Comments on: Iga by Damian Kozlik

By: AltMaster

AltMaster — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:03:27 +0000

I think, polypropylene is too week material for this beautiful chair. It must be madden from metal. Aluminum, or lighter and stronger metal. The beautiful things like this must be expensive.

By: edward

edward — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:19:48 +0000

“without this the legs are not fully constrained and will be able to rotate on their joints with the seatbase. making an inherently unstable seat and placing a lot of stress on those joints (and on the bend in the legs)”

well, cpcp, you may be outta here, but in case you come back…

Your analysis is faulty. The seat passing thru a total of 4 thickness of the side pieces will prevent movement in any direction if solidly affixed. It is true no hint is given as to how the back is fastened, but the seat alone will stabilize the chair. That’s why I said it meets structural expectations.

By: cpcp

cpcp — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:33:49 +0000

no i couldnt tell for sure without sitting in it myself – but a picture of someone would go some way to convince me!
also – scaling issues – how big is this? those magasines in the storage look rather small (more like A5 books) – so a pic of someone sitting in it would help with that – even a photoshop cut and paste job over a rendering. ommitting this in a proposal is unforgivable in my mind.

As for structural weakness, i’m more concerned with how the pieces join togther – the backrest portion does not appear to connect to the legs. without this the legs are not fully constrained and will be able to rotate on their joints with the seatbase. making an inherently unstable seat and placing a lot of stress on those joints (and on the bend in the legs) which only fix the legs in place – they act as axes if you like and dont stop the pieces rotating with respect to eachother.

with respect to opinion – I like to see proof of concept, not just concept. proving a concept and making something that functions, looks good, and adds value is what i believe to be good design.

i dont believe this does all three yet – as i said before – a premature posting.

this has been fun edward, but i’m outta here…

By: tadao cern

tadao cern — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:07:51 +0000

i would say no to this one

By: edward

edward — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:56:58 +0000

“p.s. your ’structural and functional expectations’ must be very low for this to satisfy them! mind you – so must dezeen’s for this to make the cut!!”

Be specific. Where is the structural weakness in the configuration of the chair? What about it would suggest it wouldn’t serve it purpose? Even if it was a prototype you couldn’t tell if it would collapse if you sat in it. Or be uncomfortable just from a picture. The impact of the porosity might take some empirical tests, but there is nothing to suggest it couldn’t be built very closes to the rendering. From your perspective one shouldn’t render an opinion without having sat in the chair and tested it to destruction.

By: cpcp

cpcp — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:57:55 +0000

ok ok!
i’m a mechanical engineer and I like well considered and properly designed proposals. I like to see the detailed stuff and the logic and research and development behind ideas – just as much as the creative stuff and the inpiration behind them etc etc.

i’m keen to see the work behind the final production version – if it gets there.

p.s. your ’structural and functional expectations’ must be very low for this to satisfy them! mind you – so must dezeen’s for this to make the cut!!

By: edward

edward — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:41:23 +0000

Well if you feel you will be wasting your valuable time looking at concept renderings…don’t. That’s easy. Let others that enjoy seeing the initial ideas
at this stage do so. In fact if there were a series of such renderings leading up to this one, that would be worthwhile too.

By: cpcp

cpcp — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:50:36 +0000

I guess what I am trying to say is that I find these render postings a little premature, and I would prefer to see these concepts posted at a latter stage of the design process – rather than just after the first cad model has been rendered. I think this has, maybe, got potential – but I think it will be far more engaging once prototypes have been made and it has been designed and optimmised, not just for aesthetics, but production, and – of course for sitting on! For example – Grcic Myto chair – what brilliant work! I would like to see the joints in the material and how ‘porosity’ has been achieved witout sacrificing the integrity of the structure and the joints.

I imagine the real thing will be different to the images above.

By: edward

edward — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:56:30 +0000

“this clearly hasn’t been developed very far…. whats to like?”

No, it’s a concept at this stage, and, I think, a promising one. I like the vaguely origami folded legs/armrest and the plane of the seat piercing these elements making for an inherently rigid structure. The magazine storage is clever and the porosity adds intriguing transparency, capturing the various colors and light of its setting. Don’t belittle a drawing: even rapid prototyping requires a drawing to produce. Use your imagination!

By: cpcp

cpcp — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:03:23 +0000

renderings are fine if we are simply judging dezeen articles and concepts/proposals from a purely aesthetic perspective – and we all have our own tastes and opinions.

but when it comes to ascertaining whether a concept would work in the practice and function and perform as intended/required (ergonomically, structurally, environmentally, etc etc), then renderings (especially those without people in them) are not enough.

yes – creating and interpreting images are at the heart what we do as designers, but a prototype is worth a thousand images as they say – and i think that there is only so far one can develop an idea on paper.

this clearly hasn’t been developed very far…. whats to like?