In 1956 Arne Jacobsen was commissioned to create the SAS Royal Hotel in Copenhagen; a contract he took on with great gusto and which, true to his understanding of an architect being responsible for the complete composition, saw him not only create a building, but all the fixtures and fittings. Right down to the bath plugs.

While the most famous furniture pieces from the SAS Royal project are without question the Swan Chair and Egg Chair, those who take the time to investigate a little deeper will unearth further gems of Arne Jacobsen design. Works that not only wonderfully represent the various streams of Jacobson’s oeuvre but also make clear just how multifaceted the man was.

Whereas, for example, the aforementioned Swan and Egg represent Jacobsen’s toying with organic shapes, the cutlery he created is pure functionalism. Created in conjunction with the Copenhagen silversmith Anton Michelsen the AJ Cutlery is not only remarkable on account of its flat, almost unworked, appearance, but also on account Jacobsen’s decision to choose stainless steel as a material rather than the more opulent and status giving silver. This “democratising” of the design is then further underlined by its basic, reduced down form reminiscent of primitive eating utensil crafted from wood. And indeed should you ever find yourself using AJ Cutlery take a minute to compare the similarity to modern disposable cutlery: a concept that barely existed in the 1950s and whose form is defined by its temporary nature. We’re not saying Jacobsen predicted the form of disposable plastic cutlery, but….

AJ Cutlery by Arne Jacobsen through Georg Jensen

A further highlight of Arne Jacobsen’s fixtures for the SAS Royal is the AJ Lamp series created in conjunction with Louis Poulsen. Comprising a full set of pendent, wall, standard and table lamps, the AJ Lamp series can in many ways be seen as a further development of a desk lamp Jacobsen developed for Louis Poulsen in 1936. The AJ Lamp takes the same basic form and the concept of “hiding” the bulb deep inside an elongated shade; however, through the funnel form does so with a more, warming, domestic touch. More human as it were. The advantage of the deep-set bulb in a desk/reading lamp is of course that there is no risk of getting blinded through an inopportune seating position or head movement. According to almost all popular literature on and about the AJ table lamp the base originally contained an ashtray in the, now, open circular base. We’ve never found any independent evidence that such ever was the case, and if we’re honest we hope its not true. The open circle is such a delightfully simple design element, it would somehow cheapen it for us to learn it was originally intended for old fag ends.

The AJ Cutlery and AJ Lamps are still in production and so can still be purchased and enjoyed by all. Something that sadly isn’t the case for many of the objects and designs Arne Jacobsen created for the SAS Royal. In particular the delightful “Drop Chair” and numerous of his textile and wallpaper design are no longer available. And because the management of the SAS Royal made the famously idiotic decision in the 1980s to dispose of almost all the original items, unless you’re lucky enough to stay in Room 606 you’ll have to dig around quite hard to find much of the work.

It is however well worth the effort.

AJ Table Lamp by Arne Jacobsen for Louis Poulsen

At the same time as he was developing the Ant Chair, Arne Jacobsen created a one-off range of office furniture that arguably represents the first tangible evidence of his move away from the natural materials and traditional handicrafts of his pre-war furniture and onto the mixed media, industrial products that have ultimately come to define his work. And so can truly be considered great lost furniture design classics.

Not least because they really are lost!

In 1951/52 – the records are a little unclear here – Arne Jacobsen was commissioned by the Copenhagen based shipping company Burmeister & Wain to produce a gift for the American Scandinavian Society and designed a desk, coffee table and side chair group.

The highlight of which is without question the desk. Quite aside from its reduced down simplicity there are two features of the desk that, for us, elevate it above the masses of desks available before or since.

Firstly there is the typewriter holder. A device that swivels through 90 degrees meaning that it can either sit in line with the desk – so out of the way. Or be pulled round next to you to be used. Which is just gorgeous. And of course although designed for a typewriter, these days it is perfect for laptop or tablet; thus making the desk just as relevant and functional today as it was then.

And secondly the drawers. Not just the fact that they are there, but much more the simple yet ingenious decision to attach them to the frame with chrome-plated tubes thus giving the whole structure a lightness that a more conventional solution would never have achieved.

The whole composition is just a joy to behold.

The desk created by Arne Jacobsen for the American Scandinavian Society (photo: source unknown....)

A further fascinating aspect of the project is the potential role of a young Verner Panton.

From 1950-1952 Verner Panton worked in Jacobsen’s studio and one of his jobs was developing early prototypes for the Ant Chair. In their monumental Jacobsen biography Carsten Thau and Kjeld Vindum write “Panton, who through PH’s [Poul Henningsen] friendship with the boss had been given a  job in the office began to create a range of steel wire prototypes that quickly grew to a sprightly collection standing on a box next to his desk”¹

Could one of these prototypes have then mutated into the American Scandinavian Society chair?

