Search result for: the-last-thing-you-aquired-
| # | Post Title | Result Info | Date | User | Forum |
| For Olive: Part 3 | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| For Olive: Part 3 I drove a 1980 300 TD wagon from 150k miles when I bought it to 300k miles when I sold it with nothing on the dashboard working at all except heater, airconditioner and headlight (the trip meter was my gas gauge). And despite being a diesel it was easily the most pleasurable, engaging, dignified, versatile, beast of burden (dressed down in Europe they were used by tradesman as pickup trucks) I've ever driven. To perhaps belabor my point, the only problem affecting driveability that I ever had with that car was that it occassionally wouldn't turn off. I'm not joking. Diesels can have that problem. The car was not so much designed to a superior standard as it was designed to a different standard. It was designed to keep going nearly forever, if you maintained it, and to give you a tremendous sensation of quality and durability and value for money. A new Mercedes is designed to be the most refined disposable car in the world. In short, its designed much more like a Lincoln, only it is aimed at a target market with more money. It is probably not even as durable or reliable as a Honda Accord. While it is true, I want a new Mercedes, because its goes like stink and is luxurious and handsome. I actually prefer an old Mercedes (which is a good thing, because that's what I can afford these days), just as I prefer the old Griswold cast iron skillets. In the most deeply gratifying aspects of owning a car and a skillet (excellence of function, durability, tactile qualities, looks, and value for money), the old is, to my tastes and reason, just flat better than the new in these two cases. But of course tastes and reason have changed dramatically over the last 50-75 years since these desirable old Mercedes and Griswolds were made for people who would pay for their virtues, if they had the money. Today, the government/industrial/security complex's agenda for the kind of people they wish to govern, produce for, and coerce have changed. Alot of evidence suggests that as government and business and security organizations have grown exponentially in size and power the last 50 years, they have made a conscious effort to socially engineer a less well educated, more easily propagandized, more easily satisfied and more easily marketed to population. In turn, they have tailored the educational indoctrination process and the propaganda saturation of the population by mass media to yield an individual that is almost utterly lacking in geographic awareness, highly receptive to suggestion, and completely lacking in any formal logic training that might assist that individual in making choices that served their own self interest over the interest of the organizations that have ordered their lives from early childhood to old age. | |||||
| To have Tuttle's stuff in your house... | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| To have Tuttle's stuff in your house... I agree that some of his stuff is designy and some of it (i.e., some chairs and chaise) may not pass the Laz-y boy comfort test, but there is no law that says that all furniture in a room has to be first and foremost comfortable. In fact, I like having a mix of fabulously comfortable things that I sit in and fabulously interesting things that I reflect on from my comfortable perch. I don't want to be limited to having interesting paintings on the wall and interesting sculpture on a table or mantle. I want some visually sophisticated, delighting furniture forms punctuating the space of a room, too. For this reason, and because Paul Tuttle truly did take the modernist idiom in striking, beautiful and challenging new directions, I think he's one the next generation or two of designers will be able to go back and mine richly for new forms. Tuttle was rather amazing in his ability to avoid the cliches of modernism. Take his ARCO and Super Z chairs for examples: http://www.uam.ucsb.edu/Pages/tuttle_arco.htmlhttp://www.uam.ucsb.edu/Pages/tuttle_superZchair.html FWIW, I've heard the Super Z chair is quite comfortable. Can't speak to the ARCO and neither seems the least bit over-designy to me. Tuttle was, imho, perhaps the definitive early (perhaps even proto) post-modernist in that he consciously referred to and explored the relationship between the form of the furniture and the form of other objects (e.g., the chaise dragster) with a purity of contradiction that Venturi could articulate, but rarely achieve. And I find his Easel a brilliant formal simplification. http://www.uam.ucsb.edu/Pages/tuttle_easel.html His Super V chair would be ghastly to look at in a room, despite a certain formal brilliance but then what exceptional, envelope-pushing designer hasn't occassionally pursued formal process to a point that he/she conceives some thing new, uncliched, and formally rigorous that is also just plain hideous and can't resist the temptation to produce it and see if someone else likes it? http://www.uam.ucsb.edu/Pages/tuttle_superV.html So: Mr. Tuttle ain't perfect and to the extent that you dislike the philosophy and aesthetics of the post-modernism he evolved toward, you are probably justified in disliking Tuttle's later stuff. But if you are, like me, fond and respectful of artists who skillfully and authentically worked in both modernism AND post-modernist idioms (e.g., Phillip Johnson), then I would say you might consider re-engaging Paul Tuttle's work. Like a lot of acutely bright persons, what he did has an acuity and complexity that yield an intially off-putting, seemingly idiosyncratic originality that over time is revealed to be simply the work of an exceptionally gifted artist. | |||||
