Pegboard Modern:
Your rant begins by admonishing those of us who faulted a chair design as being "too slippery".
Your rant ends by acknowledging that rational and reasonable criteria for judging the success of a design might be: Does it work? Can I sit in it?
Perhaps it's my horrendous lack of arts education, but your post confuses me.
.
"sadly left most people out of the discourse of contemporary fine art".
lucky them! sorry to rock your boat but most people are too busy trying to feed their kids to sit around in a shoppimg mall discussing the relative merits of coffee table a, b or c.
The subjective reaction is all we are ever going to illicit from the consuming public, we just have to make sure our work illicits those reactions resposnibly.
william-holden-caulfield
Please don't take anything personally. I did not intend my remarks to be construed that way at all. I think you might want to reread what I said. I was trying to suggest that the criteria for judging functional objects is more apparent than the criteria for judging art. In my follow up post I acknowledged that there are obvious exceptions to those very same criteria.
The Eames shell chair is clearly an important and successful design. It is relevant historically for a number of reasons, and they certainly sold enough to consider it a commercial success. If the vintage chairs made of fiberglass too slippery, you know they offered them upholstered as well. Or perhaps the current production made of polypropylene plastic might have a toothier surface that is not as slick. Maybe that is an improvement on the original. My point is, I would be much more interested in hearing about a design by someone of note that was sub-par for reasons that can be articulated beyond "I think it looks stupid".
One could nit-pick details about nearly any great design. I mean, the DCM among my all-time favorite dining chairs, but I hate that the shock mounts can fail. The fact that they seem more likely to fail on DCWs and LCWs are among the reasons that I like those much less than the DCMs and LCMs. The other reasons are that I think the contrast of wood and metal is more interesting, the metal frame seems lighter and airier, the wooden elements appear to float more, the frame is the same thickness all the way through as opposed to the wood legs of the LCW, which vary depending on your vantage point... I could go on, but I would never suggest that since the shock mount of a plywood Eames chair can come unglued that it's not a great design.
An example of a design that does not appeal to me subjectively is Ghery's laminated wood collection for Knoll. I understand Ghery's work and these designs, I appreciate them and recognize that they are innovative and visually compelling. They just don't move me or appeal to me the same way other's work does. But while I don't like them and wouldn't want to own any of it. I can't find fault with it. It's good design.
I'm trying to think of an example of a design by an otherwise outstanding designer that misses the mark. Not every painting by a great artist is a masterpiece. Nor do I think that every good architect is necessarily good at furniture design or product design. I think Heath's example that started the thread is the best one yet.
I am not attacking anyone, just hoping to encourage thoughtful discussion.
Pefection
can always be improved upon...that's my motto
We are always in some measurable way attempting towards perfection weather we admit it or not, and in some form or another....or if we'll archive it...but we do it anyway.
Pointing out flaws doesn't, as you pointed out, diminish that particular design worthiness. Disposable elements like shock mounts fail. They were never seen as permanent fixtures.
I feel my example of the shell chair was quite suitable. Based on my understanding of its intended use, it does fall short. Comfort is an important factor when sitting in a room for up to an hour while trying to learn mathematics... Perhaps, some blame can be placed for my disinterest in mathematics. Personal experience, the fabric upholstered shell chairs were more of an exception than the norm.
Some of the early DC & LC prototypes are appealing...like those three legged ones. BUT, they we consider too unstable for full production and use. Would you consider that in some way a failure? or even...bad design?
Thats' all I can lay out for now...little hard to grapple all of what has been said locked in this window.
.
I really like SDRs idea of the plastic shell chairs being one trick ponys, I wouldn't say "no" to owning one because it was a pretty spectacular trick, also I'm active enough to usually only sit for 20 minutes at a time unless I'm lying on the couch.
What I think is interesting is the degradation of the form (not the manufacturing technique) of single piece plastic chairs over the years, from early Italian designs which were often quite good to this....its just never been necessary to make something so ugly and weak when we started off with such good designs.
Pegboard Modern:
Again, I fail to understand you.
