Richard Buchanan - Design Discourse
Design Within Reach is a modernist studio based in Pasadena in a building that is very reminiscent of a Bauhaus styled building. However, the focus of the business is on the replication of Modernist furniture. The work that is being sold here are manufactured replicas of the many designers of the Modernist period. Some of them include Eero Saarinen, Le Corbusier, and a number of other prominent Modernist designers. This allows the designs to be as authentic as possible. In light of this background, it would be interesting to analyze, and critique one of these designs contained in the stock at Design Within Reach. It would be even more interesting if one could discuss a similar design from another store.
The design that is of incredible value to design principles in general, is the 1928, LC4 Chaise Longue (or “long chair”) that was designed by Le Corbusier, Charlotte Perriand, and Pierre Jeanneret. The design springs from the fact that the work, at the time called for a statement to be made. This is what Richard Buchanan’s design discourse emphasizes – the fact that the design affected “an audience of consumers or society at large,” allows the design to to be deeply rhetorical (Buchanan 91). This particular design was created through the desire of Le Corbusier to capture the value of the personal outlet, the value, and the design philosophy he saw in the work of Charlotte Perriand. Le Corbusier saw her work and wished to collaborate with her.
What makes this Chaise Longue communicate its theory of rhetoric is how Le Corbusier and his co-designers came to the final product. Buchannan speaks of the fact that technology is often seen as separate form design. However, as can be seen here, the Chaise Longue has a “chromed tubular steel frame” that is offset with a “black lacquered steel base,” a “polyurethane foam pad and headrest.” The original designs came specifically with “natural cowhide or canvas upholstery” as well, and this is clearly replicated n the Design Within Reach product (“Design Within Reach” n.p). The Le Corbusier Chaise Longue clearly displays what Buchannan states, which is the fact that technology often informs the design. In his discourse, Buchanan further reiterates that a rhetorical theory would “suggest productive ways in which closer connections between technology and design art could be established” (Buchanan 92) It is the “design as rhetoric” that is used to establish a link with the past. It can be seen in the fact that the Design Within Reach provides such a link with the past in this particular “long chair.”
The practical use of the chair is completed in the authentic materials mentioned before, as well as the exact dimensions and distinct thought pattern of the original designers (Le Corbusier, Charlotte Perriand, and Pierre Jeanneret). The diagram in Figure 1 clearly shows the dimensions of the original design. The chair is attributed to Le Corbusier, and the reason for it is in the fact that he was completely aware of the combination of technology, the aesthetic as well as the “practical use and action” of the product. The aesthetic value of the Chaise Longue, it practical use and action is what it the perfect chair even to this day. The image in Figure 1 and Figure 2 clearly shows the shape of a person captured within the design of the chair. It has also been called the “relaxing machine.” Perhaps it should be called the ultimate “relaxing machine.” Thus, the design was and is ergonomically correct, and for this reason, it is still as popular. Furthermore, it was and is based on the three design elements. The first element is technological reasoning, which is the persuasive aspect, especially in terms of its aesthetical appearance. The second element is the character of ethos. In this chair, one can immediately recognize the designer, and how they chose “to represent themselves in their products.” Thirdly, the design incorporates the emotion of the designers, as they endeavored to express themselves in the work. The reality is that the reason for the stamp of posterity on this chair is the fact that it contains all of design elements.
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s MR Chaise was designed in 1927 (see Figure 3), which was then followed by the Le Corbusier Chaise Longue of 1928 (see Figure 2). It just so happens that the architects of the time created the furniture to compliment the homes they designed. As with the Le Corbusier Chaise Longue, the Mies van der Rohe’s MR Chaise had specific measurement that should be part of any replica today. The latter (the Mies van der Rohe’s MR Chaise) is available at the Knoll Home Design Shop. There is only one way in which the two “long chairs” can be compared, and that is through its history, its manufacturing process, and the materials used. As already discussed, one of the materials Le Corbusier used was the “chromed tubular steel frame.” The period seemed to have dictated the use of this particular material. Figure 1 shows how Le Corbusier utilized it and Figure 3 showed how Mies van der Rohe utilized the material. One difference is that the Le Corbusier Chaise Longue had a more static use for it in terms of movement. It was adjustable, hence, the comparison with that of a machine. However, the Mies van der Rohe Chaise was a cantilever chair. The discussion around this is that the idea of the “bent-steel cantilevered chair” came from the artist Marcel Breuer (“MR Chaise” n.p).