| Questions about PP Møbler and Wegner's Round Chair | 1 Relevance | 11 years ago | NULL NULL | General discussion | |
| After reading the recent Dezeen article about the seizure and destruction of some China-made Wegner reproductions in Norway, I've come away with a bunch of questions. Here's the article in question: http://www.dezeen.com/2015/10/08/hans-j-wegner-fake-round-chair-shipment-destroyed-norwegian-authorities/ The first thing I wondered was how much PP's authorized Round Chair goes for. The apparent answer shocked me. I haven't seen prices listed on US sites, but the following UK firm lists the pp501 for £3,815 and the pp503 for £3,010 (or roughly $4,600-5,900 in USD using an fx rate of $1.54/gbp). http://twentytwentyone.com/products/furniture/side-armchairs#order=0&type=0&designer=122&manufacturer=0 Those prices are astonishing on an absolute basis, but what really struck me is the price difference between these PP chairs and other authorized makers of Wegner designs. The same website linked above offers the Carl Hansen-made Elbow chair for £482. On US-sites you can buy the same chair on sale right now for $590 (regular price $695). I've seen the PP video on the making of the Round Chair and it is impressive. The older version on YouTube made the entire process appear manual. There's a newer version on PP's website that splices some of that older (?) footage with footage of CNC machines and auto lathes playing a role. Either way, the process is intensive and the wood is very special. But I have a hard time understanding how PP's chair is 6-8x as "special" as the Carl Hansen chairs. Clearly the Round Chair is more complex and uses more material than the Elbow chair. But again...6x as much? Presumably Carl Hansen is making a high-quality product. Same with J.L. Møllers, whose Model 71 chair goes for more than the Elbow, but only costs 1/5th of PP's Round Chair. So, my questions... 1. What is PP doing that Carl Hansen and J.L. Møllers are not? 2. Is PP's profitability per chair in-line with the lower-priced chairs, or are they earning a much higher margin? 3. Was the Round Chair always priced at such a big premium to these other chairs? Even when it was made by Johannes Hansen? 4. I've read that PP took over production of the Round Chair in 1990 and that Wegner was close with the firm for quite a while before his death. Was this price discrepancy in place during Wegner's time? Would he have been okay with the current pricing? To me, the best argument for unauthorized reproductions is that exclusivity leads to high prices, which makes good design unreachable for all but the most wealthy. That kinda falls flat for me when we're talking about a $250 knock-off of questionable quality versus a $800-1000 authorized version made to consistently high standards. But when a single chair costs $4,600, I start to think that maybe priorities are off balance. | |||||
| Faked "Rare Pink" George Nelson Howard Miller Meridian Wall Clock Bitossi Italy | 1 Relevance | 13 years ago | keewee | General discussion | |
| This is a hard thing to admit, but I'm telling this story as a reminder to us all of the fraud that exists in internet buying and selling. I'm also telling this story because I don't want someone else to get ripped off. This "rare pink" Howard Miller clock was being sold on Etsy as being in "excellent vintage condition". I own several of these clocks, so I immediately knew when this fraud arrived that the seller had taken the common red/orange pizza face version of the clock and painted it. Worse, it was one of the most disgusting hack jobs you can imagine. On the light bits, she painted it with several coats of french manicure nail polish. On the dark bits, she painted it with several shades of raspberry nail polish. The original red/orange glaze still shows through in several areas. Many bits of red/orange glaze that existed on the black relief sections she sanded off down/scraped off to the original light brown ceramic. As she got closer to the center of the clock, it became harder for her to paint and the hack job with several layers and colors of polish can be seen pretty clearly. Nail polish brush marks can be seen all over, particularly in the opalescent french manicure top coat she applied over the white. Seller was also kind enough to leave behind her finger print marks and smudges in the top coat of nail polish. The penultimate give away is that on the dime sized lifter between the metal hands and the ceramic clock face, you can see two shades of paint. As everyone on DA knows, the clock faces were made in Italy and imported to Zeeland Michigan where the metal hands were attached. The wet glazes and metal hands were never in the same factory together, so it's impossible for wet paint to have gotten on to the clock hands! First time I've been ripped off on-line. Learn from my mistake! Fraudsters are careful in their photos. Three photos and close ups can be seen here, more on Pintrest page. Anyone that wants more photos of this abomination, please let me know. Maybe you want to include it in your blog or article about fakes! http://www.pinterest.com/pin/431571576765127911/ | |||||
