I saw it. I like that alot....
I saw it. I like that alot. Are your legs wood or metal? Seems like I have seen a metal legged version too?
My Eames aluminum group sofa is in a light gray Kvadrat too. Maybe the same color ... I think mine is called Tonus (it has the slightest hint of blue).
I don't dislike the 57. I...
I don't dislike the 57. I think it is a cool design. I was just saying it might be a tad much for me. Designs like the Bird chair are as OTT, but it does not not occupy as much visual space. It's the same reason why I could have an orange armshell but not an orange sofa .... sheer volume.
Like I described before, I think the sofa would be very nice in a very subdued environment in a neutral color.
the things we own , end up owning us. .
I am not my sofa but the person that sits on it. My home isnt a paen to objects, instead it is a small apartment coloured with the movements of my life.
Where a chair is simply a chair. Reading between the objects gives a far more accurate portrayal of the persona than the objects themselves.
Well, of course, you silly Plagiarist
But the discussion is about why we choose the object we choose and how our choices reflect ourselves. That should have been blatantly obvious. You are fooling yourself if you think that your choices of objects don't reflect your values/tastes/beliefs. Even if your space is furnished with Dumpster finds, that too, says something.
"...does your home tell the world who you are or wish you were?" Part I
The answer is both.
On the one hand, I am a organism that needs to sit. I am a person who can afford a certain quality of sofa. I am a person with a certain amount of refinement in my taste, etc.
On the other hand, I am a person with an imagination that permits me both to pretend to be other than what I am AND, for better and for worse, actually to become other than what I am, either across the board (rarely) or in certain aspects (frequently).
Great artists in any medium have a fascinating ability to connect (perhaps arc across would be a better verb) what one is with what one could be. They create artifacts that authentically concretize both what we are and what we might be. Those particularly interested in transforming themselves value this ability highly and pay highly for it, or, if they can't afford it, hunt through dumpsters and thrift stores seeking it out in a way they can afford it.
I was changed in a small way when I found an authentic Ames ottoman in a thrift store and set it in my bedroom as a stool to sit on when I put my socks on. I look at its form every day and appreciate its fineness and am somehow enriched by owning something capable of giving me this experience. It vindicates my imagination in a big way, too. I saw pictures of these things and imagined how much I would like one and how good I thought it would look in my bedroom. And now that I do like it and it does look good in my bedroom, at least to me, it confirms that my own imagination is in working order; that means alot to me, as one's imagination is one of the most important tools for living one has. Life itself is a design problem, at least in some respects. Just as a designer gets great satisfaction from a work he imagined being accepted, so too an ordinary person gets great satisfaction from imagining something would look and work right and then finding that it does.
"...does your home tell the world who you are or wish you were?" Part II
From either a designer's or a consumer's POV, creating only for what we are is boring and unedifying. (note: edify is a word that designers ought to acquaint themselves with, especially its roots. It means: "to instruct or improve spiritually, from Latin, to erect a house, from aedes temple, house...")
On the other hand, creating only for what we might be is too fantastical.
What I am getting at here is the potential regenerative function of mythic experience of all art and artifacts. I think I and many persons buy many things, because they seemlessly embody and so connect both what we are and what we might be--sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. There is nothing wrong with this at all, either. It is almost as fundamental as eating and drinking. That sophisticated marketing techniques have figured out how to manipulate and exploit us through this mental process does not imply it is base or to be abandoned, rather it implies these marketers are unscrupulous hucksters exploiting this mental process vulgarly.
If the creative artist gives me this regenerative experience by affirming what I am and what I may be, be it through a can opener or a chaise, my psyche is transmuted and I am in some way reenergized for living.
I saw a sofa just the other day with an ottoman. It had never occurred to me to have a sofa with an ottoman and I liked the idea of it very much. Now I have an idea in my head that my living room might look very much better with a sofa with an ottoman instead of a coffee table that mostly collects scratches from when I forget my manners and put my shod feet on it. Sometime I am going to find that some designer has created the right sofa with ottoman and I am going to put it in my living room; then I will either have the regenerative experience of having my imagination vindicated (i.e., it will look good and work well), or the learning experience that my imagination is not infallible. Both are worthy experiences to have, though the former is alot more pleasurable.
sound OLIVE
I am not...
sound OLIVE
I am not negating that these objects we choose represent us and form our identity, I was merely interpreting the question in another way of identifying our relationship to the space and objects.
I agree with what DCWilson has so eloquently written. As a designer the renergisation of living is I think the ultimate goal and reward.
The following is a link to a photographer and is documentation of a
cross section of Shanghai living.
http://china.shanghartgallery.com/galleryarchive/archives/id/121
I hope a valid addition to this thread,
for the designers and anthropologists amongst us 🙂
A bit late to the table
I feel I have come to this thread a bit late. Reading whitespike's postings I can identify with his rapid interest and respect for the Eames. I am going through a similar obsession, to the dismay of many friends - who now forbid me from talking about chairs.
My fascination with the Eames philosophy has led me to acquire a number of their pieces - and in a small space this becomes an issue of storage rather than design. My roommates alternately joke about me seeking a 12 step program, and offering to put more of their furniture into storage to make room for a new addition.
However, I dont believe I am Charles Eames. I dont believe the furniture owns me. With the sole exception of my two plywood chairs I would not be devastated if I gave up all of the others. The plywood chairs I would keep - both for sentimental reasons, and for usability.
The one important thing I do use my collection for is inspiration. While I may not be the Eames, I respect so many facets of their designs processes. Possesing the chairs allows me to be reminded of what I admire, and serve as an icon to which I aspire.
I have no sofa now (does that mean I am naught?). When I get one it will most likely be an Eames sofa compact - a) to work with the existing pieces I have. b) because I enjoy living in small spaces. However, if the sofa compact proves uncomfortable I will not purchase it. My space is meant to be used.
I believe in clearing out as much "stuff" as possible. Wherever possibly I rid myself of unusable items. It proves difficult only in the area of sentimentality. Many little doo-dads here and there are given to commemorate an occasion, or to remind me of a person/place/event. Altho - isnt that of itself a function?
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com