PIC 3 HECD6020 A N A LY S I N G C H A I R S V I A T H E T R I A N G L E O F E F F I C I E N T D E S I G N ESSAY WOR D C OU N T: 5496 WORD COUNT INCLUDING REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY: 6576 A L F R E D R O B E R T G AT E S N E W M A N , C O N T E M P O R A RY D E S I G N C R A F T, HEREFORD COLLEGE OF ARTS.
A N A LY S I N G C H A I R S V I A THE TRIANGLE OF EFFICIENT DESIGN .
Fig 1. Newman (2023-24) The Triangle of Efficient Design, [Hereford, UK]
INTRODUCTION In this essay I will be exploring the hypothesis that the nature of utilitarian design can be separated into three primary dimensions: material efficiency, form efficiency, and process efficiency. To do this, I will examine whether the successful application of each of these dimensions (hypothetically resulting in perfect design) is possible to do. In order to answer this question I intend to analyse three different chairs that represent distinct successes in their individual dimensions. I also intend to analyse if, or where, these chairs fail in the other two criteria, and consequently, why? As well as using my own triangular framework, I will also be using other designers’ and philosophers' criteria, in order to understand where my triangle of efficient design holds up, or falls down.
MATER IAL E FFI C IE N C Y To summarise this idea bluntly, ‘material efficiency’ means as little material as possible. This area of assessment however is based upon the presupposition that the chair in question fulfils it’s function, at least at it’s base level. It is the utility of an object that separates furniture from sculpture, a chair from a work of art. Curiously, this is inversely reflected in the resultant perceived value: “We value the useless above the useful. Art is useless, and even a chair as transgressive as Rietveld’s [red and blue chair] is still overshadowed by the taint of utility” (Sudjic, 2008). The function of a chair is to support a single occupant, above the floor, in a sat position, typically to a height that is both potentially conducive to using the surface of a table or desk, and mounting and dismounting with ease. Like all definitions, this definition is both subjective and vague, and there are likely an infinite number of contradicting chairs in existence, however for the sake of our 1sanity, let us suppose this definition to be concrete.
Fig 2. Rietveld (1918) The Red Blue Chair, [Amsterdam, Netherlands]
Unsurprisingly, material efficiency was of paramount importance to early humans and societies. If a felled tree can make you twelve chairs of efficient design or six chairs of inefficient design, it seems logical that you should choose the former, and thus is the basis for humanity’s long-standing love affair with material efficiency. However, it is important to note that a ‘materially efficient’ object does cease to be efficient when it’s durability is low. Since the durability of an object is arguably ineffable, we must examine each case based upon physical evidence. A chair that has been used 1 (relative)
everyday for a century, is a chair of great durability. A chair that begins to break within the first two years of it’s existence is (most likely) a chair of low durability. The idea of physical durability may also raise questions around the idea of ‘cultural durability’ and an object’s ability to withstand the ever-changing tides of fashions and tastes. Due to 5 3 1 2 the ephemeral and unpredictable nature of society’s tastes, I am4 unable to speculate on how styles and aesthetics represent cultural durability, hence, this aspect of the A chair’s design will not be included within my analysis.
6
PR OCES S E FFIC IE N C Y B What I mean by “process efficiency” is the speed, simplicity and availability of the process used to create. To a skilled craftsperson a mortise and tenon joint can be made quickly, but the technical understanding and the specialised toolsC used to complete this joint are complicated and unavailable to the layman, and therefore, within my criteria, this is not a perfectly efficient process. Where a robot in a factory can quickly Fig 3. Digital drawing of a mortise D and simply bend tubular steel “like macaroni” (Breuer, and tenon joint. 1968), most people aren’t privileged with access to these machines, therefore again, this is inefficient process. Ignoring the initial production of a flat-pack IKEA wardrobe, the process ahead of it’s owner Eis theoretically, quick and simple, and choreographed with only the most commonplace and available tools in mind; this is efficient process. Dept.
Technical reference
Created by
Alfie Newman 0
Bear in mind, process efficiency is not a binary condition, and the tools and abilities of F one person can greatly differ from the next. As well as this, one has to acknowledge the fact that some inefficient processes, while complicated and slow, may lead to an 5 3 1 2 4 improved material efficiency via durability. Joining two pieces of wood can be as simple or as complicated as one wishes, but the complexity of this process is not always necessarily correlated to the strength of the joint. We must, therefore, analyse the process efficiency relative to the outcome. If we were to learn that a mitre joint and a half-lap dovetail joint are equally strong, but one (the dovetail joint) takes an hour to make, while the other (the mitre joint) takes minutes, we must therefore concede that, for all it’s merits and value, the half-lap dovetail’s inefficiency outweighs it’s utility.
