Playtime by Ludovic Renson


French designer Ludovic Renson has designed a collection of children's furniture made of wood and felt.

Called Playtime, the series includes a desk, chair, table, cupboards and cylindrical storage containers.

The text below is from Renson:

This collection addresses the needs of children, of simple aspect in the drawing.

Natural mixed wood and textile were used for the sweetness.

This line of piece of furniture allows a child to work, to tidy up, to draw on the table, to sit down.

Playtime is an invitation for children to live in a contemporary space.

Posted on Thursday March 11th 2010 at 9:00 am by . Copyright policy | Comments policy

  • modular

    Enough renderings Dezeen! C’mon! If every design sent renderings of their work-in-progress works, we had to read 10.000 news every day.

    You should only feature ready-to-buy products here. I’m sorry, but this is my honest opinion.

  • tiffany

    only renderings?
    where can I see the real product?

  • maxe

    Posting 3 dimensional on a website is a west of time…

  • /R

    Wow. I want my shelves to have anti gravity hovering ability like the one in the last image. Cool!

  • i think it’s time to open a new sub-category: ‘render only’

  • Cute. But isn’t felt more difficult to clean?! That’s why we have easy wipe down children’s furniture! Roto molded plastic is ugly for a reason!

    I like the circular table.

  • colour magazine

    Colour please! Porridge, porridge, porridge……………come on, can we just leave the muted colours somewhere else. A world without colour? A child’s world without colour? Smarties please.

  • fantastic!!!!

  • ss_sk

    Poor b/w blurred kid…surrounded by a grey world…

  • *matt

    nice renderings :)

  • Sumithra

    for children? Whom are you kidding?! children like variety and colours and LOUD images!
    not drab ,one coloured might have been more appropriate for older people.

  • jimy

    hi, I read the your opions and explain me…

    why can dezeen post an architecture render and not a product render??

  • @jimy

    rest assured that the same comments about there being too-many-renders-not-enough-photographs applies to architectural posts on Dezeen as well, as it has been well documented in the past comments throughout the site.

    It is simple: a rendering is a tool for presenting a concept, validating its proportions and materials, the way lighting interacts with the volumes etc. A physical-world prototype is a tool for validating the design characteristics, ergonomics and its manipulation by actual users. Until a prototype, or even a working model has been made, everything is virtual. And in the virtual world you can have floating shelves, parts without radiuses or chamfers, approximate assemblies, wobbly structures, anything goes etc.

    Product design’s whole point is about physical interaction between real world things: objects, people, animals, plants, air, water, soil, food, fuel, electricity, etc. Basically, the democratisation of computer generated images, along with the delusional hope to make it effortlessly and fast as a star-designer with fictive products and minimal investment (à la Ora-Ito if you will) has produced more virtual design than actual design.

    This “Air Design” is not a proper process nor is it a thourough one; it is a superficial quest for the “new forms, new styles, what’s in, what’s out, bleh”, a quick render, a couple of posts in design blogs, and off we go to the next “idea”. And when we see something similar being actually built somewhere, we say it was our idea, that we had it first, or worse, threaten to sue like those guys in a recent post on this same website.

    A growing amount of people are getting tired of this rendering-for-the-sake-of-it process, unless it is meant for a market validation of an object which will eventually end up being manufactured and validated repeatedly at each step. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case, hence the fatigue.

    Unless this set of furniture is for kids in a videogame, which is entirely possible, it’s virtuality leaves it incomplete and absent from the physical world. What would eventually be interesting is to get photos from prototypes, with cues on how things work, of it gets assembled, manipulated, etc. ; then we’d have the impression of learning something about what goes on deeper that the superficial layer of fashion, and we can all benefit from it. Ask yourselves: who is my audience, who consults dezeen, or any other design blog for that matter.

    Just thought i’d share my opinion; you don’t have to like it or not.

  • rendering

    to all the cholerics:
    first come up with a good concept (such as this),
    then render it to make it understandable,
    and then: publish it!
    and only if it is interesting/good enough, it will be published… so if you have a concept, which is strong enough, if you have images which are good enough to compete, then feel free to submit to dezeen and others, much rather than to just sit at your home pc, and write deconstructive comments.
    concept/visualization is a major part of design/architecture, and its a great thing, to take part in the process of others.
    The problem with blogs like this is: too many just sit somewhere at their computer, posting comments anonymously (some names here show up again and again in the comment section, but i never see anything published under these names…), full of jealousy and hate, without ever getting anything significant done themselves….

    to come back to the topic: it is a great concept!

