Interesting pieces of furniture - 17

[Jake]

I find it generally remarkable how quick people are, and how many people there are, that merrily cast aspersions on another designer's work.

Yet as a judge of the recent design competition here, how many of the doubters, quibblers, nitpickers and gloomsters in these various 'design appreciation' threads entered that competition to show myself and the other judges how much better their design sensibilities and presentation skills are?

I sometimes drink wine that I think is very substandard. I've never made wine. Does that bar me from saying that I don't like it?

I often drive hire cars on holiday, and generally hate the way they drive compared to my own. I've never designed a car. Does that mean I cannot comment?

Etc.

 

[newt]

At the end of the day it all comes down to Form, Fit and Function at least for something that has a practical application. This piece has form, but I struggle with the other two. Unless there is a optical illusion the back would indicate that we should have a V in our backs, how could that be comfortable. I am sure the quality of the workmanship is good, but you did ask for comments and I cannot see this being a practical piece. However it may prove to be an attractive ornament and would certainly stimulate interesting thoughts for those that view it in the flesh.

 

[Bean]

Mmmm Interesting comments, we all have valuable comments some positive and some negative, but I fear for the hobby we all like with the 'if its different condem it' attitude being shown here.

If that attitude was displayed in all aspects of our lives we would still be living in caves ....... provided they were not too different of course.

Embrace change you never know you just might find something you like

 

[DomValente]

Bean wrote:

Embrace change you never know you just might find something you like

=D>

Dom

 

[Paul Chapman]

Embrace change you never know you just might find something you like

That's what I keep saying to the wife, but she won't go :lol: :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[ByronBlack]

I find it a bit disturbing that we can't give an opinion on something without being critised for giving that opinion, surely we still have freedom of speech on this forum? I think most posts that have given a negative view have done it constructively.

If some of us don't like, we don't like it, it's not a case of not liking it just because it's different. In the other interesting furniture threads, there have been other pieces that some have liked and ARE different.

If the majority of the feedback so far has been in the negative, then maybe thats a reflection of the piece rather than the people commenting on it?

Like I said in my post, and I think others share; I feel the piece is well made and it certainly looks to have been crafted by a skilled woodworker, just the design in my opinion really doesn't work - and not because it's different either, just that I think it's not a great bit of design.

I just wish we could all respect each others opinions with criticizing them (as long they can back it up of course).

 

[DomValente]

I can see what you're saying BB, but it's a sort of Catch 22, you're critiscising the piece and another member is critiscising your opinion.
Whilst this piece is not to my taste, as others have said, the man is skilled and possibly threw this piece out there as a flight of fancy to see if it would get a good or bad reaction, well he has achieved his goal.
By the way he can certainly make furnituretake a look

Dom

 

[andy king]

I think Sgian Dubh has summed it up well, but from my point of view, the title of the thread says it all.
Some of the pieces shown are indeed interesting pieces of furniture, while others are more art forms.
I recall not long after starting at GW, myself, Phil Davy and Pete Martin visiting Cheltenham to see the furniture exhibition. I was blown away by the designs, talent and craftsmanship on show, but at the same time, some of the pieces were simply not functional in my mind, so maybe not worthy of a 'furniture' title. Furniture to me means a functional, usable item, but that doesn't necessarily mean it cannot embrace the two.
A good example that day was the latest incarnation of David Savage's 'Love Chairs'. While the craftsmanship and design were exemplary, the splay and curve of the legs, without structural stretchers seemed to me an accident waiting to happen. My now departed colleague Pete Martin thought they were fabulous, but when he asked if he could take a picture with someone sitting on them, and a lady of normal build obliged, I could see the strain on the legs immediately, she was more of a squat rather than allow her full weight to load the seat as they started to move away from each other, so not a chair designed as a chair ideally, more a talking point or piece of art in my mind. I'm glad Pete never asked me to sit on them! :shock:
As a dad, I was also a bit concerned about the pointy intersections as well! Had I been able to afford the price, I'd have been out with a few well placed corks to stop the kids taking their eyes out! :lol: (Of course, this is simply opinion, but that's what these postings are aimed at?)
The chair in this thread however, while looking maybe uncomfortable at the back rest, has the attributes that make it the name it has been given. It looks sturdy, and has a unique design element to make it stand out, and as such is a worthy inclusion.
Just my 2p you understand...

Andy

 

[andy king]

Actually, I've just had another look at the pics, and I can see that the back might in fact work rather well...
Personally, I don't tend to sit bolt upright, so my bum won't touch the backrest, but leaning back into it, the spine will fall into the gap while the splay and back wedge shape should support the shoulderblades.
I'm probably way off track here, but I suppose it's like a lot of things - try it, you may like it. (except for cheese.) (and cabbage)

Andy

 

[Jake]

I like the back a lot - at least the view of it from the front - it's the one bit I do like. The tusked tenons spoil the clean lines for me when viewed from behind. It's the rest of it I'm not so keen on.