EF FICI E N C Y OF FOR M The efficiency of form is the simplicity of the aesthetic language used by the chair’s designer. It is important to note that when I say “simplicity” I do not mean simplistic. I am instead referring to aesthetic refinement of form. Following straight lines, rightangles and grids; using only primary shapes and forms, et cetera. Although the values of form efficiency became highly prevalent during ‘the modernist movement’, examples can be traced to the dawn of time. The crystals that make up iron pyrite grow naturally
Document type
Title
tenon and mortise 6
into cubes, the planet we inhabit is a near perfect sphere. Like the previous criteria, this cannot simply be categorised into a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ checklist. One could draw a complex muddle using straight lines, one could design a cathedral using a mess of primary shapes (circles, triangles, and squares), and I would not consider either of these things to be highly efficient in form. Fig 4. Iron Pyrite Cube, [Spain].
THE WINDSOR CHAIR When one is first asked to picture a materially efficient chair, our mind’s may jump to the tubular steel chairs of the modernist movement, or even the injection moulded plastic garden furniture of the 21st century. While these are excellent examples of materially efficient chairs, the example I have to chosen to inspect is a chair ‘modernised’ in the 16th century: the Windsor chair. With the definition of Fig 5. Henningsen (1938) the FH38 Windsor Chair, [Denmark]. “Windsor chair” as vague and subjective as any other definition, the “birth” of the Windsor chair cannot be dated to an exact point, however with “the idea of putting sticks into a slab of wood [being] … at least 3,400 years old” (Schwarz, 2021) we do at least know that this is a chair that’s concept has evolved alongside mankind for millennia. Using the modern understanding of the Windsor chair, however, we know that this form of stick chair rose to prominence in the 17th and 18th century within Britain and America. Due to their materially efficient nature, and consequently their relative lightness, Windsor chairs were often used as garden chairs on the estates of the wealthy and the Royal. Evidenced in a possible explanation of the chair’s elusive name, Hazen speculates “The Windsor chair seems to have been first used for a rural seat in the grounds about Windsor castle” (Hazen, 1846). The Windsor chair, in my opinion, represents a good example of material efficiency as each piece of material, within the makeup of this chair’s design, exists simply for the delivery of two criteria: structural integrity and functionality. The seat and back are supported only by thin wooden spindles which are held in tension between them. The seat itself is the only solid ‘block’ of wood used, and can often be as thin as the
spindles themselves. One, ignorant to the significant prevalence and history of these chairs, might wonder whether this material efficiency is being pushed too far, however the chairs themselves, in some cases, have survived multiple centuries (Wycombe Museum, 2021). As a result of the length of time for which the design has been around, the Windsor chair has no doubt been evolved and changed since it’s conception. As in biology, the strongest or most efficient gene survives, this too applies to ideas and therefore designs.
“Ideas have retained some of the properties of organisms… Like them, they tend to perpetuate their structure and to breed; they too can fuse, recombine, segregate their content; indeed they too can evolve, and in this evolution selection must surely play an important role.” (Monod, 1970)
However, despite the austere and grounded skeleton of it’s design, makers of the Windsor chairs throughout history have often debased this bastion of efficiency. Whether influenced by personal aesthetic preference, pride in their own technical ability, or even external market forces, makers regularly adorn their pieces with decorative carvings or floral insignia. For the purpose of this essay I will be ignoring these flourishes of ornament as they are unrepresentative of the core efficient design. Due to the effective engineering of the Windsor chair, the majority of the space that the chair’s footprint occupies is left empty and unimpeded, therefore allowing a transparency rarely matched in chairs of the same time period. In fact, philosophically this chair’s ideals align closely with those of the Bauhaus Meister Marcel Breuer who “was very much engaged with the transparency of the form” (Breuer, 1968). As well as philosophically, it could be argued that these chairs are also aligned via the influence of vehicular engineering. Where Breuer’s later furniture was inspired by the tubular steel frame of the bicycle, the early Windsor chair makers borrowed techniques from the production of cartwheel spokes. For me, this is no coincidence. The nature of engineering is that of pure function, where excess is shaken off for the sake of efficiency: a bike frame is designed to use as much material as it needs, and any unneeded material only stands to add unneeded weight, the same is true for the cartwheel. There is a beauty in this, like Adolf Loos remarks in his seminal essay ‘Ornament and Crime’ “…a plain piece of furniture [is] more beautiful than any Fig 6. Breuer (1927-28) the model B3, inlaid and carved museum pieces” (Loos, 1908). [Dessau, Germany].
