  |
 |
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
Classics you dislike
Everyone has a classic or two they just do not like, no matter that the general public holds them so highly. What's yours?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
most of stark's stuff...
most of stark's stuff (except the ghost chairs). like that lemon squeezer - omg.
+ graves teapot by alessi
+ Eileen Gray's "thing":
|
|
 |
posted by claus
edited on 21-Oct-08 08:24 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
posted by claus
edited on 21-Oct-08 08:33 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
ok, the gray chair is not...
ok, the gray chair is not actually a classic, i just saw it at the local vitra/knoll dealer today and am still shocked.
but the teapot could be called a (postmodern) classic. it's well known even among non-addicts, i know quite some people who proudly own or want one and recognize it as a classic piece of design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
Really can't abide
I really can't abide Warren Platner's chairs. The tables I like ok, but the chairs are just so....fussy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
Haha. I love Platner's...
Haha. I love Platner's chairs ... I want a pair of high back lounges in white leather with brass frames...
No, that's fussy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
claus and woodywood
Classic can be a rather subjective notion, don't you think? I think the Nonconformist chair is a classic. It is functional, beautiful, unique, provoking, challenging, and timeless. It is one of my favourite chairs, although I prefer it in fabric (Picture 1).
I actually spent some time trying to come up with a real classic that I dislike, and I couldn't. Not all are beautiful, but most of them have something to say or question, which is interesting. And it is hard to dislike something interesting. I am sure there are many, but my mind is blank at the moment.
However, there is a more modern classic that I dislike: the Aeron chair. It may be very comfortable and ergonomic, but it is not beautiful or interesting in any way whatsoever. (Picture 2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
Sol Bloom's
Catch All. Too messy no matter what you put in it. Just the name makes me cringe--reminds me of Aunt Edith's pocketbook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Dittos on the Panton Cone and Heart...
The Relaxer Lounge has got to be the most difficult chair to get out of I've ever sat in. And wasn't even comfortable to boot. What a sham, that fellow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
The four-legged version of...
The four-legged version of Arne Jacobsen's Ant chair. I just can't ... I ... I can't freakin' stand it! No wonder Fritz Hansen didn't dare to put in into production until after Arne's death. Seeing it in white or beech veneer only makes it worse yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
All the Panton cone chair variations are hideous. Hideous!
How'd those chairs manage to reach "classic" status, anyway? Here's another Panton clunker-- the less known "C1" (first image).
Of course, no list like this would be complete without a mention of the ghastly Memphis.
The 1980's were the nadir for design. Ooof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Panton Heart and Bartoli 4875 Kartell Chair
I like the panton cone chair, BUT the heart version of it is just way to clunky and kitsch looking. The Bartoli chair just seems way to plain and seeing the year it was designed, it was just a takeoff of Colombo's Universale and not as comfortable either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
There is a particular
penis shaped vase that keeps popping up at auction at Wright, flesh tone color and all. Total barf. I can't remember the name of the designer, but if you follow the auctions I'm sure a few of you know what vase I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Ah here it is
Ettore Sottsass
Nothing says 80's like a big fake dink with a flower coming out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
.
Platners 1966 wire tables are classic,esp in bronze finish,esp small side table...the wire chairs in same series: UCK.Pantons stuff has its place,little of it what I call classic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
!!!
The big fake dink vase, combined with your description, made me spit out my coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Platners 66 line has been in...
Platners 66 line has been in constant production, now thats quite a feat.Dink vase is amusing...needs a spray of white flowers to complete the look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
Dislike
Loathe may be a bit strong... but certainly dislike. It just looks like a mess to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
fear and loathing in modern classics?
the wassily sure doesn't offer many sitting positions. and it's a visual disorder, too many tubes and leather stripes...
edit: google just gave me this pic. shows how easily a wassily can be fixed
|
|
|
posted by claus
edited on 23-Oct-08 07:32 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
Don't know if the pink dink...
Don't know if the pink dink is a classic :)
1. Paul Mccobb Planner dining chairs. These are just too plain for my tastes. There really isn't anything interesting about them to me.
2. Aarnio ball chair. This chair is just too much. It's far too big visually and it makes too much of a statement ... and not elegantly. But then again, I tend to dislike the pop stuff.
