5 ms·

I hate to be the guy who goes "this is what's wrong with modern architecture", but... this is what's wrong with modern architecture. These chairs are both uncom

by jaspax 6y ago

I hate to be the guy who goes "this is what's wrong with modern architecture", but... this is what's wrong with modern architecture. These chairs are both uncomfortable and ugly, literally just squares of plywood fastened together in the most simplistic design that could possibly be called a "chair". The only reason anyone pays attention to them is because of the aura of prestige that they accrue from coming from a famous designer. And yes, I'm aware that this is furniture not architecture, but this is in Architectural Digest, and the sensibility that leads to people cooing over these chairs is the same sensibility that leads to architects making ugly, non-functional buildings that everyone hates except other architects.

function_seven 6y ago
I'm willing to sacrifice some function to form. But damn I have my limits, and these chairs are way past mine. I just bought a new desk for my office at home. Functionally speaking, it's worse than my old, L-shaped one. The old one had more usable space on it, had good depth in the corner for my displays and laptops, with plenty of desktop in front for writing or whatnot. It also took less space in the room, because of its shape. But it was plain, kinda shabby, and didn't spark any joy. The new desk is gorgeous[0]. Rosewood finish with a floating top and pretty legs and all that. It sits in the middle of the room. I have to use a coaster now with drinks. I have to take care not to bang my chair into it, or carelessly throw my keys on it, etc. And it's worth it. I really like just looking at this, more than I miss the convenience of the old L-shaped desk. It might not be everyone's taste, but I have a hard time believing that even those who don't care for it don't at least see how I could. But these chairs? I just don't see it. Its one thing to be uncomfortable. Fine. But try not to be ugly while you're at it. I might also be "that guy", though? [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=model+75+desk+rosewood&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=model+75+desk+rosewood&t=ffab&iar=...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- the_other 6y ago
  It's very pretty. Congratulations on your purchase and all that ... but my whole body noticeably recoiled when I looked at it. I felt instant anticipation of knocked knees, and the stiff and precise manner in which I would need to comport myself around it so as not to cause damage to it, or me. That desk is art, not furniture!
  - function_seven 6y ago
    I'm honestly contemplating replacing my chair with one that has no wheels. Glides, maybe. But once it's in position, I don't want it to move too easily. Yeah, I know that what I'm doing is equivalent to putting the charging port on the bottom of the Apple mouse. I don't care :)
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      It's very comfortable. Since the beginning of my nomadism, I've mostly used non-wheeled chairs, and it's done wonders for my comfort and physical health. Office chairs and even "ergonomic" chairs are overrated. The biggest improvement I've seen has come from changing my position frequently and not being in the same position for hours on end. Yesterday I was sitting on a hard wood chair. Today I'm sitting on a plastic outdoor lawn chair. I'm comfortable in both, and I feel great.
      - function_seven 6y ago
        Thanks! I've had sneaking suspicion that the fancy mesh and swivels are not really needed. When I was in school, I'd spend hours each day in hard wood or plastic chairs. Never had an issue with it at all. If my butt gets sore, then I'll just have to stand up and walk around a bit.
- m463 6y ago
  I think I like that. Lots of nooks and crannies for stuff.
Grustaf 6y ago
Many of the variations are also structurally unsound. Regarding modern architecture, and design like this, I honestly think there's a measure of "since it's so ugly, it must be avant-garde so I'll pretend to like it". I mean statistically speaking, if ugliness wasn't a goal in itself, wouldn't modern architects at least sometimes come up with beautiful designs?
schrijver 6y ago
> The only reason anyone pays attention to them is because of the aura of prestige that they accrue from coming from a famous designer. Then again, aren’t famous designers famous—at least in part—because they are good at designing? I think it’s reasonable to pay attention to their designs, or to expect them to be any good. In this case, though, I feel like your ‘aura’ explanation makes some sense, because Donald Judd is mostly famous as a visual artist. His minimalist visual art isn’t really concerned with the practical details a furniture designer might worry about, and in the context of furniture design his modernist aesthetic is nothing remarkable. So I guess the aura of his visual art and his aura as an artist would play a big role for people who acquire these chairs.
mrtksn 6y ago
I think this is why we have "periods" in arts and design. Someone discovers something, for example, that if you design your UI to resemble real life objects people who are introduced to touch interface for the first time will have easer time understanding it. Then everyone follows without much thinking about the original idea behind that design and eventually you run out of people who are first timers to touch interfaces but everyone keeps doing design for them(probably unknowingly, simply because they think this is what good design is). Then, someone recognises this problem, now discovers that if you get rid of the skeuomorphism that is no longer functional you can actually improve the usability because leather texture is a distraction and eats from the valuable screen estate and you can introduce advanced UI for the touch literate people by embracing that this is a computer and not the physical object that it mimics. Now everyone is in flat design, everything is maximally minimal and people race to put as less visual clues as possible. You end up with UI where you can't tell what's button and what's just text and it's time for a new period in design. I think it's the same with architecture or any type of industrial design. Someone discovers that you can make something functional for very cheap and the word on the street is that all you need is a few pieces of wood to have a chair. It's not as comfortable as the artisan chairs but it is 10x cheaper, so it's cool. Later people realize that they have enough chairs already but they would like something more comfortable and they might be actually willing to pay a bit more. Someone discovers that you can make significantly more comfortable chairs using this new material called plastic and the costs will be just as low. Welcome to the era of plastic chairs and this will last until people recognise that plastic might not be the greatest material ever. In some regard, It's the same thing over and over again. "Transistors are the greatest thing!", 30 years later you have "The best way to enjoy music is to go transistorless". Probably because with each transition you lose something and once you reap the benefits of the new thing, you realize that something is missing. Maybe you go full e-book and you realize that you lose the artwork in the books that is possible thanks to high quality print? Maybe not everyone but at least some people do and they look for a solution. If they find a good one, it may define the next era. Therefore, design can be good or bad depending on the context and can be bad today but iconic if it has become the icon of an era. Owning an iconic item is definitely something notable, it says something about you. Maybe it says that you lived in that era, maybe you appreciate that era as a reference point to help you to appreciate or understand the modern era?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rob74 6y ago
My thoughts exactly: "hey, if I get some boards from the DIY store and screw them together, I get a terribly uncomfortable chair. If Donald Judd does it, people will fork out 3500 dollars to get one."
- eternalban 6y ago
  Go ahead and do it. Shouldn't cost you more than 50 bucks for the plywood. Judd is working with very simple elements to create a spectrum of cube spatial partitions. (Compare Red and Green chairs in frontpiece pic of the blog post. Note the recessed element in both.) This actually does take spatial design talent. He is also working with color. A simple device of non-coated edges is providing 'structural' sense. Finally, he's playing a little numbers game. Looks like all those chairs use 5 planes. They suck as furniture, but are compact expressions of a genuine strain of architectural thought.
m463 6y ago
Lipstick and all that. I would prefer a resin adirondack chair like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=adams+adirondack+patio+chair&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=adams+adirondack+patio+chair&t=h_&... I do think Eames chairs are kind of cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair The navy chairs are pretty iconic, and are sort of super-functional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeco_1006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeco_1006
inopinatus 6y ago
This is a complaint about poetry that doesn't rhyme.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by jaspax 6y ago