| Ergo Cliff May... | 1 Relevance | 17 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| "Cliff May and the Modern Ranch House" by Daniel P. Gregory, with photographs by Joe Fletcher and a foreword by Joel Silver. (Rizzoli; 256 pages; $60). It is a book designers need to look at, because May had a simple, but coherent philosophy. The 19th century California ranch house builders, he said, had the right idea. One story. No steps. Slab floors. Flowing, open interior spaces. The patio is part of the house space, not a slab of concrete outside, and not a separate backyard. No basements. Concrete slabs. His interiors and patios looked great with Eames furniture. He was out to create "space," but also space that transitioned seamlessly between inside and outside. Frankly, he was doing on a large scale what a lot of modernists were theorizing and talking about. May built 18000 tract homes and 1000 custom homes including one near me this weekend in Rancho Alisal, Solvang, CA. I am writing this from the guest house of a Cliff May clone down the street from the real thing. The guy had chops. Even his clones are pleasant. In the book noted above, there is also a fascinating May pictured that he build in Switzerland for Bill Lear. There is also a great vignette in the book about FLW visiting Stanford to give a lecture in the early 50s, then being driven to Sunset magazine headquarters to self-promote and see Sunset's new building by a then little known home builder and self taught architect named Cliff May. FLW was initially taken to the wrong address, looked out at the building at the wrong address and said, "I will not go inside a building that poorly designed!" Once the driver got FLW to the right address, a long, one-story ground hugger greeted and cheered FLW. When he went inside he was smitten with the entry way, the lobby and praised a large room that opened entirely onto a patio. But FLW was not without criticism. He hated the stucco walls. Apparently, FLW hated all stucco by that time. FLW was glad someone was trying to expand on what he had tried and a wee bit jealous and rightly so. http://www.cliffmayregistry.com/ | |||||
| What's so great about wood? | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | fastfwd | General discussion | |
| What's so great about wood? Wood has adequate strength-to-weight, adequate toughness, adequate stiffness, adequate dimensional stability, and adequate durability. It's also incredibly abundant, harvestable by anyone with an ax, easy to work with hand tools, easy to fasten with adhesives or dowels or screws/nails/bolts, easy to stain or paint, easy to repair, and when you're done with it you can burn it to heat your house. It's easy to see why we used to build everything out of it. But look at what's been happening ever since alternatives to wood became available. Ships, automobiles, aircraft... bridges, water tanks, stadium seating... skis, surfboards, fishing rods... swivel chairs, radio and television cabinets... toys, violin bows, golf clubs... They all used to be made from wood, and now they're all made from something else. And we NEVER go in the other direction; I can't think of a single thing that was originally made from some other material and is now made from wood instead. So... As cheap and plentiful -- and adequate -- as it is, wood is clearly not the best material [for an apparently nearly-universal definition of "best"] for very much. Except maybe the framework of small structures like houses, but even there it's probably going to be replaced in the not-so-distant future. Oh, and musical instruments. Like Pegboard, I expect designers to make honest and logical -- and I'd add "efficient", too -- choices of materials, but the evidence all around us shows that hardly anyone thinks wood is the logical choice for ANYTHING. Its mechanical properties are inferior to those of metal alloys or the various plastics and composites, so almost anything built from it has to be visually and physically heavier, and that's rarely attractive. Imagine an Eames LTR with a wooden base -- Ugly, right? With very few exceptions, the only areas where wood isn't being replaced are those where it's being used: a) as a reminder of the past -- polished wooden inlays on the dashboards of luxury cars, "classic" boats, etc. b) as easily-recognized evidence of the work that went into making an object -- handmade cabinetry, ornate carving, etc. c) strictly because of its aesthetic value. None of those reasons work for me, because: a) If I want reminders of the past, I can get them from things that are actually old; I think faux retro-styled objects are lazy and slightly dishonest designs. b) I can certainly appreciate the effort involved in creating a finely-crafted wooden object, but it's just as easy to see skill and dedication to craft by looking at cast aluminum, formed steel, or cut stone. c) I just don't find wood all that attractive, and the more "woody" it is -- coarse grain, dark color, thick straight planks -- the less I like it. That's just my personal preference. Damn, I wanted to explain why my feelings are (a little) different about Unto This Last's use of wood, but I'm too tired to write more tonight. Maybe tomorrow. | |||||
| Thank you Smogguy !!! | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | eamescollector | General discussion | |
