really excellent furniture design. LOOK!

RIC ALLISON. I really really love his work. sure, its very far from mass production level, but its well thought out.

It’s well-made. Personally, I don’t like it all that much - I don’t like varnished or dark woods, and some of it seems a bit spidery for my taste (especially that one that was “inspired by a baby elephant”, the arietta). The sculling table is rather Jules Verne-ish, and quite attractive, though in my case the same can’t be said of all his stuff.

To each his own.

Interesting, lots of influences and styles shown, but to an ID’er it borders on art, not really industrial design; I’d guess that most pieces would be impossible to mass produce. Personally, I enjoy the one-off/small production side of the furniture industry as it is so different and personal compared to the mass-production stuff.

amazing craftsmanship

…but it looks as though craft came at the expense of design IMO. A lot of influences seem to be hodgepodged together in a hope for originality. Some of the more “spidery” pieces get close, but not there yet for me.

perhaps this exemplafies a one-off furniture maker vs. a furniture designer?

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Well, yes I could, by spelling originality correctly :stuck_out_tongue:

Anyway, I stand by my first post.

…fixed it wise guy. We got to get spell check on here at some point…

I don’t consider that stuff design. Design implies function and understanding of user’s needs. That stuff shows neither.

To tell you the truth, I am actually slightly offended that someone even considered that furniture design. It belittles everything I have done to date when it comes to advancing the home furnishings design industry to care about something other than looks.

What sorts of things do you do? Furniture design is one are I know very little about, and I’m interested in learning.

By that arguement, is fashion design not design because they are not advancing the function of a t-shirt? I am not trying to be an a__hole, but if a table was only meant to support a picture frame and it appeals to somene, how is that not designed? Personnally, I don’t like the look of this furniture, but it is an example of original, studio furniture.

Ah, but the function of a T-shirt is not merely to cover your body. If that were true, then your statement would be as well. However, a T-shirt is a form of identification with a group, a form of advertising, a form of beautification – you could take that to its extreme and say that it’s a way of attracting a mate, or a form of elitism when you buy expensive shirts. Fashion designers (and the associated marketers) do an excellent job of making the newest shirt more attractive (multiple meanings) than the last, arguably advancing the state of the art in t-shirt design. Perhaps not in T-shirt materials, or function, but definitely in social effect.

so then why isn’t the handmade table holding a picture frame not ID?

an expensive handmade table makes a statement as well, and could also attract a mate, if you use it correctly :wink:

everything has a function, and secondary functions, regardless of how important you deem those functions to be.

likewise, everything has an aesthetic also - you don’t have to like it for it to be ID

possibly, a table that is difficult to make could help advance mass manufacturing methods if someone really wanted to mass market it

Spindles and baseball bats used to be a hard to make once upon a time

this furniture is designed, regardless of how you feel about it or “what you’ve done to advance the home furnishings design industry”

I meant it in the context of Industrial/Product Design (something more furniture “designers” should study).

Industrial design is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.

I find that although it is over the top this sort of things make history (pretty much in the style of carlo mollino, pictured).

I agree it’s not furniture design but more arty craftmanship. Very impressed people have the gut to do that kind of stuff.[/i]

I meant it in the context of Industrial/Product Design (something more furniture “designers” should study).

Industrial design is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.[/quote]

Maybe its because I am thick or not a furniture designer, but I still don’t get it. I agree on a macro scale, what he is doing in not industrial/product design. On a micro scale (he is the manufacturer, mr. & mrs. bad taste are the customer) he is designing a table (for functionality a table could only need a certain height and relative flatness) in a way the user wants. How is that not ID? I think you could argue it is bad design (hopefully not an arguement based on preference) but it is still design.

Where is the qualitative and quantitative research for this piece showing the need for its existence? ID is all about the macro scale. If its a one off thing, its just the artistic expression of an artist/craftsman.

Design is not about the designer expressing himself as much as it is about serving the needs of the consumer with innovative well thought out ideas.

This is not design - only art. I am questioning the usage of the term “furniture design” as it was used in the title of this thread.

I think there’s no question it’s design. Whether it’s good design or bad design is subjective. Personally, I think it’s bad design. It’s definitely not INDUSTRIAL design.

I do, as someone who designs & builds furniture, have a huge respect for the craftsmanship.

ok, explain the rietveld red/blue chair- what kind of qualitative/quantitative market research do you think he did? and how many people need/have one for their daily sitting pleasure? i think it fails almost all of the criteria you’ve detailed, and yet it is widely considered a design classic

I think you’re seeing the big picture, but not the other pictures

the furniture in this case may very well have met the need of the consumer, both innovatively and certainly well thought out

I personally don’t like it much either, but I still think that it has been “designed” and because it contains self expression I also think it qualifies as “art”

there usually needs to be one before there can be many

At this point it may only be semantics, but how about a compromise. What if we call it functional art - it has aspects from both worlds without excluding each other.

Also, I may be a little biased because as a hobby/side job I design and make studio furniture. Since each piece is custom, my process does involve asking what the customer wants and developing sketches before the item is made (maybe the IDer in me just can’t let go). I haven’t finished my web site yet, but when it is done I will post it here and you can give me any criticism you want.

as you can see kerfcut, you’ve opened a hornet’s nest. this kind of work is probably more appropriate at

the issue of craft tradition sometimes collides with product design. the biggest appeal, in my opinion, for the furniture you originally sited is a romantic notion of the fine craftsman making each piece according to traditional woodworking techniques( see Arts and Crafts).

somewhere along the way, while we are in an ID program the idea of craft is beaten out of us, or at least craft should serve the product/project not be an end in itself.

honestly, this arguement is an old and pointless one. in general craft artists dislike mass produced things because it infringes on their identity as makers. designers dislike being labeled as craftspersons because it is not forward-thinking and stuck in tradition.

although I will take issue with the reitveld chair. what makes it a classic was that it was the strongest break from furniture craft tradition and the first exploration of form and space in the context of a chair. it pre-dates the Wassily chair, any of Le Corbusier’s or Bauhaus work. though it doesn’t fit the model of an "industrial designed’ chair-i would argue that the industrial designer did not emerge until the late 30’s-early 40’s(see Loewy, Dreyfuss, Teague, et. al)

its ok, great craftmenship…but you see that kind of stuff alot in fine furniture books, if not better…sorry its abit OR