3. Corbu LC1. This one is uncomfortable to a fault.
4. Pierre Paulin Ribbon chair. Paulin is one of the few pop designers I like. There's usually something very pleasing about his forms. This chair is UGLY though. Just plain ugly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
Thanks Whitespike
I knew there was one other chair floating in the back of my head that I disliked - Paulin's Tongue chair. Everything about it - from the form to the name - just makes my skin crawl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
I think the Wassily chair is size dependent
Everyone in my family that sits in my wassily chairs finds them "surprisingly comfortable". I am 6ft(180cm) tall, so's my hubby, the shortest one in the family is my mum who's 5'10" (177cm). I've a good friend who is only 5ft and she really hates sitting in these chairs. They hit all the worng places on her, whereas they seem to hit the right spots on a taller person. The lower strap of the seatback is actually nice when my lower back is giving me fits. Very supportive.
And to comment on the too many tubes, lines, whatever that some one posted... When you see the chair in a space, it's really more of what is not there that is noticed. They have a surprisingly light appearance when you can see the floor, rugs, etc through them. All in all I like them, but will probably sell them when I move to New Mexico. They were my first big modernist purchase and I've moved on to a softer look now.
And speaking of visually busy...that's what I hate about the Platner pieces, all that wire, so hostile and distracting. Looks like a cage and I am too claustrophobic to enjoy the idea of furniture that entraps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
Regarding the Wassily
I have a good quality knockoff - with black crinkle finish instead of shiny chrome, but when I sit in it, I notice that the way the leather straps are made on the back, it does not give support to my lower back.
I'm 5'10", so I am the size that the chair was designed for, I think.
I only paid $200.00 for it, so I'm not too concerned that it's not too comfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
What is that 80s looking...
What is that 80s looking armchair upholstered in red, blue and yellow? It has these round "ears" on top ... kind of Mickey Mouse-esque ears. They looks to be movable? I hate that thing .... ring a bell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
.
it's the Wink chair by Toshiyuki Kita (Cassina, 1980)
You could start a new thread for hateable, classic 80s designs...
|
|
|
posted by claus
edited on 24-Oct-08 06:22 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
I only know this one. it's...
I only know this one. it's convertible though. Clever mechanism, but it doesnt't counterbalance the aesthetics of this one. How odd that it's still in production...
|
|
|
posted by claus
edited on 24-Oct-08 07:36 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
Oh, no kidding. I guess that...
Oh, no kidding. I guess that is a neat function, but couldn't the function be executed with taste? Boy this thing looked messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
where do I start?
I will...
where do I start?
I will say the tulip chairs with fully upholstered seats are an improvement. But I still don't like them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
Certainly not everyone loves the Saarinen tulip collection
but there's no denying it's importance.
There's really two kinds of 'classics one dislikes' - designs that you think are poorly done or too derivative vs. classics that are nicely done but not to your own taste.
A lot of people are not too keen on Aalto's furniture because he always used bend birch-colored plywood and to some, it's not refined enough. I like it, but I understand why some do not.
But, if I were teaching a course on 20th Century modern iconic furniture, I would have no trouble keeping my own personal tastes out of the curiculum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
wow
didn't expect the tulip series to show up in this post! it has one of the most pleasing shapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
the Tulip chairs (I do like t...
the Tulip chairs (I do like the tables) seem too young and full of their own glamour for my tastes.
The armed chair especially I do not like, the flow of material in the seat is too sharp and raw compared to the base, it is smoothed considerably in the fully upholstered versions.
They are a bugger to move around too.
|
|
|
posted by Heath
edited on 24-Oct-08 10:30 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
Hmmm...Noguchi table & Finn...
Hmmm...Noguchi table & Finn Juhl's Pelican chair come to mind first, Bruno Matthson's chairs (perhaps with the exception of his 'Jetson' chairs in black leather)...also never been a big fan of Aalto furniture (I like his lamps, though), but I admit some of his original/old pieces look great, especially in the right environment so he probably doesn't belong to my list...then again, I like Wassilys, Tulip arm chairs and Danish stuff in general - all mentioned here - so what do I know...;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
Which Noguchi table are you...
Which Noguchi table are you referring to? Dining? Coffee?
I love Bruno Matthson's chairs, with the exception of the Jetson chair. So it's just the opposite. The Jetson chair is just too, um, Jetsony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
Noguchi...
...coffee table with a glass top & black base...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
As for Matthson, I'd be hard...
As for Matthson, I'd be hard pressed to find a chair with a classic status I'd dislike more than his 'Pernilla' (this side of the Memphis stuff, of course)...
|
|
|
posted by J.J.
edited on 25-Oct-08 12:15 AM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
Warren Platner...
