Aesthetics in Guitar Design
~ A Personal Perspective ~
Copyright ©1999 Howard Coleman
To assess the aesthetic beauty of a guitar is
difficult. Can you separate yourself from all your prejudices and
see it, not as a musical instrument, but simply as an object?
Thoughts on aesthetics
I think there could be two kinds of aesthetic values. One kind is
universal and appreciated by anyone - the human form for example
would be widely regarded as more pleasing to look at than a
stone. The other type, I would suggest, is influenced by our
experiences and prejudices. Do many people think snakes are
beautiful? It defies logic really as there is nothing actually
ugly about snakes. They could, for example, have a graceful
shape, be decorated with bright colours in fancy designs and have
a pleasing shiny surface - all qualities we admire. I think we
subconsciously associate shapes, colours etc with experiences.
This could be why I dislike guitars stained blue. Where I live,
there is hardly anything natural that is blue in colour (not even
the sky very often!) So snakes and blue guitars may be just as
beautiful as cats and natural coloured guitars but I am blind to
their beauty.
Shape and Symmetry
Subtle changes in the shape can make a big difference to how a
guitar looks. For me the most aesthetic shape for a flat-top is
that of the old Martin 00 models with 12 frets to the body join
and those long upper bouts. What a shame that these guitars are
not trendy! To make them more popular today they would either
need 14 frets to the body join or they would need a cutaway. The
trouble with converting the shape to 14 frets is that when the
neck is moved outward the bridge has to follow to keep the
original scale length. There are several unfortunate
consequences. The instrument will look different and sound
different and, if the player is me, the sound hole will be just
where I want to plant my little finger. If the sound hole is
moved out with the neck then the sound changes some more and the
attractive long upper bouts are spoilt. Flat-top guitars'
cutaways, in all their various forms, are mostly abominations in
my view. I don't think they are often really necessary. Have you
ever covered up the missing part of a cutaway guitar and found
that the beautiful shape of the body is suddenly revealed? Have
you ever looked at a left-handed cutaway guitar and seen it in a
new light? Doesn't it appear strange? Reversing it like that has
the effect of neutralising what we have become used to seeing so,
suddenly, we see it as it really is.
I find most pick guards unaesthetic for two reasons. Firstly, a
single pick guard on the treble side can spoil an otherwise
symmetrical guitar. It could have a matching one on the other
side like the Everly Brothers' guitars but I think the plastic
then dominates visually over the wood and the instrument can end
up looking more suitable as a chopping board than as a guitar.
(Tone is affected too.) The other problem I have with pick guards
is their shape. The Martin "teardrop" would be better
in my view if it were truly teardrop shaped. That square corner
under the strings could have been rounded to avoid giving the
appearance of a chunk having been bitten out by the sound hole. I
think this is another case of accepting what we have become used
to seeing. Again, seeing a left-handed version of the guitar
makes this feature stand out like a sore thumb.
Choice of Materials
I prefer the natural beauty of wood to plastics and would not
consider using plastic bindings on my instruments. Plastics are
not necessarily ugly but they could be seen as a missed
opportunity to use something more aesthetic. Ecological issues
also affect how we see guitars. Who wants to see bits of elephant
and tortoise (Pacific turtle) adorning their guitars today? They
have become ugly and disgusting like fur coats. It is unfortunate
that in guitar making, there are so many traditionally used
materials that are no longer sound from an ecological viewpoint.
Alternatives have to be found that are suitable in several
respects the least important of which is appearance - sound,
strength and stability come first in my view. As for synthetic
alternatives to mother-of-pearl the often used term
"mother-of-toilet-seat" seems apt. The material only
vaguely suggests mother-of-pearl. It has a pearliness but lacks
the depth - what I call "nature's hologram". It also
lacks the brilliance and variety of colours. Incidentally,
another of nature's holograms can be seen in figured wood. Will
they ever be able to copy this? Can you imagine a guitar's back
with a photograph of flamed maple stuck on?
Ornamentation
There are rules of good taste in ornamentation. Several books are
available on the subject but I recommend Meyer's 1888 book "The Handbook of Ornament" which is still in print. Generally, I prefer
things that are plain but elegant. I have learnt from experience
that I tend to go off fancy things faster than plain things.
Violin makers have for the last few hundred years largely settled
on a design that is very plain in terms of ornamentation - a
design that owes a great deal to Antonio Stradivari. I think one
of the keys to the success of that design is its outstanding
visual beauty. Stradivari had an incredibly good eye for
aesthetic design. Mostly he did not ornament his violins with
lavish designs although the ones he did go to town on were done
with exquisite taste. He knew that the instrument didn't need
anything extra to increase its beauty so he usually just added
purfling (lines of black/white/black material) inside the edges
of the body to accentuate the already beautiful shape. From what
I have seen all too often, the harder the luthier tries to add
beauty the less beautiful the result. "More is less."
One thing I am particularly fond of is the use of themes, for
example, art deco, Aztec etc, where several parts of the
instrument are given a complementary treatment.
In guitar making there seems to be a growing trend for abalone
and pearl inlay designs that go off the edge of the fingerboard.
It gives the impression of a strip cut from a larger picture. I
must say that I don't like these designs. I know that the
alternative would be to cut out and inlay smaller versions of the
designs which might not be able to show the same detail but that
would be preferable to me.
Finish
I think that a great number of non-factory made guitars are let
down by their finish. It is not too difficult to achieve a
mirror-like gloss with the minimum of equipment. It just takes
time. I prefer natural finishes but admire a tastefully executed
sunburst finish. It has to be good to justify covering up the
natural beauty of the wood underneath. I only like sunburst
finishes that use dark brown to yellow, possibly with the
inclusion of red. I dislike cherry-red sunbursts and blue in any
form whatsoever. I am also particular about the way a colour is
graduated across the body. Some guitars have only a small
"window" of the lighter shade in the centre of the
body. I would prefer them completely dark. These preferences
probably originate from what I have become used to seeing.
Stradivari's instruments had a stunning varnish. There are
accounts of light seeming to shine from below the surface layers.
Unfortunately, some time after the great luthier's career, makers
switched to the faster drying spirit varnish and lost the old
methods. One theory about how this came about suggests that the
materials became hard to come by. A great deal of scientific
research has gone into trying to find out how this stunning
finish was achieved? Was the wood treated with potassium silicate
(waterglass) or salt or gelatin or egg white? And what was the
recipe for this famous varnish? Sadly, these matters are beyond
the scope of this non-technical, non-violin article. I think the
best account of the so-called "secret varnish" is given
in Ed Heron-Allen's "Violin Making as it was and is"
first published in 1884. Also, there have been several excellent
articles in The Strad over the past 15 years.
Final Opinion
So overall, which guitars do I
think have "got it together"? Well, look at some of the
hand-made arch-top guitars from D'Angelico, D'Aquisto and
Monteleone in "The
Acoustic Guitar". For me they have
it all: beautiful shapes, co-ordinated styling, tasteful
ornamentation. Look at the old National Tricone models. As for
flat-tops, my preference is for early Martin guitars.
Last revised: June 26, 2000.