stuff they had laying around or could salvage, and make any kind of knife. Nothing wrong with that. Some went on to do better work and got more serious about it and some didn’t. However, for lots of folks this was their first experience with knifemaking. Maybe they needed an excuse, just to make a knife,... don't we all?

Another thing is that many of the practitioners were looking for a different aesthetic than the majority of knives they were seeing. This new aesthetic in many cases incorporated “process markings” and rougher finishes as design features to leave clues as to how the knives were made and to give them a certain “character“. They wanted to capture the “process” and let it show in their work. Not everyone likes a shiny knife that looks machine made. To the untrained eye or the eye that had been conditioned to only appreciate conventional mainstream type aesthetics and craftsmanship, it appeared somewhat crude at first. However, just through repetition, exposure and education, this type of work began to gain a lot of acceptance and popularity. This never would have happened if the knives failed to perform well in the field, and in order to do that the classic prerequisites for functional or working knives had to be met.
 
Last edited:
And you've just nailed it. As a beginner, a lot of guys are giving it their very best effort and should be applauded for it. Similarly, adding texture or "process markings" isn't bad. When I look at a Winkler or Marchand, I can't help but be impressed. They've incorporated great visual texture with equally great craftsmanship. That's the key, and that takes patience.
 
And that's just it--it's not just the collectors/buyers that have to have an eye for appreciating a neo-tribal blade vs. a modern handcrafted blade, but the new makers as well. At first glance a blade may look rough, but the appearance is intentional and by design, not by lack of skill. You mentioned Winkler or Marchand. Scott Rousch is another that has really embraced that style. Serge Panchenko is another, though his methods may not strictly be NT.

At the same time we need to remember that the rough/primitive look is not entirely synonymous with the NT process, though I think many NT smiths tend to not make knives that have a highly polished look because they do want to express their art, and separate themselves from the more mainstream look.
 
I believe that a nigh-on perfect parallel exists in the custom car world between billet rods and rat rods. The one is very high-dollar, shiny, flashy, and often gets trailered to a show. The other is very low-dollar, rough-and-ready, outrageous, and has a good chance of being driven frequently. Rat rods came about as a reaction against billet rods in much the same way Neo-Tribal Metalsmithing came about in reaction against the more typical way of making knives - a way to make interesting, different knives that a person would put to use rather than display.

All four camps have good things to offer, and all four camps can produce some pretty horrific monstrosities. And what I shake my head and roll my eyes over in any of the camps will get enthusiastic cheers from plenty of other folks.
 
i came to the neo tribal style by way of pyromania. which may explain why i dont want to switch to propane just yet.

sure, propane gets hot but you cant howl and grunt and chant around the propane tank. that would just look weird.

:)
 
You asked for it!

studenttobin1.jpg


studenttobin.jpg


Neo-Tribal Metalsmiths: We're all a little nutty! :D
 
Back
Top