As seen in the Buchanan design discourse, it is the practical application of the design thought “through the persuasiveness of objects.” The fact that these two “long chairs” are still available shows that “design involves the vivid expression of competing ideas about social life” (Buchanan 94). These inventions are directed at the comfort zone of the human. Thus, as Buchanan speaks of how the technologist have tried to meet the human needs, and tried to “promote a better, well ordered life.” It is often not possible without the design aspect (Buchanan 94). If one compares the upholstery material used by these two designers (and the current authentic replicas), it is clear to see that it takes design thought to understand what the human body needs for comfort, for example. For example, Le Corbusier used “natural cowhide or canvas upholstery,” and Mies van der Rohe used lush leather to complete his Chaise. The comfort of the latter is found in the deep-quilted pillows, held in place, on the seamless chrome frame, by “matching leather straps,” and cushion supports from “belting straps” (“MR Chaise” n.p). Le Corbusier’s Chaise Longue has been created around the human body, and is designed for extreme comfort. He devised his own version of the Vitruvian Man a while later (in 1943), which he called Modular Man (see Figure 5) to create his designs. However, before this one might assume that he and Mies van der Rohe made use of the Vitruvian Man to establish a design that was appealing to the eye as well as comfortable to the body. It simply has to do with using technology, as Buchanan suggests (95) – to attribute character to the design they wished to bring to life. The two designers have in particular made use of technology, the elements of design – as described by Buchanan – as well as the need to express themselves (their attitudes and values) in the product they designed. This is the reason why both the chairs are works of art, as it persuades an audience even to this day (Buchanan 97). These are for sale as replicas from Design Within Reach, and the Knoll Home Design Shop, as mentioned here. This means that the design is still a sought after product by many.
Both “long chairs” are useful objects, as it is a persuasive product in terms of the process of its creation (Buchanan 98). A particular example is that of the Mies van der Rohe chair with its beautiful curved lines, and the inviting aspect of the rocking that could be experienced through the cantilever design. Even though there is emphasis on the technological aspect of the chair, the appeal is in what it can offer the human as they sit in it. The process of the design – “the technological reasoning” – is as important as the design itself (Buchanan 98). The same applies to the design of the Le Corbusier’s Chaise Longue. Le Corbusier was attracted to the type of material, and the type of work his fellow designers produced, and this long chair was one of the many designs that were produced for the houses he built. The rhetoric in both these designs is seen in what Buchanan states as: “Similarly, designers present the control features of a complex system so carefully and clearly that audiences grasp the technological reasoning without actually seeing its details” (Buchanan 99).
It is about the appearance – if it were not so, then there would not have been need for the design aspects at all. As Buchanan says: design would “encourage our more complex imagination processes” (Buchanan 100). If one looks at any one of the two long chairs under discussion here, the imagination it would evoke is how comfortable it would be to sit in the. One could imagine that, by actually sitting in it which one would be most comfortable to eventually purchase – that “subtle mode of persuasion” (Buchanan 101) Furthermore, as mentioned before, these two long chairs have character that reaches across the centuries, making its mark in a postmodern world where most designs have no character (Buchanan 102). Both these designs allows for the “subtle persuasion” as well as for the visual appeal, and the technological essence of the designs. It thus creates the emotional connection that the designer wishes to convey through all the design elements packaged together.
The fact that these products are available in the current century is evident that it is timeless in its entire design form. Both the architects, Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe have left a legacy, not only in their buildings, but in the creation of their furniture as well. The particular discussion here, focused on their “long chairs,” and the analysis along the lines of Buchanan’s design discourse. The two designs are clear in reflecting the design elements Buchanan stated. These are particularly the elements of “technological reasoning,” the “character or ethos,” and the “design element, emotion or pathos.” As mentioned, the designs evoke a visual appearance that is clearly seen in the design of each, as it moves along, creating an imagination of lying safely and in great comfort in either the Le Corbusier’s Chaise Longue, or the Mies van der Rohe’s MR Chaise.
Works Cited
Buchanan, Richard. “Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demonstration in Design
Practice.” Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1989. 91-109. Print.
“Design Within Reach.” Design Within Reach. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 July 2016.
“MR Chaise.” Knoll. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 July 2016.
Figures
Figure 1: LC4 Chaise Longue (or “long chair”). Product Details of Design Within Reach.
http://www.dwr.com/living-lounge-chairs/lc4-chaise-longue/6515.html?lang=en_US
Figure 2: Chaise Longue (or “long chair”). Product of Design Within Reach.
http://www.dwr.com/designer-le-corbusier?lang=en_US
Figure 3: Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s MR Chaise
http://www.knoll.com/product/mr-chaise
Figure 4: The Dimensions for the Ludwig Mies van der Rohe MR Chaise
Width: 23 ½"Depth: 47 ¼"Height: 37 ½"
Figure 5: Le Corbusier’s Modular Man
http://www.iconeye.com/404/item/3815-modulor-man
