Search result for: the-last-thing-you-aquired-
| # | Post Title | Result Info | Date | User | Forum |
| cont. | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| cont. Cars--Japanese: Michelle Christensen got hired by Acura based on some drawings for an Acura cross over SUV. Basically they told her to finish the drawings and Acura supposedly for the first time ever just built what a newbie drew. Considering that cross over SUVs are basically old SUVs that car makers put some new zoomy, less utilitarian skins on, to try to lengthen the shelf life and profitability of an existing platform, what she has done for this bastardization of the automobile is nothing short of exciting and fresh. This young woman took a bunch of really homely down the road graphics Acura designers have been trying to find a way to integrate and she did in one drawing what all their other designers in house and out of house could not do...and she did it in a cross over SUV. This woman might well redefine auto styling as much as Bangle did in the previous decade. Electronics: Steve Jobs, then Steve Jobs, oh, and then Steve Jobs, who has been smart enough to emmulate Braun's wonder designer, Dieter Rams. One might be tempted to call Jobs and his designers rip-off artists. They did afterall rip of the Apple OS's GUI and mouse from Xerox Parc word processors. But here's the thing: Apples PC's were better than Xerox's word processors in look and in function. And Apple's Macs (post his stupid candy colored transluscent period), iPods, Nanos, iPhones, do everything in digital electronics as well as, or better than anything Dieter ever did in household electronics. Look at this link comparing Dieter's designs with Apple's designs. The link is trying to say that poor Dieter was ripped off. But the fact is that as I look at each product, while I can see that they are hugely emulating Dieter's ten principles of design, they are frankly doing it as well or better than he did. Dieter arrived firstest, but Jobs and Apple product designers arrived with mostest. When you do it better, you don't have to apologize for copying. Ask Picasso, when he ripped off Matisse. Not saying Apple's product designers are the equal of Dieter, who is obviously a great pioneer/trail blazer, just saying they studied him an figured out how to do certain digital products what he does in home products. | |||||
| Reading Jetsetmodern... | 1 Relevance | 22 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| Reading Jetsetmodern... made me somewhat sad. Here is a person that owns a well designed chair that she always wanted to have, finds it comfortable and pleasant and...does not enjoy it because there is a manufacturer out there that against all logic claims to make "the original". Having been in the position of looking for a manufacturer for my own design work I can understand the link Azurechicken is making between Eames and Miller. I have my own reasons to admire what Max de Pree did with the Herman Miller company etc. etc. but in de Pree and Eames' time a manufacturer was a manufacturer not a brand, and Azurechicken has proven before to know modern design history inenough detail to know that without dear Georges Nelson, (that's why I liked that the whole discussion started in a thread about georges Nelson's lamps) Miller would have thrown out Eames and the link he wants to make would not exist anymore. So should we honor G.N. and make it a trio: Eames,Nelson,de Pree? Seriously, the only un-ethical people are the ones that are holding on to rights that they do not have anymore and do this by using the ignorance of the general population in matters of intelectual property. Especially in this case I find it plain stupid to link a particular manufacturer to a particular design. Eames knew more about the technology of laminating wood than H.Miller and as far as "branding" is concerned, Eames did more to make H.Miller known than H. Miller did to make Eames known. The facts are simple: H.Miller has never owned the designs of Charles Eames. For 14 years (starting 1949 in some cases others later) they acquired the rights to produce them. After these years the Eames designs could be legally produced by everybody capable of producing them. Eames did not fall out of the sky nor was he the son of a virgin, he was a talented designer, well educated (mostly at Cranbrook) and as much as he has contributed to the culture of his days, he was also a product of that culture. The ethical thing to do is to recognize that what society invested in Charles Eames, gives society the right to claim back (after a reasonable period of time) the free use of that intellectual property. The rest is creating idols, mystifications, pseudo-religions and other artificial distances between people....I like the Dux chair to, but it would be less sad it it was for the right reasons. | |||||
| Like any of the pseudo design stores... | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | Starter | General discussion | |