We certainly know that Jacobsen wanted the Ant to be three legged chair, and so be extrapolation Panton must have been told to devise prototypes with 3 legs.

While the unmissable, irrefutable formal parallels to Verner Panton’s own 1955 Bachelor Chair would tend to imply that if Verner Panton wasn’t personally behind the American Scandinavian Society chair, he greatly influenced it. Or was greatly influenced by it.

That is the great unknown.

We believe, but cannot prove, that Verner Panton was largely responsible for the chair.

In contrast the desk and coffee table are pure early 1950s Arne Jacobsen.

The group was made, once and once only, by the Copenhagen cabinet makers Rud. Rasmussen and formed part of a series of gifts from numerous companies to the American Scandinavian Society to celebrate their move to new offices in New York.

American Scandinavian Society records show that Burmeister & Wain donated furniture for the publications office, without noting any details of the items.

Or, more importantly, what subsequently became of them.

For in the intervening 60 years desk, chair and coffee table have vanished without trace……….

1. “Arne Jacobsen” by Carsten Thau and Kjeld Vindum. Danish Architectural Press, Copenhagen 2002

Lost Furniture Design Classics: Office Furniture by Arne Jacobsen for the American Scandinavian Society (Photo from"Arne Jacobsen" by Carsten Thau and Kjeld Vindum.)

And the chair. For us more Verner Panton than Arne Jacobsen..... (Photo from"Arne Jacobsen" by Carsten Thau and Kjeld Vindum.)

Remaining in celebratory mood…..

Twenty five years after the young guns of European modernism gathered in Stuttgart to open the Weissenhof Siedlung, a “somewhat ageing” Danish architect, who as a student had been greatly influenced by the works of European modernism, was about to make his global breakthrough with a chair design which as much as any represents the post-War break with modernism and the fearless march into the new, uncertain, world.

Happy 60th Birthday the Ant Chair by Arne Jacobsen!

Ant Chair by Arne Jacobsen for Fritz Hansen

As with many classics of furniture design the Ant Chair has relatively unspectacular origins; specifically, it was initially conceived as a chair for a new canteen Jacobsen was designing for the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo.

However, early on in the project’s development Jacobsen made contact with Fritz Hansen, a company with whom he had worked on projects in the past and who, more importantly, were in possession of the machines and know-how Jacobsen required for the moulded plywood seat.

And as luck would have it Fritz Hansen were at that moment in time on the look out for an all purpose chair that could compete with the new products by Charles and Ray Eames for Hermann Miller.

1+1= History.

However, despite the chairs unquestionable success, and in a similar vein to many of Egon Eiermann’s chair designs from the same period, the Ant Chair has long attracted criticism on account of its perceived similarity with the works of Charles and Ray Eames. Indeed at the formal presentation of the chair on October 3rd 1952 Finn Juhl is alleged to have commented to Arne Jacobsen on the likeness.¹

Where Egon Eiermann could always claim that any similarity was down to shared inspiration; with the Ant the fact that Fritz Hansen obtained an Eames’ DCM in order to help Jacobsen understand what they were doing, does make it all look a bit suspicious.

Or would were it not for the fact that the Ant Chair contains a couple of very important innovations that sets it far above the Eames’ work of that period.

Firstly, it was the first 3D moulded plywood chair featuring a single, unified seat and back unit. The seat shell of the DCM, for example, is also folded vertically and horizontally, is however not attached to the back rest.

In successfully realising this important construction process it was not insignificant that Fritz Hansen as a company started out in 1872 bending wood à la Michael Thonet, and so by the time they were trying to mould Jacobsen’s plywood shell had 80 years experience in heating and forming wood.

Successfully bending the plywood was, however, only the first part of the problem. The shell had to be stable, which meant it had to be stable around the bend where seat flows into back.

Jacobsen achieved this stability through the inspired addition of the cut-out slit and rounded, curvaceous “waist” – a sober, technical solution that gives the chair is characteristic form. And name.

Two ladies? A lamp? ... Neither. Its inspired genius!

Equally important as the technical innovation Arne Jacobsen and Fritz Hansen achieved with the shell is the fact that the Ant is stackable.

For Jacobsen a stackable chair was paramount for its intended function – not only its original intended function as a cafeteria chair, but also for its new intended function as a multi-purpose chair in private homes – however, up until that point stacking chairs were more the exception than the rule. Charles and Ray Eames, for example, wouldn’t create a successful mass producible stacking chair design until the 1955 DSS.

And in this context comes a second highly contenious issue: the three legs of the original Ant Chair.

For Jacobsen the three legs of the Ant were non-negotiable. The Ant was to be a three legged chair. Period.

Not only did such a construction aid the stackability, but for him it also meant there was less chance of the legs getting tangled up in one another in a hectic cafeteria situation.

