Well said.
And some terms are simply appropriated from a "ferrin langwidge" because they 'got there first" in describing a new or newly-appreciated idea or artifact. Sorry, but thems the breaks. So, Haute Couture (roughly, High Fashion) is a standard term in the world of clothing design.
But we were talking about how trends in design start often at the "top" -- think, LC Tiffany -- and end up at Woolworths (think "dish night" at the movie theater, in the thirties, with glitzy "Depression Glass").
barry, my homme,
Haute coutre is only "ultra sophisticated terminology," if you understand no French.
Why, I could even imagine George Bush on a state visit to gay Purreeee takin' his gal, Laura, to Givenchy and saying, "All right, ewe bunch'uh high sew-ers, ahm the chief deeeeecider of thuh EWE-nited States of Amurrrrica. Show Laura, here, some uh them high sewed dresses and be quick about, would ya. We ain't got all day."
English speakers need not live in fear of the French language.
Why, did you know that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and I believe many other of the Founding Dads could speak a little French. Even General George Patton could liberate French villages in the local tongue.
It is we current Amurrricans who have gotten a bit parochial and lazy about picking up other patois. 🙂
.
to go back to the meat of this thread, there is a Wegner chair (one of his last I think) that is a bit of a dog, I can't find a picture of it though.
Usually I am very persuaded by most of jasper Morrisons work but this chair not so much, its called the thinking Mans Chair, I don't think its attractive but I also think there is some sort of po mo joke I'm missing out on, anyone got an idea what this ones about?
Eames
I can see both sides of the argument that design is about function and design as a synonym for "style", but I think it is important to remember that the look of a piece is something to be incorporated into its overall design.
In that manner, I think much of what the Eames did in the 60's and 70's was pretty wretchedly styled. After the Aluminum group, they did the Time Life executive chair, which looks like the love child of two lazyboy sofas. The seat looks sagged, the attachements of the armrests are oddly fussy. Overall it looks tired and clunky -which may be the way many people perceive executives, but not the way they should be perceiving themselves.
Another Eames design that has often bothered me is the narrow chaise. With the weird extra cushions under your back and knees - why not streamline the original contour of the frame? And, again, oddly fussy in the way pieces attach. There are no relationships between the thickness of the outer part of the legs vs. the inner, the organic tubular quality of the legs vs. the rectalinear struts. Even the way the legs are set up parallel, rather than a pedestal with a splayed foot like some of the tables.
So, it can be argued that these are just stylistic choices and do not affect the function. I argue a sucessful design is one, in part, that looks good. We USE function, but we SEE harmony in design. Both are components of 'good' design. Simply compare the Eames Chaise with LeCorbusier's chaise. Corb got the proportions, the function, and the styling correct.
All images from TreadwayGallery.com
.
CORBUS is quite a mix in form and materials...the EAMES is more unified/intergrated...both very stylish...I have "physically interacted" with both,they are very much alike, not all that comfortable the Eames is rather smallish...The EAMES came only in eggplant color coated metal?Both chairs are more "design statements" designers most often use them as exclamation points in a space...
I disagree
First, with Barry, that the Exec chair and Chaise are beautifully designed. Now beauty is one of those things that is very subjective, I know, so I go into this argument knowing it can never be 'won'. But here goes anyway...
The Eames Time Life chair is clunky. Looking at it one has to ask: why? Why are the armrests almost as thick as they are wide? Why are they perched on two little bolts, instead of some more elgant hidden system? Why does the aluminum frame come only 2/3 up the backrest of the chair? Why are the frames perforated by no less than 6 bolts on each side? Why isnt the framework hidden behind the cushions? Why is the back of the chair left open and visually unfinished?
If you look back at the more successful and popular products you will see that the questions above carry some merit. In the Eames 670 lounge chair great effort was made to hide attachments of the cushions and the armrests and to have a rational system of proportions. In the Eames Alu group the alu frame exists because it is the physical support of the chair - but, it's function is also visually well incorporated: the frame is unpierced by bolts except at the termination points and sits recessed under the cushion - it doesnt box the cushions in as the Executive chair does. It just feels like they got lazy on this one. They were increasingly moving away from furniture, and into media presentation, advertising, and film, so its clear that their interests were not totally focused.
I was going to upload some little doodles of how I would have (humbly) redesigned the Chaise and the Exec chair (slow day at work), but my scanner is being fussy. I'll upload a little later.
And why is the LC Chaise a mess?
The Time Life chair is not be all time favorite,
but given the time of introduction, it was an elegant, high quality chair. It fits in with good business furniture.
I'm a bit surprised that it's still in production because it's kind of outdated by today's standards, but I bet anyone who got one in 1962 was considered pretty dang spiffy.
There's no question that all of our opinions are subjective; after all, art is suppose to be subjective.
But any piece of furniture must follow the form vs function theory...to be a good piece, it must be appropriate for it's planned function.
In actual fact, MOST of the modern furniture made between 1930's and the 1970's followed that rule, regardless of your personal taste.
Remember, furniture is different from wall hangings, rugs, and sculpture; all they have to do is look good to the person buying it. A chair must be comfortable and built to last. Same goes for a sofa, chest of drawers, table, teapot, set of dishes, silverware, or anything you actually USE.
My original criticism is when the design is such that it's difficult to USE the item in question. Like the silverware that's beautiful to look at but it too difficult to eat with. Or the lamp that so fragile and complicated that it can be moved from one room to another without requiring professional help. Or the chair that looks nice but it uncomfortable to sit in. Or the teapot that's beautiful, but is miserable to use, because the spout is designed in a way that the hot tea spills down the pout and into your hand....and is difficult to clean!
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com