| Like any of the pseudo design stores... ...there is some bad stuff at CB2, and some good stuff. Overall, I think CB2/Crate & Barrel's quality is among the best of stores of this type... @luciersum: I'm not really into the whole chunky mod lacquer thing that's hot right now, but for what it's worth, most stuff in that style is going to be sort of cheap- even the super exotic high end stuff... nature of the beast. I was in the PDC the other day perusing a vendor with eye-bleeding prices and a collection built around the thick lacquer over chunky wood look... up close, inspecting it closely, it's just not as nice as furniture from an aesthetic that lends itself more to craftsmanship. Unless you're painting railroad ties, you're using engineered wood with glued surfaces to create that chunky bulk, and delamination and fragility issues kind of come with the territory... Some stuff may be marginally better than other stuff, but at the end of the day fastening glue-and-sawdust pieces together is not a great way to make furniture, from a durability/quality standpoint... although visually some very dramatic forms can be achieved. For the style I dig, which can best be described as vintage industrial mixed with modern classics with a healthy dose of antiqued library leather and reclaimed wood thrown in to warm things up a bit, CB2 has a few finds. The lamp I mentioned in the other thread is beautifully constructed, features an extra long fabric cord, and is every bit as nice as any of the $1k-$3k designer lamps I own. Another deal at CB2 is the "Darjeeling" dining table... simple distressed black steel legs supporting a top constructed of beautiful reclaimed wood from Indian rail road ties... $899. I was preparing to shell out around $3k for a nice reclaimed wood table... This saved me a bunch. Looks fantastic with six white Eames eiffel-base shells around it... Not to say CB2 doesn't have some crap... pretty much their entire office collection is awful. Immature concepts paired with Ikea build quality (lots of flimsy painted metal)... not cool. | |||||
| Interesting post | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | dorieg | General discussion | |
| Interesting post I like others am gradually replacing some or my furnishings with MCM on a very thrifty budget. I haven't been at the thrift thing long so I have little finds to report. However, it seems that when thrifting three factors come into play. 1. Location - is there good stuff to be had in your area? 2. Time - How much hunting and pecking are you willing to do? 3. Cost - How tight is your budget? Number 2 and 3 are directly related in my experience. Places that are more likely to turn up good finds and probably require less hunting and fewer visits usually have higher prices. 1st Dibs for example. In my town those places are estate sales and used furniture stores. I have had great luck with rummage sales, especially Church ones. Maybe people are very generous when donating to churches, I don't know. Riki, being in the Bible belt I you might check these out. I live in an East Central Illinois, flagship state university town. Given that, there is quite the mix of styles to be found. Having the U makes the town a bit more cosmopolitan so interesting MCM finds are there, but you also have the farming-rural-midwest-student element so there is alot of junk or country antiques to be had too. I think you bring up an interesting question about the politics of thrifting. Are you taking away from those who really need to shop at the Goodwill, Sally, etc? While my 2000 Saturn is not as conspicuous as your H2, my family makes a very good living so I have wondered this myself. I like thrift shopping for several different reasons. Mainly: 1. As a way to save money for my family and use the money saved for something else - sometimes that is for our benefit, often it is given in various ways to others in need. 2. I see it as a way to practice the three-R's. I think buying second-hand anything is a fabulous way to semi-opt out of the hyper-consuming, commercial culture in which we live. I also donate alot. Less stuff in landfills, less stuff in my house, less China-made shite in circulation, my house, and landfills! 3. I find it a way to craft a less-homogeneous aesthetic (see #2). Also related to Riki's earlier post about DWR. I'm sure there are alot of holes in this logic, but I don't see anything wrong with thrift shopping. Most of us are not dealers looking to score a big find for profit. | |||||
| ICL what you say is right on... | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| ICL what you say is right on... but it doesn't refute my point. imho, it clarifies it. something is driving cash into mollino and not into eames (at least as much). the phenomenon is increasingly noticeable in our internet connected, ebay indexed world. the net and ebay has a tendency to reveal just how much supply is actually out there. when a product becomes hot, the net acts like a gossip spreading the word and then like a vacuum sucking similar examples of an item out of the store rooms and attics and basements of the world. this means that a mass produced designer like eames can have price spikes for a time and then price declines, because there simply is a ton of his stuff around that gets pulled out into the market place, where the balancing act of supply and demand can work. collectors, being