Just one example of how as a chair the Ant is brutally reduced down to aid its functionality, something that of course nods back to the very best of European modernism.

For many of Jacobsen’s contemporaries however the three legged chair was an unstable insanity, and indeed such was the commotion that in 1955 Jacobsen was more or less forced by Fritz Hansen to devise a four legged version. However, at Jacobsen’s instance it remained an under the counter product that wasn’t officially marketed by Fritz Hansen until after Jacobsen’s death in 1971.

While it is fair to say that the later Series 7 chair with its more top hat like back rest is probably better known today than the Ant – not least because of the tastelessly obscene number of look-a-like products on the market or indeed that tastefully obscene Christine Keeler photo – the Ant Chair remains one of the most important chairs in post-War European furniture design and an object that everyone with an interest in good design should study and understand.

Happy 60th Birthday!

1. “Arne Jacobsen” by Carsten Thau und Kjeld Vindum.Danish Architectural Press, Kopenhagen 2002

Ant Chair by Arne Jacobsen for Fritz Hansen

As tradition demands the Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln (MAKK) have organised a furniture themed, special exhibition to coincide with the Cologne Furniture Fair.

Under the title “Von Aalto bis Zumthor: Architektenmöbel” (“From Aalto to Zumthor: Furniture by Architects”) the MAKK is presenting over 120 examples of furniture designed by professional architects.

Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln: From Aalto to Zumthor Furniture by Architects

As older readers will have long since accepted, the “Furniture Architect” is a pet subject of ours. Not just because the architects involved have created some truly fantastic works, often just out of a pure passion for their occupation and with little or no regard for any potential financial gain. But also because we believe that through understanding why “Furniture Architects” are important to the development of the furniture industry we can rediscover the basics of creating good furniture. And help improve the contemporary designer furniture industry.

In the press notes the MAKK state that many of the architects started making furniture for their projects because there was nothing suitable on the market.

We’re genuinely not in the habit of contradicting long established and respected design museums.

But.

We’d argue that while that may have been a factor in occasional cases, more important was the desire to control a whole project and to ensure a formal unity throughout. Inside and out.
We’ve got a nice quote somewhere, for example, about Egon Eiermann only agreeing to build a house in Berlin if he was also contracted to do the furniture.
And Arne Jacobsen made similar demands before accepting the commissions for the SAS Royal in Copenhagen and St Cahthrine’s College in Oxford.
And Le Corbusier certainly didn’t kit out his 1950s social housing with his own furniture designs just because IKEA had yet to be founded.

For us the distinction is important as it defines the motivation for creating the furniture and as such underlines the way the acteurs thought and worked.

What is beyond question is the importance of the works.

10 Unit System by Shigeru Ban. A modular, endless extendable, chair system

Using items from the museums own collection complemented by items borrowed from third parties, “From Aalto to Zumthor: Furniture by Architects” tells the story of a century of “Furniture Architects”. Starting with works by the likes of Hoffmann, Wagner or Emil Beutinger who is represented by the most delightful kitchen ensemble from 1903. An ensemble that includes a seat bank unit that could be straight out the Atelier Moormann Haute Couture collection.
Should they ever decide to produce such.

In comparison to the understated elegance of many of the early pieces, we couldn’t help feeling that a lot of the more modern pieces were simply screaming look at me. But in that far too obvious way we know from people whose attempt at finding personal gratification through the medium of “Celebrity” has failed to such an extent they feel compelled to go into an Australian jungle to eat kangaroo testicles on live television in the hope of being remembered for what they contributed to modern society.

We could just have written soulless and unattractive.

We must clarify not all modern pieces were such. Just some.

Sitting here writing this post we can’t think of any early pieces by the “Pioneer Furniture Architects” that would also fit into such a category.

One could argue the reason why a lot of pre-war furniture design is all so conservative and “normal” is that was how society was.

There hadn’t been any major, or indeed minor, attacks on accepted norms.

Post post-modernism, dadaism and punk we have that experience and, yes, it is valid to challenge conventions. Especially in the context of furniture created for a building that has been designed to meet modern challenges.

Which brings us back to the reason the architect designed the furniture….

However, we suspect that the architects placed by us in this category don’t want to be considered “Furniture Architects”. We suspect that they want to be considered artists. And the works as creations. Or even worse “statements”

Which could lead us to ask if they belong in the exhibition? Art, design and architecture are different disciplines that can and should freely intertwine and fuse. The question is always which part is dominant. In selecting works for such an exhibition we say design. Design created with the training, eye and understanding of an architect.

Which of course raises the further question of where is System USM Haller? A furniture concept extrapolated directly from an architectural concept.

Jean Prouvé and Alvar Aalto at "From Aalto to Zumthor Furniture by Architects"

“From Aalto to Zumthor: Furniture by Architects” is a nice enough exhibition. But for us the main problem is that it simply doesn’t explain enough. It simply shows.

