Prince Charles (as in Eames) Chair

04Mar09

Prince.png

Normally I try to keep my entries pretty positive. There is so much negativity around these days, we don’t really need it in our design blogs. BUT, I can’t ignore my true feelings about this one.  

I keep seeing this bastardizationironic re-imagining of the classic Fiberglass Shell Chairs and I am just not quite able to embrace the idea. I’m all for collaborations and interpretations but this one I can’t be friendly to. I think it’s ugly.

What do you think? Have you seen these? Do you like them? Or does it feel like someone just stabbed the Shell chair in the back and ran off with the money?

Discuss!

Modernica’s design studio has collaborated with artist Peter Shire to design the Prince Charles Chair based on the company’s Case Study Fiberglass shell chair and playfully named after the originator of the design, Charles Eames…The Prince Charles chair is an elegant and ironic juxtaposition – past and present. It is an innovative combination of two recognizable styles artfully embracing 300 years of furniture design into a single chair. This, along with the chair’s Queen Anne-like legs, which look like broken violin cut outs, prove opposites attract.

Prince Charles Shell Chair from Modernica – $359 to $469

Related posts:

  1. Eames shell restoration
  2. Eames Imitations
  3. Way Back When: Eames Case Study House No. 8
  4. Eames molded chair with wood dowel base
  5. Wrap Dining Chair

Tags: ,

Comments

15 Responses to “Prince Charles (as in Eames) Chair”

  1. Creede on March 4th, 2009 7:10 am

    LOL, it looks like a chair sat on a violin. Not a big fan.

  2. Sebastian Hartmann on March 4th, 2009 8:13 am

    You’re right. Who wants to surround himself with ironic design? That’s like buying ironic records – and having to listen to them, too.

  3. bk on March 4th, 2009 9:47 am

    I completely agree. This design seems very forced. It’s one thing to blend styles within a space but to force such a ‘blend’ on a single piece especially such an iconic piece is unfortunate.

  4. CapreeK on March 4th, 2009 9:56 am

    BK – Very true and well said!

  5. Lindsey on March 4th, 2009 11:42 am

    I can’t remember where I first saw the shell chair with those legs, but it horrified me. I HATE IT.

  6. april on March 4th, 2009 12:24 pm

    I think part of the problem is the proportion. Visually it appears too heavily weighted to the bottom. I noticed the armchair version looks much more appropriate: http://www.modernica.net/index.php?target=products&product_id=287

    I still hate it… but at least it is visually balanced :)

  7. Carina on March 4th, 2009 3:26 pm

    I don’t like it. The chair upsets me. I need some smelling salts.

  8. CapreeK on March 4th, 2009 4:55 pm

    April – Definitely true about the proportions being out of whack. The more I think about it, the more I wonder what was going through their heads when they ‘designed’ this thing. So bizarre.

  9. Baz on March 4th, 2009 8:06 pm

    We all agree. This isn’t just wrong, it’s bad design. Nothing new or original from base to seat. This is the peanut butter and pickled mayonnaise sandwich of chair design. And, at that price I’ll score a couple vintage authentic Eames chairs.

    Cheers,

    -B

  10. troy. on March 5th, 2009 6:48 am

    I usually stay away from the negative as well, but I’ll chip in here to say that I’m not a fan of these. I will add that I always see a leaning toward the bizarre in conceptual design, but these are being mass marketed, so I’m a bit puzzled.

  11. richpatch on March 5th, 2009 10:37 pm

    Its horrid and needs to be put out of its misery.

  12. liam. on March 11th, 2009 12:05 pm

    this is completely and utterly uncalled for. i wonder what we’d say about it if the eameses had designed it.

  13. CapreeK on March 11th, 2009 1:17 pm

    Liam – I don’t think they WOULD have designed it. I think it goes against the Eames philosophy, which can be summed up in Charles Eames own words: “Design depends largely on constraints”. The Prince Charles Chair is ephemeral, its constraints what exactly? It seems to have been made for the sake of irony only. Is that a good basis for design? I don’t think so.

    Good design recognizes a need, and working within its constraints, meets that need. Does this particular concept serve any purpose other than to romanticize, and thus destroy, the original design whose success and permanence is due to its recognition of a universal need? If it does, I’d like to know what that purpose is.

    The phrase “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” comes to mind when I consider the Prince Charles Chair. It will be interesting to see if this design is still around 5, 10, even 20 years from now. I doubt it.

  14. Nana on March 14th, 2009 3:34 pm

    Wrong. Horrible. Blasphemous. Did I mention I hate it?

  15. liam. on March 18th, 2009 11:49 am

    capree.
    i predict this design won’t be in production next year, much less in five years. let’s at least hope so.
    liam.

Leave a Reply