STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Yeah, there is a set in my family and they are great to use too.Those look really good, actually.
There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is to find it.How can this be controversial, really? Only in this thread. They look fine.
FTFY.There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is tofind itprecisely detail why it sucks.
Silly how? Because I do not happen to agree with your taste? Then your own stance is, by default, even more subjective and far more silly than mine. And less elucidated, frankly.This is such a silly criticism. Almost all modern(ist) design can be said to look cheap, simple, utilitarian, etc. Yet, those are the exact virtues meant to be elevated and celebrated in modernism. Many of the iconic modern designs you have posted, for example, “look like” they belong at a campsite or in a cafeteria—at least to those either uninitiated or willfully dismissive.
Really now? Where are the revelations here? One cliché after another, and not much more.I think it is far more interesting, constructive, and useful to critique modern and contemporary design on other grounds. For example, why not focus on the relationship between function and form? What about quality of materials and manufacture? And when assessing aesthetics and elegance, why not do so without concern for whether a thing “looks like” something else? There can be beauty in the common and inexpensive, after all.
There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is to find it.
Both these statements feel only 1/2 true."There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is tofind itprecisely detail why it sucks."
FTFY.
And people think @GeneralEmployer is a troll...Silly how? Because I do not happen to agree with your taste? Then your own stance is, by default, even more subjective and far more silly than mine. And less elucidated, frankly.
Your second sentence is beyond absurd, complete nonsense; your third line egomaniacally insulting to every other reader of this thread, as if all others are so uneducated. But, typical and entirely predictable at this point. There are no Georg Jensen "Prism" or "Arne Jacobsen", etc flatware pieces at any campsite in the world, is my guess. If a cafeteria uses such flatware, lucky cafeteria, and lucky patrons too.
You asked for opinions and alternative suggestions, and so opinions as to why I find the Pott design ugly, and alternative suggestions I find more attractive, were delivered. You don't like opinions and alternative suggestions that differ from your own taste? Rhetorical question, but...: Too damned bad, you know? Frankly it is extremely hard to see much insightful or constructive discussion of design, of any era, per any function, in any material, in your 23000+ posts.
Really now? Where are the revelations here? One cliché after another, and not much more.
Why restrict the discussion of "the relationship between function and form?" etc, to "modern and contemporary design". Are you for some reason opposed to discussing design from other epochs within those frameworks? As far as we know, the Sumerians, Inca, Nara, Greeks, etc all studied those relationships constantly as well. As a bonus, they likely made and used more attractive flatware even. Thumbs up to them.
That last line, "There can be beauty in the common and inexpensive, after all", is particularly rich considering your posts and acquisitions. Who else here pompously pronounces such shallow statements while otoh buying and then incessantly preening about over-priced hack Basquait skateboards, $3000+ teasets, truly ghastly dining chairs, and a baby blue Porsche, with the pretty insane coda to the latter, regarding buying new (and, yes, ugly, imo for reasons previously stated) Jasper Morrison everyday drinking glasses: Leaning toward the sea blue version (to match my car, duh), but also really like the moss green.
JFC, man....![]()
Oh I'd say the two peas in that pod are firmly you and he, especially including matters of taste...and it is sort of oddly impressive just how quickly he reacts to your comments. Does flattery get him everywhere?And people think @GeneralEmployer is a troll...
This is case and point of your stupidity. Because I insta-react to Foo's poast while we're both online, you draw the inference that I was always insta-react to Foo's poast. Then you say Foo is flattering me, when he in no way conceded I wasn't a troll, BECAUSE I AM A TROLL. FOO WAS MERELY IMPLYING YOU WERE THE BIGGER TROLL1111Oh I'd say the two peas in that pod are firmly you and he, especially including matters of taste...and it is sort of oddly impressive just how quickly he reacts to your comments. Does flattery get him everywhere?
I like the Pott 35 because it is possibly a more focused and committed design. In a negative light, maybe one could view the Pott 33 as more compromised, while it is perhaps more balanced or harmonious when positively interpreted.Of those Pott sets, 33 >> 24 >>>>>>>>>>>> 35. The 24 would be the winner, but the fork proportions seems off to me.
I’m with Foo on these spoons - they look useless.As it happens, all of my favourites of the POTT line are what have become the 'historical' sets that you have to order specially, POTT 24 from 1963 in particular.
![]()
I couldn't justify buying any of them unfortunately...