And for a special exhibition in a specialist museum that is too little. You can get away with it in the permanent exhibition; but a special exhibition of this kind should offer more. You should leave with the impression that you have learned more about the subject.

We’re fairly well clued up and enjoyed the chance to examine the works at close quarters and compare pieces.

But most people aren’t. And can’t.

And although there were nicely conceived and delightfully illustrated notice boards for some exhibits. For the majority there was what resembled an archive data entry card with a name and a little bit of information.

And then of course the decision to place some chairs 5 metres above the ground, half hidden in boxes so that no one can see them.

Daft.

Despite the, for us, somewhat lacklustre exhibition concept the works remain important; and indeed the idea of the “Furniture Architects” remains central to the development of what we now understand as the designer furniture industry. And as we say important in understanding where the modern industry could improve

And so in that sense “From Aalto to Zumthor Furniture by Architects” is well worth a visit.  Especially during Cologne Furniture Week 2012 when entry is free.

“From Aalto to Zumthor: Furniture by Architects” runs at the Museum für Angewandte Kunst Köln until April 22nd 2012

Design for Use, USA. The cover of Alexander Girard's catalogue.

“Wooden spoon for pickled vegetables by John F. Kennedy”

? ? ?

John F. Kennedy. Green Mountain Woodcrafters, Vermont.

And no relation of Teddy or Robert.

Still cheered us up.

From March 20th until April 25th 1951 Stuttgart hosted the first post-war exhibition of modern American home furnishings and appliances in Europe.

Organised by the New York Museum of Modern Art under the title “Design for Use, USA”, the exhibition featured a cross section of American domestic design.

And a Who’s Who of mid 20th century American designers: Charles Eames. George Nakashima. Ray Eames. George Nelson. Eero Saarinen. Isamu Noguchi. Etcetera.

All presented in an exhibition concept and catalogue designed by Alexander Girard.

Aside from the very appetising list of objects displayed, the exhibition was and is interesting for a number of reasons.

Firstly because it took place some two years before Willi and Erika Fehlbaum made their fateful trip to New York; from which they returned with the seeds of Vitra in their hand luggage.

Imagine. Just for a second. If someone in Stuttgart had shown a little more entrepreneurial spirit.

No Vitra.

Which is an important lesson in grabbing the opportunity when it presents itself.

Secondly, the exhibition arguably kick-started the designer furniture industry in post-war Europe.

In her article “The “Advance” of American Postwar Design in Europe: MoMA and the Design for Use, USA Exhibition 1951–1953″¹ Gay Mcdonald argues that the whole exercise was simply concerned with promoting Americana in Europe in the context of the Marshall Plan. And when you read the original 1951 MoMa press release² its hard to disagree.

Doesn’t interest us.

As far as we’re aware Americans have always been obsessed with exporting their culture to the rest of the world. Be it blue jeans, hamburgers or oppressive security concepts in the name of freedom.

And of course they famously invented their own sports rather than assimilate those from other cultures.

But we trust that most Europeans, and indeed most Americans, are intelligent enough to form their own conclusions and opinions.

And so regardless of the motives, we find the exhibition was the right thing at the right time. At that period America, untouched by the war, was the motor of world product design. And MoMa was unquestionably the institution playing the biggest role in promoting American design innovation.

In 1951 most of Europe was busy re-building and was greatly in need of quick, efficient housing and furnishing solutions.

Ergo, let MoMa bring the best America has to offer to Europe. And let us take inspiration from those bits we like.

"Upholstered chair" by George Nelson for Herman Miller from the Design for Use, USA catalogue

Gay Mcdonald quotes a source as stating that some 60,000 visitors attended the exhibition. That may not sound much; but one must remember that it was 1951. There were no budget airlines offering 20p flights to Stuttgart. And also a lot less “design industry”.

The aforementioned Vitra was still an inconsequential shop fitting company in Basel.

And so 60,00 is fantastic.

What is sadly not documented is who went and what they took away with them.

For just as every important and influential Manchester band of the late 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s can trace their origins back to 4th June 1976 and the Sex Pistols concert at the Lesser Free Trade Hall; we romantically hope that “Design for Use, USA” shaped European furniture design of the 50s and 60s.

However, without the documentation one can only conject on the long-term effect that the exhibition had on those who visited.

After Stuttgart the exhibition continued through Europe with stops in London, Paris, Zürich and the Milan Triennale.

The fact that no-one took the opportunity to organise European production licenses indicating that, maybe, it was all just too new. Too different.

However, it conceivably began a sensitising process that paved the way for Vitra to successfully launch the works of Eames, Nelson, Noguchi et al in 1957.

