or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mafoofan

Honest question: what draws you to this thread? Seems like most of the people talking don't particularly like "cool" furniture, design, etc.
Times Square is easily reached from all over Manhattan--no need to live in the immediate vicinity (can't fathom why anyone would want to). We are leaving the UWS soon, but it is a fantastic area to live in and most of it is 5-10 minutes from Times Square by the 1 or the 2.
Too much wicker, cord, etc., in the house as is.
It's a potential foyer bench.
I don't think it is silly to lay down "edicts" and "limit what can be done." We might disagree as to what those edicts should be, but you need them in order to define good versus bad.
Isn't it obvious? There can be no appreciation of good things without determining what things are bad. We each have to have our ideals.
I don't see how Pawson's talent or intent should impact judgement of his work. If I didn't know who designed the table, and knew it is MDF, I'd want to know why the hell it is made of multiple "planks" of wood.
Let me be more clear then.1. I am not saying the use of MDF is intrinsically a compromise (I never have--though I don't like covering it in wood veneer to look like solid wood).2. I am saying that the form of this table was dictated by the use of solid wood, as indicated by the designer himself.3. So, when the material composing the table changes from solid wood to a material with different properties, I expect the form of the table to adjust accordingly. Sometimes it is...
It's a compromised execution in that it's a sub-optimal design decision. If not for "imaginary ideals," how would we judge any design at all?If he was going to switch to MDF or "conglomerate" or whatever, why not also seize on the new material's possibilities? An obvious improvement would be to do a single-piece table top--unless there are advantages to gaps I'm not thinking of.
New Posts  All Forums: