|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 17:00:31 GMT
Jacob, I suspect you are doing one of two things in this thread, and perhaps the same in similar threads on design issues, namely: - Playing Devil's Advocate
- Keeping your eyes firmly shut
Devil's advocate yes. Not keeping my eyes shut at all as far as I am aware! But this stuff, although modern, doesn't represent "modern design" to me - which I think of as that long process starting somewhere back with Wm Morris. through Arts n Crafts, 19C engineering, Paxton, Gropius, Bauhaus, Mies VD Rohe, Reitveld etc. Recently had a shufti around the De la Warr pavilion - that's early modernism. Incidentally much nicer than it looks in the photos mainly cos you don't seem to get the scale from photos, it's smaller than you expect. This so called modern furniture looks to me like a niche of high-priced / high-production-quality stuff which doesn't really stand alone on the basis of design. See the banana stand in a gift shop comments above. But then as you say Chippendale etc are somewhat in the same tradition - pricey goods with as much add-on value as poss, in terms of materials, workmanship etc. High price is what it's about, for D Savage and for Chippendale - it's posh stuff for people with loadsa dosh, then as now. And arguably the mainstream of modern design bypassed the age of mahogany, with lots of reference back to earlier ages, oak, vernacular, back to simplicity and away from the fancy goods industry. Another parallel - a lot of Chippendale and co was actually fancy to the point of being grotesque - and was emulated by machinery producing ghastly stuff at the great exhibition, the reaction against which was a force in the growth of modernism. Paxton more important than the stuff within the Crystal Palace. Similarly with our modern fancy goods (what's a collective name for Makepeace, Savage etc stuff) they somehow miss the point. Post modernist? Two of my favourite books are Irish Country Furniture (Kinmonth) and Welsh Furniture (Bebb). Opening either of these and you get a great blast of liveliness, creativity, colour, originality. Can brighten up your day. Looking at www.celebrationofcraftsmanship.com just makes me feel slightly depressed; it's so complacent, but so effin dull! Bit rambling this - but I'm working on it  cheers Jacob PS I'm getting closer: they are so self-congratulatory, it is so expensive, yet, it's all so amazingly dull What's more - if you recall Tony's crap furniture thread, some of it is worse than dull, it's slightly repulsive - all those humanoid/insectoid spindly legs |
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 18, 2008 17:23:16 GMT
I'm going to that expo at the weekend Jacob. I'll let you know how nice everything is  |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 17:26:45 GMT
I'm going to that expo at the weekend Jacob. I'll let you know how nice everything is I bet you have to pay to get in! cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 18, 2008 18:24:10 GMT
hehe i do intend to, with reluctant missus and baby in tow. Yes, yes more money than sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 18, 2008 18:31:22 GMT
cmon jacob, the delaware pavilion is in fact "art deco", not modernism  i agree you may feel my attitude toward bauhaus is unusual, but whilst i admire clean lines, i do not for instance agree with getting rid of window ledges and drip rails on buildings because it looks cleaner  the whole point of pushing the envelope whether in furniture, or grand prix motor bikes is to learn more about the limits of what we do. you don't have to like it, only accept that people are often working to a brief which is different from that you accept when rebuilding windows. it is easy to dismiss modern methods, but, if you cannot convince young kids to work with their hands because it is old fashioned, then what will happen to the trade any way.  paul  |
|
|
|
Post by Alf on Aug 18, 2008 18:54:19 GMT
Two of my favourite books are Irish Country Furniture (Kinmonth) and Welsh Furniture (Bebb). Opening either of these and you get a great blast of liveliness, creativity, colour, originality. Can brighten up your day. Looking at www.celebrationofcraftsmanship.com just makes me feel slightly depressed; it's so complacent, but so effin dull! Bit rambling this - but I'm working on it I'm getting a bit of John Brown-ish deja vu here. Keep going, Jacob. Personally I've always struggled to get enthusiastic about Parnham simply because I've suffered as the circulation was slowly cut off from my legs by one of Makepeace's chair designs. You can't beat practical experience over book-learning, ya know. Cheers, Alf |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 18:56:42 GMT
cmon jacob, the delaware pavilion is in fact "art deco", not modernism There's a lot more to it than those details!Nothing against modern methods in principle. The banana stand is not pushing any envelopes - it's just fancy gift-ware. Fer gawds sake get a grip! Ignore the price, imagine it at £14.99 in B&Q; would you want it, especially if everybody had one including the ma in law (who got it in Benidorm, to stand her lava lamp on in the downstairs lavvy)? Kitsch. I suppose gnome faces on mugs was "pushing the envelope" once upon a time! cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 18, 2008 19:07:16 GMT
snip I'm getting a bit of John Brown-ish deja vu here. snip Well as the great man said: |
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 18, 2008 19:52:31 GMT
whatever they say as far as i am concerned when i first saw it many years ago, they said it was based on art deco ideas it was in fact of the same type of basic design facility as eltham palace. interestingly enough, bexhill is the site of the first motor racing track and event in england. it is still run every year. paul |