  • @rendering

    Critics are a complete part of the design process, some might say that is how you advance in your practice beyond the primary satisfaction of your own ego. I agree that gratuitous hating comments are non constructive and simply undermine what might have been a good idea only badly communicated; I also think that simplistic comments such as “I love it” “I hate it” “Where do I buy one”, etc don’t bring anything to the debate on dezeen; it might work for the designsponge or facebook, but I thought this place presented itself as less frivolous. (The question is does anybody want a debate, but that is an entirely different matter; but since the comments are on, it is implied. We’re just hoping for more than inane mundane comments. Please see comments policy.)

    Anyway, sure I personally would like everybody who posts a comment, good or bad, to do it non-anonymously; so, “rendering”, you also ask for it in your comment, but are you ready to disclose your own pedigree in future comments ?

    Thanks for your input, though.

  • christian

    Could not agree more ‘rendering’
    Fred I think feels that designing on a computer is somewhat fake and unworthy certainly not good design because I think he thinks a computer designed it??? . A good idea whever it be a visual or reality should be given the benefit of the doubt. Some designers don’t have the resources to make a prototype and a rendering is sometimes the only option. Blogs have every right to publish what they want and not limit themselves to just built items….what a boring world that would be.

  • Hello,
    This range of furniture is create with the textil kvadrat thus there to many colors, at present in manufacturing for the first one of serie, Playtime is free has the edition
    Thanks for your mail
    Best regards

  • I like it, even if it’s just a rendered concept for now. The design is carefully thought out, only the colours should be brighter as children like lively spaces.

  • roel

    @ rendering: Amen!
    Accept that virtuality is becoming a part of our live and working process. Even to sell existing products in catalogues it is used more and more. Dezeen publishers see that and use the material, it is a designers site, and designers like to see what other designers are doing. It is all about ideas, isn’t it?

  • Like I said, renderings are part of the process, not the finality as is too often the case.

    I am glad to read that the designer has started the prototyping and would be very interested in seeing some pictures of that process, if it is okay with everyone, unless all you really want to see are pretty pictures.


  • I don’t really understand all the critical conversation with regards to renderings. Would you apply the same harshness to photographs of scale models of products or architecture? These are the tools designers use to determine how to to move forward with a “real” design, or not. Haven’t there been shows in renowned museums of unbuilt work by famous architects and designers? Are these not valid? As a designer who has virtually no budget to produce physical prototypes of my own designs, I use virtual and physical models to explore my my thoughts and validate their worthiness. I would hope that I could turn to my peers to look at these models and help with constructive criticism or comments, not shoot them down because they are “floating in space”. If a design is valid, and even many of those that are not, the designer will figure out a way to make it real. As roel said, it’s all about the ideas isn’t it? It is.

  • Romain

    The bouroullec brothers have experimented with Kvadrat and got some interesting results. I’d certainly understand if the coloring process was “skipped” for the sake of “affordable design”.

    I however have a few doubts about the deign itself. Mainly the use of textile in an environment that should exclude all manners of dusts and mites. Cleaning could be a major issue, i’ve never seen people more glad to make a joyful mess than children.

    As for renderings, why forgo such tools as Catia and Solidworks ? The whole “shapes in a blank space” that 3D Studio allows are intellectually unsatisfying. Whereas the former programs give you a precise indication of how the final product will behave under stress.

    Give us structures and cross sections. Tell us how you managed to get your cupboards to “float”.

    Enfin, un beau dessin vaudra toujours plus qu’un rendu, beaucoup trop impersonnel. J’aime la façon dont vous essayez d’organiser l’espace; beaucoup de rangements et un univers doux et calfeutré sont certainement louables. Mais je crains que le résultat final réponde plus aux fantasmes de parents fortunés qu’aux aspirations de gosses en mal d’activité. Vous êtes en concurrence directe avec l’ordinateur et la télévision. Réagissez !

    Good Luck !

  • The case against rendered images is a bit weird.

    I don’t really care if it’s a real image or not – I’m really just looking at Dezeen to see some ideas – I don’t care if it’s in production. This is not a competition. I always assume things in real life look a little worse than a rendering anyway. I’m here for inspiration – not to check everyone is playing by the rules.

    The thing that surprises me is – why designers would want to release their top idea as just a rendering? This gives all of the rip off people time to rip off their work before the idea gets into production.

  • oh – and I’ve always thought the problem was that designers today make things that look like renderings. Not the other way round. I find it all pretty soulless.