It could be argued, however, that this designing for efficiency, even in the automotive industry is a thing of the past, with modern cars becoming “more spiritual… more objectlike, and… more homely” (Barthes, 1957). Within our contemporary culture of mass consumption, we have left the utopian ideals of material efficiency behind, and unknowingly cycled back into the luxurious excesses of the industrial revolution. “The consumption of luxuries, in the true sense, is a consumption directed to the comfort of the consumer himself, and is, therefore, a mark of the master” Veblen writes, in his influential book The Theory of the Leisure Class. “Since the consumption of these more excellent goods is an evidence of wealth, it becomes honorific; and conversely, the failure to consume in due quantity and quality becomes a mark of inferiority and demerit” (Veblen, 1899). In a society where “The richest 1%… hold more wealth than [the poorest] 70%” (Oxfam, 2023), where capitalism and neoliberalism hold the working class ransom via the (ever evaporating) illusion of aspirationalism, it is unsurprising that hegemonic forces should reject socialist notions like “The principle of diligence and frugality should be observed in everything” (Mao, 1955) in favour of the idea that “Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability” (Veblen, 1899). Where the authentic and skeletal form of the Windsor chair speaks to material efficiency, it does so in opposition to excess, whereas prospective value is often the root cause of the additional ornamentation found on example chairs. Nevertheless, however beautiful and materially efficient the Windsor chair is, there are two more dimensions of efficiency against which it must be measured: process and form. The traditional processes of making Windsor chairs remain, in many examples, mostly unchanged and require high levels of technical expertise and material intelligence. For the craftsperson of the 16th century it is likely that one would have begun studying their craft as an apprentice from a very young age, honing one’s material intelligence constantly, and importantly, while one’s brain is still plastic. This is one reason2 often cited for the perceived “decline in material intelligence” (Adamson, 2018) over time. This is important to consider when analysing the process efficiency of this chair, as although each individual process involved in the making of a Windsor chair would be considered relatively simple and repeatable to the 16th century furniture maker, in relation to today’s standards, these are processes that would be considered highly specialised. These processes, despite their required skill level, would have been conducted with tools considered simplistic in comparison to modern equipment. With the absence of electricity and the dominance of hand tools, this could be considered relatively efficient in process (ignoring the immense craftsmanship required in order for these processes to take place).
2 among many
The form efficiency of the Windsor chair is, by nature, closely tied to both the process and the material efficiency. While it is hard to find pieces from this era spared from ornament, even plain examples take a swooping and rounded aesthetic nature. Due to the realities of the process, each green-wood stick turned on the pole-lathe requires tapering, as this is where the chair’s material efficiency lies. Regardless of the organic and curvaceous forms this chair displays, we must also consider that there is an authenticity to these shapes. These forms follow their function, regardless of their perceived failures in the efficiency of form. Even where the seat and back may have their corners rounded over, this is done with practicality and longevity in mind. In Design for the Real World, Viktor Papanek claims “aesthetic value is an inherent part of function”, describing the “sterile operating-room-like furniture” (Papanek, 1971) of the Bauhaus and the DeStijl movement as “a perversion of aesthetics and utility” (ibid.) Papanek lays out a diagram for analysing function labelled “The Function Complex”.
Fig 7. Papanek (1971) the Function Complex.
ME TH OD Here, Method is described as “the interaction of tools, processes, and materials” with an emphasis on the honesty and efficiency of material.
USE Use is assessed quite reductively with the question “Does it work?”
NEED Importantly, Papanek draws a distinction between the concepts of needs and wants. Criticising contemporary design as fulfilling only the former rather than the latter, blaming our “present-day system of mass production and private capital”.
TELESIS Defined as “The deliberate, purposeful utilization of the processes of nature and society to obtain particular goals” (American College Dictionary, 1961) Papanek emphasises the idea that “a design must reflect the times and conditions that have given rise to it” (ibid.) which is to say, a good design should not inauthentically strive ‘for the good old days’.
A S S O C I AT I O N Based upon “psychological conditioning” (ibid.) one is predisposed to, or against, a given value. Design should speak, at least partly, to the pre-existing design language of it’s intended context.
