Starting a Rietveld Build

[Phil Pascoe]

and it's still hideous.

 

[Jacob]

Hmmm.

It must have been designed by a person who had exceedingly short legs, an impervious Occipital bone and an elastic spine.
Unless the designer never sat in the thing. Mind you, such a seat might help keep HGV drivers awake.

You are wrong - it fits quite nicely to the average body. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
Here's the man himself sitting in (a variant of) the chair.

....
No , sorry, it looks as if it were designed by a martian who didn't know what wood was, and had only seen a human being in a cartoon drawn by someone who couldn't draw.

You really need to read a little more about the history of design. It is interesting stuff, you will like it. Thinking it is hideous is a good start.
Amazing that it disturbs people even now, 100 years later.

 

[Jacob]

...
If you can design a chair that in nearly 100 years looks like it was designed in 2112 and doesnt look like it is 100 years old in design then give me a shout. I'd love to see it. If you don't know the history behind this chair, what he was trying to achieve etc... then you don't understand chair design in my opinion.

I take your point but in fact there are some very interesting designs much older than this which look distinctly late 20C. Modernism is much older than is often thought.

 

[Benchwayze]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas. In which case it might be comfortable.

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
Sorry Jacob. It's not for me. My prerogative.

 

[Tom K]

One of the functions of Rietveld's chairs, with their hard seats and backs, is to focus our senses, to make us alert and aware. Rietveld was not interested in conventional ideas of comfort.

Pretty much where it goes wrong for the detractors it looks uncomfortable and probably is.

 

[Jacob]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas.....

No it isn't

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
...

You are wrong. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

 

[Jacob]

... it looks uncomfortable

yes

and probably is.

No it isn't. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
If anybody wants to try it you are welcome to drop in and sit in mine. I'll even give you a cup of tea!

 

[Benchwayze]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas.....

No it isn't

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
...

You are wrong. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Don't worry Jacob. I won't... Try it that is.

 

[Jacob]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas.....

No it isn't

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
...

You are wrong. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Don't worry Jacob. I won't... Try it that is.

More fool you. Why even bothering to have an opinion?

 

[Jake]

...
If you can design a chair that in nearly 100 years looks like it was designed in 2112 and doesnt look like it is 100 years old in design then give me a shout. I'd love to see it. If you don't know the history behind this chair, what he was trying to achieve etc... then you don't understand chair design in my opinion.

I take your point but in fact there are some very interesting designs much older than this which look distinctly late 20C. Modernism is much older than is often thought.

I read Greedo's post earlier and thought he nailed it.

Let's take the thread down that more interesting avenue (more interesting than the yuck modernism - I mean really if you don't like early modernism on a thread about someone who wants to build a stone cold classic of the genre, how is your opinion of any help or relevance to anyone? Go and fawn over some Chipperfield oh sorry whathisname)

Anyhow, which designs are you heading with that comment?

 

[Benchwayze]

More fool you. Why even bothering to have an opinion?

Because I am entitled to have an opinion Jacob. If you, as the 'right-man' don't like that opinion, or find fault with the foundations of it, there's a bit of hard luck you are having. As to whether or not I am a fool, you don't know me well enough to decide.

I don't like the look of the chair; it's ugly. For me, it doesn't do what a chair should do. I.e., 'invite' one to sit in it. The 'man himself', must have been a bit of a 'Spartan'. (He didn't believe a chair should encourage sloth.) Looking at the way he is sitting in it, with his long-shanks doing a dying-fly, I don't think he took into account his own height. He should have stuck to designing 'racks' and other implements of torture. So, I'll add dislocated hips to the list of injuries that chair could cause. To me at any rate.

Apart from all that, I know if I did manage to get down low enough to sit in it, I'd have trouble getting back out of it. So that's why I think it's better suited to young, fit persons. If you find it comfortable, albeit that it's a bit hard and the head rest hurts you, then that's up to thee. And count yourself lucky that old man Arthur Righteous hasn't come calling at your door. Use that chair too often, and your knees might start 'talking' to you.
Merry Chrimble :ho2

 

[Jacob]

If you actually sat in one you would think differently. You'd have to explain why it feels comfortable instead of just guessing that it isn't.

 

[bugbear]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas.....

No it isn't

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
...

You are wrong. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Do bear this in mind next time you're (yet again) knocking a new tool you haven't tried.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

If you don't know the history behind this chair, what he was trying to achieve etc... then you don't understand chair design in my opinion.

If I need to know history and what the designer was "trying to achieve" in order to sit in a chair, the designer can (frankly) sod off, and perhaps try his hand at conceptual art.

