Stepped outside my genre and read the 2000 book about collecting early American furniture by Leigh and Leslie Keno. An underlying theme in that book (though not directly stated) is how important it eventually becomes to Americans to collect American furniture. For the Keno's that meant unearthing, researching and bringing market Newport cabinet maker pieces, Goddards, etc., that were being made as our country was forming.
This pattern repeated itself when the Mid Century collecting trend started. Eames was definitely more important and desirable than Danish modern. The market for Eames subsequently crashed when all the reproductions came out. (Victim of its own popularity.)
Following this, it's a mystery to me why Adrian Pearsall barely gets a nod anywhere in the annals of MCM history. He's definitely grown more popular to collectors recently, but it's been late in the game. Disappointingly though, he still gets neglected by scholars. He too had his own workshop (Craft Associates) before he closed shop and started to design for some of the bigger manufacturers. He worked with Kagan and trained as an architect. In other words...he has a pretty good pedigree. His Craft Associate pieces seem infinitely more collectible to me than say, a no name Drexel.
Any ideas as to why he never gets a nod from the people that write books and articles on MCM? (He isn't in the designer list on this site.) I personally find a couple of his designs stunning...the dining table, globe, chaise lounge. Considering the fact he's American and had his own design shop Pearsall may end up being the "sleeper" in MCM design that many wished they snapped up while they could. He's is definitely rarer than the scads of Danish pieces that are around and think collectors would want him just on that basis alone. Maybe it's just the case of a couple of authors failing to put him on the cover of the latest MCM book or his designs failing to be replicated by DWR and being in shop windows on every street corner and therefore no one seeing him as the "hot" thing.
Well, for one thing,
a lot of his upholstered furniture was of rather poor quality construction. I've reupholstered a bunch of different pieces with curved backs and they're just a piece of plywood screwed to the edge of the seat frame with a bunch of wood screws, and then a couple of screws on each side going into the arms. If they've been reupholstered before, the plywood parts are often chipped and have extra holes drilled and screwed where the original holes were too worn to be used again. Seriously, the bare frames look very homemade, not something professionally designed and produced.
I think a lot of the lounge chairs with high backs look rather Jetson-y. They veer just a bit too far towards kitsch for my taste. Same with the sofas.
I do like the solid walnut bases on a lot of the chairs and sofas though on some pieces they're a bit overdone and look clunky.
Other pieces are just too derivative of Kagan and probably some other designers.
I think Pearsall is popular because it has a very definite MCM look and it's more affordable than Kagan, or Danish furniture. I just don't think it's of the same caliber.
(And now I shall duck and cover.)
There are some Pearsall...
There are some Pearsall designs I like but honestly most of them kind of turn me off. Someone (many) have said good design is a combination of aesthetics and functionality. In my very much laymans mind there's too much fashion/fad and not enough aesthetics in most Pearsall pieces. That may not make any sense to anyone else but that's what came to mind reading the thread title.
Another thing is didn't Pearsall come pretty late to the game? I mean isn't he a generation or two after a lot of prominent MCM designers.
Duck and cover. Lol.
I get ...
Duck and cover. Lol.
I get what you mean. I'm not a fan of his sofas. I have tried to buy his arm chairs and did find some issues with the back being a bit loose. I've never taken one apart. I remember someone trying to sell me one and as soon as I sat in it there was an obvious loose back that he swore could be tightened. But you wonder what's going on under that upholstery...how long will the particle board or whatever it is underneath hold up.
I do still really like his dining tables. I'd mix them up with another kind of chair though. The high back chairs are weird (though oddly comfortable the one time I sat in them) and block you from seeing the sculptured base of the table. I'd pair one of his tables with a low back Moller or a Koefoeds ladder back, etc. Something open. I agree somewhat that his coffee tables are derivative-but I'm not sure they are derivative of Kagan. I'm having a hard time tracking down dates, but it seems like Kagan's coffee table (the spidery one of wood and glass) was designed after Pearsall's. Pearsall might have designed his about two years after Nogouchi's though.
That being said...I don't think he warrants ZERO mention anywhere.
.
What if next year all the articles are about Pearsall, and his Jetsons vision? Won't the scholars follow and start writing their next books on the genius of Pearsall trumping the vapid simplicity of design that Nelson and Eames represent?
