  |
 |
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Where have I seen this (horrible) chair before? Hmmm ...
Is it a vintage Burke-ish copy or a cheap modern reproduction of a very familiar American design icon. Oh wait, it's Phillipe Starck's new 'Couture' chair for XO.
"The whole point of having such a chair is the pattern on the shell with a new printing-on-plastic technique".
Besides the introduction of this new technique, what on Earth justifies this chair's excistence and use of materials?
I think the pattern-explanation is quite idiotic so what exactly IS the point? I really can't spot it.
http://www.bonluxat.com/a/Philippe_Starck_Couture_Chair.html
|
|
 |
posted by M_Andersen
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Not very creative
This chair just does'nt strike me as creative. Someone could have applied this "technology" in a much more creative manner.
|
|
|
posted by sirlampsalot
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Starck "sucks"
And he admitted it himself...
|
|
|
posted by woodywood
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
ugh
robin day meets charles eames meets the trash can.
what a piece of shite.
is nothing new anymore?
is there no one with an original idea?
very depressing.
|
|
|
posted by tynellbuyer
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Typical Starck design....
Typical Starck design. Pointless.
|
|
|
posted by Lunchbox
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Absolutely dreadful
This makes me want to grab Starck by the man. Seriously. This looks like a horrible copy of an eames shell (hybrid eiffel/dowel monstrosity). I seriously thought it was some white on white type copy until I read it was Starck the man himself.
What's worse is that the employment of a new material is being passed off to excuse such a repulsive design. Historically when design geeks have gotten in an ecstacy over the use of a new material, it was a material that affects the use or form or something beyond a simple aesthetic. A new plastic printing method! Who cares?
|
|
|
posted by whitespike
edited on 22-Oct-08 05:49 AM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Ha! Did you read the copy?
"At first hand Couture appears to be a regular generic plastic shell / metal frame chair, but it comes with a twist. The whole point of having such a chair is the pattern on the shell with a new printing-on-plastic technique.
There are two versions: a tweed pattern with pastel coloured threads as well as a crocodile-print pattern.
Couture will come in more versions along the year hence making it... a fashionable product.
Starck's idea here is to drive design away from the minimalist era. He explicitly makes a reference to the fashion industry in its chic and frivolous dimension. COUTURE is the living proof that the worlds of design and fashion are not so far apart and can blend happily and successfully together."
Tweed? Pastel? Crocodile? I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase than:
"It's like putting lipstick on a pig"
(...perhaps a subtle political statement by Starck ;)
|
|
|
posted by the_beloved
edited on 22-Oct-08 07:38 AM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
|
|
|
posted by alexandersforum
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-Oct-08 |
|
|
Also.....Calling it
'couture' does a disservice to the fashion industry, and Couture in particular.
Fashion, and couture especially, is about SO much more than slapping a different finish on something seasonally.
|
|
|
posted by robert1960
edited on 22-Oct-08 06:29 PM [edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-Oct-08 |
|
|
I'm sorry
When did Starck say he was going to retire? Because its not freakin soon enough!
Seriously. What the hell? It's ugly, it's a bad copy, and what on Earth are those clown dots doing on the surface?
|
|
|
posted by LuciferSum
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-Oct-08 |
|
|
those are supposed to be buttons
....I think.
|
|
|
posted by the_beloved
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-Oct-08 |
|
|
Ughhh...
Those are freakin' hideous. And yes, I think those things are supposed to be 'buttons' too. Sorry but I don't want chairs that look like my jacket...especially a really ugly chair.
|
|
|
posted by Cloudburst2000
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-Oct-08 |
|
|
Wow. Tough Crowd.
I think at least Starck is moving the Eames design forward a bit which is more than I can say for the repro-fetishized-true-believers of the same-old-same-old.
:) I kid, but I do think a little more credit is due.
|
|
|
posted by Nate
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-Oct-08 |
|
|
"moving the Eames design...
"moving the Eames design forward a bit"
That's what you call moving forward? Sheesh.
It you want me to give him credit for ripping off a classic and making it horrid - sure I'll give it to 'em.
|
|
|
posted by whitespike
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-Oct-08 |
|
|
It is typical....
...for Starck and many of his kind, and I mean many! to declare a technology new because they just discovered it. In mould decoration is a simple procedure that has existed at least 40 years. The decoration is printed on a foil of the same material and either preformed...or not...if the shape allows it, it is put inside the mould with the foil side against the mould. In other words the product is injected against the printing. In this way the printing is embedded and well protected against wear.
So, his new technology has been around for some time. Preforming the foil is a more recent developement but is at least 5-6 years old. For at least half a decade BMW has produced their inner door panels with yet another variation of the same technology which consists of putting the cover (fabric)inside the mould and inject a plastic panel against it.
Starck is hardly to blame. The design magazines and more popular design literature are saturated with stories of so called "new technology" uses. The reality is that beyond the usual rapid prototyping techniques very few designers are working with new materials or new technologies. Instead old technologies are sold for the latest discovery. This is a good example of it.
|
|
|
posted by koen
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
