And...?
So what's so terrible about designing a chair "for persons who wish to buy amusing looking chairs"? Especially here, where there's an appreciation for more than just the utilitarian qualities of a thing, why is a design "bad" just because it's whimsical?
Dcwilson: Your assumption that the Masters chair is uncomfortable and fragile may be correct, but if you've ever broken a Series 7 or LCW, or tried to sit in a Barcelona for more than a few minutes, you know that those qualities are hardly unique to this chair. [Oh, and by the way... It's for Kartell, so the tubing isn't metal; it's plastic -- polycarbonate in this case.]
Whitespike: Maybe Starck isn't "great", but hasn't he done enough innovative design to be allowed a little homage to someone else every once in a while? Plus, the combination of three silhouettes IS new and original; no one's done that before.
This chair's not going to win any awards, and it won't end up on the "100 Most Important Designs of the 21st Century" list, but I don't think it's unattractive -- especially from the side (photo below) -- and I certainly don't find it offensive.
fastfwd
"Whitespike: Maybe Starck isn't "great", but hasn't he done enough innovative design to be allowed a little homage to someone else every once in a while? Plus, the combination of three silhouettes IS new and original; no one's done that before."
I actually recognize Starck for his breadth of work - however, I have to admit that I do not care for his work. Seems he is more intrigued by whimsy more than solutions. Not that it makes him a bad designer automatically - but I just don't like humor in my design. I am simply stating my opinion.
I do think it's a bit of a cop out to ride on the tail of someone else's work - perhaps a strategic way of getting one's head back in the spotlight from time to time if one's own concepts fail to do so.
Rashid did it with the KarEames chair (a bad lucite copy of the LCW). It's just not very funny, that's all.
If a designer wants to pay homage, the best way is to pick up cues from them in terms of design ethics and thought processes etc. None of the designers he "paying homage to" would appreciate this as much as I can tell through what I have read. Mr. Eames says to "innovate as a last resort." Mr. Starck seems like innovation that functions as the design equivalent of a fart joke.
And hailing this design as new and original, just because he mixed three ideas together is a pretty weak argument. New and original doesn't necessarily equate to good. I could make a one wheeled car. That's be new and original...
I could
I could make a chair out of chicken poo and scorpion shells, which I'm pretty sure no one has done before, but that doesnt make it good.
This is the problem - this chair is about novelty, but even that novelty has been diluted by the three people he is 'emulating'. A much better example of this process would be what he did for Emeco with Hudson. He describes Hudson as "squinting your eyes when looking at the Navy chair, and this is the pure silhouette of the form". And in doing so he created a truly elegant, beautiful, and original work.
With this POS he takes 3 popular (and marketable) designer names and indellibly links them to his own. As DCWilson points out - thats strategy, not creativity.
fastfwd...
Plastic tubing fits into my argument even better. Thanks for pointing that out.
Where I erred egregiously is in reference to the arms. From a side view, which I lazily did not take the time to look up, there is clearly enough room for the arms to rest. Of course, resting them on hard round tubing--plastic, or polycarbonate, would be about as comfortable and pleasant, as resting them on a rifle barrel.
The rest of my case stands.
Regarding you pointing out that moderns committed the design sin of making uncomfortable seating, I could not agree with you more and I scold many of the moderns for making stupidly uncomfortable chairs. But again, if one is to escape the stupidity of the post modern, one surely ought to hold it to the same standards of criticism that one holds the modern. I think designing uncomfortable chairs is the height of stupidity, whether modern, or post modern.
So this part of my case stands also.
Finally, regarding your asking is wrong with designing chairs for persons that want chairs that are amusing to look at and uncomfortable to sit in, there is of course nothing wrong at all with doing so. There is only something wrong with calling it good design.
I like nose glasses very much when I am at a party, and have had a few. They are tasteless and base, but I cannot help being amused by them, even when others have noses too high to indulge me. But I can assure you that I would never consider nose glasses an exceptional design, even the ones that work the best.
Starck's design above is the chair equivalent of nose glasses. Nothing more. If taste making hustlers were willing to leave it at that, there would be no reason to comment. But they won't, so I have commented.
chewbacca rug...
I have to disagree with you about Starck and Eames.
Starck seems more Loewy than Eames in the breadth of what he has designed.
Starck has, as far as I can recall, has tended to design allusive conceits, rather the thoroughly well thought out new approaches to products, as Eames did.
They do both share a great eye for what look controversial and interesting and they are both famous.
But otherwise, they seem apples and oranges to me, like it or not.
just to be a pedant,
I'll point out, re. the following
"In an epic couplet in poetry a poet is trying to jam in as many allusions as possible into two lines."
that there's no such thing as an "epic couplet."
Couplets, usually, rhyme. Allusions not required.
Now, I agree with you, dcwilson, that the chair sucks as a chair (& its purported wittiness fails to compensate).
But let me strongly urge brevity upon you.
One of the dangers of pontification is that people get bored; another is they get irritated and look closely to see if you know what you're talking about. Which, in the case of couplets, you don't.
there is no other designer......
beside starck of this generation that has had as much impact and notoriety in this era as charles eames did in his.....
thats what i meant and y'all know it is true.
did i mean they share the same philosophies ? did i mean their work is similar ? did i mean they both ate fruity pebbles for breakfast ?
of course i didn't, the meaning is that starck is the only designer of this generation that has left a big mark on the design world.
whether you like him is irrelevant.
in 50 years we'll all be scouring eBay looking for "Starck Era" items ?
precisely !
but it will be more fun in thrift-stores (if they still have them) and when you find an actual starck piece you will have struck gold and dance a little jig.......
a consolation prize will be a karim rashid piece.... similar to finding a burke knock-off saarinen piece today.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com