 

[ByronBlack]

Dom - I agree, the maker certainly know's his beans, and I made sure that I said something to that effect in both of my opinions of the piece; that it looks well made and well-crafted.

I just think in threads like this, everyone should be entitled to their opinion on the piece without fear of their opinion being critisized or labelled as wrong, or backwards etc.. after all this is what these threads are about; everyones views and opinions.

anyway rant over, I don't want to turn it into an argument as I think this is a good piece to discuss. And some good points have been made.

Personally, I like arty pieces like this (just not this one in particular) and I think they do serve a function in a room, just like an attractive cabinet would or a nice mantle. Whether its comfortable or not we won't know until we sit in it, but even if it was designed for occasional use or no use, I feel the design is awkward, there are curves opposing straight area's, there are sharp angles next to soft ones, the tusked tenons have no real breathing space (from the photo) and the back of the chair feels cluttered which is opposed to the minimal look of the front. I just don't feel that it was a cohesive design, it certainly has got some legs and I think could be expanded on to make a real lovely piece.

 

[CHJ]

Well to my eyes it meets the "Interesting piece of furniture" description, and as said in various posts looks soundly made although strangely presented with minimalist frontal appearance and rustic clutter to the rear.

If it purports to be a design for a practical chair then sorry I just don't get it unless the object is to get you to sit bolt upright without placing any lower back pressure on the central ridge formed at the rear of the seat.

 

[Slim]

As it was me who suggested this piece to Tony, it is obvious that I like it. However, I have to agree with Byron. Members should not be critisised when giving a negative view, and there have been a majority of negative comments towards the chair. To me this simply reflects the general opinion of the forum when it comes to design and function. It also makes me think that I may have rather atypical tastes. No bad thing.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Dropping my negative comment on the commentary had the desired effect.

Since then contributions have to a greater or lesser extent examined wider issues about the chairs' design than a mere one liner.

There has been, since then, some sort of marshalling of the issues into an argument of the chair's merits or faults.

I got what I was looking for-- deeper thought. Slainte.

 

[newt]

I have a little worry, I sense that we could be starting an environment where negative comments are criticized and only positive comments seem acceptable, I did say starting. This I think would be tragic, we all should be able to speak freely, I cannot see how any of the comments have broken forum rules, therefore what is the problem. Why do people get so up-tight when a comment is negative, particularly when having been asked for comments.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

newt, I'm not suggesting that only positive commentary is acceptable. What I'm interested in is some reasoned commentary. Saying I like it, or saying I don't like just doesn't say much. On the other hand some analysis of why a piece only partially works aesthetically and functionally as far as a commentator is concerned provides ideas for others bounce their own ideas off.

There are always throw-away one line comments made about any piece up for discussion, and I'm not interested in preventing that. They're easily ignored because there's nothing to substantiate the statement.

My opinion of the chair under discussion is that it's a bit of a curate's egg-- good in parts. The curved back legs and the way they diverge to create a space for the spine is interesting visually, and works with the human body. This I see as the major motif in the piece and I would like to see this strong curving design element picked up again somewhere else. It isn't, and the seat and front legs seem to belong to another chair.

I also find the tusk tenon at the back visually intrusive. This is the only use of this form of mortice and tenon in the piece, and it's a form developed primarily for knock down (KD) furniture, eg, refectory tables. The rest of the joinery isn't KD, so there's some mixed design and function messages given out.

So, on the whole, the design doesn't work for me. Slainte.

 

[Good Surname or what ?]

I agree with the point that Sgian Dubh is making.

I seldom find a chair that's completely unappealing. But that is as ugly as sin.

I was a bit terse wasn't I.

Specifically, I find the rails that join the legs to be too deep. I presume they need to be that way for structural reasons. The seat appears to be a flat surface - I can't imagine that it's comfortable. The diverging back components appear to join in a v shape, leaving me feeling there is no unifying theme to this chair and like a face with mouth, nose and eyes that don't go together this chair seems ugly to me.

 

[andycorleone]

I Like it is something diferent BTW I love the Multipla

 

[Anonymous]

It's a rum one this. Front legs and seat look like a recycled school desk, back half like posh scaffold boards. Then the runes - or axe marks? Does this chair tell a storey which means something to Sarah but nobody else? Did she come to an unfortunate end?
The tusk tenons and wedges make sense however - if you must join half an old desk to some heavy boards how else would you do it?

cheers
Jacob