function_seven 6y ago

I'm willing to sacrifice some function to form. But damn I have my limits, and these chairs are way past mine. I just bought a new desk for my office at home. Functionally speaking, it's worse than my old, L-shaped one. The old one had more usable space on it, had good depth in the corner for my displays and laptops, with plenty of desktop in front for writing or whatnot. It also took less space in the room, because of its shape. But it was plain, kinda shabby, and didn't spark any joy. The new desk is gorgeous[0]. Rosewood finish with a floating top and pretty legs and all that. It sits in the middle of the room. I have to use a coaster now with drinks. I have to take care not to bang my chair into it, or carelessly throw my keys on it, etc. And it's worth it. I really like just looking at this, more than I miss the convenience of the old L-shaped desk. It might not be everyone's taste, but I have a hard time believing that even those who don't care for it don't at least see how I could. But these chairs? I just don't see it. Its one thing to be uncomfortable. Fine. But try not to be ugly while you're at it. I might also be "that guy", though? [0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=model+75+desk+rosewood&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=model+75+desk+rosewood&t=ffab&iar=...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
the_other 6y ago
It's very pretty. Congratulations on your purchase and all that ... but my whole body noticeably recoiled when I looked at it. I felt instant anticipation of knocked knees, and the stiff and precise manner in which I would need to comport myself around it so as not to cause damage to it, or me. That desk is art, not furniture!
- function_seven 6y ago
  I'm honestly contemplating replacing my chair with one that has no wheels. Glides, maybe. But once it's in position, I don't want it to move too easily. Yeah, I know that what I'm doing is equivalent to putting the charging port on the bottom of the Apple mouse. I don't care :)
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    It's very comfortable. Since the beginning of my nomadism, I've mostly used non-wheeled chairs, and it's done wonders for my comfort and physical health. Office chairs and even "ergonomic" chairs are overrated. The biggest improvement I've seen has come from changing my position frequently and not being in the same position for hours on end. Yesterday I was sitting on a hard wood chair. Today I'm sitting on a plastic outdoor lawn chair. I'm comfortable in both, and I feel great.
    - function_seven 6y ago
      Thanks! I've had sneaking suspicion that the fancy mesh and swivels are not really needed. When I was in school, I'd spend hours each day in hard wood or plastic chairs. Never had an issue with it at all. If my butt gets sore, then I'll just have to stand up and walk around a bit.
m463 6y ago
I think I like that. Lots of nooks and crannies for stuff.