| Thank you Smogguy !!! Thank you Smogguy......for contacting me in regards to my latest acquisition/my winning of for what I "thought" to be an original Eames Red Dyed LCW with 'postage stamp' label, recently listed and sold by Modernesia. I've written to Modernesia questioning his integrity and my concern about the chair potentially being fake, or at least the label is fake and a reproduction made to look aged. I've sent him the this link to let him know that people are catching on to his fraud and criminal acts thru Ebay. Unfortunately, I gave too quick of a feedback before being contacted by Smogguy. Check on his Ebay feedback now and you'll see that someone buyer "eamesmeanseverything" gave him his first negative feedback. I would be the second one if I could change the feedback. I've link a photo to the label for all to see how fake it looks. Here's his email reply for everyone to read. I'm not going to expose his real name therefore i've deleted all the real names on the email between him and I. Read on folks!! . . . Hello (name deleted), and thank you for your courteous and informative email, I am aware of what is going on in the Design Addict forum and can tell you that not one of those bloggers has ever bought or even bid on any of my auctions? The accusations and claims they are making are simply outrageous but unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it being that it is an anonymous forum. Honestly I just think it is a bad case of Eames envy, I have numerous International "Modern" dealers that have bought chairs from me repeatedly and none have ever raised a complaint or issue. The notion that I am remanufacturing chairs better than Herman Miller can is frankly absurd. The only thing I do to my items is clean/condition them the best I can and replace any incorrect hardware to bring them as close to their original glory as possible without altering the original integrity of the item...much like a car would be professionally detailed. Your chair is a perfect example of that minor "detailing" with the exception of the backmount repair as was noted, Due to the original dying process used on Red Aniline chairs (known as "pickling", but that is a whole other discussion) there isn't much you can do to restore or refinish them without an obvious impact to the original translucent nature of the color. You can rest assured your chair is as authentic and accurate to its description as possible. Honestly I waste very little energy on anonymous bloggers and haters who don't even have the courage to identify themselves and derive some sick pleasure in maliciously harassing other buyers and sellers. There are far more well meaning and intelligent buyers like yourself that I prefer to spend my time on and trust they will draw their own conclusions from their items and my sales history. Sorry for the long winded answer but being such a good customer I feel I am obliged to do it. Thanks again for your interest and integrity, (name deleted) | |||||
| The Palazzetti catalogue. | 1 Relevance | 14 years ago | NULL NULL | General discussion | |
| The Palazzetti catalogue. Neither Sergio Palazzetti nor his company had anything to do with the creation of the catalogue you are talking about. This book was the catalogue of an Italian company called Alivar Srl.which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Matrix Srl. The original title was: Alivar: The Classics of Modern Furniture and went through a number of editions as the collection grew.The book was also published in Japanese and reproduced in other languages without permission. The first edition was produced in 1984 and was composed of individual pages in a ring binder. The layout was not inspired by the beautiful but highly elaborate graphics of the 1981 book about Knoll. However,the austere black and white "low key" photographic presentation of the models in profile was indeed inspired by the Gavina Catalogue prepared by Massimo Vignelli. Since Palazzetti by contract was the exclusive New York distributor of the Alivar collection and had agreed not to represent or sell any other companies, Alivar printed editions of the catalogue with his name. Alivar also supplied Palazzetti with the poster of the Alivar collection with his name which was updated every year. The Alivar poster was very popular among architects throughout Europe and thousands of them were distributed every year. However, Palzzetti never entered in any way into any decisions regarding the choice of models.This was done by the two owners of Alivar-Matrix and the catalogue was written by one of the owners. Unfortunately for him and everyone else,the only thing that Sergio Palazzetti knows about design is limited to what he read in the catalogue. In 1990, the two owners of Matrix decided to go into retirement and sold Alivar to a financial group. The new management was not only unable to run the company but also unable to control Sergio Palazzetti. No longer controlled by strong hands and clear thinking minds, Palazzetti's business behavior deteriorated. He began to buy from other suppliers without paying;take deposits from clients without delivering. He began buying cheaper quality merchandise and fell behind in his payments to Alivar. In the end, Alivar was forced to take legal action against him to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars that were owed. All of this nasty business finished in the New York. Alivar was then finally sold to another company that runs it successfully and Matrix was turned over to employees who continue to run it as Matrix International.(www.matrixinternational.it) The author of the catalogue wrote a critical history of the furniture of Le Corbusier which was published in 2010 by the Centre Le Corbusier, Heidi Weber Museum of Zürich.(www.centrelecorbusier.com) The book is entitled Machines For Living. If you are interested in reading the book, send a request to the author at machines4living@gmail.com. He will sen you a pdf without charge | |||||