|
jay
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2008 9:01:08 GMT
This is no ordinary Banana Stand. This is M&S banana stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 19, 2008 9:26:06 GMT
Surely this arty farty designer woodwork stuff is simply the equivelent of the high fashion on show in Milan or Paris or the type of modern art collected by Charles Saatchi. It is evidence of the envelope being pushed - an exploration of what is possible. Of course it has no direct immediate relevence to the rest of us Bit by bit though, elements of these avant garde designs find their way into the mainstream. This is the way that things advance. People come up with wacky designs. The good ideas are developed. The crap ideas are forgotton. It was ever thus. Exactly so...as I said earlier. Interestingly, a parallel can be drawn between this idea of avant garde designing and F1 motor sport. It's long been recognised that some the state of the art developments in F1 motors eventually filter down into the mainstream car production which is one of the reasons that the vehicles we drive today are so much better than those of 50 years ago or even from the 70's So Jacob, what's your wheels, name and shame!!...a shiny new motor or are you still driving the 1950's Ford Thames with the side-valve engine and vacuum wipers (my first car ;D) my hunch from reading your stuff is that you gotta fall into the latter camp! - Rob |
|
jay
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2008 10:01:31 GMT
Oh please. Trickle down from Formula 1 to mainstream domestic cars is negligible. Name one benefit to mainstream cars that has derived from formula 1 in oh I don't know - say the last decade. Not easy is it. The truth is that the goals of domestic cars - reliably transporting people and stuff vs formula 1 - going as quickly as possible in a race is wildly different and short of a tendency to have four wheels similarities between the two are almost non-existent; in most instances it would be inappropriate to transfer technology from one to the other. Formula 1 may be bleeding edge, bit it's the wrong edge. |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 19, 2008 10:05:55 GMT
snip Interestingly, a parallel can be drawn between this idea of avant garde designing and F1 motor sport. It's long been recognised that some the state of the art developments in F1 motors eventually filter down into the mainstream car production which is one of the reasons that the vehicles we drive today are so much better than those of 50 years ago or even from the 70's So Jacob, what's your wheels, name and shame!!...a shiny new motor or are you still driving the 1950's Ford Thames with the side-valve engine and vacuum wipers (my first car ;D) my hunch from reading your stuff is that you gotta fall into the latter camp! - Rob Good point and underlines a common design misunderstanding. Car development is about technical advance - styling and appearance are entirely secondary to function, so much so that many a vehicle which looks futuristic and advanced , may in fact be a bit of old tat dressed up. And sometimes vice versa. Whereas furniture is almost all about styling - the technical problems were all sorted out generations ago. A 19C chair will serve you just as well technically as anything made by a trendy modern. There is nowhere new to go, except in visual styling, and manufacturing techniques, the latter not being much of a concern for your modern "designer/craftsmen" who tend to be very conservative and "hand made". Technical advances made in ply, steel etc but thats nought to do with your modern "des/crafts" which is all about style So - Ford Thames - one version was a van as I recall - a bit like a VW van but front mid engined. And yes - I once owned one! When it finally blew a gasket I managed to limp in to a scrap yard but he said he didn't want it as it was too old and decrepit. Turned down by a scrapper! Eventually sold it for £10. To be fair, the design and layout of body, visually and in use, were both utterly practical and ageless, but the mechanics were not! And the same could be said of the Ford Pop (100e? side-valve engine and vacuum wipers) and yes, was my first car too! The faster you went the slower the wipers. Neat attractive looking car (in it's day) but mechanically crap Design style, fashion etc and technical development may have absolutely no connection whatsoever. cheers Jacob |
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 19, 2008 10:24:07 GMT
plainly jay has little or no real knowledge of cars. trickle down in the last 10 years. improved fuel consumption because of an increased understanding of both low and high speed aerodynamics. better engine management control because of the electronics involved in originally letting turbo cars run economically whilst providing the most useful fuel range. better understanding of air flow through the vehicle and reduction in the amounts of heat retention and transfer without adding value. even the rubber technology has improved because of better understanding. it is just as easy to dismiss the american space programme but without it we would not have modern computers, non stick pans, and other things. as for furniture. jacob you are right, in one way most joints and techniques for fixing were evolved many centuries ago. however that does not answer the original question posed. learning to do more with the materials to hand which may not have been used for furniture before. we may not personally think much of these items either as designs, or practical pieces, it may well offer us a new way of looking at things. i would posit that most of the techniques that we gladly use in housing woodworking no were in most cases evolved from work done by carpenters on ships, things like built in furniture, are certainly nicked from ships of the line. however, it is only really in the last 10-20 years that people have actually looked back at wooden boats to see the amazing skill involved in their construction. this was mainly due to the growth in the restoration of canal barges and early yachts. as a result, lately we have better finishes and glues for use, particularly in areas where damp may well be a problem, like in new houses etc. so whilst parnham may not be to your taste jacob, it offered a new direction which might well have led to a cul de sac, but was at least an entertaining and amusing pathway ;D paul |
