" The Chair Is a Machine For Sitting", Le Corbusier.
From Morris to the Bauhaus and on to today, functionalism has evolved from a philosophy to a style. Reflecting on George Marcus definition of functionalism-“objects made to be used should be simple, honest, and direct; well adapted to their purpose; bare of ornament; standardized; machine-made; and reasonably priced; and expressive of their structure and materials” (Functionalism 1995 p.9)”- it is evident that functionalist design is more than just meeting a utility. Rather, it leads to a consideration of how it should be built, in what material and form, and who should purchase it. This becomes a criterion for understanding and judging modern design, and a reference when putting value on iconic objects.
Never than before, there has been a bigger awareness for design than the current culture. Along with the globalization of information, such as TV, magazines, and internet, people have been exposed to a new lifestyle that values aesthetics and the status that comes with it. Within this tendency, bringing design to the masses has been a source for marketing strategies. In that case, would that be an exploitation of design, or just being true tot he functionalist ideals?
Taking as an example McDonald’s case, the company realized that applying modern design could contribute to the brand’s image. Since then, McDonald’s around London area is renovating their restaurant to a design conscious space. By changing the old, rigid chairs to Arne Jacobsen’s Egg and Swan chairs, the company is making a design statement in order to attract consumers that do care about thoughtful environments. Nevertheless, a whole luggage of controversy is brought when associated with mass driven companies like McDonald's. It raises points for ethical discussion. Critics argue that using such iconic chairs to meet the company’s marketing strategy lessens the design’s importance. It stops being esteemed for its contribution in the design field to means of corporation props. They see it almost as ridicule to Arne Jacobsen’s work which was driven by an ethic that disparaged crass marketing. On the other hand, keeping in mind that Arne Jacobsen was highly influenced by the Bauhaus movement, isn’t the company letting the design naturally be part of what functionalism advocate? The company is making the iconic designs accessible to anyone without class distinction.
McDonald's is somehow providing an experience by allowing customers to interact with the designed pieces. As John Ruskin discussed, there would only be appreciation to beauty when people become surrounded by it. Then, isn’t the company pushing the design field forward? By making good design reachable for a wide public, there is something to be said about perhaps educating people who were oblivious to design and hopefully increasing its appreciation.
For people who have knowledge and admiration for good design, affordability become an excluding factor. With these consumers in mind, there are some companies that see a profitable market that functional designs should have addressed but failed to. For example, White Furniture Industries (http://www.whiteonwhite.com/) is a company specialized in reproducing iconic chairs, most of them found in contemporaries museums such as MOMA . They are immediately identifiable chairs from Marcel Breuer’s steel tube armchair to Eero Aarnio’s Ball Chair. Significantly they come with a cheaper price than its original market value. As functionalism was envisioned, the reproduced chairs would have eventually been mass produced to an extent that the company is able to offer them for affordable prices. Nevertheless, similar to McDonald’s case, they are between a fine line of accessible design and depreciation of its value. In other words, increasing accessibility can correlate to a decreasing of historical significance diminished by its market assessment. White Furniture Co has been 11 years on the market and its success indicates people’s demand for such designed chairs but their inability to purchase the originals.
· In this scenario, there is the idea of branding and how it plays with the value of a product and the status that one’s get with it. They are reproduction of sculptures that one could only see in museums. Allowing the public to interact with them, even if not original pieces, it can shorten the space between object and users. On the other hand, because they are almost sculptural pieces should a space between art and viewer be kept? By copying the original products and making them accessible to anyone, could it interfere on how people look up to iconic chairs? Many of the company’s buyers are Hollywood movie companies and fashion magazines. In this case, like McDonald’s, they use their chairs to complement an environment not taking in consideration the historical value of the object. By doing so, the concern is: can such an act make the iconic chairs look almost gimmicky? In this case, how can these chairs secure their importance? It seems that they have to either compromise their status or the functionalism ideal. The iconic chairs for their impact in the design history, becomes an interesting point to be reflected on as class makers. Being iconic denotes exclusivity. It is hard to value its functionalism when by classifying as iconic already sets them apart from the public realm. Maybe, the controversy when bringing iconic desings to places like McDonalds’s, is indeed the fear of, by democratizing design, losing its status in society.
· Le Corbusier said “The chair is a machine for sitting”. This sentence optimizes the functionalism concept. While, bottom line, it addresses the primary purpose of a chair, it also connects to machine manufacturing and mass production. It indicates the simplicity of form. Last but not least, it demonstrates the human and object interaction. If a product is designed keeping in mind its user, what is the purpose if they cannot interact with it. In this case, furniture such as from IKEA is the modern accomplishment of functional design. But the question raised is what happens when iconic chairs are put in the same circumstances. While they are close in timeline to the origins of functionalism movement, they seem more unable to meet their agenda than current designs. Because iconic chairs accumulate value throughout history, when they are placed in scenarios such as McDonald’s or easily reproduced by companies such as White Furniture Industries, that is when “functionalism” definition starts being questioned.
