Heath
Of course that chaise is beautiful and well designed too.
As regards you going naked or using a bare bulb, etc....I get your point. But on the other extreme; when someone designs something without consideration on how usable, confortable or how structurely well made it, then you get into art that doesn't function (if it's an idea that's made to be used by humans, rather than just to be looked at).
That's my point...on the extreme of design that doesn't work.
I think my feelings about this are similar to the MOMA, when it comes to functional furniture or furnishings.
The initial
criticism of the Eames lounge points to the odd irregularity of thickness of the parts of the base. This is explained by the structural loads on that element. The outrigger legs want to bend upward when weight is applied to the lounge, so the horizontal of the leg thickens as it approaches the vertical post to counteract that. Then, to keep the two pairs of legs from simply spreading apart under load, a long tie is placed to connect the two ends to each other. And because that tie rod is entirely under tension, it could be as slender as a cable, which explains why Eames returns to the thinner dimension of the other parts of the base.
Logical, and thus elegant -- when you understand it. Trust your local architect to do the right thing, with a chosen form. . .
I don't believe in sacred...
I don't believe in sacred cows but thats quite a harsh dismissal of the work of one of the founding fathers of the modern movement - I don't see anything artsy about it - simply a folded steel base with an upholstered tubular framed adjustable seat on top. No collage or artsiness, rather using materials appropriate for the purpose. The way this chair is perceived today, as self conscious 'good taste' shouldn't cloud how well Le Corbusier realised his design. I'm as lost on 'messy vitality' as Barry was with haute couture.
I'll put my hands up - I'm...
I'll put my hands up - I'm slightly biased when it comes to Eames. I wouldn't necessarily have him in my Academy of the Overated but I'd let him compere the Awards Ceremony. Its my personal opinion but I think much of his perceived importance has as much to do with the hegemony of American written design history as with his achievements as a designer (let alone as an architect.)
Is it me or is it getting hot in here?
.
I started the thread so we could all have a laugh. But anyway I don't think Corbs chaise is bad design and its obviously important but I do hold the line that it is ridiculously labour intensive to make and is not relaxing to the eye. More so in both regards than its 19th century ancestors, so to me its a falure as a modern object, so is the Barcelona chair and many other pieces of high design.
I'd like to own some of them, they are beautiful, well engineered etc etc but I would never give them the praise of 'good design' which the work of people like Dieter Rams deserves.
Some more examples of what people think is poor design from known designers? Phillipes kettle on the other thread was a good one I thought.
I could
see what you're saying about Eames, Paulanna -- but even if he had made only the plywood pieces I expect his reputation would be assured. They're much more assured and original as form than any of the other work in that material, save perhaps Aalto. And, no one asks of their favorite designer that he also be a prolific architect -- do they ?
But this is just my opinion, in answer to your point. I'm sure it can be seen in different ways. Do continue.
To answer
Heath's question, I'm not a big Jens Risom fan. If he's a known designer with some good work, then his earlier webbed chairs need to be singled out as "Bad Art" (to me). The rear legs are too far forward and as a result the chairs look like they want to tip over backward with little provocation. Very odd, to me.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com