Skip to main content

Search form

Filters

I made this....

- 24 Aug 2008 -
19 posts / 0 new
#1

Lately, I've been constructing some chairs using recycled mid century pieces amongst a number of other things. I just completed this one.
I started with a vintage Marcel Breuer Cesca Chair (I first removed the original cane seat and back), some pool noodles I had lying around, rope, clothes line metal fasteners and a can of spray paint and created this...the "NOODLE Chair'! total investment $50 (Cesca chair $2 at Goodwill, pool noodles $11, rope $7, clothes line fasteners $22, rope $7, spray paint $1)

Jeremiah

Comments

- 24 Aug 2008

dave and paul
would both likely say it would float.

- 24 Aug 2008

I guess
the question would be "how does it sit ?" I would expect it to sag a bit in the seat (like an old man). . .?

- 24 Aug 2008

A poor man's Joe Colombo...
A poor man's Joe Colombo tube chair?

Seriously, though Jeremiah, if your into this sort of thing, you should really check out Victor Papanek and James Hennessey's classic Nomadic Furniture (if you have not already done so). There is also a Nomadic Furniture 2, but the original is better imho.




- 24 Aug 2008

That's funny and fun
and quite fantastic. I encourage your fascination with materials and
creativity, attention to cost details. Keep it up! You could take it a step
further with your welding skills and make a floating/poolside lounge.
In a wavy form with black noodles (pipe insulators?) and stainless fittings.
(I would buy it) black absorbs heat. In the cooler days of the NEast it would
feel great in a chilly pool.

Get Grainger and Mcmaster-carr catalogues. Cheaper hardware and the odd
fittings will inspire you. They have thick sheet rubber, stainless steel in all
forms and sizes, springs, strange clips and clamps. Foam rubber in all
densities.

Unfortunately it looks like a ten dollar chair because the noodles are so
recognizable as a cheap toy. But that is not important. You are thinking
and creating. Taking an idea and seeing it through, searching the hardware
store for solutions. Keep it up. Fun to see.

- 24 Aug 2008

leaping off point
I think things like this are fun but should be used as a leaping off point - not an end. There is a lot of comfort and safety in using the classics - but that can also be a weakness. After a while it becomes "redoing" a classic in a new material - a schtick rather than an exploration.

What I presume you would hope for is your own distinct voice as an artist and so the classics can be a touch point for exploring materials - here hard/soft, frame/padding etc.

On the good end you've got folks like (totally forgetting his name - did the pop interpretation of the Wassily chair)

In the middle you've got Starck who is playing with materials, and form - bordering a lot on schtick - the gilded guns, the bronzed gnomes, the plastic Louis chair.

And at the bottom you've got folks like this guy - who are just ripping off the forms of the classics, and exploiting the fact that most of us have these forms in our collective consiousness.

http://lattitudegallery.com/mmkcart/main.asp?action=SUB&CAT=Outdoor%20Ar...


- 24 Aug 2008

i'll certainly...
i'll certainly check out that book! prior to your having mentioned it, i had never heard of it before. what exactly is 'nomadic' furniture?

personally, i think the bronze interpretations of gehry's cardboard furniture are really great! sure, credit should be given to gehry as an inspiration for these chairs (which he's not) but i wouldn't call them copies or knock offs, rather reinterpretations of classics that we all know and love.

as for how it sits... as you can probably see on the back, i added 2 steel rods for reinforcement (because it's not one continuous piece of tubular) and that certainly made the frame more sturdy. the noodles themselves do have a lot of give and when you sit down you certainly do sink in a little, but not quite as much as i was expecting when i was putting it all together. i was actually pretty worried that the first person to sit on it would fall right through and that hasn't happened yet, so...

all in all it's definitely more about form than function, but it can be used and isn't terribly uncomfortable : )

- 24 Aug 2008

I spent
a lazy summer studying this book a few years ago.
The Ashley Book of Knots

photo of knots is from amazon customer images




- 25 Aug 2008

As can be seen from the...
As can be seen from the subtitle, the book is about,

"HOW TO BUILD AND WHERE TO BUY LIGHTWEIGHT FURNITURE THAT FOLDS, INFLATES, KNOCKS DOWN, STACKS, OR IS DISPOSABLE AND CAN BE RECYCLED"

Here is a portion from the 2nd book that gives a good idea of what the books' principles are all about

- 25 Aug 2008

Yikes, really?
You really like the bronze things? To me it's a total hack job rip-off.

