or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata - Page 496

post #7426 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

I can't deny it.
First, if you're allergic to vapidity, modern design may not be the hobby for you. Have you ever read any of the descriptions/explanations/justifications that designers -- or at least their copywriters -- attach to their work?

Second, there have been lots of substantive comments about your lamps. I've made a couple myself. They might not be up to your hermeneutical standards, but there you are.

Finally, your vase is a joke.

It was a joke when you bought it. It is a joke now. Trust me. That vase is not the design hill you want to die on.

I think often it has to be their copy writers. My wife and I were discussing Holbein's 'The Ambassadors'. The anamorphic skull was written about as some grand expression about pointless vanities. Now I obviously have no idea if Holbein was attempting to make some grand gesture, but knowing a few painters I would say....probably not.

That kind of stuff is pervasive in modern and contemporary art, to the point that it most often causes me to roll my eyes long before taking it with even remote seriousness.

The same BS exists in furniture/carpentry. For ever I've been hearing about how Japanese use planes where they pull rather than push and the reasoning behind it. This is attributed from a western point of view as being related to religion and how it's bringing the spirit of the wood toward you. In speaking with my Japanese tool dealer (who is actually Japanese and from Japan) it is because smallish folks need to use the largest muscles in their upper body to pull very wide planes.

So if I am making a point, hah, it is that this stuff is almost always for practical reasons, then someone comes along and assigns something else to it.
post #7427 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


1. A vase is decorative object, not a piece of furniture. It is primarily made to be looked at, not to be used.

Really? I put flowers in them. You're thinking of knickknacks.
post #7428 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

First, if you're allergic to vapidity, modern design may not be the hobby for you. Have you ever read any of the descriptions/explanations/justifications that designers -- or at least their copywriters -- attach to their work?

Did I not point out earlier that contemporary design is hard to make heads or tails of? Most advertised conceptualization of most contemporary design is bullshit.

But many of the earlier modernists are more lucid in their published rationale. And, as much as postmodernism bores me, the conceptualization of most postmodern design is quite coherent.

Of course, all of that is sort of off-point, isn't it? You cannot read the designer's mind or fully rely on any one narrative. You have to infer a lot. That is part of the fun of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

Second, there have been lots of substantive comments about your lamps. I've made a couple myself. They might not be up to your hermeneutical standards, but there you are.

Which lamp? The white E15 lamp? The IC?

Thing is, a lamp is not turned on much of the time. When off, it might as well be a decorative object, so its sculptural qualities are quite important. As long as it casts enough of the sort of light needed in a particular context, my concern shifts to whether it complements the furniture and space around it.

The critical commentary on that lamp reveals a lot about the peanut gallery here. Nobody has bothered to consider what use I might be considering it for. Without knowing that, how can one possibly assess whether it gives off enough of the right kind of light? Yet, most of the critique has centered on its functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

Finally, your vase is a joke.

It was a joke when you bought it. It is a joke now. Trust me. That vase is not the design hill you want to die on.

Really? I must have missed the punch line. Do tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Explain to me how this is good design.  To me, it is less functional than just about every other set of shelves I have ever seen.

In what way is it less functional?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

Really? I put flowers in them. You're thinking of knickknacks.

All your vases have flowers in them all the time? A vase can be its own object worth admiring.
post #7429 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

1. A vase is decorative object, not a piece of furniture. It is primarily made to be looked at, not to be used. This is not a lawyerly distinction. I'm not sure how I can be more clear without being condescending.

I never said a vase was a piece of furniture so we can burn that straw man right now. And please, condescend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

All your vases have flowers in them all the time? A vase can be its own object worth admiring.

Are all your couches being sat on all the time? And are not many of these furniture pieces created as being an object worth admiring on top of their function? (insert jacking off smilely)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

2. Your usage of "transcendent" and "metaphysical" in this context is confusing. My earlier point was quite simple: since you don't care for the aims of good design, it is unclear what you can take from or contribute to a design discussion.