And indeed for Wilde + Spieth to successfully market Egon Eiermann’s chairs. Egon Eiermann began publicly working towards mass market furniture when he participated in the “Wie Wohnen ?” exhibition that took place in Stuttgart and Karlsruhe in 1949/50. Many of his designs however originated from the mid-1940s, and Eiermann was undoubtedly influenced by what he was reading from America in the specialist publications of the time.

We’re not saying he was copying. But Eiermann and Eames were certainly researching and experimenting in similar directions. Eames albeit a little quicker and more successfully.

Yet in 1951, only few industry figures would have been aware of this, and indeed in 1951 Eiermann’s SE 3 (the current SE 42),  allegedly, only sold some 153 times. And principally to architects. ³ Over the next decade however not only did the sales figure dramatically improve; but Eiermann’s chair designs – with their undeniable “Hint of Eames” – advanced to become European design classics.

But again we can’t actually prove that Design for Use, USA helped.

A RAR and and ESU Bookcase by Charles and Ray Eames as depicted in the Design for Use, USA catalogue

In addition to paving the way for a new understanding of home furnishings, “Design for Use, USA” also introduced Europe to new technological and business model initiatives; we started moulding plastics and established designer furniture producers in the style of Hermann Miller. But we did it in European way.

We, for example, have no confirmed information that Arne Jacobsen attended the exhibition; but undeniable is how passionately he embraced the use of synthetic materials appearing on the market throughout the 1950s and 60s. And how expertly he fused them with the best traditions of Danish handwork. The Egg and Swan perhaps standing as the best examples.

And so while we admittedly lack the documentation, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that without “Design for Use, USA”  it would have taken the European furniture industry a little longer to find its feet.

And with potentially less interesting products.

What we can’t predict however is how the Kennedy dynasty would look today if they had concentrated on pickle spoon design rather than politics.

The Slinky by Richard T James: was also part of the Design for Use, USA exhibition

1. Gay McDonald “The “Advance” of American Postwar Design in Europe: MoMA and the Design for Use, USA Exhibition 1951–1953″ Design Issues: Volume 24, Number 2 Spring 2008. Pages 15-27

2. “MUSEUM’S “DESIGN FOR USE, U.S.A.” EXHIBITION SAILED FOR EUROPE JANUARY 5″ http://www.moma.org/docs/press_archives/1483/releases/MOMA_1951_0001_1951-01-04_510104-1.pdf

3. Arthur Mehlstäubler “Egon Eiermann – der deutsche Eames?” in Egon Eiermann (1904 – 1970)

Last week we, finally, made our first visit to Design Miami Basel.

Featuring 43 international design galleries, Design Miami Basel is a curious mix of those featuring “old” objects and those featuring new contemporary designs.

Those galleries who concentrate on new contemporary design generally make their money in that they organise limited editions of concept pieces by designers – which they then sell. Or they buy up “first editions” of pieces of new works that may, they hope, eventually go on to become design classics.

Fragile Future Chandelier 3.1 by Lonneke Gordijn & Ralph Nauta at Carpenters Workshop Gallery

The modern works on display in Basel ranged from those that are, if we’re all honest, more works of art than design, such as the truly monumental “Fragile Future Chandelier 3.1″ by Lonneke Gordijn & Ralph Nauta at Carpenters Workshop Gallery to pieces of high-class product design that genuinely impressed us, a wonderful example being the light sculptures “Well of Life” by Arik Levy at Priveekollektie.

Most entertaining was seeing works such as Oskar Zieta’s Plopp or Endless by Dirk vander Kooij, products which we can remember making their design fair debuts as revolutionary, if still faceless, wonders.

It’s always nice watching things grow up. Be they children, sheep or rocking chairs created from molten fridges.

Amongst the older designs on offer the two categories that most appealed to us were without question the architectural pieces and the one-off/location specific pieces. The older versions of products still in production not really floating our boats. See below.

In the second category Dansk Møbelkunst Gallery, for example, had some wonderful examples of non-series pieces from Arne Jacobsen, including a delightful Easy Chair created as part of an architectural project and some very simple, almost cheekily so, drawers made for, and salvaged from, his SAS Royal in Copenhagen.

In the architectural category we loved the Le Corbusier staircase on sale at Galerie Downtown – François Laffanour, And of course Galerie Patrick Seguin’s installation with the construction of Jean Prouvé’s 1944, 6×6 Dismountable House. Both wonderful reminders of the origins of the industry from which we now feed.

The only Le Corbusier we could afford at Design Miami Basel 2011

Despite the many, many high points at Design Miami Basel there were a couple of clouds.

And we don’t just mean those from Asif Khan. (Cheap gag. Sorry)

The first one was learning that museums are among the galleries most important clients.

For us that is wrong.

We understand that when someone wants to set up a private bus ticket museum that they should have to source their own exhibits.

