1. Ok. So I'm watching the "chair design" documentary (Chair Times). These are beautiful chairs! But one early chair explains the whole problem in a nutshell.
Frank Lloyd Wright's Chair for Johnson Wax, 1936.
Looks innocent enough. But hold on to your butts.. this gets wild.
Frank Lloyd Wright's Chair for Johnson Wax, 1936.
Looks innocent enough. But hold on to your butts.. this gets wild.
2. The original design (shown) only had 3 legs. Why? Wright "believed: it would encourage better posture."
Why? Because you'd have to keep your feet on the ground to sit in it. Sound like a bad idea? It WAS.
Why? Because you'd have to keep your feet on the ground to sit in it. Sound like a bad idea? It WAS.
3. Henry Dreyfuss or Ray/Charles Eames would never build a chair based on "a belief." They'd make prototypes and try them with real people. But not Wright.
He insisted on these chairs until... a fateful day.
He insisted on these chairs until... a fateful day.
4. Johnson, his client, complained about the chairs but Wright resisted. Johnson asked Wright to sit in one and he himself fell over!
This was was enough for Wright, so he redesigned the chair from this model, with three legs (shown in the film) to...
This was was enough for Wright, so he redesigned the chair from this model, with three legs (shown in the film) to...
5. To this one, with four legs. They're apparently still in use, and some models have wheels or armrests on them.
6. But when you put a designed thing like a chair in a museum, w/o context, it becomes a work of art. Something to be admired purely for how it looks.
A chair becomes a visual object, not an interactive one. It's interactivity (falling over, uncomfortable, etc.) disappears.
A chair becomes a visual object, not an interactive one. It's interactivity (falling over, uncomfortable, etc.) disappears.
7. Design museums have this problem generally. They have to preserve famous works.
But how can you think about the design of a fork in a complete way if it's just attached to a wall behind glass?
It promotes the notion that "design is how it looks".
But how can you think about the design of a fork in a complete way if it's just attached to a wall behind glass?
It promotes the notion that "design is how it looks".
8. The problem (in case it's not clear) I'm trying to solve is showing more people to understand design in all of it's meanings. But the one most people know is "designer clothes" - how things look.
A "movie that treats chairs look like art" doesn't move things forward.
A "movie that treats chairs look like art" doesn't move things forward.
9. That's not the problem this museum or this film (albeit I haven't finished it yet) is likely trying to solve. That's OK.
They're solving different problems. I LOVE museums because I love art.
But there's danger when designers are confused about what they're making & why.
They're solving different problems. I LOVE museums because I love art.
But there's danger when designers are confused about what they're making & why.
10. That confusion, in designers and ppl, increases when we put things "made to be used" into the art world.
It's undeniably confusing as to why a chair like Wright's is being honored. I happened to know the story.
(Yes, I wish those cards next to artwork were more useful).
It's undeniably confusing as to why a chair like Wright's is being honored. I happened to know the story.
(Yes, I wish those cards next to artwork were more useful).
11. Notes:
1. I'm watching the film and sharing notes/highlights at #chairtimes
2. The Wright "falling over story" is purported, but the chairs were redesigned.
3. Here's a photo of that chair as part of the desk set.
journaltimes.com/news/local/fur…
atlasofplaces.com/architecture/j…
1. I'm watching the film and sharing notes/highlights at #chairtimes
2. The Wright "falling over story" is purported, but the chairs were redesigned.
3. Here's a photo of that chair as part of the desk set.
journaltimes.com/news/local/fur…
atlasofplaces.com/architecture/j…
