Not sure if this is more IMHO, but here goes. Basic question, in what instances is handmade better than machine made?
Context: my wife has recently begun a 3-year course of study in violinmaking. They do almost everything by hand - I believe the only exception is that they will rip boards on a tablesaw.
As she has described what she is doing, I have repeatedly wondered what benefit there is in doing tasks by hand which (I suspect) could be more quickly and at least as well done with a power tool.
For example, yesterday she cut out the main front and back of her first violin using a hand bowsaw. She was frustrated, as she had a lot of difficulty using the tool, and will need to remove a lot of wood to clean it up. ISTM that a bandsaw would be the perfect tool for the job. And as long as she was finishing it by hand, why would it make any difference whether the pieces were roughed out via machine?
I see a couple of concerns, One, is there some supposed benefit from the maker being more closely attuned to every step of the process, maybe feeling the grain and density of the wood more intimately than occurs through a power tool? Another thought, tho, is what results in the best finished product? If the best violin results from the most precisely worked and fitted components, then wouldn’t machinery be preferred?
Moreover, even handmade lands somewhere on the continuum. I don’t suppose Stradivarius denied himself use of the most advanced tools of his day. And unless you are the guy on that TV Show the Woodwright’s Shop (love that show!) hand craftsmen are using tools made of materials more advanced than several centuries ago. So if you are going to benefit from a modern metallic compound in your plane blade, why not use a power tool as well?
My wife has tentatively raised such concerns at her school, but they clearly are committed to their approach, and have not indicated a great desire to debate it. So I toss it out to you.
I’ll step back and allow folk to respond, and join back in as I can.