Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata

[SkinnyGoomba]



I don't see why. Modernism was effectively invented as a way to make cheap, mass-produced furniture. Nor do I see why it is "tautological to say IKEA is excellent design." Lot of people make cheap, really awful furniture. Some of it won't even flat pack! It think it is fair to say that, given that IKEA is constrained to make inexpensive furniture, they do an excellent, innovative job of it.
I never really considered the issue of design patents in all this. But I guess I am speaking of a more general definition of "design" rather than what can necessarily be legally protected.
I don't know whether I would exactly call Thonet the inventor of modernism. Originally, Thonet was more Art Nouveau than anything else. But it was really more of a production technique than a design philosophy.

But yes, the whole point of the Bauhaus movement was to create functional, attractive furniture that could be cheaply mass produced. In a way, IKEA is really the true successor to the Bauhaus translated into a global company.

Modernism is a movement which was a product of changing times. Thonet's vienna coffee house chair is considered important to modernism because of it's ability to be mass produced due to how the chair is bent, but you are correct in saying the style is art nouveau.

The movement is not furniture based so much as it is architecture based and furniture is a byproduct of that. The industry wanted to make use of new construction materials and that is the real foundation of all of this. You see wrought iron and it's effect in the mid-late 19th century and then in the beginning of the 20th century you start to see effect of inexpensive steel on the industry, which can now use fabricated steel products to build with. This all worked its way to furniture soon after.

I don't believe it was the goal of modernism to be inexpensive at the start, but eventually people like Eames and Nelson came around and companies like HM put their ideas to use, "sit the most for the least" is an Eames quote.

You dont really start to see much in the way of this coming to light as a way to make inexpensive housing/furniture until post WWII, Europe needed to rebuild at that point and America needed to support the growing middle class.

 

[Loathing]

Herman Miller is a public company and their net profit margin for 2016 is 6%~.

Their gross profit margin (which is more relevant if trying to working out value for money for the consumer) is nearly 40%, the same as Apple. When you consider that 90% of their sales are to commercial clients who pay less than half the list price of their chairs for bulk buys, you are not getting an amazing deal as Joe public.

But moreover, HM is relatively extremely cheap when compared to Knoll and other makers.

 

[TheFoo]

Modernism is chiefly about improvement and progress without being held back by custom or tradition. Affordability to the masses is not a fundamental aspect--many modernists designed different products for different ends of the market. Personally, I've never felt compelled to choose between modern and traditional furniture due to pricing.

It's silly to compare IKEA to high-end contemporary furniture makers. There is a very expansive quality difference. This is obvious when seeing things in person and certainly obvious after living with them.

The Jasper Morrison cork stools are a genuinely awesome design--speaking from experience. The size and proportions allow them to be used many different ways. Their lightness encourages being moved around to suit different situations. The shape, material, and texture complement a wide variety of other furniture and settings. And the price is relatively low. One of the most adaptive and flexible pieces of furniture I can think of.

We live with quite a bit of other Jasper Morrison furniture as well. The shapes, colors, textures, proportions, etc. are consistently pleasant and inviting without unnecessary fuss; each piece is worthy of individual appreciation but never threatens to distract or steal the scene. That just-rightness and balance is rare.

 

[Bounder]

Why is flat packing such a sticking point with you?  Who cares?  I have never looked at furniture and gone "wow that was designed to be flat packed" or bought furniture for that reason.  It is a means to an end -- lower retail prices.

First, because it's actually kind of a hilarious concept, when you think about it.

Second, because it is a very important function -- or design constraint, if you want to put it that way -- that many IKEA designs must satisfy. It is no different that requiring that something be lightweight or durable or whatever.

"I need you to design an armchair." "OK" ". . . that's reasonably attractive" "Sure" ". . . and inexpensive" "Well, I suppose." ". . . and that can be disassembled and fit into a cardboard box 6"x36"x36"." "I quit."

But yes, the whole point of the Bauhaus movement was to create functional, attractive furniture that could be cheaply mass produced. In a way, IKEA is really the true successor to the Bauhaus translated into a global company.

I don't believe it was the goal of modernism to be inexpensive at the start, but eventually people like Eames and Nelson came around and companies like HM put their ideas to use, "sit the most for the least" is an Eames quote.

You dont really start to see much in the way of this coming to light as a way to make inexpensive housing/furniture until post WWII, Europe needed to rebuild at that point and America needed to support the growing middle class.

Wasn't one of the Bauhaus slogans "Art for industry"? With respect to furniture, I think they were very much focused on creating functional designs that could be mass-produced cheaply for the masses right from the beginning.

It's kind of ironic that something like the Wassily chair is now a sort of status symbol that goes for 2k.

Modernism is chiefly about improvement and progress without being held back by custom or tradition. Affordability to the masses is not a fundamental aspect--many modernists designed different products for different ends of the market.

True, affordability is not exactly a modernist touchstone now, but I think it was originally. I think the idea of marrying art, technology and industry as a way to improve the life of the common man was very central to Bauhaus thinking. This was a revolutionary -- in more ways than one -- sentiment in the years after 1917. In fact, the Nazis hated the Bauhaus because they thought they were crypto-communists.

It's silly to compare IKEA to high-end contemporary furniture makers.

I guess it depends on what basis you are comparing them.

In any event, I have not been comparing them. I have just been pointing out that, given the often mutually-exclusive goals they are trying to achieve, IKEA actually produces some brilliant designs.

 

[double00]

when i was 22 i had a mentor explain to me that if your client had no money left and the barest minimum of materials, your design should still work - that is to say that the beating heart of what we're trying to achieve, ultimately, exists separately from our material choices or even forms. and so the constraints that seem at odds with (or even seem to serve!) *good design* are purely incidental. it made good sense then, still works for me now. ymmv.