more rational than not (no, really, they are), have begun to realize that especially in a connected world, rarity and excellence are not necessarily the same thing. eames work and the work of many mid century modern american designers is excellent but not very rare. a fellow like mollino is tailor made for the connected world. excellence and rarity. of course not all excellent folks who made one offs are attracting cash. what gives? this is where fashion and fad enter and become amplified by the gossip spreading dimension of art media and increasingly the net. excellent designers of rare goods still have to be promoted to a critical mass of recognition, either by a top down process ( influential patron's promotion, or a pr and ad campaign by producers, etc.), or a bottom up one (grass roots acceptance focusing the attention of the gate keepers on something new). but all of this happens within a context of either loose money, or tight money, lots of financing, or not much. this is why i say the point you make clarifies but does not refute my point. frankly, one could not get these high prices for mollino without his work being excellent AND rare, without art media and the net amplifying either bottom up or top down enthusiasm for his work, and without the massive increases in quantities of money printed, minted, credited and otherwise issued by the central bank's fiat. | |||||
| dare i say "huh?" | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | kdc (USA) | General discussion | |
| dare i say "huh?" i must admit, i feel a bit like tom hanks in his movie "big" as he sat in on his first conference-room meeting full of suits at the close of what was supposedly a profound, cutting-edge presentation. when asked for his response, he simply stated, "i don't get it." that's in line with a piece of wisdom i encountered a while back related to discovery and creativity: "aim to be the dumbest person in the room." i guess that's what's happening to me right now without even trying. i'm more than a little self-conscious to admit that, but it could be that i'm in safe company. i sure hope so. anyway, in my quest for summary and brevity, i attempted to read dcw's post through the timeless lenses of form and function, space and surface. taking the coffee cup example, it's being asked to do basic the same thing as it was back in 1960, and most likely 1860: namely, deliver a consumable amount of warm beverage to the lips of the drinker. that basic objective can take multiple forms, some of which are rightly deemed more successful than others, some more pleasing, some more convenient. it can be functionally developed and refined to include other concerns [heat retention, spill resistance, ergonomic comfort, etc.], but the basic idea remains constant. to imply that a given cup design is inherently flawed because it contains no [functional?] improvement over its predecessors is in itself -- i respectfully submit -- an improper view of design. the intent of such a designer could simply be one of engaging in the process of creativity and human production; the resulting artifact may not, in fact, deliver a more delicious nectar, but to the extent that it fulfilled the purpose of the designer, it has value. i think i understand the point about what i would call design stagnation: are we really getting farther down the road, or are we just making the same road up to the same point look a little nicer? more than anything right now, i suppose i'm again trying to ascertain exactly what is being sought in the original post. i do assume there is much there to be explored and mined, but i don't quite get it. though i'm fairly comfortable with the conceptual and abstract, perhaps i'm not too adept at dealing with propositions that appear more amorphous. anyway, hopefully some gracious and patient replies may help to bring about the clarity i seek. thanks in advance... | |||||
| It is not as amazing... | 1 Relevance | 22 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| It is not as amazing... and certainly not amuzing...but P.S. seems to be a specialist in something that recently has gained alarming proportions in politics: "Make sure you do not say what you do and do not do what you say". But to stay with P.S....remember his slogans about green design?...and producing a T.V.set with a presswood backing...or his discourse on not designing product anymore and increasing his output by 800% (a wild guess). Yes, it is amazing that he gets away with it. Back to the original question. Although I agree with the comments on quality and crafmanship etc. as a pre-condition for survival, I thing that the original question is looking for another answer. There are many products that are of outstanding quality, functional and well made, that never reached a place in design or architectural history. I think that the original question of this thread is aimed at those other factors. Personally I think that "style" is a pre-condition because it's what makes it history. Recorded history is not about time passing but about events that are significant of change. A Thonet chair designed in 2004 can be as elegant as one designed hundred years ago, but it