Grustaf 6y ago

Many of the variations are also structurally unsound. Regarding modern architecture, and design like this, I honestly think there's a measure of "since it's so ugly, it must be avant-garde so I'll pretend to like it". I mean statistically speaking, if ugliness wasn't a goal in itself, wouldn't modern architects at least sometimes come up with beautiful designs?

schrijver 6y ago

> The only reason anyone pays attention to them is because of the aura of prestige that they accrue from coming from a famous designer. Then again, aren’t famous designers famous—at least in part—because they are good at designing? I think it’s reasonable to pay attention to their designs, or to expect them to be any good. In this case, though, I feel like your ‘aura’ explanation makes some sense, because Donald Judd is mostly famous as a visual artist. His minimalist visual art isn’t really concerned with the practical details a furniture designer might worry about, and in the context of furniture design his modernist aesthetic is nothing remarkable. So I guess the aura of his visual art and his aura as an artist would play a big role for people who acquire these chairs.

mrtksn 6y ago

I think this is why we have "periods" in arts and design. Someone discovers something, for example, that if you design your UI to resemble real life objects people who are introduced to touch interface for the first time will have easer time understanding it. Then everyone follows without much thinking about the original idea behind that design and eventually you run out of people who are first timers to touch interfaces but everyone keeps doing design for them(probably unknowingly, simply because they think this is what good design is). Then, someone recognises this problem, now discovers that if you get rid of the skeuomorphism that is no longer functional you can actually improve the usability because leather texture is a distraction and eats from the valuable screen estate and you can introduce advanced UI for the touch literate people by embracing that this is a computer and not the physical object that it mimics. Now everyone is in flat design, everything is maximally minimal and people race to put as less visual clues as possible. You end up with UI where you can't tell what's button and what's just text and it's time for a new period in design. I think it's the same with architecture or any type of industrial design. Someone discovers that you can make something functional for very cheap and the word on the street is that all you need is a few pieces of wood to have a chair. It's not as comfortable as the artisan chairs but it is 10x cheaper, so it's cool. Later people realize that they have enough chairs already but they would like something more comfortable and they might be actually willing to pay a bit more. Someone discovers that you can make significantly more comfortable chairs using this new material called plastic and the costs will be just as low. Welcome to the era of plastic chairs and this will last until people recognise that plastic might not be the greatest material ever. In some regard, It's the same thing over and over again. "Transistors are the greatest thing!", 30 years later you have "The best way to enjoy music is to go transistorless". Probably because with each transition you lose something and once you reap the benefits of the new thing, you realize that something is missing. Maybe you go full e-book and you realize that you lose the artwork in the books that is possible thanks to high quality print? Maybe not everyone but at least some people do and they look for a solution. If they find a good one, it may define the next era. Therefore, design can be good or bad depending on the context and can be bad today but iconic if it has become the icon of an era. Owning an iconic item is definitely something notable, it says something about you. Maybe it says that you lived in that era, maybe you appreciate that era as a reference point to help you to appreciate or understand the modern era?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rob74 6y ago

My thoughts exactly: "hey, if I get some boards from the DIY store and screw them together, I get a terribly uncomfortable chair. If Donald Judd does it, people will fork out 3500 dollars to get one."

eternalban 6y ago
Go ahead and do it. Shouldn't cost you more than 50 bucks for the plywood. Judd is working with very simple elements to create a spectrum of cube spatial partitions. (Compare Red and Green chairs in frontpiece pic of the blog post. Note the recessed element in both.) This actually does take spatial design talent. He is also working with color. A simple device of non-coated edges is providing 'structural' sense. Finally, he's playing a little numbers game. Looks like all those chairs use 5 planes. They suck as furniture, but are compact expressions of a genuine strain of architectural thought.

m463 6y ago

Lipstick and all that. I would prefer a resin adirondack chair like this: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=adams+adirondack+patio+chair&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=adams+adirondack+patio+chair&t=h_&... I do think Eames chairs are kind of cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eames_Lounge_Chair The navy chairs are pretty iconic, and are sort of super-functional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeco_1006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeco_1006

inopinatus 6y ago

This is a complaint about poetry that doesn't rhyme.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]