Herman Miller is at it again with another re-edition, the George Nelson swag leg group. They will make the chair(same plastic as the newer shell chairs), desk, and tables. Take a look at this link and choose "Nelson swag leg group" at the left. I like the chair! According to Herman Miller, it should be out for sale in the next few months.
It's "swagged" (or swaged) leg group, NOT the "swag leg" group
This is more proof that Herman Miller is no longer a design-centric company -- it doesn't even know its own product! The company's own press release discussing the re-introduction of this line (click below) mis-calls it the "swag leg" group and claims that the name comes from the fact that "Each piece is supported by a set of slender and distinctively shaped metal legs that give a 'swag' appearance".
This is flat wrong. The group was called, in 1958 when it was introduced, the "swaged leg" (sometimes spelled "swagged") group -- named because the central feature common to the group is the "swaging" (i.e., bending or tapering the metal in a particular manner) of the legs. It's named for a particular metal-working technique, or some such thing (any experts out there?)
The name has NOTHING to do with "swag", as in swagger or "walk with a swagger" (a la W).
That there's a common misunderstanding of this is to be expected. But from Herman Miller itself?!
If HM can't even get its own history right, why should a buyer trust that it has the design right, either?
http://www.hermanmiller.com/CDA/SSA/News/Story/0,1585,a10-c407-n426,00.html
Better a Smart One than a Dumb One
First, go look it up: The October 1958 issue of "Interiors" contains a 4 or 5 page article describing in detail the development of the "Swaged Leg" group, including numerous design and/or engineering difficulties. I can't find an on-line copy of that. But I assume that you have a library where you are, Shooter, so maybe you can do some work yourself rather than just sit on your rear and make comments that do not advance the discussion.
Second, Stanley Abercrombie's book on Nelson ("The Design of Modern Design") -- the only full-length, serious book on Nelson -- notes in discussing the swaged leg group, at page 128 and footnote 138 in particular, that "A swage is a tool used with a hammer or a sledge to shape a piece of metal."
Finally, the only Web source I can find that comes close to providing the same information is designmatcher.com, which says (click link below) in describing the MAA chair (the most famous of the group) that "The legs are thick and straight at the top and then are formed as swaged or tapered tubes that gently curve outward and downward to the floor."
In sum, "swaged" as in formed by compressing or tapering the metal via a particular techinique or tool, not "swag" as in swagger.
http://designmatcher.com/nl/gallery_detail.php?galleryID=648
Dear Shooter
What is wrong in calling a spade a spade? ycl is right, both in identifying the origin of the name and in pointing out that Herman Miller is more interested in re-editing a George Nelson and make money on late Nelson's name, than getting it right.
As Azurechicken is mentioning they don't even get the product right. I might add to it that the link between the back rest and the armrests is not as the original design.
Nobody can prevent Herman Miller to re-edit products. At least we can be sadened about it for a number of reasons. Mine would be that even George Nelson would design a better chair now. It is sad to see that Herman Miller seems to assume that nothing substantial has been learned about sitting since George Nelson did this chair and that whatever we have learned in the meantime is not enough to serve the user better. Last but not least it takes away an opportunity for a younger designer to design something that would reflect the standards and preferences of the early 21st century with as much talent as George Nelson translated the values of the mid 20th century. If it was not for the wonderfull Doug Ball furniture I would agree that Herman Miller is a lost cause in design and I am sure George Nelson would agree.
Benefit of the Doubt
First off, as you also may have noticed that the Eames Lounge Chair and Ottoman is not longer called "670" on the Herman Miller Website. Why they do not refer to it as 670, I have no Idea. However, that does not hinder there the history of the chair why and how it was created. Nor does it hinder the quality of the lounge chair that HM stands for.
Second, just because a press release of a re-edition to a chair with some discepancy of its history or its name does not warrant a valid reason for a buyer to not buy the design. For the writer of the article, you have no idea why he or she mentioned the chair that way besides for the speculation that the writer does not know the history of the chair which makes HM to not be a design-centric company. Who knows? Maybe the Monday meeting before that article was to be written they decided to the the Swagged Leg Group's name to remove the past tense. Whatever it was, it seems "Swag" Leg Group seems to be intentional.
Third, according the article, if we are reading the same one only mentions that, "Each piece is supported by a set of slender and distinctively shaped metal legs that give a "swag" appearance." After reading that statement, it provides little history if any, about the chair. It more provides a description of the chair than anything else. So where you interpret that, "The name has NOTHING to do with "swag", as in swagger or "walk with a swagger" (a la W)." is a bit taken out of context. Don't you think? Furthermore, the if you want to talk syntax, the word "appearance" could refer to the craftsmanship methods of the construction.
Fourth, a re-edition does not necessary claim that it will be an original design or as like it was when it was first introduced.
Finally, if you think that HM has lost its touch with the idea of purposeful design, is guess that your opinion.
To whether or not George Nelson would agree, there is no way to know about that and it is silly to assume that he would. What I know is that HM seems to be more environmentally conscience than a lot of furniture designers out there. They not only incorporate it in their furniture but also in their own production facility. I guess if you call wanting to incorporate "earth-friendly and recyclable polypropolene" a lost cause in design, then you must know something I don't. To me, earthfriendly materials seem like a good enough reason to serve a user better.
There is a way to know
Read "The Design of Herman Miller."
Near the end of the book it discusses Herman Miller in the 1970's when Propst was a big factor and HM was gearing toward more contract work rather than residential. It made a brief statement about Charles Eames and George Nelson along the line of (paraphrased): "Occasionally we will hear from Charles and he will scold us about the direction of the company. George won't even call anymore."
Starting in the 70s Herman Miller began to lose it's touch and it's original attitude toward design and designers. I am grateful that they still continue to offer many of the great designs from their history. I believe if they didn't make them money they would toss them too. If they were to obtain their original attitude about design they would not only be reproducing their classics but moving forward with new, young designers with an eye to the future. I am not saying they have done nothing, but I do think the forward thinking movement they were a part of died with their original cast of amazing designers.
If you want to see an example of how I think Herman Miller could/should be look at Vitra. While they remain dedicated to Eames, Prouve, etc. they produce new, fresh design by the likes of the Bouroullec Brothers, Ross Lovegrove, etc.
http://www.vitra.com
The Herman Miller company...
The Herman Miller company didn't get the name and history of the chair wrong- whatever firm does their adwork, PR, copy, or "online presence" did.
These kind of mistakes happen more often than you would think... somebody's bored, underpaid assistant at the "word firm" gets in touch with somebody's bored, underpaid assistant at HM and it's like a game of "telephone"... everything gets screwed up.
There are a plethora of possible reasons why the mistake wasn't caught by those higher-up in either company... the most probable is that they were pressed for time and someone dropped the ball.
Whether or not HM is more concerned with making money quickly than releasing quality, true-to-the-original reproductions is irrelevant. Whatever their motivations are, it would be in their best interest to get the copy on the product right.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com