But when we’re dealing with national museums that exist to preserve culturally and historically important artifacts for the common good: Shouldn’t they be given such things as a matter of course? Free?

Does a private collector really have an equal right to an early Mies van der Rohe chair as a museum?

Is the perceived market value of a lamp calculated on the basis of its provenance and raritey comparable with its historical value based on its cultural importance?

In such questions we simply cannot follow the “free market” arguments of galleries.

It is correct that museums shouldn’t have the right to simply expropriate owners as and when the mood takes them. But when something comes on the market should museums not have first bags? We say yes.

While accepting the impracticality of regulating such a system and of deciding which pieces should go to which museum.

We know the same argument exists in the field of art. And our opinion is the same.

Where something is culturally or historically relevant it must belong to the public domain.

And secondly, after several hours wandering round Messe Basel Hall 5 we reached the unavoidable conclusion: We’re not the collecting types.

Our passion isn’t owing the objects. It is the objects. The idea behind them. The personalities behind them. The story behind them.

If other people actually want to own them. That’s obviously fine by us.

We’re just glad they exist and glad that there are and were creative minds who made them possible.

And so Design Miami Basel simply isn’t for the likes of us. We really have no reason to be there. Design Miami Basel is for collectors. And for European collectors we can’t imagine a better place than Design Miami Basel.

That said, we’re very glad we went, glad we experienced it. It’s just not our world. But we’ll go back next year… just to see if the organisers have plucked up the courage to drop the “Miami” from the name.

You can see a few of our Design Miami Basel 2011 highlights in our facebook gallery.

Design Miami Basel 2011

One of the most famous – and arguably professionally relevant – phases in Verner Panton’s life was his journeys through Europe.
Following his graduation from Copenhagen Art school Verner Panton gave up his position with Arne Jaobsen, converted his VW bus to a basic mobile studio and set off on a series of tours throughout Europe during which he made contact with numerous designers and producers.

While its probably fair to say that this experience alone didn’t shape his future work – the journeys did what all such experiences should do and opened his eyes and mind to new ideas, new approaches and new possibilities.

And so helped form the European Verner Panton.

Given this background it is therefore not unsurprising that Verner Panton’s work also travels so well.
It is after all in the genes.

At the Leipzig Buchmesse we were given a privalleged preview of a forthcoming travelogue written by one of Verner Panton’s younger chairs

In “Jordan isn’t just a tabloid creation” Verner, Panton Chair junior describes the adventures he experienced on a road trip undertaken with a group of strangers from Stuttgart to the Jordanian capital Amman.

An illustrared novel “Jordan isn’t just a tabloid creation” is principally written for children, is however told with a tongue in cheek directness that means adults will find their own amusement in many of the tales.

And although still very much a project in development, the first cosplay Panton Chair characters could already be seen within Leipzig Messe.
Which certainly bodes well for the future.

“Jordan isn’t just a tabloid creation” by Verner, Panton Chair junior wont be released until the autumn, but we can exclusively offer a few sample pages.

The first is printed below, a further four can be found exclusively on the smow facebook page.

The travels of Verner, Panton Chair Junior. Coming soon

Swedish.Light.Design.2010 Lamino by Yngve Ekström from swedese

Ask most people to name a Danish furniture designer and they will probably reply Verner Panton or Arne Jacobsen.
Ask them to name a Swedish furniture designer and the answer will probably have four letters – three of which are vowels.

Flat pack furniture is in itself no bad thing, but it is a little bit sad when a country that has so much furniture design talent to offer, is represented in the public consciousness by a universal brand.

Sweden are the partner country at this year’s Vienna Design Week and so naturally the store with the blue and yellow logo is omnipotent in the Austrian capital.

But not only them.

Aside from Stockholm architecture and design agency Claesson Koivisto Rune’s contribution to “Barock Splendour and Stainless Steel” one of the principle forum for Swedish designers was the Swedish.Light.Design.2010 showcase at the Swedish Embassy.

During his speech at the opening ceremony the Swedish Ambassador to Austria Hans Lundborg defined Swedish furniture as being simple, natural and functional.

Fire & Swedish design: Simple, natural and functional

Swedish.Light.Design.2010 demonstrated that it can also be innovative.

Karl Andersson & Söner, for example, were represented by amongst other items their ponoq and strip coat hanger systems. Two different approaches to the same concept – coat hooks that “vanish” when not needed.

With ponoq the trick is that the hooks lie flat in their mounting and can be flipped out when needed; with strip the hooks are revealed by bending the metal bar downwards and outwards- which not only releases the hooks from their housing but also gives strip a dynamic character and variable form.

Swedish.Light.Design.2010 also showed that Sweden does have a classic furniture tradition every bit as strong as Denmark.

Karl Andersson & Söner @ Vienna Design Week

In 1999 Lamino by Yngve Ekström was voted the 20th century’s best Swedish furniture design. Originally released in 1956 Lamino is a wonderfully light, elegant bentwood easy chair that belongs in the canon of great mid-20th century scandinavian design. Not only is Lamino a true scandinavian design classic, but it is still produced in Vaggeryd by swedese, the company Yngve Ekström founded together with his brother Jerker in 1945. And as any fool know, tradition is the best guarantee of quality.

And through collaborations with designers as varied as BarberOsgerby, Marina Bautier or Claesson Koivisto Rune, swedese also echo a central Vienna Design Week theme; remaining contemporary and competitive without losing sight of your roots and tradition.

As a brief aside, Yngve Ekström was once quoted as saying “To have designed one good chair is not such a bad life’s work” Although we can agree wholeheartedly having created our (smow)chair, we find naming your company swedese in an era before the internet existed is infinitely better. Sadly the URL “swede.se” was not registered early enough to secure the masters legacy.

A further highlight of Swedish.Light.Design.2010 for us was the chance to experience a couple of Nola’s “urban furniture” pieces in such refined splendour – a mix that worked wonderfully and once again underlined our belief that what this world needs is a little more bravery in interior design and a lot fewer “trend experts” telling us what looks good.

All in all Swedish.Light.Design.2010 provided a nice introduction to the variety of Swedish designer furniture producers; but more importantly for us it was a lovely warm up for February’s Stockholm Furniture Fair – another favourite on the (smow)blog calendar.

Swedish.Light.Design.2010 Wimbeldon from Nola

In the foreground Crusier by Marina Bautier in the background Olive Wood Chair by Claesson Koivisto Rune both from swedese

As already stated our visit to Copenhagen and CORE 10 was without question one of our more disappointing trips.

Largely because of the complete lack of imagination, innovation or indeed quality that we found.

It’s certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.

What do you mean?

Well, at one point, you’ve got it, then you lose it. And it’s gone forever.

All walks of life.

Georgie Best, for example, had it, lost it.

Or David Bowie or Danish design.

Danish design. Some of their modern stuff’s not bad.

No, it’s not bad, but it’s not great either, is it?

And in your heart you kind of know that although it looks all right…

It’s actually just…..

Even within the pantheon of Scandinavian design “Danish design” occupies an elevated almost mystic position.

Verner Panton, Arne Jacobsen, Finn Juhl, Poul Kjaerholm, Hans J. Wegner dot dot dot

It is probably fair to say that no country has given post-war design more “stars” than Denmark.

Especially when you calculate the “star designer to citizens” ratio.

However.

Too few Danish furniture producers understand why that is.

It’s not the ageometric shapes and the bright colours.

Arne Jacobsen's Bellevue Chair from 1934

As with the likes of Egon Eiermann, the majority of those who embody “Danish design” were architects who in the years before the Second World war regularly created individual furniture pieces for their projects – but who played no real role in industrial furniture production.

The social and cultural changes of the 50s and 60s effectively created the mass market for contemporary furniture: and the furniture producers found in the leading architects of the day a ready source of innovative, experienced furniture design talent.

The designers however largely remained architects who produced occasional furniture designs on the basis of their architectural understanding and processes.

Arne Jacobsen’s Ant chair, for example, began life as a canteen chair for a factory Jacobsen was working on. Through contact with Fritz Hansen the project developed, largely driven by an interest in creating a  product to compete with Charles and Ray Eames plywood furniture range.

Which brings us onto the second impulse: the innovation of the period.

The Eames DSR, for example, is not an especially stunning chair -  however the moulded plastic seat was revolutionary at that time. Exactly as with Eames’ moulded plywood or Verner Panton’s plastic cantilever chair. Much of what we consider design classics today are such not because of their appearance, but because of their historical importance and the fact that when they were first released they re-defined genres and as such entered the collective psyche.

A related factor was the availability of materials per se. Traditionally furniture had been made of wood, the Bauhaus movement and modernism briefly introducing metal and glass into the vocabulary; until in the late 1940s a shortage of materials meant that European furniture producers were limited in what they could use. However in the 50s and 60s not only had the producers access to more materials, but industrialization was producing ever more new materials – and the furniture designers grasped at the new possibilities like frenzied children in free sweet shop.

Each new innovation being presented over new mass media such as television or colour printing and being eagerly snapped up by a European society thriving in the prosperity and security of the period.

All these factors combined to produce the concept of Danish design.

Or in other words Denmark found itself with the right people doing the right job in the right moment.

Tivoli Chair by Verner Panton through Montana: Colourful, but that's not why its good.

Today products for furniture companies are almost exclusively created by professional product designers, men and women whose job it is to produce products to order.

In itself no bad thing, assuming that the brief is motivated by the desire to achieve something new or improve an existing design.

