This is just awfull! Some...
This is just awfull! Some people get killed for less than that! I guess it is inspired by the latest design of Philippe Starck!

Fuck Modernica.
I'd like to burn their showrooms to the ground. What nerve.

Handing lunchbox...
a match...

Paris Hilton says...
"That's hot."

LOL!
Those are the UGLIEST chairs I have ever seen. Those chairs need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Well
Whaddya expect from a man in a piano keyboard scarf? :|

Let the man's work speak for itself...

The Memphis scene of the 1980's
was never a big successful scene; most of that junk didn't sell very well or was in production for very long.

Any attempt at a 'revival' won't work in this economy.

Holding Lunchbox back...
...it just isn't worth it!

That is seriously the ugliest chair I have seen in awhile. What were they thinking, or were they?! BURN!!

Handing Lunchbox...
a muzzle and a book on netiquette.

And a bellows, to hurry things along even more.

They've really done it this t...
They've really done it this time. At the same time, it's kind of funny. Perhaps the artist WANTS to piss people off. In this case, he picked a prime target. DAs worldwide will definitely get irate at such a silly move... However, I really wonder about Modernica's thinking. Here they are, constantly trying to legitimize themselves to the design public. They just got duped and it's by their own hand.

Good Lord, I detest "witty" design. It's really a bore.

If you really wanted to marry two designs Bertoia's Bird Chair and Marcel Wanders' Knotted Chair would be a good start ... two designs that actually have something in common ... not disparate as a cheap means of shockery .... and potentially fun...

It's a rather cheap move to piss on a classic as the only means for self promotion. But, seriously this fella will get his attention he so craves and Modernica will lose credibility with many consumers.

I agree with LuciferSum
Calling that leg Queen Anne is an insult. It's too insubstantial, the feet are too dainty and it's got that weird notch in the "shin" between the knee and the foot.

It actually might have been kind of quirky as a piece of art or a one-off to do an Eames shell on real cabriole legs. What Modernica has done makes a mockery of both the Eames shell chair and the Queen Anne legacy.

On a complete other note, I can't get beyond that bizarre furniture that dcwilson posted. That stuff has neither form nor function. I've been asking myself just how many times I would tolerate catching the bottom of my wine glass under that weird cantilevered lip of the coffee table before I gave the thing to Good Will.

In other words.....
S tupid
H ideous
I ll advised
T acky

Perhaps this is Modernica "Case Study" in the world of butt-ugly.

Did I miss anything?

A very ugly way...
...of looking for attention. Than again he always did. In this case even I would invoke any law on intellectual property to stop a shameless abuse of a great design. Such lack of respect for other people's work can't come from a great mind...

vintage Eames chair
You have got to be kidding me! This guy is taking other people's timeless designs and altering them in abhorrent ways. His own "innovative" work is loud and unsightly. How can anybody support this type of junk? Just my opinion of course, but seems to be the prevailing opinion of those on this board at least...

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.

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.

...
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...

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

Could it be
what happens when someone actually uses this?

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

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.

continued...
That Neo Post Modern is wretched in what it has delivered recently and in what it promises is to deliver increasingly, is, unfortunately, beside the point, when the Neo Modern Revival cannot find and articulate sufficiently strong philosophy, either in words, or artifacts, to keep itself focused, energized and capable of holding the attentions of producers, consumers, and educators.

Some of us have talked about this before--about a risk of this being a problem with the Neo Modern Revival. Some of us have tried to articulate a guiding philosophy, but apparently with out sufficient persuasiveness even to mobilize ourselves in this small community. I even tried, but I'm an amateur and not up to the challenge. Koen laid out a philosophy of neofunctionalism with an ethic of building on what has come before and a surrender of the auteurist fetish. Gustavo manifestoed the idea of an eclectic evolutionary, bottom-up design, and the absense of auteurship. But these little stones thrown here have not rippled far, nor even catalyzed those into a shared vision here. And beyond this little pond, the Neo Modern Revivalists and the producers, consumers and educators, have not been able to surrender their focus on Modernism 1.0, on iconic formalism, and on the cult of the auteur, sufficiently to prevent an inevitable vacuum from forming.

Clearly, the design and architecture schools are NOT filling the philosophical vacuum either. They appear, rather, as usual, to be waiting for the marketers to sniff out the next set of feelings among consumers that can be statistically isolated, marketed to and exploited, before waiting to redirect the orthodoxy of their teachings to cautiously, calculatedly approve of yet another revival capable of stimulating enough employment to keep next year's graduates off food stamps, and to ensure the professors meet their quota of publications in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps we should expect no more from the academy. Training technicians is the job its bureaucracy has sought out for as long as one can remember in most fields. It is easier to teach ideologies and histories of than it is to work out philosophies of action that can inform a discipline to progress. Why should design and architecture schools to anything but perpetuate a status quo of endlessly successive revivals?