 

[Medwed]



"I need you to design an armchair." "OK" ". . . that's reasonably attractive" "Sure" ". . . and inexpensive" "Well, I suppose." ". . . and that can be disassembled and fit into a cardboard box 6"x36"x36"." "I quit."
.

 

[Journeyman]

We live with quite a bit of other Jasper Morrison furniture as well. The shapes, colors, textures, proportions, etc. are consistently pleasant and inviting without unnecessary fuss; each piece is worthy of individual appreciation but never threatens to distract or steal the scene. That just-rightness and balance is rare.

Yes, but do you have a crate??

On a related note, I recently moved to an office furnished with HM Mirra 2 chairs. They are, hands down, the most comfortable office chairs I have ever sat in. Having almost always had bland, overstuffed, foam-cushioned office chairs before, the difference is immense. I feel so much better at the end of the day.

Interestingly, though, a new colleague of mine doesn't like the Mirra 2 chairs and, despite fiddling around with the various adjustable bits and pieces, she just couldn't get comfortable and so the office had to order an ordinary, foam-cushioned chair for her!

 

[SkinnyGoomba]



First, because it's actually kind of a hilarious concept, when you think about it.

Second, because it is a very important function -- or design constraint, if you want to put it that way -- that many IKEA designs must satisfy. It is no different that requiring that something be lightweight or durable or whatever.

"I need you to design an armchair." "OK" ". . . that's reasonably attractive" "Sure" ". . . and inexpensive" "Well, I suppose." ". . . and that can be disassembled and fit into a cardboard box 6"x36"x36"." "I quit."
Wasn't one of the Bauhaus slogans "Art for industry"? With respect to furniture, I think they were very much focused on creating functional designs that could be mass-produced cheaply for the masses right from the beginning.

It's kind of ironic that something like the Wassily chair is now a sort of status symbol that goes for 2k.


True, affordability is not exactly a modernist touchstone now, but I think it was originally. I think the idea of marrying art, technology and industry as a way to improve the life of the common man was very central to Bauhaus thinking. This was a revolutionary -- in more ways than one -- sentiment in the years after 1917. In fact, the Nazis hated the Bauhaus because they thought they were crypto-communists.
I guess it depends on what basis you are comparing them.

In any event, I have not been comparing them. I have just been pointing out that, given the often mutually-exclusive goals they are trying to achieve, IKEA actually produces some brilliant designs.

It seems it's actually 'all of the above';

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/bauh/hd_bauh.htm

Breuer seems to have had the goal of mass production in mind much more so than Walter Gropius or Mies Van Der Rohe, Gropius being focused on the crafts and Mies focused on architecture. Still others created objects that are luxury items today and were also then.

https://shop.neuegalerie.org/collections/designer

Mind you, Knoll, HM, Cassina, Danish etc, etc are producing with a requirement that they must make products near to the original specs with the only deviations being those that they can negotiate with their respective organizations. Often that means a product which is expensive to produce in today's industry.

A woodworking example; Mortise and tenons. Traditional rectangular mortise and tenon joinery can be produced very quickly by swing chisel mortisers and by tenoning machines. However, in comparison to floating tenons these are "expensive" being that floating tenons can be incorporated into a CNC program and done by the same machine cutting parts, where rectangular mortise and tenons require two separate machines with operators running them.

So what was considered to be incredibly fast and efficient that also happened to produce a wonderfully accurate product has been replaced by something slightly faster but of lower quality. Most consumers remain unaware or unconcerned, but if the furniture one is producing has a requirement of traditional mortise and tenons, and one cannot negotiate for rounded corner floating tenons then your end product would be considered expensive by the market.

 

[Medwed]



Yes, but do you have a crate??

If you have a crate you need to invest in a kettle. Available for a limited time on JasperMorrison website. Only 85GBP before shipping.

I think these are all ideas borrowed from Andy Warhol, who painted ordinary objects and PR-ed them down to mass psyche as art. This is the same approach, but with real objects.

Here is more jasper Morrison 'designs' , rejected by Ikea

 

[iamacyborg]

Anyone seen any of these out in the wild?

http://studio.sammode.com/fr_fr/collection-127.html

Suffering from some serious lighting lust after coming across the site.

 

[Medwed]



Anyone seen any of these out in the wild?

http://studio.sammode.com/fr_fr/collection-127.html

Suffering from some serious lighting lust after coming across the site.

Have not seen them in the wild, but some of them look like a vials with rusty old oil in them or worse. Some cleaner ones are fine , but the dirtier colors look repulsive

 

[js4design]

They work much better as a flush mount where the conduit "tail" is minimal. However, they do not seem to work very well in any of the renderings they chose.

 

[Medwed]

Angeli, De Carli, Olivieri

 

[emptym]

Here's the table top we had made that I mated to legs from an old Thonet table w/ an ugly fake wood laminate:



I wanted something between a boat-shaped table and a rectangle w/ rounded ends. They did a pretty good job following a free-hand drawing I had made of one corner. I'd like to taper a bit more towards the ends, but this is fine, and I could get it reshaped later if we decide to. I'll probably strip the legs and try to get them to a lighter color, closer to the top. My only real concern is that this table wobbles and flexes a bit, probably because it's a couple feet longer than the old one and a bit thinner (1" vs 1/25"). But it'll probably be fine as long as no one stands in the middle and jumps.

We planned to get Wegner elbow chairs, but low funds and young kids mean these will probably stay for a few years. The blue ones are Ikea and the black leather chairs are vintage, made in Italy by a maker unknown to me. If anyone recognizes them, pls let me know. The top was made by West Bay Plastics. Great prices and I really enjoyed the people who work there.

 

[ethanm]

What's the story on the rug? Super Turkmen.