The "more art than furniture" point appears more and more proven.

BugBear

 

[Benchwayze]

If you actually sat in one you would think differently. Yo'd have to explain why it feels comfortable instead of just guessing that it isn't.

Jacob,
You are assuming that I don't know my physical capabilities. However, I know my limitations.
From experience, and medical advice, that chair is too low for me to use regularly.

I don't need to try cyanide, to know it would kill me. Ergo, I don't need to try sitting in that chair to know it would cause me grief.

Thanks for your concern!

 

[Jacob]

Your prerogative .

That chair in the photograph looks to be upholstered on the back, and the seat could be fairly taught canvas.....

No it isn't

The wooden version looks as if it would induce a crick-neck, knock knees and a severe case of haemorrhoids.
...

You are wrong. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Do bear this in mind next time you're (yet again) knocking a new tool you haven't tried.

BugBear

Which ones did you have in mind? I make a point of trying many things. Not all of them that'd be impossible.

 

[Jacob]

If you actually sat in one you would think differently. Yo'd have to explain why it feels comfortable instead of just guessing that it isn't.

Jacob,
You are assuming that I don't know my physical capabilities. However, I know my limitations.
From experience, and medical advice, that chair is too low for me to use regularly.

And BB,

I don't need to try cyanide, to know it would kill me. Ergo, I don't need to try sitting in that chair to know it would cause me grief.

Thanks for your concern!

OK then, sorry you have a problem. So it's not the design as such, it's low reclining chairs in general. Fair enough.
There are many designs of hard wooden chairs which people don't complain about - millions of windsors for starters, including rockers and laid back recliners. Then Maloof et al. So hard chairs aren't a problem as such.

 

[Jacob]

If you don't know the history behind this chair, what he was trying to achieve etc... then you don't understand chair design in my opinion.

If I need to know history and what the designer was "trying to achieve" in order to sit in a chair, the designer can (frankly) sod off, and perhaps try his hand at conceptual art.

The "more art than furniture" point appears more and more proven.

BugBear

You are under no obligation to read about design history if you don't want to - but you don't seem to be proving any particular point that I can see.
In general people who are interested in tools, making things etc are also interested in their design history. After all everything made is designed. Remaining wilfully ignorant is the exception rather than the rule.
Time to turn over a new leaf BB? You'd have a lot of reading to catch up on!

Try this for starters

 

[Jake]

I don't like the look of the chair; it's ugly. For me, it doesn't do what a chair should do. I.e., 'invite' one to sit in it.

It's not ugly, it's very beautiful. I feel very invited to sit in it.

But that sort of tit-for-tat comes down to taste and yours (the not-likers) isn't as good as ours (the likers). Sorry, I mean we'll have to agree to disagree because aesthetics are personal.

Either way the history is interesting at least to me- do you like Mondrian or Van Doesburg, or indeed to broaden it right out beyond De Stijl, modernism at all? Obviously this is not going to appeal to anyone who gets stuck at the Arts and Crafts cul-de-sac.

 

[Benchwayze]

If you actually sat in one you would think differently. Yo'd have to explain why it feels comfortable instead of just guessing that it isn't.

Jacob,
You are assuming that I don't know my physical capabilities. However, I know my limitations.
From experience, and medical advice, that chair is too low for me to use regularly.

And BB,

I don't need to try cyanide, to know it would kill me. Ergo, I don't need to try sitting in that chair to know it would cause me grief.

Thanks for your concern!

OK then, sorry you have a problem. So it's not the design as such, it's low reclining chairs in general. Fair enough.
There are many designs of hard wooden chairs which people don't complain about - millions of windsors for starters, including rockers and laid back recliners. Then Maloof et al. So hard chairs aren't a problem as such.

You can read into my post whatever you will Jacob. It's still an ugly chair. Most of Maloof's chairs are far from ugly.

A Windsor chair-seat is adzed into a profile which at least pays some heed to the human 'shape'; although many people do use cushions on them.
Maybe it's down to what use the chair is designed for. A dining chair doesn't need to be sumptuously upholstered, because these days, we don't sit in them for long periods; if at all, as informal dining while gazing at the 'box' takes hold,

Even so, the Rietveld (Reedland?) design still makes one ugly chair.
And yes, aesthetics are personal. Just because I don't like things you do like, doesn't mean my taste is bad. Different. Not bad.

And by the way, if you think you have the majority view, then being in a majority doesn't make you correct. You only have to look at Nazi Germany to see that.