AESTHETICS Papanek rejects dictionary definition “a theory of the beautiful, in taste and art” as ‘a cloud of mystery that should be dispelled’ in favour of understanding aesthetics as a tool. He argues that the nature of aesthetics must operate in all six areas of “the function complex” (ibid.) When we consider the nature of the Windsor chair through the lens of these six criteria, it excels in most categories. The method is both well established and efficiently makes use of materials, with a great emphasis on the authenticity of the materials involved. In terms of use, it works effectively and with great longevity. There is certainly a need for chairs, as there likely always will be. Whether there is a need for this specific type of chair is questionable, and whether we should consider the Windsor chair as a piece of luxury or necessity from a contemporary vantage-point is debatable also. In regard to the telesis of the Windsor chair, one must concede that within the modern world, this is a chair that harks back to ‘the good old days’. It is a piece of furniture rooted in traditional processes and far removed from the world of mass production that we exist within. That being said however, perhaps since it’s design was conceived in history we should recognise it as being reflective of it’s contemporary processes and society. In terms of association, this chair firmly aligns with our understandings of “chair-ness” (ibid.) recognisable with four legs, a seat, and a back rest, there is no intention here, as in the cases of most classic/archetypal designs, to shock or subvert it’s user. Aesthetically, the Windsor chair’s design is a thing of functional beauty, it fulfils it’s purpose firstly, and achieves all other categories elegantly:
“The particular satisfaction derived from the simplicity of a thing can be called elegance. When we speak of an “elegant” solution we refer to something consciously evolved by [someone] which reduces the complex to the simple” (ibid.)
THE SEDIA 1 CHAIR BY ENZO MARI Fig 8. Newman (2024) Visual representation of The Windsor Chair on the triangle of efficiency.
The Sedia 1 chair was designed in 1974 by Italian artist Enzo Mari, with the intention of bringing beautiful and affordable furniture to all people, regardless of wealth and class. Designed as part of a series that went on to make up the celebrated book/ project “autoprogettazione?” This title translates roughly to “self-design”, although this is pointed out to be a “misnomer” by Mari, in the book itself: “By autoprogettazione [he] means an individual exercise to be done in order to improve one’s personal awareness of the honest reasoning behind the project”. Most importantly, for the relevance of my triangular system of analysing a chair’s efficiency, the Sedia 1 chair (and, in fact, all of the furniture laid out in ‘autoprogettazione?’) is designed with the intention of maximising process efficiency. By this, I mean, Mari intentionally produced the blueprints for his furniture, with skill-set, resources, and access in mind. The dimensions of the timber were chosen based on industry standards, and consequently ease of purchase for the buyer. The only required tool is a hammer, the only material intelligence necessary is how to hit a nail with said hammer “almost everyone has a hammer, and almost everyone has tried banging in a few nails at least once” (Mari, 2002). This being said, it is important to note that this chair, like all of the furniture of autoprogettazione, was designed more as an exercise in expanding peoples material understanding, Fig 9. Mari (1974) the Sedia 1 than for creating a long lasting and high-quality piece of Chair, [Milan, Italy]. furniture. “The project was clearly only intended as a practical critical exercise. Obviously, objects must be produced using machinery and the latest technology. This is the only way to get good quality and economical items. Machinery theoretically frees man from work, and Socialism only exists because industrial machinery exists” (ibid.) Analysing the Sedia 1 chair, aware of this context is difficult. As a stand alone chair, the Sedia 1 is both elegantly simple and brutally honest. As an exercise for increasing
people’s practical awareness, it would be hard to argue that he achieved what he originally intended. This chair is often, incorrectly in my opinion, labelled as DIY— as rejecting machinery, “the naive object symbolic of a return to nature” (ibid.) Nevertheless, through Mari’s desire to bestow greater material understanding to the masses, he created a chair of exceptional process efficiency. Considering this chair via the lens of the other two factors in the triangle of efficiency, this chair is arguably much less successful. To begin, let us examine the material efficiency of this piece. Where simplicity for the maker is of paramount importance, this means that any and all excess materially, is allowed to remain. Consequently, even Mari himself admits that furniture “made properly by machine, needs no more than 30% of the material used in our models” (ibid.) and these failures of material efficiency are evident, even without the consideration that pine planks nailed together naturally have lower than average durability. The importance of durability, with the exception of the autoprogettazione pieces, is considered absolutely vital by Mari, who contests that one should avoid “the use of archaic technology” and that “wood should only be used where it is cheaper than other materials” (ibid.), —echoing, here a similar sentiment to Papanek’s “Never [use] one material where another can do the job less expensively and/or more efficiently” (Papanek, 1971) — believing that “all projects using a natural material like wood tend to be reactionary”. Although Mari and I disagree in this philosophy, the durability of modern materials is undeniable; in many cases this very durability is actually the problem. Focussing on the aesthetic qualities of the Sedia 1 chair, it should be regarded as a piece of relatively high form efficiency. Built on the foundations of straight lines and right angles (mostly), it’s weakest aesthetic points are where the two different timber sizes meet, of course out of necessity for the benefit of process but, nonetheless, jarring and inelegant. Where the Sedia 1 does break it’s right angles, it is done, presumably, for the purpose of comfort and function, and fairly subtly. Aesthetically, it’s Fig 10. Newman (2024) Visual most beautiful aspect lies within it’s authenticity. Where representation of The Sedia 1 Chair on the triangle of efficiency. many affordable pieces of furniture use plugs3 and veneer to hide their true structure and material nature: these which papanek would call “perversions of materials, tools, and process” (Papanek, 1971). It is deeply refreshing to witness pine wood displayed with honesty.