Design is inherently tied to materiality. The first Eames chairs were remarkable, in part, because of their material. Same goes for the Wiggle chair. Whats funny about the wiggle isnt it's shape- its the realization that what you're sitting on is cardboard. Same goes for something like an Emeco chair - the lightness of the physical material belies its mass, strength, and durability.

When you remove the materiality and work only with shape you've removed a critical element of 'design' and moved it towards 'style'. And, if you mess with the shapes of the classics - as the bronze fellow has - you totally eff up their grace (see his "noguchi" and his "yanagi" pieces).

Now supposing Jeremiah, that you made a Navy chair out of lead. That would be funny. It would totally confound the entire purpose of the Navy chair (lightness, durability, strength). But like I said, you can't rely too much on the gimmick of making something in the total opposite.

Thats why I brought up Starck as borderline. He gets the materiality thing - the fancy shape of the Louis chair made in faux-glam material (polycarbonate). However, Starck relies a little too much on it - the gilded guns, the kitchsy gnomes etc - and it all becomes the same joke.

- 26 Aug 2008

The Hennessey and Papanek
books are great. I seem to have lost mine -- probably loaned them to someone.

- 27 Aug 2008

LuciferSum,
I really do...

LuciferSum,
I really do like the bronze wiggle chair and i think starck's ghost chairs are really great (although i don't like much of his other furniture) because i can look at them completely independent of the designs that inspired them (as does 99% of the population who aren't design aficionados). on their own, both chairs are really neat looking.
If i were to compare the wiggles, this is what i'd say: the Gehry chair used an interesting material in an exciting form (of which was his own design). the bronze chair inspired by gehry's design is a neat, practical alternative for a public outdoor space. both have a place in the design world as well as real world.

- 27 Aug 2008

Too Easy
Why does the bronze chair have a place in the world? As a seat its not comfortable (i've tried one), as a material the bronze is only semi durable (the chair I tried had cracks in some of the wiggles) and as a form, well.. its neat - but its more neat in the original which requires the wiggles to function. As an artist the bronze guy's own furniture designs become clunky and disorganized (his non 'functional' pieces are much more coherent in terms of form and fluidity and motion) So whats left is a piece of outdoor furniture that isn't as good as the original.

Which is fine, and I'm sure he sells 1 or 2 a year. However, as art, or as design, the bronze wiggle isnt that interesting or engaging. Thats where I thought you were heading with the Noodle Cesca.

Whether people know that Starcks piece is an actual Louis chair is irrelavant. The average person can see that its a 'fancy' chair made out of plastic. And furthermore the artist (and to a lesser extent the designer) should be concerned with how their voice comes through, not always whether or not the viewer 'gets' it. A classic example is the Toyota Corolla vs. the Audi TT. The Toyota is boring and safe and completely undistinguished as a design. It is the product of focus groups, and traditional sedan design.

The Audi, however, took lots of risks, didnt follow convention (the crisp joint between the canopy and the flank required special tooling) and didnt bow to what the viewer wanted (the designers refused the marketing team's request for a raised fin on the back)




- 28 Aug 2008

it's interesting though that...
it's interesting though that there is a "successor" to the classic TT. It's shaped according to what consumers might think to be more trendy, but in the end it is just a poor upgrade to a design which was not only unique in its time but also an individual expression, a completed form which neened no further development but was finished in its original intend, opposing traditional views on car design. therefore it is a rare exeption in design, a point made. No refference, no true advancement. a real classic.


- 28 Aug 2008

Mainstream car design...
Has turned to complete and utter crap since the early 2000s.

- 29 Aug 2008

Lucifersum, If by fin you mean a deck lid spoiler
I know they weren't on the vehicle in it's first and possibly it's second year in the marketplace and I thought it looked so great without it. I have subsequently read though that a deck spoiler was added for reasons of high speed stability. Apparently at speed the tail lost a fair bit of traction and the addition of that small spoiler provided the necessary down-force.

The cars without spoilers, even though a bit dicey in the handling department, are highly sought after. I would love to have one and just park it in my living room as a piece of sculpture.

Log in or register to post comments