When I first saw the name Design Within Reach (DWR) used for a furniture store I thought "within reach" meant affordable. I was hopeful it was going to offer good design at a price within the reach of the people for whom modern design was intended from at least the time of the Bauhaus - the solid working class. Alas, I didn't realize the meaning of "within reach" was much more literal and physical. According to the "About" section of DWR's website it means you can buy design objects from them without knowing a secret handshake or waiting months for delivery. According to the site, that used to be the big problem in getting the works of designers. The site adds that "within reach" also means you can actually touch them in the store.
DWR sums up its philosophy as follows: "By giving customers access to these items, which are brilliantly conceived, simply executed and consistent with the enduring principles of modernism, we made design within reach."
I have a big problem with DWR's self-serving definition of what it means to bring design within reach. I believe that, when it comes to design objects, one of the surest signs of brilliant design conception, simple design execution and consistency with the enduring principles of modernism is affordability. I think it is a perversion of those attributes to price "designer" furniture at multiples of the cost of production totally out of proportion to the standards for pricing useful objects. Obviously, businesses want to get the best price they can for what they sell. But it is particularly reprehensible to use the designer as an accomplice because that person should be aiming for precisely the opposite objective: to produce an object at the lowest possible price consistent with proper function.
Let's go shopping. I arbitrarily choose George Nelson because I look at one of his clocks every morning. He's dead. He's considered a major figure in modern design. And, most importantly I don't think there are any patents or copyrights or other contractual legalities which make payments to his estate a factor in the production of his designs.
In 1955 Nelson designed the "Coconut" Chair. It's a typical modern simplification of the chair form and I have nothing to say at the moment about its design except that it cannot be too expensive to manufacture.
Design Within Reach has priced this chair at $4,499 with estimated shipping of $292.44. If we assume the store is doubling its cost then the manufacturer of the chair is selling it for $2,250. If the manufacturer is selling the chair at double its production cost then it cost $1,125 to make this chair. Wow! I can understand that cost for a prototype but not for a model in normal production. (I'm guessing the manufacturer, Herman Miller, has no financial obligations to Nelson's heirs.)
Here's a puzzle. One site is selling what appears to be this chair for $659.
Yet another site is selling a chair under the name of the "Papaya" which they claim is "is completely true to George Nelson's original design, materials, and detailing." for $395 plus $199 shipping.
These prices looks much closer to reality and far more consistent with the conception, execution and modern design principles embodied in Nelson's chair. Assuming there is nothing illegal about the lower priced object and further assuming the quality is good I would conclude that it makes the chair much more genuinely "within reach" of the person who finds it attractive.
DWR sums up its philosophy as follows: "By giving customers access to these items, which are brilliantly conceived, simply executed and consistent with the enduring principles of modernism, we made design within reach."
I have a big problem with DWR's self-serving definition of what it means to bring design within reach. I believe that, when it comes to design objects, one of the surest signs of brilliant design conception, simple design execution and consistency with the enduring principles of modernism is affordability. I think it is a perversion of those attributes to price "designer" furniture at multiples of the cost of production totally out of proportion to the standards for pricing useful objects. Obviously, businesses want to get the best price they can for what they sell. But it is particularly reprehensible to use the designer as an accomplice because that person should be aiming for precisely the opposite objective: to produce an object at the lowest possible price consistent with proper function.
Let's go shopping. I arbitrarily choose George Nelson because I look at one of his clocks every morning. He's dead. He's considered a major figure in modern design. And, most importantly I don't think there are any patents or copyrights or other contractual legalities which make payments to his estate a factor in the production of his designs.
In 1955 Nelson designed the "Coconut" Chair. It's a typical modern simplification of the chair form and I have nothing to say at the moment about its design except that it cannot be too expensive to manufacture.
Design Within Reach has priced this chair at $4,499 with estimated shipping of $292.44. If we assume the store is doubling its cost then the manufacturer of the chair is selling it for $2,250. If the manufacturer is selling the chair at double its production cost then it cost $1,125 to make this chair. Wow! I can understand that cost for a prototype but not for a model in normal production. (I'm guessing the manufacturer, Herman Miller, has no financial obligations to Nelson's heirs.)
Here's a puzzle. One site is selling what appears to be this chair for $659.
Yet another site is selling a chair under the name of the "Papaya" which they claim is "is completely true to George Nelson's original design, materials, and detailing." for $395 plus $199 shipping.
These prices looks much closer to reality and far more consistent with the conception, execution and modern design principles embodied in Nelson's chair. Assuming there is nothing illegal about the lower priced object and further assuming the quality is good I would conclude that it makes the chair much more genuinely "within reach" of the person who finds it attractive.
No comments:
Post a Comment