Cottonwood":3i02cqom said:
LOL its ironic dont you think, some of the designers with the best feel for sound form have NOT been the designer maker handicraft ones, but those who made designs to be mass produced (even if in small exclusive batches) by machines. Eg Eames, Aalto, Wegner, etc Look at the Barecelona chair-a modern classic & borrows the essence of its form from the greek klismos...And even in the modern present day, have you checked out the wogg 50 chair, its an awesome cnc form, as is Konstantin Grcic's Medici chair. What about the Norma chairs from "unto this last" in London, essentially derived from Egyptian forms. The power of these pieces is in their form, no need for exotics, inlay, gold/silver/platinum etc etc. Just sound classic forms executed in ordinary woods....makes some of the stuff from some of the makers listed above look positively tired, banal and attention seeking!
No sense of irony at all. You are talking about taste, and that is subjective. Some iconic designs in the modernist movement may be superb, but they are good designs not because of industrial processes, but because the designers were good. The industrial process was the means by which the designs were made real. Some are left cold by modernism and will have some other favoured design movement that suits their taste and there will be iconic designs for them too. If you do not like the inclusion of precious metals, surface decoration, exotic materials, then fair enough, but do not confuse elaboration with poor design, it is just different taste and thankfully there are lots of different tastes.
Victorian tat was a bad thing, obviously. Poorly made things in nasty sweatshops for profiteering industrialists. Children working under looms and up chimneys and down holes. This was what the Arts and Crafts railed about. Failed in its ideals of honest purposeful work for craftsmen, of course, but this is what it stood for. Try reading Ruskin.
Mike.
