  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
kautos
edited on 02-Mar-10 10:18 PM [edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
http://freshome.com/2008/04/0...
http://freshome.com/2008/04/07/contemporary-sofa-risve-verona/
it looks amazing.. Do anyone know something about this designer?
|
 |
 |
posted by
kautos
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
Bentply
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
kautos
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
No, its horrible, very...
No, its horrible, very organic but looks like the sort of thing that is knocked out for office waiting rooms.
|
 |
 |
posted by
Bentply
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
02-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
kautos
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
the_beloved (US/CAN)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Hmmm. Here's the...
Hmmm. Here's the thing...what we now call "modern" was at one point both "modern" and "contemporary." Just because something is a "contemporary" design, does not mean that it is bad....nor does it mean that it cannot be "modern"
|
 |
 |
posted by
jesgord (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Exactly.
Contemporary has little meaning beyond the dictionary definition of the word: Something consistent with the present day; an object designed and/or made recently.
Modern, which at one time was another way of saying "contemporary," has survived as the overall label for design reflecting Modernism as a school and a style.
These are my words; I'd be interested to hear from experienced observers and participants in the history of twentieth-century design for confirmation, correction, and expansion of these definitions.
|
 |
 |
posted by
SDR (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
They discussedthis recently on NPR...
and what I came away with was that the term "modern" speaks to a specific time in history and gives things like "post modern(ism)" its context. Contemporary would refer to what we are trying to call "modern" today.
If this were science, then we would be held more accountable for the correct use of these two terms, but since it's not I think we all have a similar understanding/connotation for these two terms.
|
 |
 |
posted by
DudeDah
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
kautos
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
This is an intersting topic.
I wouldn't call this sofa "modern", either, it goes against the modernist orthodoxy-- it's got big, curvy child-bearing hips (it's visually heavy), those silver ball feet are blasphemy, and upholstery's too, too sentimental.
Eero Saarinen's architecture was was poo-pooed by the intelligentsia back in the '60's for similar crimes, yet we think of it as "Modern" today.
What's "modern"?
We can't define it, but we know it when we see it? That'll never do...
|
 |
 |
posted by
william-holden-caulfield (FREEDONIA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Could this not be, say, a...
Could this not be, say, a consideration largely of semantics, all things considered? Nouns and adjectives & all that capital J type jazz ...
The couch appears rather modern and maybe Contemporary, but not necessarily Modern or contemporary.
|
 |
 |
posted by
hudsonhonu (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
But back to the question of...
But back to the question of how he made it. Probably some type of injection molding. And how do we know he was not a she?
|
 |
 |
posted by
hudsonhonu (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
posted by
uasrem2
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
03-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
In my opinion, this sofa is...
In my opinion, this sofa is made from polyurethane mass, but on the other hand it could be made of something different, cuz these sharpnesses form of polyurethane can not hold. But if there's no plastic or mass of polyurethane, then what? It's difficult to valuate, because I had never seen forms like these.
|
 |
 |
posted by
Gabrieles
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
20-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
One theory to answer your question
Veneer pieces over thin wood sections that were made pliable by being subjected to water and slowly molded. I doubt it was a plastic. My live-in master carpenter concurs. Hope that helps you understand one way that sofa could be accomplished. Many layers of thin wood, bent and piled on become quite strong. That, I believe, is how he/she made it.
I find it quite lovely. Someone directed me here to ask a question about two lamps I have. He told me to brace for the sort of commentary you received about this piece. Ha ha! Some people quite enjoy their fur flying fests don't they?
|
 |
 |
posted by
Miss Mikki
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
21-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
I would say they are fibregla...
I would say they are fibreglass shells, for small runs its affordable, other moulding technologies would be very expensive and I doubt you would get much of a return on investment.
I can't see any stitching on that edge , even on an Egg chair the hand stitching is obvious. Given how sharp and tidy that it looks I would guess 2 shells have been used or the inner part foam has been upholstered, the edge of the fabric tucked and glued over and then this section glued onto the inside of the fibreglass shell, maybe!
|
 |
 |
posted by
Heath (AUS)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
21-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Hasn't the word...
Hasn't the word "contemporary" also moved past it's original intent, and isn't it used as a name of a style rather than meaning "current?" I would have filed this design under "contemporary" as well as a first reaction.
I think it's hideous. It's original shape serves no purpose other than to show off. I find it very uninspiring. A technical feat for the very sake of nothing, or to make a statement. Wouldn't that smack of post-modernsim more than anything?
|
 |
 |
posted by
whitespike (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
21-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Agreed...
Photoshop some silly colors on either of the pieces and they look very Memphis to me.
|
 |
 |
posted by
Lunchbox (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
22-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
Memphis era perhaps, but I...
Memphis era perhaps, but I would argue that Memphis is better designed, albeit still not my cup o' tea. Perhaps Beetlejuice designed this?
|
 |
 |
posted by
whitespike (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
23-Mar-10 |
 |
 |
That's one ugly sofa, yes indeedy!
But I'm intrigued with the 'contemporary' 'modern' and 'modernist' semantics.
My sister is selling her much despised house in western PA and moving back to civilization near NYC. The agent listing her house describes it as 'Contemporary'. It IS only 6 years old so, if one uses the dictionary meaning, it is contemporary. But it's a spec house built to be as universal, read bland, as possible. It has boring oak trim, tacky pseudo granite laminate countertops, cream carpeting and beige tiling. She has hated it since the day she moved in; it was bought out of necesity. In my view this is sadly what 'Contemporary' means. BLAND. That's what a society that buys and resells houses every 5 years on average and churns through crappy furniture and housewares really wants. Nice bland, boring, pablum that looks familiar to every other buyer out there. YUCK!
I think the term 'Modern' means more of an individual and exclectic mix more on the level of modern art. And I think there are designs that are modern even if they are 40 years old, it's that 'je ne sais quoi' of a piece that keeps it looking new in my eyes. I'd define 'Modernist' as more of the MCM movement aesthetic. It was a time when designers were consciously developing a particular ethos and feeling to their work. They collectively hive-minded a style that at the time was very forward thinking. Hence, 'Modernist'.
|
 |
 |
posted by
Olive (USA)
[edit]
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
  |
 |