A meeting of minds: Aspen Golann and Peter Galbert

Above: Aspen Golann and Peter Galbert with The Meeting Bench, entered in Maker of the Year, presented by Hare & Forbes. 

This year a series of articles will feature entrants for this year’s Maker of the Year Awards, presented by Hare & Forbes. The Awards are open to makers in Australia and all over the world. There are six entry categories and a prize pool of more than $20,000.

Aspen Golann and Peter Galbert are two US designer makers who will be well known to many for their award winning work and publications. Together, they have entered a piece they made together in Maker of the Year, presented by Hare & Forbes.

The Meeting Bench was made collaboratively and now resides in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. We wanted to know more and in the continued spirit of collaboration they both replied to the questions below.

Preliminary sketches for the bench

How did the collaboration come about?

Aspen: We met at North Bennet Street School. I was still a student and Pete was there teaching a class. I didn’t actually take the class because I wasn’t yet interested in Windsor chairs, but he walked by my bench and we ended up talking. It turned out we had a lot in common around art making, risk-taking, and allowing weirdness into the work. We ended up going out for tacos.

A year or so later, I went to spend a few months in New Hampshire with him building our first collaborative piece. After moving away for a few years, I came back permanently in 2021, and we’ve been working together on and off since then.

When the museum reached out to request a design, it seemed like a great opportunity to work together again!

Who did what in terms of design and making?

Peter: We both played strong roles in all the aspects of producing the piece. I did much of the initial drawing, but we constantly batted the ideas back and forth, each of us having priorities we thought would enhance the piece. We each have definite ideas and aesthetics, but I think working together helped us expand into new possibilities. The complexity of the piece required a great deal of labour, both mental and physical. We shared that effort leaning heavily on the strengths each of us brought to the table.

Please tell us about the inspiration for The Meeting Bench and the collection it was made for.

Aspen: It was made for a collection at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston that’s pretty unique in the field of museum collections. It’s called Please Be Seated, and the idea is that they commission seating furniture from contemporary artists that becomes part of the permanent collection but is also accessible to the public, meaning people can actually sit on it.

That interchange between the art object and the individual member of the public was a major point of inspiration, along with the physical space the bench was designed for, which was an asymmetrical corner. The piece really took its life from the physicality of that space, responding to the L shape.

We pulled from traditional Windsor chair forms like the rod-back settee and the birdcage chair, then had them very literally crash into each other to create a new object. The goal was something that felt both contemporary and traditional, without those two approaches being in opposition, but instead showing a harmony between traditional and contemporary craft. We also wanted it to be recognisable and comfortable for the museum visitors it was built for.

What does this piece say about drawing on a traditional form for a contemporary context?

Peter: The traditional forms are a treasure trove of great design and shaping. While an overall view might seem dated, upon closer inspection, the often subtle use of line and volume transcend a style pinned to a certain time. It’s all good visual storytelling. The city of Boston and collection at the MFA both have a rich history of the traditional furniture which makes fertile ground for exploring the design lessons of the traditional work in a new form.

The spindle spacing in the angled return adds visual lightness. How did you figure out the spacings and other design details?

Aspen: At first it was really just a desire that came from looking at these objects in perspective. When you look down a row of spindles, they appear more spaced out in one section and tighter in another, even though in reality they’re usually spaced evenly.

I thought it would be beautiful to play with that visual illusion, and the fact that the piece was an L-shape gave us the opportunity to connect the spacing to the form, letting it open up and breathe in that corner, like it was almost being stretched apart at that edge.

At first, like so many things, we just laid it out until it looked right. Then we took measurements from that, and Pete did the math to figure out where the final placement should be. Like so many things, it ended up being a blend between instinct and calculation.

What sort of wood did you use, and why was it selected?

Peter: Traditionally, the selection of materials is based on the role they play in the chair and their workability. Usually, the turned parts would be a fine grained hardwood such as sugar maple, the seats would be light and soft enough to carve easily, such as chestnut or pine and the spindles and bent parts would be a ring porous hardwood such as oak or hickory to be strong and flexible in thin dimensions.

We decided a hardwood seat would stand up to the high traffic of the location in the museum so we made it from sugar maple. The top needed to be extra strong due to the spacing of the spindles, so we used hickory for the spindles and crests.

How long did it take to make the bench? Were there any dramas or was it smooth sailing?

Aspen: From start to finish, it was over a year. I’ll start by saying that drawings are much easier to make than chairs. Once we got into the complexity of actually building what we had drawn, there were definitely some challenges. We ended up making more than one full-scale mock-up to really understand the connections and curves and how they worked in three dimensions.

Honestly, the main challenge was organising our schedules and finding time to work together deeply. The work is already hard, and then you add needing to satisfy two people with each decision, which makes it more complicated, though I’d argue also better.

Mostly, we were patient with the process and with each other. One of the main things Pete and I share is a deep commitment to design. Once we decide to build something, we follow it through, no matter how much time and effort it takes. We’re both a little unhinged in that way, but it makes for a good partnership.

In the end, we simply did every little thing we needed to do to make it happen, and I’m really glad we did.

What are the benefits of a collaboration like this? Will there be more?

Peter: There are many benefits of a collaboration like this, mostly drawing on each other’s strengths and creativity. Having another perspective to bounce ideas off of and learning to explore and inhabit the interests of another maker creates new room for possibilities that may not exist within either party. Once two makers push outside their own boundaries to dream up a piece, and then must find a way to execute it to a satisfying result, there is no option but to grow. There isn’t another piece in the works, but I have no doubt we will remain a creative resource for each other in the future.

Photos courtesy Aspen Golann

See photos of the finished piece in Aspen Golann and Peter Galbert’s Maker of the Year entry.

Learn more about Maker of the Year, presented by Hare & Forbes