...and Paul Evans. Paul Evans' stuff to me looks like vomit cast in metal. I just don't get it. It's not that I dislike the genre in general, I just can't stand Paul Evans pieces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
YUK
Fried egg & a couple of sticks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
more like a sticky pool of to...
more like a sticky pool of too sweet vanilla ice cream dropped on the footpath on a summers day.
I'm so glad someone else doesn't like it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
This is why we sometime have problems with opinions and conversations
your statement:
...and Paul Evans. Paul Evans' stuff to me looks like vomit cast in metal. I just don't get it. It's not that I dislike the genre in general, I just can't stand Paul Evans pieces.
===============================
Spanky, this is where people can go overboard. I am not crazy about Paul Evans designs, but what the hell's wrong with them? Can something not be your taste and still good design? Is good design completely subjective? Have you ever seen vomit cast in metal?
===============================
I just don't understand why anyone would have such violent opinions about a design classic that has won design awards and is heavily collected by people with a brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
barry
Paul Evans' work is about the only thing in design about which I have such strong feelings. It's just a gut thing. I think his stuff is very ugly. I don't know why, I just do.
I'm a former classical musician and have spent most of my adult life pondering peoples' taste in music and have come to the conclusion that it's not something that can be explained in reasonable, factual terms. It just is. Same with me and Paul Evans. I know there are people who appreciate it, but I just don't. I also generally can't stand the music of Aaron Copland (though part of that is his thin orchestrations featuring high-pitched instruments like trumpets and flutes).
I also don't like coffee, which is something many people love. It tastes bad to me.
Surely other people have irrationally strong dislikes? I can't be the only one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
Some Evans appeals to me, I could imagine owning a piece...
and yet I greatly enjoyed Spanky's "vomit-cast-in-metal" description. Scarily accurate.
Barry, this thread is called "Classics You Dislike"-- why censor Spanky for her "violent" opinion?
You're free to defend Evans by praising his merit, but citing awards and popularity not only contradicts the intent of the thread, it's an unsound way of judging art in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
The 670. But apparently dear...
The 670. But apparently dear Charles and I were the only ones who ever had the thought that they would benefit from some revisiting. Also almost all organically designed chairs that were put on a stick with butresses for a leg set. Examples would be the 670, Egg, swan, and many others. If you're going to do an organic design, do it. If you're going to do a rationalist design, do that. These mixings don't flow and look like lazy default solutions. Here is what a swan should look like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
Barry
Get over it. Lighten up. The reason I started this thread was for some comic relief. Lord knows we need it due to the three million posts about Palin. No offense to you, but this was the purpose for this discussion. Normally people feel like they cannot publicly criticize such famous designs.
i think this chair by Gehry is akin to human sh*t. How's that for a violent description?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-Oct-08 |
|
|
Blargh! GlassArtist - no!
That Hieronymus Bosch looking Swan chair is exactly the reason an organic chair SHOULD be on a contrasting base!
Designs should be tempered in their form and material, so as not to overwhelm with one particular substance. The 670 temperes the hard shells with the soft cushions, the organic seat components are an extension of the plywood chairs - which Charles preferred with a metal frame - the better to delineate the 'seat' from the 'support'.
The Swan chair pivots elegantly on the delicate steel base, with just the right amount of sophistication and strength...your version looks like a sand spider waiting to snag an errant rodent.
(all, of course, meant with the gentlest of humor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
And the "sand spider" is...
And the "sand spider" is exactly why I prefer this base. I see no need for an office style contrast to this chair. Thank god Eames did not put the lcw on an office base. It is funny, you saw the same exact quality in my swan that I do, yet I see design harmony from top to bottom and you see a need for contrast. Interesting. I think this explains why I am so impressed with the bulk of Poul Kjaerholm's works. He seemed very careful to design bases that were integral to their chairs, and even the pk9 was a more considered solution than the chair on a stick look. Thanks for your take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
OK OK
I get defensive, and I'm sorry but those Gehry cardboards pieces of furniture are so butt ugly and stupid!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
The pedestal base works
not by providing "contrast", but because it's simple to the point of invisibility-- this chair is ALL about the luscious, upholstered seat. (At least, it should be...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
I don't think anyone really g...
I don't think anyone really gives an F about Bathelona chairs anymore, If someone offered me one I'd take it but I don't think I'd be as excited as I once would have been. Familiarity has bred not contempt but...meh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
Agreed.
It's like, are we ALL over that, now ? If noting else could have killed it, our endless Barcelona threads would have done so, I guess. . .!
I suppose some would say the same of the other classics, but I don't think I'll ever get tired of the Eames all-wood chairs, at least. . .