| It's not all in the years Jakey | 1 Relevance | 22 years ago | bluezipper | General discussion | |
| It's not all in the years Jakey IKEA, well what can I say. It was founded in 1943, some twenty years before Terence started gagging about "good design for the masses". The founder, Ingvar Kamprad (the I & K in IKEA) an avid spokesman and member of the Swedish branch of the Nazi party up and until the mid 1950's, something which recently forced him to make a fat donation of $ 40.000.000.00 to Jewish holocaust survival foundations, before he could start prospecting for a new megastore in Tel Aviv. Some say that Ingvar is still hot on the "racial hygiene ideology" although he probably wouldn't admit to it nowadays. In the beginning IKEA actually hired good designers, such as Vico Magistretti and Joe Columbo as well as Verner Panton but the oil-crisis in the early 70's kind of killed the ideology off. After that, there are three products that make the foundation of IKEA, Billy the bookcase, Klippan the couch and Lack the table - the rest is just fluff. IKEA was/is never about good design for the masses, I should add, it's about useless filler made in sweatshops in Romania, India and Malaysia among others. The money goes into a Dutch foundation, whose only purpose is to open new IKEA stores. The company has been turned into a foundation, which will live on for ever. The three sons of Ingvar have been left pennyless, but recently were allowed to venture into the subfinancing of IKEA purchases by opening the IKANO bank, where you can get a 29% creditline to buy merchandize that will have been gone by the time the bills are paid in full. Stingy parents breed greedy offspring. Nothing escapes IKEA in the colonisation of people's interiors. It's kind of like pop-music - where any attempts of radical and rebellious commentary is immediately usurped by the inherent dumbing down process. Same goes for IKEA. Just look as the PS collection. IKEA is an evil thing - just take this to heart...- every 20th or 30th customer will receive an item from IKEA, which has a deliberatly excluded bolt, screw or something insignificant like that, the customer then has to go back to the store - which is the entire point - to replenish the missing part. Every customer that passes through the doors of IKEA will spend on average $ 35.00. That's what IKEA knows and that's why they pull scams like this. And Jakey for your information, IKEA bought Habitat in 1990, ousted Terence and turned an already bad situation for good design in the UK to worse. Also, the expression - "Great design at affordable prices", was coined by Ellen Key in 1917, to promote better household goods in Scandinavia at the time, way before IKEA decided to ruin the reputation of good design and way before Terence was even born. IKEA is bad, bad, bad, only buy things from them if you couldn't care less and have if you have no socio-economical consciousness at all. | |||||
| I guess... | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| I guess... that "There is some value in being dead" will stay with me for some time...I have to answer Martin before adding some new considerations. Yes, I am most interested in what young designers do or have to say, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I decided to step aside, and put my energy in production rather than in design (although I still design the products we produce) is to "make space" for the upcoming generation. I have never refused any invitation to speak for students and have done so many times. Many have visited for a short or longer period. The only reason why my list of young designers is unlike the one magazines create is that I prefer to look around me, observe, and discover young people with great talent (much more than I ever could rely on) and hope that with some encouragement and help, when needed, they will get the opportunities they deserve. I do not think that it is the task of the media to make that selection. It's a professional issue and it should be done by the professions involved. The late Jane Jacobs, by the way, mentioned this lack of control of the quality of the professions by professionals as one of the indications that we might have a new "Dark age ahead". The strenght of the generation of Alvar Aalto, Le Corbusier, the Eames',Bertoia, Ponti, Colombo, Wirkalla, Kjaerholm, Wegner etc..up to Rams, Castiglioni Sapper, Mellor and Mari is that they came to the top, not as a result of media efforts, but as a result of the admiration of their peers and their involvment in the ongoing discussions within the profession. In the list that Don proposes, I think there are some interesting names. What Brian Keaney is doing with Tony Alfstrom in "Tonfisk" is not only interesting from a "product" design point of view, but it is also a promessing direction in the place of the designer in the industry. Marco Acerbis does