is irrelevant for our times. It is the sad stories of all the "me-to" products or buildings...they never reach the status of the original. And yet, originality itself is not enough either. Magazines, stores,websites, you name it, they are overloaded with attempts to be original...some even abuse the D.A. forum to begg for attention....and yet, few will be chosen. What helps is to be in the initial stages of a wider mouvement. A number of the "Memphis" products are far less intersting than some of the "followers", but they made their mark by being part of the early stages of the mouvement. A last but not least factor is to be aesthetically sound. No matter what style, no matter what period, ugly does not work, in fact it is beauty that makes new ideas convincing, not the theories behind it. It is beyond the scope of a forum like this one, and I am sorry not to have the space to be more explicit about it, but one of the reasons why "environmental sound design" (call it green if you want) keeps falling flat on it's face, is that we have failed in giving it a convincing "form" language. So in spite of the importance of it's ideological, theoritical and practical importance it is still not really on the map. I think that it is in part because it still "borrows" its aesthetical language from others. | |||||
| pt 2 | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| pt 2 Game theorists think that by hugely increasing the probability of a transaction through the sellers commitment in an auction format, that competition is incited and the bidding game is biased toward higher price. Game theorists are not dummies of course and the smart ones understand certain circumstances may favor auctions and others may favor the real estate agent format. For instance, if you can get a lot of hot-to-buy buyers to show up at an auction house on a given day to bid competitively for something, then an auction is the way to optimize price. But if you cannot get a lot of hot-to-buy buyers to show up at an auction house on a given day; that is, if there are few persons who are likely to really want this thing being sold, and if those few persons take a long time to locate, and tend not to like the auction experience, then you'd be a damned fool to auction something. You should, instead, retain an agent with expertise in finding the kind of buyer you want and plan on taking all the time necessary to seek out that special buyer who really, really wants this property and can afford it; then let this experienced agent work through the compromises necessary to reach agreement to transact. And just like Bob Dylan once sang, "You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows," you also don't really need a game theorist to tell you when to auction and when to use an agent, if you can think a little on your own. The auction approach and the agent approach have existed for as long as there have been things to buy and sell and money (or other forms of consideration) to buy and sell with. Game theorists just got some grants to rationalize and systematize the strategic bargaining process, especially for government agencies, who often finding themselves being asked (coerced) to transact property rights to, say, bandwidth, that have never been sold off recently, and which seem to be worth quite a lot, and which require a bit of fiduciary CYA to protect everyone's salaries and pensions, should lawyers begin suing over things being sold for inappropriate prices. In short, art often goes by auction, because there are lots of well-heeled collectors willing to show up one day at the same time to transact not just one painting, but dozens or hundreds. Real estate often transfers through agency, because there are fewer buyers, they can be harder to locate, and real estate transactions just are much more complicated in terms of legal and financial documentation than would be, say, a painting. | |||||
| my family has been in... | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | LRF | General discussion | |
| my family has been in... my family has been in the oil and gas business since 1945. we have seen the good times and bad times , My brother and i took the family oil business over in 1975 and saw a change in the price of oil every 5 years up for 2 years down for 3 to 5 hell of way to run your forecast budget. when the price is cheap , we get that great big SUV s and fill er up. when the price gets to high we say Hybrid the car of the future, Chrysler developed the hybrid technology in 1973 the company felt it was not in there best interest and they sold that technology to a small Japanese company called Toyota, and the rest is history, We the people dictate what we want, we tell them what we want, we tell congress what we want, we tell everyone in the world what we want we are Americans!!!, True we are called the home of the brave and land of the free, but we are the biggest cry babies when we can not get our own way, The will of the people has been denied a long time for us. Our country for the last 40 years should have developed clean energy to run our cars, and keep our environment clean, but NO!!! price cheap, not broke do not fix!! one thing i