3 Where a piece of furniture is screwed together, often the maker will deepen the recess, and then glue
a wooden plug above it, obscuring the crude nature of the screw, thus allowing for the mystique of a potentially quality join.
EA RLY C H A IR ( 19 79) B Y D ON AL D J UDD The Early Chair, made by Judd himself in 1979 from pine wood and nails (not dissimilar from Mari’s Sedia 1 chair), for me represents as close to aesthetic perfection as is possible. As one of Judd’s early explorations away from the idea of art that eschews “metaphor and association” (Cooke, 2010) and towards form with function, one may naturally assume that the efficiency of the form in question is derived from the artistic sensibilities of the designer. Judd, however, disagrees: “The art of a chair is not it’s resemblance to art, but is partly its reasonableness, usefulness, and scale as a chair” (Judd, 1993), he later Fig 11. Judd (1979) “Early Chair”, [Texas, USA]. goes on to say, “If [a chair’s] nature is seriously considered the art will occur, even art close to art itself”. While I do agree with these ideas in principle, I do think Judd’s furniture (in particular Early Chair) is informed by his art, moreover the aesthetic decisions made during the process of design and creation are inseparable from artistic preference, and therefore connected. The Early Chair, in terms of form efficiency, is supremely effective. Each face of this chair is flat, rectangular and honest, each join is at 90°. “Good design is as little design as possible” (Rams, 1984) and the design of this chair encapsulates this idea, so much so that it almost appears obvious. There are many people critical of minimalism, modernism, utilitarian design, who would accuse the Early Chair of being ‘boring’ or perhaps ‘uninspiring’. I would argue that this criticism, itself, represents a reflection of modern society’s infantilisation of the consumer.
“Design has become the sometimes cynical process of making what were once serious, unselfconscious products… into toys for adults, pandering to our fantasies about ourselves, ruthlessly tapping into our willingness to pay to be entertained or flattered by our possessions.” (Sudjic, 2008) “The 'purchase-attraction' aesthetic upon which design today is almost exclusively based, and which fuels the destructive product extravagance, will give way to an aesthetic which supports long-term use and the conservation of resources.” (Rams, 1999)
“People seem to prefer the ornate to the plain as they prefer daydreaming to thinking and mysticism to rationalism.” (Loos, 1908) To echo the points made by Sudjic, Rams, and Loos, when I say “infantilisation of the consumer” I am referring to designers aesthetically pandering to consumers with the aim of attracting attention or to “[exploit] people’s weaknesses” (Sudjic, 2008), rather than with the aim of a product that functions effectively and ‘emphasises the important’ (Rams, 1984). “We should not forego innovation but reject novelty as the sole aim” (ibid.) Dieter Rams put forward ten principles of Good Design which we can use as a tool for measuring successes and failures in Judd’s early chair.
GOOD DESIGN IS INNOVATIVE Arguably there is very little innovation in Early Chair. The form, the process, the material, the proportions, (etc.) they all clearly share deep similarities with chairs that came before, even conceptually, a chair that stands halfway between function and art is nothing new. However, while obviously innovation has it’s place, there is a case to be made that simply by following the examples of designers before him, Judd’s Early Chair expresses an authenticity that cannot be reached by a designer seeking to reinvent for innovation’s sake. In order to truly innovate one must throw away preconceived notions of design. I contest that these preconceived notions make up your authentic self, and without them you begin to limit authenticity.
