The "new" ugliest chair  

Indeed, koen...
What compounds the matter is that it's a display of disrespect to a design which is the unimaginative bastards' meal ticket. I don't blame Shire. He's just a shit designer. But for Modernica who live off of REPRODUCING this design and others of the same vein to find the audacity to commission some cheeky Memphis loser to alter a design of the Jesus of MCM is truly despicable. I hope this economy swallows them up to never be heard from again.

It's not even fun to ridicule this clown--
He no doubt fancies himself some kind of rebellious design 'bad boy'; too avant garde... too visionary... to be understood by the uptight bourgeoisie.
These types glory in praise & criticism alike-- both responses are "proof" of artistic genius, as anyone who lived through the 20th century can attest. (Convenient, ain't it?)
Silence is the best show of contempt, for those who crave cheap attention.

It looks stupid. The design...
It looks stupid. The design on that set of chairs simply doesn't work. How desperately pretentious do you have to be to buy them, I wonder.

The one-off is fine
The DCM is fine- a simple joke about Memphising up a MCM design. Clever. Got the punchline. Move on.
What would be amazing is if Starck took the Prince Charles and made the entire thing out of polished aluminum, lucite, and mashed potatoes painted gold with ray-guns stenciled onto it. Seriously. Because all of those things are classics, but like, you're using new materials. So it's clever.

The DCM is fine
He butchered his parents' vintage DCMS = not fine!
Or what could be really cool is making the DCMs from particleboard and using the eiffel bases on them made from recycled copper piping and put lucite rocker runners on it. From the back you could have a pole with a hanging Nelson lamp made with a doily skin covering.

...
i don't know if i'd want them in my home, but i can imagine certain interiors where these would work quite well.
i think if the fiberglass shell had a faux wood grain finish it would be slightly more interesting.
all in all, certainly not the most original chair in the world, but an interesting take on a classic that might just make a fan out of someone that would otherwise despises mid century pieces in favor of 18th and 19th century classics...

'I think.......
'I think if the fiberglass shell had a faux wood grain finish it would be slightly more interesting'
Excuse me while I go and throw up .........

so sad.......
charles and ray must be turning over in their graves........ bless their souls.

If this is
If this is what it takes to get someone to switch - the 19th century pieces can have them.

Could it be
what happens when someone actually uses this?

Jeremiah, you said: "i...
Jeremiah, you said:
"i don't know if i'd want them in my home, but i can imagine certain interiors where these would work quite well. "
I have ask WHERE? A clown house? A circus? A barnyard fire? A Far Side cartoon? Disneyland? A paint ad? A scrap heap? Mary Poppins? I honestly cant think of anyplace realistic where this "art" might look good. But again, this is just an opinion.

I'm fantastic at being not clever...
Jeremiah, you're stupid.

Jeremiah is entitled to his opinion
agree with it or not, he's a designaddict like everyone else here.

Wait, wait --
I've got it: this chair is a work of conceptual art -- or a satirical statement: the title is the point. It's intended as a comment on Prince Charles' well-known antipathy to most modern architecture, at least as it impinges on the bucolic loveliness of the traditional British landscape (or cityscape).
If that is the intention, I think it succeeds nicely. Case closed.

It occurs to me that this chair of Peter Shire's...
is part of the price the Neo Modern Revival pays for not adopting a rigorous philosophy capable of holding the high ground of design that it has momentarily regained.
The price is a Neo Post Modern Revival that is bound to be even more ethically cynical and aesthetically repugnant than the original Post Modern episode, and Neo Post Modern's promotion as the next hot revival style to be schlepped on the public.
What I mean here is that by the Neo Modern Revival failing to articulate and embrace a rigorous philosophy capable of rationalizing either the new geometric formalism represented by Konstantin Grcich in design, or the new functionalism represented by Renzo Piano in architecture, the Neo Modern Revival has the lost focus and ensuing critical mass of recognizable forward progress (i.e., sufficient number of superb new designs by a sufficiently large number of energized designers with a common vision of what design and architecture can be and become) needed to achieve broad acceptance both commercially and culturally.
When a design/architecture movement, however modest, or shortlived, fails to sustain focus and splinters, it inevitably leaves a vacuum to be filled by some other point of view.