Too much of what we saw wasn’t.

Too much of what we saw was simple mediocrity neatly wrapped in meaningless marketing twaddle to hide the fact the there was nothing new or interesting about the product.

As Renton would no doubt say: “Sooner or later this kind of thing was bound to happen.”

There is a poster on the smow office wall called “A  Century of Danish Chairs”, it starts in 1905 and ends in 1979 – we experienced something similar at CODE 10.

It was genuinely as if the last 30 years hadn’t happened.

Danish furniture design hasn’t completely died, and even Sick Boy’s unifying theory of life isn’t completely valid; however, large sections of it have clearly lost their way and its hard to see where the impetus is going to come from to revitalise and revive Danish furniture design.

Not least when a tired affair such as CODE 10 is branded as demonstrating “…new approaches to design form, design thinking and the creative process”

Fortunately there were a couple of truly excellent items on display, and they will feature in our next Danespotting post.

Is the sun setting on Danish furniture design?

For one of Denmark’s most celebrated designers Verner Panton spent considerably little time in Denmark; and many most of his celebrated works were realised abroad.

That said Copenhagen is full of reminders of Verner Panton, his life, his work and his passions.

And so during our brief visit to the Danish capital we took the opportunity to meet up with one his Vitra Panton Chairs for a guided tour of Verner Panton’s Copenhagen.

The Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole, Copenhagen Verner Panton's alma mater

Our tour began, as did Panton’s association with Copenhagen, at the “Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole” – the Architecture School of the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts.

Following completion of his architectural engineering studies at Odensee Techical University, the 21 year old Verner Panton enrolled in the architecture school of the Royal Danish Academy in 1947. In Copenhagen he met Tove Kemp, the stepdaughter of designer, critic and architect Poul Henningsen, and the two married in 1950. Although the marriage to Tove was only short lived, Panton’s relationship with Henningsen was to be much more long-lasting.

On the one hand in Henningsen Panton found a mentor and teacher from who he could develop his light design concepts. In the course of his carear Verner Panton not only designed some 60 lamps, but light and shadow played important roles in his various installations and room design projects.

413 Strandvejen Copenhagen, Arne Jacobsen's house and studio

And secondly, through Henningsen Panton was introduced to Arne Jacobsen and in 1950 began working in Jacobsen’s studio, located in the cellar of Jacobsen’s house at 413 Strandvejen.

Through observing the studied and uncompromising manner in which Jacobsen worked not only did Panton’s interest in furniture design develop, but he also acquired a preference for experimenting with materials and taking risks with his designs – characteristics that were to be critical in the development of his approach to design.

In addition, while working for Arne Jacobsen Verner Panton made his first contact with Fritz Hansen.

But everything in turn.

In 1951 Jacobsen was commissioned to design a canteen chair as part of a project with the company Novo, and from this project arose a cooperation with Fritz Hansen to develop a multi-purpose chair from bent plywood. And Verner Panton was assigned the task of making the initial prototypes for possible designs. The final result was to be the 3100, Myren or Ant Chair – and although the final design is largely Jacobsen, the experience of working on the Ant Chair helped shape Pantons future work.

Tivoli Gardens Copenhagen, site of one of Verner Panton's earliest commissions.

Panton graduated in 1951, left Jacobsen in 1952 and established his own studio. Initially he spent his time undertaking extended European tours in his VW camper van; tours during which in addition to designing he also made contact with designers, producers and retailers.

In 1955 Pantons’ relationship to Fritz Hansen developed further when they brought the very first commercial Verner Panton product onto the market; the Bachelor chair, quickly followed by the “Tivoli Chair” – so named because it was initially developed as part of a commission for a restaurant in Tivoli Gardens, Copenhagen.

In the late 1950s Panton left Denmark, living and working in Norway, Teneriffe and subsequently Basel, from where he developed his Panton Chair in collaboration with Vitra.

Cirkusbygningen Copenhagen, one of Verner Panton's last public projects in the city

Settling in Basel Verner Panton’s relationship with Copenhagen became increasingly limited to visits, either private or to receive numerous prizes and honours. In 1984, however, Verner Panton was commissioned to develop a new colour scheme for the Cirkusbygningen – a theater and cabaret venue near Tivoli Gardens – a project that he developed in his own inimitable style.

In the 1990s Verner Panton shared his time increasingly between his Villa near Basel and his flat in Copenhagen. Verner Panton died in Copenhagen on September the 5th 1998, aged 72 years.

Strolling through Copenhagen with Vitra Panton Chair and listening to its Verner Panton anecdotes we couldn’t help thinking what a shame it is that the city doesn’t do more to honour the likes of Panton or Jacobsen – or at least make the sites of their work and inspiration more visible and accessible.

The Little Mermaid and the Panton Chair - two of Copenhagen's most important landmarks