more or less the same thing with Acerbis. Editing or producing as a integral part of design is certainly an alternative in that kind of technologies that do not require huge capital investments. I know what Luca Casinis and Jacob Springiers are doing but I am not impressed...maybe the "Sonic" cutlery for WMF and some of there beauty products packaging... the only one that in my view is a very distictive voice is Konstantin Grcic and the people in his Office in Munich. The difference to me is that the "great" ones are always the ones that are an inspiration to others. I see that in Konstantin Grcic's work...reluctantly in Philippe Star's...and even in Karim Rachid's. Whereas the generation of Marco Acerbis, Alain Berteau, Patricia Urquila etc. does not seem to have found their own voice yet. I agree that they have to work in a difficult context. There is little room left for reflection, discussion...reading and writing. The media are interested in images and captions, not in "why" or "how" but in "new" To create direction, to work on a consensus within these limited means is difficult...but interesting | |||||
| Me too, sweetie! | 1 Relevance | 11 years ago | Mark | General discussion | |
| Me too, sweetie! Ok. I'll tell my disgusting tale once again...with maybe a bit more detail. I was invited over to a handsome hillbilly's home for drinks/smokes/food one rainy night back in 2005. He had a dog, but the other guests fulfilled the hound dog's needs. The single level home appeared identical to all other homes within a 3 block radius, and I was a little buzzed whilst making my fashionably late arrival. The "inked up" hunk (host) had a newer spotless Harley Davidson motorbike and an American sedan (dirty) parked in the clean garage. I had to have been wearing all black in 2005...or olive green/black (I wore Armani only that year), so petting the hound dog was out of the question. I had to pee. I ventured down the hallway in search of a bathroom..passing fiberglass door after fiberglass door. I could smell the bathroom, I just couldn't locate it yet. Chapter 2. Finally through the cloud of smoke and sculptured cinnamon colored plush carpet, I found the magic fiberglass door. Odd.. I was unable to find any sort of light switch upon entering the (also) cinnamon colored carpeted bathroom with a fiberglass faux marble tub/shower combination ( practical and pretty from 10 feet away!). My myopic big brown eyeballs adjust pretty quickly to just about anything, so finding the toilet in the dark really wasn't an issue ( hell,I was stoned). Then, the strangest thing started to happen! I kept feeling a foul sticky textured undescrible sensation on my cheeks. I wasn't too concerned, as I had to get back to the small gathering of Appellation Americans around the outdoor propane fire pit (plus I didn't mind the smell). While washing my hands, I finally found the light switch, and I grabbed a tissue and flipped the fucker on ( I don't like to touch light switches..as they're really rank..) and immediately noticed old "spent" (2) hanging sticky fly paper strips loaded with far too many insects draping above/around the toilet. I left briskly..didn't even say good bye. Chapter 3. After arriving home, I scrubbed my checks into a coma and started tearing through the laundry room looking for a flyswatter to lay next to, as most therapists advise gradual with-drawling from major traumatic incidents like what happened to me in that tacky bathroom. I will never pee in an unlit bathroom with a fiberglass door again. No. Blazed, Your Aunt Mark ps I feel much better just talking about it. thanks. ps to be edited in the morning. | |||||
| cont. | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | dcwilson | General discussion | |
| cont. If you take into account what I just described above, you can see that Blade Runner would infuriate Harrison Ford. Here was a solid paranoid detective story in science fiction (with the twist of a love story with an android based on a short story by Phillip K. Dick lavished with rich production budget and an almost unprecedented and fresh (at the time) look botched by Ridley Scott's simultaneous ineptitude with story telling. Scott then really lacked the visual story telling skill needed to handle a full length picture of this magnitude(he was a maker of commercials and Alien, aka Jaws in a can). Because Ridley probably didn't care much about traditional Hollywood story construction in those days (they all learn eventually that it is critical, or they don't last), he probably thought he could get away with veering away from the script, and cutting with razzle dazzle and disconnection the same way he did in the bone head simple horror picture that was alien. A monster picture is simple. Monster bad. Hero good. Kill the monster. Detective stories, if any good, hinge more so than any other film stories on plot twists and character. This is why there are so few good detective stories. Everyone likes a good mystery, but it is harder than hell to tell a mystery via film gesture and film dialogue. Robert Towne, who wrote Chinatown, came to be called a genious simply because he could do it once. But back to Ford and Blade Runner. Ford probably signed onto Blade Runner thinking Spielberg (or some experience director he admired) would direct it. Spielberg probably backed out. Ford believed it could be a terrific scifi detective movie. Scott's Alien was cool. The Duellists