GOOD DESIGN MAKES A PRODUCT USEFUL Early Chair was designed to fulfil this principle effectively. However, via the nature of art and the objet produced by artists, I do wonder how long it’s been since this chair was used for it’s intended purpose. With it’s current purpose seemingly to accumulate value for it’s owner, and to tour the world’s art galleries and design museums as an exhibit, it’s contemporary usefulness is quite different from the usefulness it represented in its infancy, as a cheap and swiftly assembled chair to furnish Judd’s empty house in Marfa, Texas.
GOOD DESIGN IS AESTHETIC By this Rams is referring to the subjective pleasantness of appearance, arguing that beautiful objects “have an effect on people and their well-being” (Rams, 2021). Subjectively, I believe Early Chair to be one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. Where every aesthetic element of it’s design expresses stability and stillness, it
stands solidly and reassuringly, it encapsulates ideas of flatness and minimalism without veering into pretentiousness, and it achieves all of this while remaining as “neutral and open as possible, leaving room for the self-expression of those using them” (Rams, 1984).
GOOD DESIGN MAKES A PRODUCT UNDERSTANDABLE As I previously mentioned, Judd’s chair is built upon the natural assumptions of the standard chair’s composition. It is this that dictates that Early Chair’s relationship with the viewer contains within it the affordance of support which “therefore affords sitting” (Norman, 2013). “An affordance is a relationship between the properties of an object and the capabilities of the agent that determine just how the object could possibly be used” (ibid.) consequently, perhaps Early Chair’s greatest strength (it’s understandability) is derived from it’s absence of innovation, and it’s acceptance of the ‘archetypal’ form (Sudjic, 2008).
GOOD DESIGN IS UNOBTRUSIVE By ‘unobtrusive’, Rams is referring to aesthetic subtly, believing that good design should “be both neutral and restrained” (Rams, 1984). Early Chair, here, is undoubtedly a success. Where I talk of Early Chair’s ‘stability and stillness’ these, too, are qualities of unobtrusive-ness. A chair composed of many parts, of sharp or uneven angles, of vibrant and contrasting colours, is a chair that would immediately draw attention and therefore would impose itself on it’s environment. A chair that rejects these qualities represents a chair content to sit alongside it’s context as an equal, and therefore represents good design.
GOOD DESIGN IS HONEST Unlike much modern furniture made of pine, Early Chair exists unashamedly so. There is a horrific amount of furniture in the world covered with the veneer of expensive woods, you even find metal and plastic decorated to look like the grain of wood. The pine wood coated in veneer is done because of it’s association of “cheap” or “lowquality”, consumers, consciously or unconsciously, consume with the aspiration of raising their perceived societal value, “consumption of … the better grades of goods, — ideally all consumption in excess of the subsistence minimum, — pertains normally to the leisure class” (Veblen, 1899). The chair succeeds in expressing great honesty, and in doing so undermines the inauthentic foundation of hierarchical material value.
GOOD DESIGN IS LONG-LASTING In this criteria Rams is specifically referring to the durability of a piece’s aesthetic style in relation to the tastes of wider society. He suggests that a piece of good design “avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated”. Judd’s Early Chair does this exceptionally well. Where the progression of art led to simpler and simpler forms, Early Chair follows suit. Though this simplicity is created in the context of minimalism and the modernist rejection of ornament, Early Chair is chronologically unplaceable; it could have been designed or made by anyone from the fifteenth century to the present day.
GOOD DESIGN IS THOROUGH DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL “Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.” (Rams, 1984) I believe Judd succeeds in this principle. As we can see in his drawings, the Early Chair was designed meticulously to optimise the simplicity for the sourcing and processing of its material components, whilst simultaneously considering the aesthetic strength of the final product. These are two considerations that often work against one another.
GOOD DESIGN IS ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
Fig 11. Judd (1979) Drawings of “Early Chair”.
