Dear @kyle-barrett, I was brought up in such a way that I fundamentally question everything if the slightest doubt allows it.
I respect that. But I hope you still have a life.
"People buy a chair, and they don't really care who designed it." (Arne Jacobsen)
As with most message boards, the value of the contributor is evident in the content of the posts that they make.
Those previously linked chairs that are stated to be (Henry) Kjærulff Rasmussen and Richard Jensen do come with a literature reference on Lauritz. Now I have known Lauritz to make mistakes with literature references before, but it certainly raises the likelihood that the credit is right. Møbelfabrikanten June 1951.
And I have known Bruun-Rasmussen to make huge mistakes like crediting the Clam chair to Philip Arctander (it was actually designed by Arnold Madsen and made by Madsen and Schubell), but it does lend more credence to the idea that there is something to this design credit when they also endorse the same literature reference.
https://bruun-rasmussen.dk/m/lots/FC370DF9B719
I think that perhaps the realization that (Henry) Kjærulff Rasmussen and H.(enry) Kjærnulf are one and the same person and designed these very interesting and unusual chairs might make a few people pay a little more attention to the man. The pieces he designed for EG Møbler (the Razorblade and the entire suites of furniture that go with it) are not my favorite certainly, but they show a designer who was not afraid to take risks and design outside the norms.
Sometimes they create it, but that really is not the point here. What we have are credible clues indicating that we are very likely to learn something about that chair and table set in Møbelfabrikanten, June 1951. That is unfortunately not so easy to find, but it is a whole lot easier than having no idea at all where we might find any information (with the distinct possibility there is no information anywhere).
As with most message boards, there is a clique of long-time residents who react nervously offended to criticism and doubts.
So everything is normal, don't worry.
Personally I'd really prefer not discourage people like yourself from being here. You're clearly interested, engaged and care about this niche part of history. Lord knows it could do with more humans, let alone people who appear smart. But I'd also like you to maybe show a little more respect for the actual work others have put in, rather than calling it irrelevant.
I often wondered how you could even go about researching this stuff. Wondering if the information I'd like to know is simply lost in the past. Lots of the 'how' (to go about researching) and the histories are no longer a complete mystery to me, thanks to the members of this board.
Rather than trying to deconstruct or discredit others work, perhaps you could think about it additively? If you don't trust something, use it as a jumping off point to find some answers... Or don't. But be respectful these people have invested time in this. Nothing you read is infallible, but what you read here will be well informed, and certainly not influenced by what stock someone currently has on sale.
I find it unfair and presumptuous to blame someone whose native language is not English for having an incorrect tone.
We are also welcome to speak Dutch or French, after all it is a Belgian portal, then you would have the problem and not me.
Yes, let's be fair here, you're obviously very smart and English is not something you struggle with. Without arguing the semantics of 'tone' in regards to forum posts, you have been very clear about what/who you are intending to challenge.
I hope that seems fair anyway and sorry fot not being on subject multiple times. I've barely discussed Mr Kjaernulf/Kjaerulff.
@fredh You actually said that Herringbone’s research was “worthless”:
Well, someone is writing on Instagram and that is taken as evidence, not bad. 🙄
Such stories are worthless without references to their sources.
For the record.
As to the question of relevance of anything to design history, well that is constantly subject to revision and is fundamentally subjective opinion. For example circa 1960, Finn Juhl was considered irrelevant (so irrelevant that his 1959 Exhibition furniture got lost to history and is mis-recorded in the Grete Jalk books as Børge Rammeskov and misidentified as made by another cabinetmaker). And as another example, by the mid-1970s, it would be hard to find anyone who thought any bit of Danish Modern was relevant. Yet here we are.
We might just discover that this thread is what begins to make Henry Kjærulff Rasmussen / Henry Kjærnulf relevant. Now wouldn’t that be ironic?
Yes, Leif, that would be ironic indeed.
And for @tktoo2:
I am not interested in Kjaernulf at all, I only tried to spark a discussion with some provocative remarks, because some research results are too cheap for me as evidence, they are only indications from which certain assumptions can be made, but only assumptions.
Sometimes you are too quick in your judgments, too superficial, I have never seen here in the forum that the origin of a design is judged from an artistic point of view, that - for example - an attempt is made to assign an unknown design based on artistic criteria.
But okay, maybe that's going too far now, because I can't expect of someone, who is not at home in design and art, to have an eye for interstices, for example, why are the proportions the way they are, why are the interstices in the side view of a chair or sofa as they are, is it a coincidence or is it intentional, and so on.
More or less 90% of mid-century designers are completely overrated, there is a master of all classes who stands above all others, then there are a few who stand closely behind him, but all the rest can be forgotten.
One of the overrated examples is Grete Jalk, her furniture designs are absolutely banal.
The opposite example is Ole Wanscher, one of those who stands very closely behind the master of all classes, his armchair design 166 is viewed by many as too conservative, as too conventional, but this design is an absolute masterpiece of proportions.
But I don't want to bore you.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com