know is Oil will always be around, so i will not be on the bread line , we also produce natural gas, a clean energy but this country has a surplus and the US could care less about running our cars on this clean burning fuel,. We are as big here in America with Natural Gas, as Saudi Arabia is with oil and it is $4.56 a mcf dirt cheap~ These problems contributed to the downfall a little bit this go around, not much thank goodness and yes we do need some good public relations people running our industry, When I was invited to lunch in the 90s at the Clinton white House. I had lunch with Bill and Hillary and Al Gore, Al sat at my table we talked back then how are industry was hurting cause of cheap forign oil and how it was flooding the market, and we should develop a oil and gas policy , i will never forget Al Gore looking me in the eye over a bread roll, in 1993 saying you have no friends up here in the oil and gas business, cause all of the east runs on fuel oil, and we want it cheap. What this has to do with design is everything, what it has to do with the way we live everything, we want to be green, we want a nice environment, these are cool words for people to say and cool things for movie stars to get on the band wagon as a cause celebrity, but it cost money, and we are starting 30 years to late. and it is our fault. | |||||
| Graves Dish Drainer Tray a winner... | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| I know Michael Graves takes some grief here, and occassionally deservedly so, but he has now designed a second thing that I would not live with out. Note: the first is my artillery shell shaped pepper mill with the peanut on top. The lastest is the dish drainer tray he makes to do with a dish drainer rack. The rack is just so-so. But the drainer tray is wonderful, because it is sufficiently elevated, and sufficiently inclined, to allow the water to actually drain to the corner nearest the sink AND GET THIS exit out a hole with an articulated spout that channels the water into the sink where its been supposed to go all these years but which it hasn't because of sinks with rim levels above the height of the counter!!!!!! Michael Graves, you post modern sonnuvagun, you improved my life the way a designer is supposed to do. And I don't care if its been done before, yours is the one that was out on the Target shelf when I finally went looking for one after years of frustration with similar solutions that didn't work!!! And the trey is pleasing to look at, it feels good to the touch when cleaning (which is important because I hate cleaning things that don't feel good), and it is so far easy to clean. At first I did not like how BIG it was. It seemed to take over my counter top. But now I am grateful for the occupation. It is that rarest of rare things, the good occupier. It is helping me keep my kitchen in order, at least, until, some designers wake up and start building integral draining wracks into these state of the art kitchen sinks today. Next time you're talking to someone who is smug about human accomplishments and the notion that we are god's only chosen creatures, mention to that person that, whether chosen or not, it has taken about 10,000 years of washing dishes to come up with a workable dish drainer tray with a spout that actually delivers the drained water into the freaking sink!!!! Michael, I owe you one, buddy! Post Script: Pssst! Michael Graves is a closet modernist. He could easily have put a peanut on this dish draining trey and he refused. It iis wonderfully simple and elegant, MUCH more so than the baroque dish draining rack, which I am only continuing to test out because I owe him for the draining tray. | |||||
| Know the technology, know the materials, be a critic. | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | fastfwd | General discussion | |
| Know the technology, know the materials, be a critic. I agree with Tktoo: If you have the technical skills but lack the artist's eye, you will never be a great designer. However, it is necessary to have technical skills. The best designers know what is impossible with current technology, what is possible at high cost or with low yield, what is safe and easy, etc. Learn how your objects are manufactured. Talk to machinists, watch a CNC mill, visit a factory assembly line, feed an injection-molding machine, etc. The technology is always changing. It is important to be aware of the latest developments -- the best methods, the newest processes, the most advanced tools, etc. -- even if you can't use them yet. It is also necessary to have an intimate knowledge of your materials. Have you noticed the way that accomplished woodworkers talk about wood? On this forum, SDR, SPD, Heath, and Tktoo are good examples (and there are others, of course). They have a deep understanding -- deeper than "knowledge", more like "feeling" -- of the density and strength of various species, the way wood shrinks and stretches, the way it takes stain and other surface treatments, the extent to which it can be worked, the strength of glues, the effect of moisture, etc. You should understand ABS, polycarbonate, aluminum or steel alloys -- or whatever materials you use -- in the same way. You should know how those materials feel, how much they weigh, how sharply they can be bent, how they cut, their thermal properties, how they flow in a mold, the surface finishes available, elasticity, strengths, weaknesses, how they're produced, how they wear, how they age, the cost, etc., etc., etc. Learn about fasteners and adhesives, too. You can learn a lot of this from books, but you won't instinctively KNOW it without experience... So get as much experience as you can: Make things with your hands, as Tktoo advised, but also just HOLD things in your hands, and LOOK at them. Think about WHY they are designed as they are, and WHY they use the materials that they do. Also, be a critic. Analyze every manufactured object you see; try to find at least one thing wrong with everything, and think about how to fix it with a better design. Talk with other designers or design students. Try to meet mechanical-engineering students, and talk with them, too. Search the web for "human factors", "ergonomics", and "usability". Read Donald Norman's books, starting with "The Design of Everyday Things". Read www.asktog.com. | |||||
| cont... | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| cont... But even more basic than the above is this: sell to the masses eat with the classes. sell to the classes, eat with the masses. Hypercar/Fiberforge is creating enormously expensive technology in production processes that require enormous capital sinking to produce for the vast markets they serve. And there are only a few buyers in the oligopoly; that's rather limited and collusive demand. And even if Hypercar/Fiberforge open source the technology, it does not drastically increase the number of firms sufficiently capitalized to deploy the hypercar technology. Put another way, it is less risky to collude and not deploy Hypercar/Fiberforge's new technology, than it would be embrace the new technolgoy. So Hypercar/Fiberforge, relatively speaking, eats with the masses, because it sells to the classes of auto production. And it will continue doing so unless and until it can develop some technology that it can sell straight to the masses, or some technology that does not threaten the sunk costs of the auto producer oligopolies. The best thing any designer could do would be to design a widget that vaporizes enormous sunk costs and so enables firms to embrace new technologies. But wait, this widget has already been designed. The widget is called war. Killing off competitors with your military force greatly reduces the risk of writing off sunk costs and starting anew. War also eliminates those players that you owe too much money, or that owe you too much money to ever be repaid. War allows debt write-off greatly reduced risk...especially once the war has been won. Most war is about debt restructuring and trade imbalances and perpetuation of technological advantage. Political ideology is simply the tool used to energize a political base required to pursue war that is necessary for debt restructuring. Induced depressions and induced stagflations that wipe out vast amounts of wealth, and trigger vast debt write-offs, are another way to clear the decks of inhibiting sunk costs. Frankly, building an Aeron chair is like building hoola hoops in comparison to building cars. | |||||
| Delightfully and briliantly said, DCW! | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | Olive | General discussion | |
| Delightfully and briliantly said, DCW! I shall take 'objectology' as my new phrase to explain the concept of organizing. So many folks think that organizing means 'martha-stewart-ization' which it emphatically does not. I heartily agree that there is such a thing as functional clutter, but sadly, many homes are disfunctionally cluttered. Beyond my aesthetic sensibilities, I am particularly offended by McMansions which have some of the worst ergonomic spaces I have ever seen. Fabulously enormous bath tubs and nowhere to store the towels. As a genre, McMansions or 'Garage-Mahals' are an abysmal failure in containing people's lives. (thanks for the container metaphor, koen) But beyond the faux castles, many homes and many homeowners simply do not have systems for living. And what you say about object-oriented programming really hits the nail on the head when it comes to what I do for my clients. I insert logic-based methodologies, object/furniture placement and spatial use 'programs' into people's lives. I 'improve livability' as you put it. In fact my business is named "Livable Design" to convey exactly this concept. Sadly, the biggest lack in all this is common-sense. If designers had to use the spaces they designed they would quickly discover the failings. The lack of human-habit considerations that are constantly overlooked. Storage and a place to rest common use objects is the biggest failure in most homes and a lack of creativity in creating solutions is the biggest failing in most homeowners. I admit to being a freak. I am mega spatially-oriented. I critically look at every space and try to discover why it works well when it does and why not when it doesn't. I measure distance around objects that feel good to move around, I watch my clients move around in their space and note where they drop things ans where clutter builds up. I made one woman estatically happy when I placed a big hamper basket where her 13-year old always dropped his book-bag and coat. Now the kid puts all his crap in there. I often wonder why the mom never thought of doing this, to me it was just common-sense! | |||||