|
jay
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2008 11:56:24 GMT
Here's a fun game. Which is more aerodynamically efficient? Alonso's 2007 F1 Car or a London Bus?  Wrong. The design goals of a formula 1 car are highly specialised and implementation very advanced. However if your business is moving people around it's difficult to beat a bus (trains are better still). A bus is very aerodynamically efficient on a per capita basis by virtue of carrying lots of people behind a small area of frontage. A F1 car struggles to achieve anything like the per capita efficiency no matter how much the dead horse gets flogged - bleeding edge F1 advances, impressive as they are, have little or nothing to teach a Bus about aerodynamics. What I think a lot of people don't appreciate is that humble everyday items often also have highly specialised design goals and the implementation is also often highly evolved. Genuine opportunities for cross development are rare. |
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 19, 2008 12:15:22 GMT
Mr Grim wrote:
Function and form need to be be present most design concepts, though some lean more heavily toward one bias or another. For example a Chieftain tank is entirely driven by function...the notion that it also looks quite good (to me anyway) is a matter I suspect of accident. On the other hand the 'concept cars' developed by most manufacturers prior to a motor show are strictly styling ideas, what innovations may or may not be under the skin of the vehicle is secondary.
Your notion that furniture is almost all about styling is utter tosh Jacob...there will always be new materials, new adhesives new ways of doing things that need to be explored and to say that the technical problems were sorted out generations ago is just garbage! The basic technical problems, using the materials available generations ago may well have been sorted, but progress needs to be made...you need to move onwards and upwards, you seem to be stuck in a retro time warp! ;D
We all know you're a fan of Georgian stuff and for sure, they got the ergonomics correct for their dining chairs made for the fat, lardy aristos of the time, which is the reason that they're far too wide in the seat for todays average person (mind you with the way that MaccyD's is going with utterly crap food we may have to revert back to bigger seats ;D ) - Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by tusses on Aug 19, 2008 12:16:11 GMT
ehh apples is apples n all that ! |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 19, 2008 13:01:21 GMT
snip What I think a lot of people don't appreciate is that humble everyday items often also have highly specialised design goals and the implementation is also often highly evolved. snip Yes. Good design is all around, but taken for granted due to sheer familiarity. On chairs - if yousearch www.celebrationofcraftsmanship.com/ there's a page Exhibition & London Launch of ‘Bespoke’ 8th November 2007 - can't do a link it's framed or summat. You find there chairs by Philip Koomen, Marcus Mindelsohn, Katie Walker, D Savage, J Makepeace. Re Robs points, what technical seating prob do these solve, or in what way do they represent progress towards a better chair? To what functions are they improved forms? Modern ar*e sizes or what? I'd say nil on all counts. For better or worse, they are just craft skill and style exercises. "Fancy goods" in other words. cheers Jacob PS A basic design problem - the fact that someone is struggling to come up with a new design for something old and familiar, could mean that he/she doesn't have enough design skill to recognise the quality of the old one. This applies to all those who turn their noses up at "vernacular" design - it's a form of design blindness ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sgian Dubh on Aug 19, 2008 14:30:17 GMT
It's on record that Robert Ingham (who now writes for F&C) made no reference to any text books (aka Scrits list) when tutoring students at the college as the stuff they were making transcended the information in the books...they were working so 'ouside the box' that much of the stuff in books would have hindered rather than helped them...so they didn't use any - Rob I've got to admit I find that difficult to believe. I suppose I could ask Robert if that's the case, but I've not had reason to do so-- we're both members of the same group of designers and makers. If you're being taught about how to handle a very complex material like wood you need something that you can point your students at to find information. I say this from the side of my life that is a lecturer on furniture making subjects. It's a fact that I can usually tell my learners how many things are done and why. I can discuss timber technology until the cows come home. I have studied and practiced the subjects of furniture making and furniture design along with the properties, working characteristics and ways of manipulating all the primary materials of the craft furniture maker in depth for over thirty five years. I cannot carry all that information in my head, and I forget things and have to refer to definitive texts to remind myself of information, and to