(Why not, the blogger can get a link from a future post on the forum about the heretical, yet thought provoking point of view, and make a few bucks from the traffic generated. The editors of a few MCM magazines will catch on, and ride the wave to sell a few extra magazines. And some new scholars can get book advances on the new understanding of MCM that is knocking the cobwebs out of the old).
This whole thread will be looked back upon as Pearsall's "breakout" moment.
And Spanky, Woody, and Cubby will all be tarred and feathered for speaking against the one true designer. Because as we all know, the works of apotheosized designer are manifestations in perfection of the one true ideal and can't suffer from kitsch or bad plywood.
Cynic, yes.
I have been known to be cynical. But if I were to express myself differently, I'd say that it isn't my subjective experience of the market that Pearsall is overlooked. (The market is not article writers nor scholars)
In fact I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him enjoy a few minutes of article writing glory and following that scholarly mention.
However as spanky, woody, and cubby mentioned there are aesthetic and functional flaws in his oeuvre that have made it less desirable than his peers, and those same flaws are likely to limit his glory (though not certainly, as history is loaded with exaltation beyond measure, and below measure).
Oh and
Keewee, the point you mentioned of Americans feeling it important to collect the works of American designers,:well that is true not of Americans only but of people in general. People like to create identity, individual, or otherwise.
Therefore, it is quite possible that we will see, and already are seeing, the quirks of Pearsall's design transmuted from the lead of bad design into the gold that speaks to "an American-ness of a bygone era", an era more daring of moon launches and rocket ships, of brave expansion into the suburbs and new kitchen appliances and formica countertops, of Jetsons couches and organic shape coffee tables.
In Germany, Pearsall could never enjoy that "renaisaance" as he isn't German. The Germans, and everyone else, will be prone to their own version of patriotic transmutation.
Edit:autocorrect is annoying
shakey
That's exactly what the OP said, that Pearsall is more popular lately (i.e., selling well on ebay). His point was that Pearsall has been overlooked as far as the annals of good design go.
I give blogs like Apartment Therapy a lot of credit for popularizing Pearsall and other B-grade designers and furniture. These blogs have a lot of readers who like the MCM look but can't afford the good stuff, so they've been buying up Pearsall, Drexel, Martinsburg (or whatever it is), etc. They often mix in a fair amount of kitsch and of course the ubiquitous cardboard taxidermy.
This too shall pass.
Leif is right. We aren't...
Leif is right. We aren't looking at Pearsall from the point of view of someone in the 50's. I personally don't like his couches and most of his dining chairs, but...from a 50's point of view, moon launches and astronauts, those charis probably seemed exciting. On the other hand, his dining tables, which I do happen to like, probably seemed pretty boring. I don't think Pearsall is a bad designer. I think everyone has to eat and make a living and he probably designed what the market wanted to buy at the time. What can we say about Eames residential line? We like it a lot now. But it wasn't very popular back in the day. Eames stopped designing for the home because his things weren't selling well in that market and moved to designing for offices. Pearsall might seem over the top now, but maybe people wanted something modern and less pared back for their home than what Eames was offering. Maybe
I'm not convinced his designs can be labeled goofy. I'm not sure what I'd call them. Many of his pieces look to me like the beginning of post modernism-the avant not completely functional pieces you start to see in the 70's (but his dining chairs are functional). Ultimately not for me. But I'd take his oblong dining table with that nice sculpted wood shape underneath glass any day. Especially if you could stick some nice dining chairs underneath that glass that you'd want to look at...like a Moller Danish cord chair. If I were a purist, I'd take these Pearsall chairs with the dining table. But I've never ever seen them. Only the very very high back versions.
Do you guys really think this looks "goofy"? I think this is a handsome set. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. I won't be hurt.
http://www.dejavulongbeach.com/sold-items/american-modern-adrian-pearsal...
I don't think this is goofy...
Neither do I don't think this is goofy, something that should pass, cardboard-ish, etc. Nice sculpted wood piece that cradles the globe just so...in my humble opinion.
http://danishmodernla.com/Adrian_Pearsell_Mid_Century_Modern_Walnut_Glob...
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com