Your second paragraph cites the importance of the Eames shell chair from a design standpoint. No argument from me (though, the fact that they sold enough to be considered a commercial success is neither here nor there-- could 50,000,000 Elvis fans be wrong?) You then acknowledge the fatal flaw of the un-upholstered fiberglass version, but go on to say that it was available in a less slippery upholstered version. Fine, but we were discussing the impossible-to-sit-in, ubiquitous fiberglass version.
Then, for the clincher, you write, " My point is, I would be much more interested in hearing about a design by someone of note that was sub-par for reasons that can be articulated beyond "I think it looks stupid"." We articulated a very valid reason -- too slippery to sit on for any extended period! (I must have missed the "I think it looks stupid" comment, where'd you see it?)
In your earlier post ("More thoughts"), you wrote a paragraph about the importance of objectivity in judging a work of art. However, you took exception with BARRYMPLS for calling the Kangaroo chair "unattractive", by replying," I think it's very attractive, and at the top of my personal "most wanted" list." (So much for objectivity.)
(Never mind the fact that there ARE objective standards of beauty, and if you two had articulated your thoughts on the matter, you might have gotten somewhere.)
Your posts on this subject have been contradictory and somewhat condescending. I'm left with the impression that you think it Philistinism to discuss functionality, except when you yourself do it... that it's a darn shame that the common man can't discuss Art intelligently, for lack of proper education... that certain designs are sacred cows and above reproach, except when you yourself critique them and encourage "thoughtful discussion". To put it in layman's terms, you're being a weenie.
La Chaise
I always thought it was a beautiful piece of furniture, but unrealistic. So, based on my opinions of usability, then I guess it fits in here.
Have you ever seen the JOE sofa? It's a huge baseball glove in leather.
Like a lot of the 1960's conversation pits, it's cool to see but I wouldn't have it in my house.
i can see
both sides but there seems to be multiple purposes in this thread. One is personal dislikes based on visual or functional qualities. The other is the more general "is it good design?". There are cases where both of these evaluations meet. The eames shell is a perfect example. Those here who are critical of it based on its comfort issues are right on both counts because comfort was one of the designers goals. It may actually fail in that respect (though comfort is highly subjective). This brings a designers intent into this discussion, especially where it collides with our expectations. If i am looking for comfort+rationality+economy of means i will find most of what i am looking for coming from the mid century. However, i tend to evaluate designs more often based on answering the question, "did the designer succeed in their goals?" if functionality,rationality, and comfort were the only acceptable goals of design, it would be a far less interesting subject for me. gunnar andersons poured foam is considered successful (and iconic) because it emphatically acheived what the designer intended. I was repulsed the first time i saw a picture of this chair, but was fascinated enough to read about it.
pt.2
only then did its existence make sense to me. Perhaps this goes to the rancor that seems to be developing here. pegboard modern is advocating for evaluation based on background education before pronouncing something good or bad design, wanting to rescue those terms. Others here seem to be using those terms for a specific set of standards that design gets far away from at times. It is my personal feeling that it is fine to evaluate for functionality alone (i do it for furniture i have at home), but i do understand that this is a narrow set of judgements on my part, and i realize that there are many other criteria that can be evaluated when i think about good design.
pt3
my personal experience with these ideas is a car i owned. it was a 1990 geo metro XFI (this variant made for one year only). It was made by suzuki for general motors. It was stickered for and got 53 mpg city and 58 mpg highway. I drove it for 250,000 + miles with only maintenance issues needing attention (and i am not the most religious when it came to upkeep). Also it was the least expensive car you could buy at the time. It was comfortable and easy to operate. by the measures of affordability+reliability+efficiancy, it was perhaps the best car ever made. And i am sure that is what its designers intended. But during my ownership of it i regularly heard criticsms of it being small and slow. But of course that was not the point of this car. It was clearly good design. It would be like critising an expressionist painting for not clearly telling a story. Pantons work after the very early stuff had everything to do with expressiveness and is considered good design on those terms. so i think the term good design applies to all ares of design, while specific critiques warrant their own terms.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com