This is a highly complex criteria to evaluate, where every aspect of the piece must be considered within the context of the systems of contemporary society. You may, reductively, look at wood as a material and, with good intentions, believe this to be sustainable. On the surface, wood is a renewable resource —we can plant trees, they absorb carbon dioxide over their life, then they can be felled and processed into usable and long lasting products— but conversely we have to understand the fact that deforestation poses an enormous threat to our environment, “2,000 years ago, 80% of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34%” (National Geographic Society, 2024). Also we have to consider that even the increasing of tree planting, supported by the wood industry can be damaging, since if you plant trees in “monocultures instead of mixed forests, you run the risk of creating ecological dead zones” (Crowe, 2021). We have to consider how the timber was transported, whether the companies that
source these materials invest in fossil fuel firms, whether this pine has been treated with environmentally dangerous chemicals or whether more fossil fuels were burned in order for it to be kiln dried; tallying up this embodied-carbon is an almost impossible task. Overall these are factors that I am not qualified to speculate on.
GOOD DESIGN IS AS LITTLE DESIGN AS POSSIBLE Described here by Rams as “Less, but better … Back to purity, back to simplicity,” (Rams, 1984) I believe in this principle Early Chair achieves its greatest success. Through the process of designing a chair built upon simplicity, every aspect that subverts our expectations is magnified and elevated. The primary function of a chair is to seat it’s occupant; to excite, to provoke, to question, are all superfluous to this aim, and Early Chair represents a perfect example of this.
CONCLUSION
Fig 12. Newman (2024) Visual representation of Early Chair on the triangle of efficiency.
By analysing these three chairs using the triangle of efficient design it seems to me that the perfect design does not, and cannot, exist. It appears evident to me that often the dimensions of efficiency work against one another and, by leaning towards one axis of efficiency you intrinsically distance yourself from another. All three of these chairs represent good, if not great, examples of efficient design, yet none of them can succeed completely in all three aspects. The triangle of efficiency, when compared to other models for helping designers and critics analyse design, represents a condensing of these other models. In doing so, the three efficiencies become wider, and arguably vaguer. With the aim of simplifying many ideas into few, these few represent a greater degree of complexity. The triangle’s successes lie in the fact that using this system to evaluate designs, rather than being a tick-box exercise, retains a fluidity that the others lack. As well as this, the process of visualising designs (using the triangle as a graph) seems to be useful in distilling complex qualities into an understandable medium.
REFERENCE LIST
Adamson, G. (2019) Fewer, better things. BLOOMSBURY PUBLISHING PLC. Barnhart, C.L. (1961) The American College Dictionary. New York: Random House. Barthes, R. (2015) Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Chomsky, N. (2005) What Uncle Sam really wants. Tucson, AZ: Odonian Press. Cooke, L. (2010) Donald Judd, Dia Art Foundation. Available at: https:// web.archive.org/web/ 20101122132429/http://diaart.org/exhibitions/introduction/ 85 (Accessed: January 11, 2023). Crawford, G. (2020) Carpenter, 15th-16th century, Preindustrial Craftsmanship. Available at: https://paleotool.com/2014/08/08/carpenter-15th-century/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Crowe, O. (2021) How can incorrect tree planting cause climate issues? Avoiding: ‘green deserts’ and monoculture tree planting, earthly. Available at: https:// earthly.org/how-can-incorrect-tree-planting-cause-climate-issues (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Dawkins, C.R. (2016) The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donald Judd | early chair (1979) (no date) artsy. Available at: https://www.artsy.net/ artwork/donald-judd-early-chair (Accessed: 04 March 2024). FH38 Windsor Chair (no date) Chaplins Furniture. Available at: https://chaplins.co.uk/ shop/carl-hansen-fh38-windsor-chair.html (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Hazen, E. (1981) Popular technology: Or, professions and trades (Hazen’s panorama). Albany, NY: Early American Industries Association. Iron pyrite cube from Spain (R518) (no date) Fossils UK. Available at: https:// www.fossils-uk.com/new-in-c40/crystals-c207/iron-pyrite-cube-from-spain-r518p10913 (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Jenkins, J.G. (1967) Traditional country craftsmen. New York: Frederick A. Prager.
Johnston, R. (no date) Life as a craftsman, All Things Medieval. Available at: https:// ruthjohnston.com/AllThingsMedieval/?p=125 (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Judd, D. et al. (2017) “It’s hard to find a good lamp,” in Donald Judd writings. New York, NY: Judd Foundation. Judd, D. et al. (2017) “Specific Objects,” in Donald Judd writings. New York, NY: Judd Foundation. K, A. (2021) Marcel Breuer I storyline I iconic designs, FurnishPlus. Available at: https://furnishplus.ca/marcel-breuer-and-wonderful-designs/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Lambert, T. (2024) A history of Furniture, Local Histories. Available at: https:// localhistories.org/a-history-of-furniture/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Loos, A. (1908) Ornament and crime. Penguin Books Ltd. Low shelf chair 84 (no date) Donald Judd Furniture. Available at: https://judd.furniture/ product/low-shelf-chair-8485/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Mao, Z. (1971) Quotations from chairman Mao. New York: Award Books. Marcel Breuer. Club Chair (Model B3). 1927–1928 (no date) MoMA. Available at: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/2851 (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Mari, E. (2002) Autoprogettazione? Milano: Corraini. Monod, J. (1979) Chance and necessity: An essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology. Glasgow: Collins. Norman, D.A. (2021) The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books. Papanek, V.J. (2019) Design for the real world. London: Thames and Hudson. Parrott, R. (no date) Observations on the earliest known windsor chairs..., Regional Furniture Society. Available at: https:// regionalfurnituresociety.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/observations-on-theearliest-known-windsor-chairs-robert-parrott.pdf (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Rams, D. (1984) ‘Omit the unimportant’, Design Issues, 1(1), p. 24. doi:10.2307/1511540.
Rams, D. (2021) Dieter rams: Ten principles for good design. S.l.: PRESTEL ART. Rams, D. Waste not want not. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 1, 131–133 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014467711230 Richest 1% grab nearly twice as much new wealth as rest of the world put together (no date) Oxfam GB. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/pressreleases/richest-1-grab-nearly-twice-as-much-new-wealth-as-rest-of-the-worldput-together/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Schwarz, C. (2021) And now they are ‘Forrest Chairs’, Lost Art Press. Available at: https://blog.lostartpress.com/2021/03/23/and-now-they-are-forrest-chairs/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Sudjic, D. (2008) The language of things. London: Penguin. The Red Blue Chair: Groenekan (no date) Victoria and Albert Museum. Available at: https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O142927/the-red-blue-chair-armchair-rietveldgerrit/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). The Wycombe Pitt chair (no date) Wycombe Museum Official Site. Available at: https://wycombemuseum.org.uk/product/the-wycombe-pitt-chair (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Turner, B. (2022) Sedia 1 - chair by Enzo Mari for Artek, Dezeen. Available at: https:// www.dezeen.com/2010/04/16/sedia-1-chair-by-enzo-mari-for-artek/ (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Urban Living: Craftsmen And Tradesmen (2024) encyclopedia.com. Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/ urban-living-craftsmen-and-tradesmen (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Veblen, T. (1899) Theory of the leisure class. S.l.: MJP PUBLISHERS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ask a designer: Dieter Rams’ 10 principles of good design (2018) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlAdcQZZAM (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Auscherman, A., Grawe, S. and Ransmeier, L. (2019) Herman Miller: A way of living. London: Phaidon Press Limited. Blake, P. and Brodovitch, A., 1955. Marcel Breuer. New York: Dodd, Mead and company. Boggs, C. (1980) Gramsci’s marxism. London: Pluto Press. Darwin, C. (2023) On the origin of species. London: Flame Tree 451. Dieter Rams – a brave new world of product design (2015) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=epEWrycjNXc&pp=ygULZGlldGVyIHJhbXM%3D (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Dieter Rams: Interview about furniture design (2016) YouTube. Available at: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNC8PlWPkas&pp=ygULZGlldGVyIHJhbXM%3D (Accessed: 04 March 2024). Engels, F. and Aveling, E.B. (2022) Socialism, utopian and scientific. Franklin Classics, an imprint of Creative Media Partners. Holy Bible: King James Version bible (2016). Vereeniging, RSA: Christian Art Publishers. Le Corbusier, Cohen, J. and Goodman, J., 2007. Toward an architecture. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute. Marx, K. et al. (1967) The Communist Manifesto. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Moholy-Nagy, L. et al. (2019) Moholy-Nagy and the new typography A-Z. Dortmund: Verlag Kettler. Rose, G. and Jay, M.E. (2024) Marxist modernism introductory lectures on Frankfurt School Critical Theory. Verso UK.
Seike, K. (1990) The art of Japanese joinery. Tokyo: Weatherhill. Shales, E. (2017) The shape of craft. London: Reaktion. Stangos, N. (1985) Concepts of modern art. London: Thames & Hudson. SUDJIC, D. (2024) Analogue a field guide. S.l.: FRANCES LINCOLN PUB LTD.