was not horrible for a first movie. He figures Ridley is young but talented and takes a chance. The shoot is laborious, because this was all before easy CG, and he and Ridley have so-so chemistry and the reputedly imminently sensible Mr. Ford has to spend quite some time with the reputedly hugely unsensible actress whose name I cannot recall right now. Scott gets lost in the magnificience of the look of his movie, because the plot was too thin to begin with, and he keeps not listening to Ford saying,"yea, that's a neat idea, but this thing is not going any single place, its incoherent, because its put together lousy." Ford was reputedly always equally blunt with Lucas and Spielberg, but they already had the talent and experience necessary to understand that he was, despite his grumpiness, a very good carpenter's square sensor for when the construction and production were getting out of true, whether or not he could fix it. Ridley, had less self-confidence and more arrogance than Lucas and Spielberg, and that is a deadly combination. Ridley at that time was not much more than a talented cinematographer. So: he probably got defensive and plowed ahead toward "his vision." | |||||
| Thanks to everyone who took | 1 Relevance | 12 years ago | PK22 | General discussion | |
| Thanks to everyone who took some time out of their day to reply! To fastfwd: I'm sorry, my explanation was a little superfluous. I've never been much of a writer. To clarify: the chair is not wobbly when on the ground (sitting in it or not). What I was attempting to get at was an apparent unevenness in the give/flex of the spring steel that I though was either due to an uneven construction or uneven steel. I'll spare you another attempt at explaining the issue since the problem is reduced significantly by putting it on a more level surface (Thanks for the suggestion!). It would be hard to show in pictures or video the imperfections in symetry at this point because they are so slight and they do not affect the integrity of chair in any real way. I was very relieved to get in onto a pefectly level surface and am satisfied overall at this point. If you'll indulge me I'd love to chat about the chair and my experience with it since it was a big purchase for me. I decided to buy one after finishing my undergrad and some professional exams because I though that was as close as I'd even come to having an excuse to spend ~7,500 on a chair. (Thats canadian dollars, and includes import duties, shipping and the elegance leather). The only other chair I've purchased that this forum would appreciate is a old and broken Grete Jalk lounge chair. But anyways I digress. The PK22 is not a static piece. The spring steel contruction gives it something that is hard to appreciate when looking only at photographs. Spring steel is a material that is know for its high yield strength. Objects return to their original shape despite significant bending. Common applications are springs, lockpicks, antennas, piano wire etc (all this according to Wikipedia). It really makes the chair special because it moves so much when you're sitting in it. The legs will noticably bend as you take your seat and there is a real give to the back rest. It is extremely comfortable to sit in I want to be careful not to put anyone off with talk of the chair being bendy and forgiving because the chair is also very substantial. I wouldn't want to know how much time I've spent staring at pictures of the chair but it didn't prepare me for the size, weight and tank-like qualities that are so obvious in person. Despite being forgiving to sit in you are never left with the impression that the chair is some delicate thing to be used gingerly. The chair (or at least the steel frame) will certainly outlive me. Wow the chair is just something to look at. I dont know what to describe it, its just superlative. Pictures don't come close. The elegance leather is nice too since it has a lot of depth in color in the right light. The chair has such a presence but is also barely there in a way. I sort of forget about it and then every once in awhile I'll stare at it and just be in awe. I know a lot of people complain about Fritz Hansens prices and I agree. I wish it werent as expensive because I would buy more than one! In particular I think the PK31 prices are a little ridiculous. 30,000 for a couch is out of the question for me and 99% of people and its hard to imagine there is an appreciable difference in quality over a 7,000 eames couch for example I can't comment on EKC versions of the PK22 since I've never examined one in person but I must say that this chair is something special. Heath, if you ever have the means, I would highly reccomend picking one up. | |||||
| THE FIND | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | dadaman | General discussion | |