Have you ever considered how mafoofan defines "good design" is not the end all and be all on the topic? A controversial idea, I know, but one you should ponder.
post #7430 of 8386




@mafoofan did you see my list
post #7431 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I never said a vase was a piece of furniture so we can burn that straw man right now. And please, condescend.

It was your strawman lol

Design needs to be assessed relative to function. A vase's primary function is merely to be visually enjoyable. Hence, attempting to apply the same rigor of assessment as one would apply to a functional item, such as a couch, is pointless and misguided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Are all your couches being sat on all the time? And are not many of these furniture pieces created as being an object worth admiring on top of their function? (insert jacking off smilely)

Of course! That's why it's so tragic your chairs are so damned ugly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Have you ever considered how mafoofan defines "good design" is not the end all and be all on the topic? A controversial idea, I know, but one you should ponder.

You think the definition of good design I've discussed is my own personal one? Becoming crystal clear why there is dissonance here.
post #7432 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Are you going to draw a distinction, in terms of the current conversation, between a chair and a table now? In terms of this current conversation the actual use of the object is irrelevant as long as it falls within the scope of furniture and furnishings. You're trying to lawyer in a distinction as I tossed up a clear example that counters your boldly defined and asserted precepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

It was your strawman lol

Yeah, it was my strawman. Where the fuck is that jack off smilely?
post #7433 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

In what way is it less functional?
 

 

I would say the fact that there are supports on both the front and back prevent me from filling the shelves and easily reaching the things behind them.

As an example, I have bookshelves filled end to end with books, so I would either need put some books in sideways in the above design, which wouldn't work if there were multiple shelves (or some other object) next to each other, or I would need to remove the non-desired item to get the item behind the support.

post #7434 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post


Yeah, it was my strawman. Where the fuck is that jack off smilely?

Why the hell would the vase be part of this argument if not for the fact that you attempted to use it as a counterpoint? My point all along is that it is not comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I would say the fact that there are supports on both the front and back prevent me from filling the shelves and easily reaching the things behind them.


As an example, I have bookshelves filled end to end with books, so I would either need put some books in sideways in the above design, which wouldn't work if there were multiple shelves (or some other object) next to each other, or I would need to remove the non-desired item to get the item behind the support.

The way the vertical supports are structured creates shelves on the sides of the case, which can be useful for organization. Maybe more importantly, it also changes how the whole piece relates to the space around it. Conventional bookcases face one direction and thus have a defined front, with the other sides to be ignored. This one faces all directions. There's no front or back, with all sides worthy of facing outward, opening up many new possibilities for placement.
post #7435 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Why the hell would the vase be part of this argument if not for the fact that you attempted to use it as a counterpoint? My point all along is that it is not comparable.

And my point would be that it is comparable within the confines of this discussion.

Stalemate.
post #7436 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

And my point would be that it is comparable within the confines of this discussion.

Stalemate.

You never bothered responding to any of my attempts to explain why one ought to assess the design of an object like a vase differently than one would a piece of furniture.
post #7437 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

You never bothered responding to any of my attempts to explain why one ought to assess the design of an object like a vase differently than one would a piece of furniture.

Because I found them specious and not in need of a reply.
post #7438 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Find Finn View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

@mafoofan did you see my list

I did! Familiar with many of them but it was good to reinvestigate. Supergrau's Hangar lamp is particularly interesting. Have not looked at it up close until now.
post #7439 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Because I found them specious and not in need of a reply.

I found your chairs to be egregiously banal but I still bothered to discuss them with you.
post #7440 of 8386
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

I found your chairs to be egregiously banal but I still bothered to discuss them with you.

I always suspected you were a saint and this proves it.

Seriously, my chairs are no more fugly than a Grand Repo or Eames. If they came with a 5k price tag and were strewn across AD articles you'd be all over them. Probably if even someone else in this thread presented them, like FF or Matt, you would have had a far less problem with them (that goes for some other folks too).

I'm looking at them right now, thinking about coffee in front of the fireplace tomorrow morning, and smiling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cool furniture, design objects and desiderata