The shape of a piece of furniture is a complex issue that requires careful thought and a distinction between specific and general judgments. It is crucial to consider not only the aesthetics of a product but also the personality of the designer, the history of the manufacturer, and the type of market it is intended for. In this article, we will explore some examples of good and bad forms in design, highlighting the reasons behind these evaluations.
An emblematic example of good form is the Eames DSW (Dining Side Chair Wood), designed by Charles and Ray Eames in the 1950s. This chair is a modern design classic, characterized by an ergonomic shape that meets the need for comfort. The use of materials such as polypropylene and wood not only gives it an aesthetically pleasing appearance but also makes the chair versatile and suitable for various contexts. The quality of the form harmonizes with the desire for modernity at a time when innovation was at the center of everyday aspirations.
Another significant example is Achille Castiglioni’s Arco Lamp, designed in 1962. With its bold and simple form, featuring a stainless steel arch supporting a light source, the lamp fulfills its illuminating function and becomes a sculptural piece capable of capturing attention. In this case, form is intrinsically linked to functionality, representing a period when design sought to fuse art and everyday life in a perfect balance.
On the other hand, the post-modern period 1980s produced numerous objects that, while visually stimulating, often lacked stylistic and functional coherence. Many pieces of furniture from that period feature irregular shapes and excessive colors, the result of a search for provocation and a break with the past. However, this lack of harmony has led to products that, although interesting, can be impractical and durable, revealing little relevance to the real needs of users.
Another critical example is IKEA furniture. Although it is a brand that stands for affordability and functionality, some of its products show shortcomings in terms of design. Overly simple lines and the use of low-quality materials can result in objects that lack personality and inspiration. This case illustrates how effective design must go beyond mere functionality, addressing aesthetics in a deeper and more meaningful way.
The concept of style is crucial in the evaluation of forms. It does not merely reflect temporary fashions but represents a ‘deep feeling’ that reflects the vibrancy of a community at a particular historical moment. For example, post-modernism, although contradictory, embodied a cultural reaction against the rationalist design ideology of the 1970s.
The lack of a consistent style in contemporary design is penalizing artistic manufacturing, particularly in Italy, where identity has historically been a competitive advantage. An update and a new stylistic direction are essential, as these elements guide companies and set parameters for evaluating quality.
In conclusion, the shape of a piece of furniture is a subject that goes beyond simple aesthetic judgment. It must be read in its context and in its time, considering the cultural dynamics and the target market. Through concrete examples of good and bad forms, the complexity of design emerges, which must maintain a balance between functionality, aesthetics, and cultural identity. Continuous dialogue on these issues is essential for the progress of design and the renewal of artistic manufacture.