Interestingly, by reflecting on what functionalism means in modern society, an ethical question has been brought up. Should iconic chairs support class distinction in order to keep its historical value? If so, the existence of the iconic chairs can only exist by compromising the functionalism ideal, concept that they had first created for. In modern society unless an object can be successfully referred as functional without corrupting its meaning, the definition as a whole should be perhaps revaluated.
Never than before, there has been a bigger awareness for design than the current culture. Along with the globalization of information, such as TV, magazines, and internet, people have been exposed to a new lifestyle that values aesthetics and the status that comes with it. Within this tendency, bringing design to the masses has been a source for marketing strategies. In that case, would that be an exploitation of design, or just being true tot he functionalist ideals?
Taking as an example McDonald’s case, the company realized that applying modern design could contribute to the brand’s image. Since then, McDonald’s around London area is renovating their restaurant to a design conscious space. By changing the old, rigid chairs to Arne Jacobsen’s Egg and Swan chairs, the company is making a design statement in order to attract consumers that do care about thoughtful environments. Nevertheless, a whole luggage of controversy is brought when associated with mass driven companies like McDonald's. It raises points for ethical discussion. Critics argue that using such iconic chairs to meet the company’s marketing strategy lessens the design’s importance. It stops being esteemed for its contribution in the design field to means of corporation props. They see it almost as ridicule to Arne Jacobsen’s work which was driven by an ethic that disparaged crass marketing. On the other hand, keeping in mind that Arne Jacobsen was highly influenced by the Bauhaus movement, isn’t the company letting the design naturally be part of what functionalism advocate? The company is making the iconic designs accessible to anyone without class distinction.
McDonald's is somehow providing an experience by allowing customers to interact with the designed pieces. As John Ruskin discussed, there would only be appreciation to beauty when people become surrounded by it. Then, isn’t the company pushing the design field forward? By making good design reachable for a wide public, there is something to be said about perhaps educating people who were oblivious to design and hopefully increasing its appreciation.
For people who have knowledge and admiration for good design, affordability become an excluding factor. With these consumers in mind, there are some companies that see a profitable market that functional designs should have addressed but failed to. For example, White Furniture Industries (http://www.whiteonwhite.com/) is a company specialized in reproducing iconic chairs, most of them found in contemporaries museums such as MOMA . They are immediately identifiable chairs from Marcel Breuer’s steel tube armchair to Eero Aarnio’s Ball Chair. Significantly they come with a cheaper price than its original market value. As functionalism was envisioned, the reproduced chairs would have eventually been mass produced to an extent that the company is able to offer them for affordable prices. Nevertheless, similar to McDonald’s case, they are between a fine line of accessible design and depreciation of its value. In other words, increasing accessibility can correlate to a decreasing of historical significance diminished by its market assessment. White Furniture Co has been 11 years on the market and its success indicates people’s demand for such designed chairs but their inability to purchase the originals.
· In this scenario, there is the idea of branding and how it plays with the value of a product and the status that one’s get with it. They are reproduction of sculptures that one could only see in museums. Allowing the public to interact with them, even if not original pieces, it can shorten the space between object and users. On the other hand, because they are almost sculptural pieces should a space between art and viewer be kept? By copying the original products and making them accessible to anyone, could it interfere on how people look up to iconic chairs? Many of the company’s buyers are Hollywood movie companies and fashion magazines. In this case, like McDonald’s, they use their chairs to complement an environment not taking in consideration the historical value of the object. By doing so, the concern is: can such an act make the iconic chairs look almost gimmicky? In this case, how can these chairs secure their importance? It seems that they have to either compromise their status or the functionalism ideal. The iconic chairs for their impact in the design history, becomes an interesting point to be reflected on as class makers. Being iconic denotes exclusivity. It is hard to value its functionalism when by classifying as iconic already sets them apart from the public realm. Maybe, the controversy when bringing iconic desings to places like McDonalds’s, is indeed the fear of, by democratizing design, losing its status in society.
· Le Corbusier said “The chair is a machine for sitting”. This sentence optimizes the functionalism concept. While, bottom line, it addresses the primary purpose of a chair, it also connects to machine manufacturing and mass production. It indicates the simplicity of form. Last but not least, it demonstrates the human and object interaction. If a product is designed keeping in mind its user, what is the purpose if they cannot interact with it. In this case, furniture such as from IKEA is the modern accomplishment of functional design. But the question raised is what happens when iconic chairs are put in the same circumstances. While they are close in timeline to the origins of functionalism movement, they seem more unable to meet their agenda than current designs. Because iconic chairs accumulate value throughout history, when they are placed in scenarios such as McDonald’s or easily reproduced by companies such as White Furniture Industries, that is when “functionalism” definition starts being questioned.
Interestingly, by reflecting on what functionalism means in modern society, an ethical question has been brought up. Should iconic chairs support class distinction in order to keep its historical value? If so, the existence of the iconic chairs can only exist by compromising the functionalism ideal, concept that they had first created for. In modern society unless an object can be successfully referred as functional without corrupting its meaning, the definition as a whole should be perhaps revaluated.
posted by ji park at
12:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home