A Very Wrong Chair

How to talk about a “bad chair.”

There is so much good design in the world, that I very rarely encounter bad design in new things anymore.

If a thing is new, it’s likely worked out most of the issues that held back previous things from being ‘good'.’

I’m not one to advocate that there is a specific “good design” aesthetic, certainly not in any sort of absolute or objective sense; there’s just no point in speaking from that position anymore, as if one is an authority on design.

I think terms like “good” and “bad” actually become more cumbersome, because they are too general.

Getting into a “good or bad” debate is like the phrase “toss me the scissors!”

There are a handful of people on the planet I would say that to - I trust their ability to toss the scissors in a way that makes them more catchable. Otherwise it’s too risky, someone is going to get hurt. It’s slicey and dicey.

So we have to use our words, our language, to walk the scissors over, as it were.

I submit that starting from appropriateness is a great place to start.

Appropriateness widens our gaze to consider the context and event for which the object finds itself in.

Appropriateness also can focus our gaze - as we become aware of our subjective approach to the objective world around us.

And when we talk about chairs - we need to consider where the chair is seated/placed as well.

A chair is an object that signals rest for the human body.

The bulk of architectural output is the appropriate application of materials towards human rest.

The chairness of the chair signals rest.

We know what chairs are for. We know how to sit in chairs. This isn’t art.

When we see a chair in a public space - all the cues, the site, the chair itself, they signal an opportunity for rest.

And this is where it is helpful to move from good and bad to right and wrong.

Because there is nothing inherently good or bad about any object. It’s an object.

It may have some rich interior life, but we can’t access it, we can’t know - we only have our senses, our tastes, our preferences, our subjective way of feeling the world, and our reactions and responses.

So we can’t evaluate the object itself, but we can evaluate it’s appropriateness, in relationship to the time and place we encounter it.

It is what we subject the object to.

Or as I’ve said in other places, “what’s the chair for there for?”

That’s about appropriateness.

I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to tell if you if I THINK the chair is good or bad.

I can actually just give a report on my FEELINGS. A response to the sensorial qualities.

In many ways, it is no different than finding a good rock for skipping.

In many more ways, it is so different than looking for a good rock for skipping.

In both ways, I am looking for a shape to do what I need it to do.

If I find a rock that is right for skipping, I am not saying that in your hand you will have the same results.

I am saying that in my hand, this rock is the most appropriate for the goals I am looking to achieve.

The same sort of mechanism is at work when I see Ia chair. I can see if it’s going to work or not.

I can see if it’s right for my body.

That’s key.

I can tell you about how I felt in this chair, in my body.

And then you, with the same amount of sensorial resources, can look at me and my body, and look at the chair I am writing about, and you can make an inference for yourself.

I wonder if this chair is right for me too? Will I feel similar - in my body?

Is that what I want from a chair?

When I saw these chairs, my first thought was, '“whoops, those are wrong.“

The longer thought being something closer to: there is no way I am going to sit in that chair and feel good - it’s not right for my body.

I infer it’s not going to work for me/my body based on past experience.

This particular chair is not right for me.

My body feels horrible in this chair. My body actually hurts in this chair.

I could not find a way to sit in this chair that in any way relieved pressure from either my bottom or back.

They were in conflict, the seat and the back.

And for those of you who make chairs, you can see that just by looking at it.

The friend I was with said, “yikes, what’s wrong with those chairs.”

It’s so wrong, that as I surveyed the park, I noticed only 2 other people sitting in the chairs.

Happenstance. For sure.

But the observation is telling as well: they were sitting in the chairs sideways, not using the backrest as a backrest.

They were using chair as a stool. As a raised platform.

No different than a flat rock at 18.5” tall.

It’s not a bad chair.

It’s just wrongly suited for who chairs are for - humans.

It’s a wrong chair.

In this case, I would say very wrong.

A note on hostile architecture.

This could be a case of hostile architecture - that is, designed intentionally to discourage people from sitting for a long time. These same chairs are used in Grand Park in LA, which is where I first encountered them. When I saw these green chairs in the park in Palm Springs, I made the connection.

I posted the Grand Park chairs on IG in 2019 saying, “When you can just look at a chair and know it’s wrong, how does stuff like this get made?”

A few commenters mentioned - “hostile architecture” - and that the silhouettes were there to discourage long term lingering. And then they tagged the architecture firm that designed the chairs - and all of it seemed a lot more plausible.

Which begs the question - if the chair is designed to discourage long term sitting, then the design is actually a success, right? In the sense that it fulfills the assignment for the developers who hired the firm.

Hostile architecture sucks for humans because it is intentionally designed to suck for humans.

I understand this to a certain extent, in the projects i’ve done for coffee shops and bars. That is where a lot of my furniture work goes. And we’ve had very frank discussions about how long a chair needs to be comfortable for in order to both serve the needs of the customer, and to maintain a level of turnover within the space.

A bar owner told me once to make the seat back MORE uncomfortable.

I don’t like designing this way, but I understand how design needs to work within the larger context of the business it is serving. Design arose as a discipline to serve the business needs, not utility, per say.

Or that is, the utility of the chair/stool is in service of the business goals of the cafe, bar, or park plaza.

On a podcast the other day, I heard a guest say “there’s so much bad design in the world.”

I always think this is a weird statement - um, thanks for your opinion?

WHY is there so much “bad design” in the world?

My friends, BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED THAT WAY.

It was designed that way by award winning architects and designers.

I submit that this chair is intentionally designed to be uncomfortable to the human body.

It’s function is largely symbolic, and reads more as decor and ornamentation for the public space.

They are accessorial to the overall goals of the space - they are like chunky fuscia eearingg, or stilleto heels.

They grab attention, look good in photos, but you cannot wait to take them off.

So if you see chairs like this in a public space, I suggest bringing a blanket, taking your shoes off, and finding some rest on the ground.

It’s free, it’s already there.

Your body will thank you.

Peace, Love, Cactus

-E