I'm sorry to hear that Aalto's birch isn't elegant enough for some. My taste requires the warmth of wood as an ingredient in Modern, I guess. The chrome-and-black world has a cerebral appeal but isn't my idea of a livable home environment.
But that's just me. The Wassily will always look good to my mind's eye, for sure. The Barc ? Tired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
glad you agree, thought someo...
glad you agree, thought someone would call me a reactionary.
I've got a Brno and some good Danish pieces and a good crhome adjustable lamp. I've cleaned the wood stuff once since I moved to my new place and the chrome stuff about 5 times!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-Oct-08 |
|
|
This is fun! I am made to...
This is fun! I am made to question why I do or do not like an object. If I follow lucifersum's contrasting arguement, I would probably not care for the lcw or Saarinen's pedestal group. But their overall harmony is one of their strengths. I am also not so inclined to take WHC's view of the minimal, floating theory. Having lived with an egg and ottoman for the past 5 years, I don't see that. Instead I see a very solid looking metal base and feet that far from being insubstantial, draw my attention because they clash so much in color, material, and form. The sand spider in my living room actually comes much closer to WHC's ideal for me due to a blending of color and form. I think of it this way; This swan basically looks like a crab. When I see a crab it's legs are an expected thing. If I ripped off its legs and stuck it on a shiny pole, that pole would be jarring. You may not want a crab in your house, but the harmony is vastly superior in the wood leg version. I also wonder how much favor for the office type base is due to it being what we are used to seeing, and therefore it is comfortable to our eyes. Thanks for making me really think this out again folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
I actually prefer the metal b...
I actually prefer the metal base (How is the leg lamination going by the way?). I think of them on these chairs and much Eames pieces as frames or plinths for whats really going on in the body of the chair.
A Henry Moore on an Moore styled plinth? No way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
I agree. It does act as a pli...
I agree. It does act as a plinth or pedestal. Perhaps this reveals a bias of my art training. A contemporary view of three dimensional art that I strive to keep in mind with my work is that the pedestal is a trope that serves to isolate a work from it's environment. It also serves to make a work say,"look at me! I am art with a capitol A". I do not want my furniture to do that for the most part. I want it to be great design merely by being so, Not by proclaiming it's greatness. There are cases where this plinth effect is less avoidable (Eames shells for example) but where it is, I would rather see another solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
barry
I totally agree with you about the Gehry cardboard things! Plus? I picture getting up from one and having to brush a zillion bits of cardboard lint off my all-black outfit. Blech.
(maybe they have some sort of sealer on them to prevent this from happening, but the threat does come to mind and adds to their uninviting looks. I like chairs that look sittable, whether they are or not.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
I'll get flamed for this ...
But I really don't like the Eames LCW or LCM. It isn't from an aesthetic point, but rather from a functional one. It's just too low to the ground, and everyone knows it. For their purpose, I think that the DCW and DCM are a more successful design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
I suppose it depends
I suppose that the argument depends on what one is trying to accomplish. Certainly one rule doesn't always hold true for every object. Saarinen's pedestal group set out to accomplish a clarity of form (incidentally I think the tulip chair is horribly malfunctional as a chair)
The Eames set about designing a single material shell, starting with the plywood first, and then the plastic. The metal supports - no pun - played the supporting role to the actual seat surfaces. Of course, you can't overlook Ray's role (and artistic history) in the design of the chairs. It was her decision to keep the LC/DC with the wood bases because she preferred their cohesiveness - contrary to the 'plinth' concept.
If Jacobsen was creating an environment that could easily flex between public and private a single pedestal seems like the rational (if not necessarily formal) direction to go. I am correct in my assumption that the wood legged swan doesnt pivot? And - not to trivialize the issue - but have you ever seen a swan with four legs?
(and I think a crab on a skewer looks...delicious!) :-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
Not flamed but
Not going to flame you Whitespike, but I think your argument about the functionality of the LCW demonstrates the subjectivity of 'comfort'. Personally I love the LCW and find it immensely comfortable. In fact, it was the comfort that prompted me to buy one- before having actually sat in it I was appalled at the idea of spending (then) $500 on it. Still, I often find guests who sit in the chair tend to perch at the front edge of the seat rather than relaxing back in it.
Another funny illustration is the Eames Low Rod base (cat's cradle). I had a side shell on a Cats Cradle base that I didnt really like for anything other than looks. However, a good friend LOVED it. Every time he visited he would seek out the chair and sit in it. At 6'2" he looked remarkably like a grasshopper in it, which contributed to the amusement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
I do find the LCW to be...