| THE FIND That was about 4 years ago and I thought I'd never find as good again. However just last month I was dropping my car off for an MOT and I thought I'd just pop into the (as it happens the same one) junk shop a few minutes walk up the road while i was waiting, in the vain hope of finding something interesting. As soon as I walked through the door my heart started pounding. Sitting right in front of me and in a funny kind of way almost totally incongrous with it's surroundings was sitting a beautiful Nelson slat bench. The maple slats had a lovely golden patina, check. The ebonised maple legs were in perfect condition, check, one wobbly but easily fixable, however the one thing that pierced my heart was the big red SOLD sticker. I nonchalantly peeled it back to find out if there was a visible price sticker still attached, There was. £15. I was gutted. However not to be deterred I left my mobile number incase the new owner failed to return to collect that 'wooden table over there. Later that morning I returned to pick up my car and popped in the junk shopped again to torture myself. The nelson bench was still there. This time I asked the owner if he could persuade the new owner to sell it onto me at a quick profit. Yeah mate, I've also got some other modern stuff over here if you're interested. Whatever.... 2 days later I happened to be driving passed with my wife and kids in the car. Of course i had to see if the bench was still there. There it was, in full view of the street through the open door. I sent my wife in to check it out clandestinely too. She confirmed it's authenticity, aargh that just made things worse. Now if I had first spied this beaut and handed over 15 quid I'd have high tailed it out of there quicker than you can say Herman Miller with my booty. I was beginning to get obsessed. Another couple of days passed and I was cycling to work one morning in the west end and I thought I would ride past the junk shop. The owner and his partner where both carrying furniture out onto the street as they opened up for the day. One quick look told me all was not lost. IT was still there. In answer to my question the owner was a bit cagey, yes he wondered when the guy would turn up too. He said he was a dealer, he came in often, he knew him - my heart sank. I offered him £100 without thinking. Done. I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. I rode out of there with the bench under my arm quicker than a Brinks Mat get away driver. Luckily the bench was a short one - not too heavy to carry the 2 miles back to my house. And the look on my wife's face when she just happened to see me out of the window as I cycled up to the house dressed head to toe in black lycra, and carrying THE BENCH will stay with me forever. It's just perfect for my lounge between my deep red rocker and rosewood Merrow sideboard. Now I just happen to know the head of Modern Design at Christie's but you'd never get me to sell it on for profit, NOT EVER. | |||||
| Finally, | 1 Relevance | 22 years ago | SDR | General discussion | |
| Finally, there is the qustion to be answered: what exactly did George Nelson do for the company, and what did he design? Caplan says, "He. . .served as corporate tutor, stimulator of meetings, peripatetic teacher of design and marketing. Sometimes he was called to Zeeland for nothing more than a day or two of walking around the plant and talking to people, an activity the De Prees [J D's three sons were actively involved in the business] regard as significant, if not measurable, in its effect. "In 1947, Nelson published a major survey of the American furniture industry in Fortune magazine. . .The Fortune article was not flattering to furniture manufacturers. It described the industy as scattered and fragmanted and the product as 'endlessly and unnecessarily varied, and almost uniformly uninspired.' . . .On the basis of his survey, Nelson prepared a paper telling Herman Miller what to do. For example, one thing he told them to do was to standardize whenever there was no reason not to, pointing out that each of the 24 bedroom sets in the line had different drawers. As to design, Caplan mentions (p 36) Nelson's "superb first collection incorporating the kinds of ideas he had heretofore only written about -- a headboard that tilted so you could lean against it and read, a coffee table with a tray that lifted out, and a version of the storage wall that had first brought him to De Pree's atention." Later (p 42) there is this somewhat mysterious paragraph: "Nelson's early designs were compatible enough with Rohde's, and the transition was enhanced by Nelson's hiring one of Rohde's designers, Ernest Farmer. Since De Pree and the company generally were already committed to contemporary furniture, Nelson could put his energies into building rather than proselytizing. In his twenty years as director of design, he created a procession of design innovations that captured the attention of the design world even if they didn't always capture the market. The best known of these are a day bed; a slat bench; a residential desk, which attracted the attention of architects who specified it for office use; a sensuous line of miniature cabinets, handmade by Zeeland craftsmen who specialized in them; the thin-edge case group; the steel-frame cases; modular seating; the 'marshmallow sofa'; the 'coconut chair'; the comprehensive storage system; the sling sofa; and the catenary chair. "The most profitable of Nelson's ideas were not always carried to fruition by Herman Miller. 'What we designed became best sellers,' Nelson observes, 'but they were always made best sellers by other manufacturers who knocked them off, not by Herman Miller. In our way, though, we were keeping America beautiful.' " If the suggestion is succesfully made that these were all Nelson designs (and the photo captions of some of these pieces reinforces that impression), why is Farmer's name mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph? | |||||
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com