Real is what you make of it, I guess.
Read the last paragraph of the attached link. Knoll owns the name rights. Name rights and patent rights on the actual design are not the same thing in my viewpoint. And owning a name does not give license to unmitigated greed. But I concede, no one here agrees, so I'll give up trying to explain my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassily_Chair
Ahh Wikipedia
The source of all things that are true.
I am aware that Knoll no longer owns patent rights, any more than Herman Miller owns the patents to the Eames shockmounts.(and I don't know enough about patent law to know if the Breuer pieces were still under patent in the 60s)
My point was more that Knoll acquired and produced Breuer's designs in a fairly straightforward manner with regards to who has the rights, design specs, drawings, etc.
And why all this talk of greed? Knoll and Herman Miller are businesses, and businesses make money. Amongst many companies working in the US at least these two seem to have decent labor practices, a good environmental record, and high satisfaction ratings from their workers. As I said in the Get Real thread, we shouldn't all be shocked that HM/Knoll/etc are protecting their own interests, and that we all know EXACTLY what those interests are.
Are you offended when Progresso Soup makes fun of Campbells? (and vice versa)
The vaunted last paragraph...
The vaunted last paragraph of the Wiki article contains the sentence
"The Wassily chair, like many other designs of the modernist movement, has been mass-produced since the late 1920s, and continuously in production since the 1950s."
This sentence contains two factual inaccuracies and comes within a hairsbreadth of contradicting itself. A fine demonstration as to why Wikipedia needs to be approached with the utmost caution.
As most of you know...
I hate to participate in this discussion, simply because nobody seems to be willing to move an inch on his or her opinion, no matter what the facts are and without any consideration what?s however for logic or it?s less elitist version: common sense.
But I can not resist a few considerations. First of all, I have read the Wikipedia text and I can not find any contradictions or misleading statements, other than the Adler bicycle story?It was indeed seamless Reynolds tubing (patented in 1897) that made the chair possible and it is true that one of the major users of seamless steel tubing was the bicycle industry, but I have never seen any document in which Marcel Breuer made the link between the Adler bicycle and the chair. In fact, it is very unlikely because the direct inspiration was the earlier cantilever chair and that was first produced by Mart Stam in regular tube with cast plumbing bends. As a technician at the Bauhaus Breuer was simply better informed than Mart Stam and knew about the availability of seamless tubes (the patent had just expired). By the way it is not only a difference in the seamless nature of the tube but also the formulation of the steel that made the cantilever chair possible.
That the Wassily was mass produced starting 1920 (by Thonet) is accurate. This does not imply that it was continuously in production or on the market. To state that the Wassily has been in continuous production since 1950 seems accurate to?where is the contradiction.
All the arguments that Herman Miller and Knoll for that matter are protecting there business interests overlook the fact that nobody prevents them from praising there own record, both in quality, reliability, fame, historical continuity, you name it. But that?s not what they are doing. They claim to make the only real product. This is simply untrue, no matter what your opinion is. It is not because in someone opinion, the sky is red that the blue is going to change color. To user the Campbell/ Progresso example, it would be the same thing as Campbell claiming that they are the only makers of real tomato soups and all the others are knock offs. Instead of playing games by misleading the consumer, they should concentrate on getting the message out that their company simply makes the best quality and gives the best service and everybody would respect that effort.
As always Koen
A pleasure to read your postings. I believe the bicycle reference came about from a quote of Breuer's. "IN FACT," HE EXPLAINED, "I TOOK THE PIPE DIMENSIONS (APPROXIMATELY TWENTY MILLIMETRES IN DIAMETER) FROM MY BICYCLE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE ELSE TO GET IT OR HOW TO FIGURE IT OUT." (from Architonic, which lists sources as: ARIAN PAGE, FURNITURE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECTS, WHITNEY LIBRARY OF DESIGN, 1980, P. 169
CHRISTOPHER WILK, MARCEL BREUER. FURNITURE AND INTERIORS, NEW YORK, 1981, PP. 37-40, 23-25 )
Perhaps it is the same argument you make, Koen. 'Real' to HM/Knoll is simply the best quality and the best service, etc. In which case this whole discussion comes down to semantics.
And yet... There are many soda-pops in the world. But there is only one Coca-Cola.
Can I refer you to...
Can I refer you to Lucifersum entirely accurate account of the production history of the B3 Wassily chair? The chair was not produced between being discontinued by Thonet (it does not appear in any post 1931 catalogues) and being made by Gavina from 1962. Furthermore I would argue that although when made by Thonet the techniques of mass production may indeed have been used, the chair was not, in any real sense, 'mass produced'.
Sorry to have placed my
contribution in the wrong thread, but being there...I know of the reference that Christopher Wilk also mentioned, but the facts are that Marcel Breuer has always done everything possible, to ignore the Mart Stam origin of the cantilever chair, including spreading this kind of after the facts re-writing of history. One has to ask the simple question: Why would he have to be inspired by a bicycle when the product already existed?
I ignore Paulanna what your criteria is for mass production. To some extend one could argue that it was never mass produced. But Thonet certainly produced it industrially (as opposed to made to measure, prototyped,etc. etc.)You are right,I misread the date in the Wikipedia description. Gavina did not start their production of the Wassily untill 1960.
This thread is all over the p...
This thread is all over the place 🙂
I don't have any fanatical opinions about the aunthenticity of any piece of design now, just a concern for the facts and quality, quality begets quality begets quality. And obviously its far more than build quality, quality of material and quality of life for the owner and their staff.
If I go to the best (elite?) saddle maker for some work done, he will make more money and hire better staff, buy better stock.. who might get paid more etc etc, furthermore if I develop a relationship with the saddle maker (now theres a thought) we can learn things from each other and given I live in a small community he may pass work my way. Lovely isn't it? Its not that simple but Its how I go about these things.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com