Is Furniture Design in a Slump or is it Simply Dead?

Is Furniture Design in a Slump or is it Simply Dead?

Is it dead as we know it?

Will there be a new vigor in design?

Are we rehashing old styles, old methodologies and old language?

What will the next “language” be and will it be “universal”?

If it is individualistic, where will it’s inspiration come from?

What are it’s influences?

Serious inquiries and comments only, please. :exclamation:

:arrow_right: Pade :open_mouth:

Furniture design dead? No way.

In a slump? I suppose that depends on what your definition of ‘slump’ is…

I think there is little, if any, furniture ever designed or made that did not have at least some small amount of influence from past designs. And unless we live completely isolated from the world our entire lives, furniture designers will draw design influences from what they see and read. If that is ‘rehashing old styles, methodologies, and old language’ then so be it. Purposely knocking off old designs and selling them as new is common practice, however - even Starck does it - but I think its sad that more originality can’t be found.

Also, most furniture must do certain things, and fit within certain dimensional ranges, to work as furniture; otherwise, it is something else. But that has never limited the number of ‘original’ ideas for furniture, but useability does limit what consumers will buy. If you are looking for the avante gard furniture designs in the mainstream furniture industry, its not going to happen currently. Big Furniture as an industry is pretty conservative (ever been to IHFC in High Point?) but in reality it is pretty complex why nothing truly new is seen in this context, or rarely seen anyway. I think this is the biggest factor for the views of furniture design being dead. When the current generation passes the reigns to the up-and-coming generation, we may see some changes in this area. There are, however, many, many smaller studios and designers producing some really wild, fresh stuff. Too bad its so difficult to find, and so bloody expensive.

I think that office/task furniture is definately heading in the ‘universal’ direction. I think the entire idea of universal furniture design is flawed, as you’ll never be able to accomodate every person, body type, price point, quality level, and style. Just MHO.

Where will the next major leap come from? I think there was a thread about this several months ago, but I still believe that we need a major advance in technology and/or manufacturing to see this leap in design. Bauhaus had many new industrial processes to work with. The Eames had fiberglass and plywood molding. Post-modernists (if you want to classify them as such) had advances in plastics to design with. I still think we can do more things with metal (hydroforming, for ex.), carbon fiber and other composites, and SLA/RP technology. although none of those technologies are new.

I’m looking for a truly fresh idea every day, as I’m sure others are. Until we no longer need furniture, designers will be trying new things. Finding out about them is the problem.

…but I still believe that we need a major advance in technology and/or manufacturing to see this leap in design.

Nonesense. There are needs everywhere that nobody is addressing:

I’m looking for a truly fresh idea every day, as I’m sure others are. Until we no longer need furniture, designers will be trying new things. Finding out about them is the problem.

I suspect the home of the future will look more like the home of the past than the home of today. The black boxes of today will disappear, leaving the stage again to objects with a longer history, such as chairs, tables and beds. These have been with us in some form since time immemorial and the function they fulfil has found its essential form: we can’t do without them. But the functions carried by the black boxes (entertainment, communication, work), though timeless, have not yet achieved their final form. They are free to be incorporated into more ‘relevant’ objects, such as walls, bookcases, chairs or plates.

well ufo, that’s the first reasonable post i’ve seen you produce yet.
at least the links.

I agree with this :“I’m looking for a truly fresh idea every day, as I’m sure others are. Until we no longer need furniture, designers will be trying new things. Finding out about them is the problem.”

So where do we look if technology is at a standstill beyond electronics, materials and computers?

What is it beyond the black box that will survive?
Where are we going?

well ufo, that’s the first reasonable post i’ve seen you produce yet.
at least the links.

I agree with this :“I’m looking for a truly fresh idea every day, as I’m sure others are. Until we no longer need furniture, designers will be trying new things. Finding out about them is the problem.”

So where do we look if technology is at a standstill beyond electronics, materials and computers?

What is it beyond the black box that will survive?
Where are we going?

ufo?

ok here’s another line:

if you lit up the moonless night with a hundred lights like the moon
it still gets its name from the sun like a herd branded by one heated iron!

nezami

WHAT???
:open_mouth:

ufo
you’re a crack pot
stick to eating your jellie bellies and get off of this site

if the virtue of the acting and the material cause, both exist but there’s no effect, then there’s a need to appear a relation between the two, so that the relation would provoke the effect, and this is coming from:

1-either the actor (like the will or nature or instrument or point in time that brings about an action or imprint) or from the capable (like a certain skill or talent that did not exist before).

or

2-both actor and capable (like when actor and capable meet)


it has been proven that all these happen through a certain kind of movement.

but this idea that the actor might exist and capable might not exist is an impossible assertion. because:

first of all, as mentioned before, the capable cannot come to existance without movement or conectivity.so always before any movement there must be another movement.

and secondly, the appearance of capable is not possible without capable having come to existance first - which is the same as material.

therefore, it’s always with presence of the actor that material can come to existance. and if it is assumed that the capable and material are in existance but the actor is not present, then the actor will be incidental and it is necessary that its incidental existance is the result of a cause in movement.

avecina