| Ahhh..... | 1 Relevance | 13 years ago | onegroovydude | General discussion | |
| Ahhh..... What a beautiful cloudy day out in the DA jungle.... EH... The chairs may be well designed, but they didn't age gracefully. That's the problem. If you call that graceful, then you need to actually look at the picture... She didn't pass on these, and since she has them in her possession, she needs to to the right thing, and sell them. I mean, protect them... Rosewood is somewhat right, but is completely wrong in telling you vintage metal is weaker than newer metal. He's 180 degrees wrong. Vintage metal is by far stronger than newer metal. The older the metal, the more pure the chemical compound, with less filler elements in it. Metal of the same gauge from 1920 will be far stronger than metal of the same gauge from 2013. It's more pure, and in turn has more tinsel strength. Everyone knows that. I restore items for a living. It's part of my daily routine. I work with what you're dealing with all the time, and know it inside, and out. If you really want to preserve them in their original state, then go to a Hardware store, and get a bottle of Noxon. It's like Brasso, but 10x as potent. Very heavy on Ammonia. Rust hates ammonia. Throw some on a rag, rub as much rust off as possible. The rust will start building on the rag in no time. You can also use the noxon with brass brushes at this time, over steel. Steel scratches the paint, and invites more rust. If you're gonna repaint then there's no harm in steel wire brushing the worst parts first, as they'll soon be covered. The wire brush will be good for welds, but not as good for the wire frame. The brass bristles will give, and push right through the thin wires without a backer, and they're very difficult to run in a 360 around all the metal. A rag with noxon will work better in those areas, and much faster. I can't tell, but the legs could be good. The seats unbolt, or unthread from the base. If the bolts don't want to loosen easily, use PB Blaster to free them. If the legs are good, clean the grime off first, then use a bottle of KIT Scratch Remover and Polisher, along with some spa towels to remove staining, and bring the original look back, without removing the paint. This would also work well on the seat after the noxon to bring original luster back, if you decide not to repaint, or just to touch up. | |||||
| norm and barry | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | I Clock | General discussion | |
| norm and barry the new Vitra book on George Nelson, which lists 130-some clocks, gives Harper credit on about 42 designs from 1949 to 1961; it gives Lucia DeRespinis credit on designing 3 clocks in 1957: the Eyeclock, the Spool Clock, and one other, model #2237 (some call it the Snowflake). It gives credit for the Turbine (or Knifeblade) to Harper. I don't really agree with them on this. Some of the other designers credited for clock designs are: Charles Pollack, Don Ervin, Ron Jacobs(1962) and William Cannan (1965) who designed the Zootimers clocks. Most of the clocks in the Vitra book are not credited to anyone. I agree that it is good to know who really designed which clocks, and in the last several years more and more designers are getting the recognition they deserve. But sometimes, Barry, you talk like Nelson was purposely suppressing this information, and you can't accept that it was a common practice to give all designs the firm's name instead of the individual designer's name. Nelson did credit to Harper in interviews: "We were all involved in cooking up these clocks, and Irving (Harper), in the end , was the one who made them complicated, beautiful, and so on." (George Nelson: The Design of Modern Design 1995) or, "Harper, responsible for the clocks' final development, kept it as close to its abstract beginnings as possible." (Design 1935-1965 What Modern Was 1991) The same book also credited Harper for the development of the Marshmallow Sofa. So you see, Irving Harper has been getting some credit for some time now. Harper says that he " designed all of the Howard Miller clocks, in addition to several other lines....until the late 1950s when a small number of clocks were designed by others." (Design 1935-1965 What Modern Was). I hope Irving Harper does not feel cheated by George Nelson in any way. I think they had a wonderful working relationship and I don't recall ever reading anything by Harper saying otherwise. One thing you really have to give Nelson credit for is that he convinced Howard Miller to hire all the great talent they had: Ray and Charles Eames, Noguchi, Laszlo, Harper, Girard, and others. By all means, give Irving Harper, and others, all the credit they deserve, but please quit throwing your shoes at George Nelson. | |||||
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com