But the above begs a question: from where and from whom will a philosophy spring that will extricate design, architecture, producers, consumers, and educators, from this increasingly regressive dialectic between mildly constructive revivals [Neo Modern]and grossly destructive revivals [Neo Post Modern]--this uncreative destruction not of decay within progress, but of progress itself?

Don't worry, Jeremiah:
he's done it to me too.

Not only will he make an inappropriately mean comment about disliking something, but he attacks the person, as well.

I'm surprised that Patrick and Alix haven't asked him to bring it down a notch or two.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but being viscious just the heck of it is really quite bad.

Perhaps a testament

to how bad this chair is.

Hug it out men, hug it out.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hug%20it%20out

<3
I hope this helps.

Jokes are only jokes
when they're written so the intended person takes it as a joke.

Perhaps Lunchbox's humor is too dry, but I've found some of his comments snotty too.

So at least two of us have thought that he's gone over the line more than once....and it's obvious that Patrick and Alix seem to agree.

Peter Shire ?
or paul lynde ?

Bless you, Lucifer...
Intuition is getting fewer and farer between these days.

LUNCHPAIL
your rough edges are glinting facets of a diamond mind:)

Sorry to say, dc...
But I think you're hoping for a ship which simply will not sail. As far as design goes, I'm of a pretty straight forward mind... MCM is the only movement which consistently moved forward in both creating solutions and meeting aesthetic standards(obliterating them to be fair). The reason there are those of us who look back to it now as well as those of us who never looked away is its inherent quality. It's just simply great design. And as for design solving social issues, society will simply not let it happen. However cliched it might sound, money is king.

Fair questions those, dc...
1. Regrettably, my answer is yes. And yes, it is the philosophy of modern design that sets it apart. But in terms of philosophy, it was progression by regression. MCM went back to the basics... the simplest of forms, the most practical of applications. An honest and pure approach to design. And henceforth, solutions came at an overwhelming clip. From Plato to Socrates to Kierkegaard, progress to be sure. But are we to believe that if man exists for ten more centuries there will always be progress to be made in the realm of design or art or even thought processes in general?

2. Progress has stalled because men of conviction are no longer in control. And we must remember that great technological strides were being made whilst the MCM movement was being cultivated. You may call that design, but I don't. Maybe I'm off base, but most technological advances I deem discovery. But yes, MCM did look to solve many issues facing us today. And a decent amount of progress was made. My point is simply that our social issues are finite. And many of them have been social issues for a very long time. Neither design, discovery nor sound philosophy will ever solve these issues. It will come down to good will and choice. And on such a grand scale, never.

cont. bonfire
If you want me to talk about social-design I bet a coin, but not to comment it here, there will be misunderstandings on Saxon-American culture. ie: if it's mention the G-8 as non-social issue, it's an American mistake, count the name of them and you realize that most of the their design is much more involved in this issues. And if you want we could go on counting with the G-20. Check what's going on in Dutch, German, french, Italian, Spanish, many Scandinavians, and of course in South America too. You'll see that "society will simply not let it happen" is an American way of see things.
I'd just love to see that in other place, not to off topping this so much (and not attaching my-self to the little-social fighter tag more, in this american forum hehehe:-) )


Yes of course a design philosophy would help us a lot to know in which direction must go, instead of following Dr.Circular.
That's for a Mmmmmmmm part2, why so little persuasiveness to mobilize ourselves in this small community? Because most are collectors and is more a designer issue/problem?. Or is that DCWilson/he/we are not so conscious on how huge is the challenge?, washing the hands saying 'I'm an amateur and not up to the challenge.' saying this after parts-6 posts :-). Is that we are not ready to this challenge?


Here, in Argentina, the BKF butterfly chair, by Bonet Kurchan Ferrari, is like the national chair. And then, there are many, many re-interpretations, as a bag, as an exterior version for parks in concrete, etc, etc, some had won prizes, but most of the times have bad critics by newspapers and others that don't approve them much. Similar to what we see here. Or perhaps different, big respect,as many designers working on this.

Do American DAers have some examples of accepted/well done reinterpretations of the Eames chair?

Saul Steinberg

There is the lady chair, and the cat chair. The cat chair is nicer I think, and it's on display at the Eames Office Gallery. I can't find a picture of it online though.

I still like...
The ray gun better.

That Chair
makes me depressed..