learn what is for me new knowledge. It's true to say that I've probably learnt and forgotten more about woodworking and furniture making than most people learn in a lifetime. I'm aware of how little knowledge sticks in a learner's head the first they see it, hear it or practice it. You have to repeat it several times and the knowledge and ability gradually builds up. As ateacher I'm aware that I'm not always there when a learner needs knowledge. If I'm not about to provide that knowledge where are they to go for it if not to text books or other sources of high quality information provided by acknowledged experts in their subject? After I'd been in this profession for about ten years, away back about 1983, I thought I was the hottest thing in furniture making and knew all there was to know about designing and making furniture. Now I've been at it twenty five years more I realise how little I actually know and if I want to get good I'd better keep up the studying and practicing. Slainte. |
|
|
|
Post by thebloke on Aug 19, 2008 14:53:54 GMT
It's on record that Robert Ingham (who now writes for F&C) made no reference to any text books (aka Scrits list) when tutoring students at the college as the stuff they were making transcended the information in the books...they were working so 'ouside the box' that much of the stuff in books would have hindered rather than helped them...so they didn't use any - Rob I've got to admit I find that difficult to believe. I suppose I could ask Robert if that's the case, but I've not had reason to do so-- we're both members of the same group of designers and makers. Slainte. Richard - I do recollect reading that snippet (or something along those lines) very recently in F&C, can't tell you which issue though - Rob |
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 19, 2008 20:34:58 GMT
jay why is it that people believe these stories about buses and trains being so efficient.? what you have to remember is that aerodynamics is rather like sound, it varies in relation to the speed. buses and coaches do not travel (legally) at more than 60 mph, which requires a totally different approach to that of a racing car changing speed between maybe 40 and 200 mph. the compromises are diverse and incremental. buses are designed to allow people of varying heights to enter easily and comfortably. that is a huge envelope, and will always create a big block of air which is moved, which is why when you get passed on the motorway by a bus, you car moves because of the air movement off the bus. if you are ever a passenger in the rain, check out the movement of the water off the sides and ends of the buses. really interesting. but of more importance in this argument is that most buses do not travel full all of the time, and thus the ratio is compromised. as for the modern trains as far as i can tell, none of them are any more aerodynamically better than the LNER A4 class locos and the designed train, either the Silver Jubilee, or Coronation, which had "beaver " tails. this was actually based on the principals of Ettorre Bugatti, and his work with Chapelon a french locomotive engineer. and none of these calculations take into account the infrastructure costs of either road or rail and their impacts. but in another answer to your question about technology transfer, it is certain that many of the present faster road motorcycles have many parts that can be traced back directly to the moto gp and superbike competitions. of more value though is the approach taken by companies like honda, toyota, bmw and even mercedes who take the view that secondment of their engineers to the racing teams for periods of up to two years makes them more flexible and able to deal with and solve problems more quickly and hence less expensively than were they traditional engineers. paul |
|
|
|
Post by Sgian Dubh on Aug 19, 2008 21:32:24 GMT
Richard - I do recollect reading that snippet (or something along those lines) very recently in F&C, can't tell you which issue though - Rob Rob, if you're saying this is something Robert Ingham said in F&C I have to admit I find it extraordinary. I didn't see the article, but I don't subscribe to F&C and tend to flip through it in a cursory manner when I do see a copy, unless a particular article catches my eye as especially interesting. Slainte. |
|
|
|
Post by mrgrimsdale on Aug 20, 2008 8:11:20 GMT
Managed to work out the link: www.furniture-21st-century.com/new%20work.htmDo you see a page of furniture etc? I think this is rampant post-modernism. So not a peculiar niche as I have often wondered, but mainstream post -modern. A dog's breakfast of styles. That Makepeace chair has somehow hit the "repulsive" button for me. May be just the photo but it's the poo colour and the sweaty fleshy textures. The other chairs are all sci-fi gothic IMHO: "thrones for the rulers of the planet tharg". Except for the rocker which is vaguely modernistic - wood/steel/leather, but doesn't look viable to me, like a good student project The 2 (very fine, classy) cupboards/cabinets and the 2 boxes are severely art-deco or art-nouveau retro. "Before you go" what's that then, a urinal? 1960s sculpture? etc cheers Jacob PS back in a bit , got to go! |
|
|
|
Post by engineerone on Aug 20, 2008 9:11:15 GMT
as far as i am remember, the modernism tag came post the second world war, as an explanation of the change between the wars after the french had tried to make art deco uniquely there own. paul |
|
|
|
Post by wizer on Aug 20, 2008 9:17:46 GMT
I do like the Marcus Mindelsohn chair and Philip Koomen's desk (tho not the chair). I like the Koi box too.
Nothing particularly offends me, except maybe Matthew Burt's 'public urinal'.
You certainly can't discount the craftsmanship in any of those pieces and if people want to buy it, then there's a market.
|
|