I do find the LCW to be comfortable for what it is. But once you're down it's hard to get up! And it is only comfy as a temporary sitting solution - it isn't something you would really "lounge" in ... even though that key word is used in it's very own name. This being the case, if you agree that is is a temporary seat, the difficulty of getting up is a problem.
There are a couple of factors that make that chair hard to get out of. There's the obvious - it's really low to the ground. But there is also the angle of the seat, which angles acutely to the back. Then there is the material - the unupholstered wood creates a slick surface. Therefore when you sit you instantly slide back into the sharp angle, low to the ground. This could possibly be overlooked if there were arms to help you get up.
I had one for less than a year. That'll teach me to buy for aesthetics!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
Pissing contest
And not to make this a pissing contest between Charles and his best pal Eero, but I actually think Eero's executions were much more successful if you define success as a marriage of form and function.
The Executive chair by Eero, I think successfully tackles many problems that an Eames chair takes several designs to solve. For example, the Executive is:
1. Comfortable. More so than any Eames side chair, except for maybe the soft pad. But it is also more attainable than the soft pad.
2. Suitable for dining or casual sitting. No need for "LCW" or "DCW" here.
3. Aesthetically pleasing. While it may not be the highest on the list of coveted modern classic chairs, it is a very handsome bugger you have to admit.
4. The arm chair's arms are ignorable. The Saarinen executive has comfy, low profile arms that don't intrude when not needed. I can play an acoustic guitar comfortably in one of these, whereas most armchairs have arms that would get in the way. This can be helpful for a number of tasks. The Saarinen's arms stop well before the edge of the seat, making this possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Oct-08 |
|
|
Oh I love
I love the Saarinen Executive series. I campaigned long and hard against my boyfriend to get them for the dining room. Sadly - no dice.
I recognize the limitations of the LCW, but - since my knees are still ok - I've chosen to overlook them :)
You make a great point about the "reinventing the wheel" that the Eames seemed to do a lot, whereas Eero did it once and then moved on. However, my main issue was with the Tulip chair, not the executive. The base of the tulip is just SO dreadfully clunky and heavy. It fucks up your floor if you slide it, and it knocks the edge of the chair against the table if you swivel.
And semantics again: success is subjective. Is success the sum of good design, engineering, and craft resulting in a comfortable, long lasting product? Or is it selling a lot of freakin chairs? While the Eames struggled to reinvent the chair they also blew open their product base, giving Herman Miller lots of things to discontinue, reissue, then make Special Editions of. All Knoll has done is shrink the Womb chair and make the Tulip base the same plastic silver color as my computer. ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-Oct-08 |
|
|
I suspected...
That this thread would turn into everyone disliking everything for one reason or another.... :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-Oct-08 |
|
|
something like that yes....
I desperately wanted to contribute to this thread and somehow I could not find any classic that I dislike. Coming close to a 100 contributions made me fear the worst, a second thread and still nothing on my behalf?finally I did see the light, I realized that if I do not like it, I do not call it a classic?.this certainly was a close call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-Oct-08 |
|
|
Oh, c'mon. There has got to b...
Oh, c'mon. There has got to be a classic that you don't like no? You like every one of them? Really?
I could say that I do not HATE any of them ... that would be true. They all offer something amusing, or we wouldn't be talking about them. But, seriously, I meant "don't like" as in "I wouldn't have it. It isn't too my taste" all the way up to "It's absolutely dreadful." Any level of displeasure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-Oct-08 |
|
|
"one man's trash is another man's treasure"
I don't like the Platner piece cuz they look hostile to me, but I love the Noguchi table, despite it's massive over-exposure, because I love the curvaceous form. However, that Wink chair is just plain fugly, despite all its curves. I'm no fan of the Barcelona cuz I need a forklift to get out of the thing. But I find the Wassily quite comfortable.
My 'classics' are someone else's 'what a joke'. I guess that's why design is such a personal thing. There are very very few pieces that everyone of us here would look at and instantly say, "That's a Classic!"
OK...I'm suppossed to be working on my blog stuff...back to work...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Nov-08 |
|
|
Add another one to the list...
Noguchi Cyclone dining table. Shocked to be saying it. But the longer I've had one in my home, the more it smacks of 90's design to my eye. Am I the only one? It is honestly beginning to annoy me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Nov-08 |
|
|
classics you ...
classics you dislike.......
never made a classic i disliked!!!!!! that is why it is a classic!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
