great designers + not so great design  

.
I've often wondered about these chairs too.
I don't know what Mies was thinking of when he came up with this birdbath design, must have been under the influence of mistress # 7.

there still is
a confusing variety of opinions here about what design is. it might help us stay on the fun, opionionated part of this thread to try and clarify the term (of course this could get scattered like the rest of the thread). the definitions of design i have read seem to have a common theme, intent. if intent is at the root of design, and my goal was to make a chair that pinched your tookus when you sat (as a conceptual statement of course) and it did, then it would indeed be a good design. my point with this absurdity is that critiquing for comfort and looks are fine but they alone do not constitute the range that the term good design implies. much of pantons work was designed as a vibrant expressiveness first and foremost, and that it succeeded at it is why they are considered good design and panton a great designer. you will find precious little to read on his work about economy of means or comfort. and there are many other good designs out there that also had entirely different agendas. perhaps it would be simpler to ask "what do you think are the worst designer made objects in terms of functionality and or aesthetics"? depending on whos work you are talking about, the term good or bad design may not apply.

.
messy vitality is,I guess a too arcane ref to Robert Venturis oft quoted line...Collage is exactly what corbus chaise is it three distinct materials in three parts...I think both are important quality works...as much art as furniture,perhaps more art...

.
opinions good! Lets have more of them! I'm getting concerned that its all fashion and we're all sheep.
I've decided I can't stand those piddly little Eames tables that look to be cut from the waste of the eliiptical tables, I suppose its a good use of offcuts but you can just about fit a slim volume of verse and a thimble of whisky on them.

Jumping around
First off: design. It's easy to dismiss design into the two clear categories: form or function. My argument against the Eames Executive chair and the Eames chaise is that they fall too much into the function category, without balancing out the form.
Yes, the Exec chair succeeds in giving people a cushy place to sit. But, as Barry points out, it is a dated look, and Heath states "so does a bean bag chair". No one would say the LCW is dated, nor the 670 lounge (a little over exposed, perhaps.) I argue that truly 'good' designs are those that transcend the specifics of their own times. The Eames LCW, the Nelson Ball clock, the Barcelona chair, the Porsche 911, the Kitchen Aid Mixer: all were created in a specific time and place, but all seem timeless.
Which brings me to the Corb chaise vs. the Eames. Both allow a person to lay down, relax, and nap for a bit - the function is successful in both pieces. However, the LC Chaise avoids the dated (and clinical) look of the Eames. The combination of materials: steel, rubber, leather - contribute, rather than distract from, its function. It avoids most of the oddities of the Eames chaise: varying thicknesses of the frame, overtly parrallel thrust, and the lumpy pillows that make it look like a caterpillar.
As I mentioned above I had done some little redraws and I submit them below. First to the Eames chaise: If structure is the main issue i.e. it needs to hold weigth, why reinvent the wheel? Why not put it on a pedestal base ala contract tables? This would support the weight of a person whilst visually counteracting the railroad effect.
And for the Executive chair I think much of the dated quality could have been avoided if they had reworked the frame a little bit - bringing the armrests into better unity, putting the frame behind the cushions rather than boxing them in - think about how the Aluminum group looks - classic and undated (except possibly the alu lounge)
Again, sorry for the quality - scanner's busted - these were taking with my cell phone camera.

Some fun
If I were bald, parapalegic and had telekinetic powers...this would be my chair of choice...with puncture proof motorised AWD wheels. Maybe it could just levitate.

Price tower chair by F.L.W.
bizzare at best...designed in the 1950s but looks 30s, early 30s at that?Id like to hear a defense of this chairs formal qualities.A throne for a two headed fiji mermaid from outer space.One of the Bugattis did some fantastic/exotic furniture circa 1900, esp the (snail chair)they had the "base" but his furniture was balanced in all case...I guess this "throne" was bolted to the space ships floor from the underside, why miss the chance for some faceted nut creations!Whats with the ratchet like notches up the spine,pointless.

Bad day at the office for...
Bad day at the office for FLW - it is reminiscent of 20/30s French 'luxury modern', Pierre Chareau etc.
Aplogies for the lo-fi image but Marcel Breuer was apparently so embarassed by this chair (for Heals)that he later omitted it from any retrospectives of his furniture. I can see his point.

Good 'ol Frank Lloyd Wright....
He was a difficult character. Wonderful, visionary archetect, who made absolute demands on those people he designed the residential homes for. He required that all of the furniture was designed by him alone and most of the pieces were built-in, so the homeowners couldn't screw around FLW's floorplans. Many of his chairs were apparently rigid and rather uncomfortable. He was interested in quality materials, but being an older gent, he (apparently) wasn't impressed with the new materials.
So, when I see most of the FLW pieces of furniture, I can't help thinking, "They'd look swell in a museum, but don't even think of putting any of them in my living room!"

I certainly
won't defend the Price Tower Flash Gordon throne chair. . .or that unfortunate piece from Mr Breuer.
In his defense, however, I'll sympathize with Mr Wright in his effort to design what he hoped was appropriate furniture for his buildings, and his sorrow that too many of his early clients couldn't afford it, once their houses were completed. (No, he didn't "require" it -- though he might have wanted to.) No one has complained about his upholstered chairs, or his tables and sideboards, for comfort, and the tall dining chairs fall into the Panton school (see above), perhaps. He himself admitted that he had a hard time with chairs. . .
I like LuciferSum's sketches -- and the fact that he put his pen to work. A picture is worth much written criticism, isn't it ? C'mon people -- cough it up !

.
Thanks Paulanna thats a great one, these cantilevered chairs that aren't cantilevered are allways a laugh, wonder why they bother!
Interesting point about designers controlling the perception of their work, Mies' early villas barely get noticed, I just tried to find some online images of the Riehl + Perls houses and could find virtually nothing, up until recently his early work had been very efficiently expunged from the record.
I have allways like the look of the Maison de Verre though, but I'm a glutton for diffuse light and books.

I really like lucifersums...
I really like lucifersums redo/switch of the Eames chaise...thats a Eames table base from another line, in many ways its better/smoother?Your drawing style reminds me of a famous graphic arttist Chwast?

My Thought
My thought with the base of the chaise was to find something that broke up the parrallelism of the base. I figured the Eames were fans of using off-the-rack parts why not re-use something they've already developed?
I've seen some of Chwast's work, but I think I'm more influenced by an illustrator named David Macauly. My main problem is that I never know when to exert some restraint with the cross hatching.

You
never know when you'll go too far with a drawing -- until it happens. It's a process of continually leaving behind the purity of an unadorned line drawing, in hopes of one that communicates more information, isn't it ? I find nothing wrong with the examples above. . .