In the context of another project we are currently researching various aspects of Egon Eiermann‘s architectural output.

And have discovered the most wonderful contradictory positions as regards dealing with his legacy.

Contradictory positions which pose the more general question as to how one should approach modernist architectural legacies.

Should all works be saved? Are all buildings really worth saving? Are there alternatives?

Stadthaus Krefeld by Egon Eiermann (Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In Stuttgart Egon Eiermann’s IBM Campus is under threat of demolition. Constructed from 1967 to 1972 the sprawling campus has remained empty since IBM moved out in 2009; and the new owner, having failed to find any new tenants or alternative uses, went bankrupt in 2011. With no interested parties in sight, and, according to the Stuttgarter Zeitung, the necessary renovations potentially costing around 100 million Euros¹, the administrator has applied to have the buildings demolished so that the site can be sold for new development.

In Krefeld meanwhile the city authority recently decided to invest around Euro 40 Million in the renovation of Eiermann’s 1953 Stadthaus rather than build a new city hall. Among the reasons given by Oberbürgermeister Gregor Kathstede was that Krefeld was/is applying to be a UNESCO World Culture Heritage Site on the basis of three Mies van der Rohe buildings, and to simultaneously leave an Egon Eiermann building to rot or even pull it down would be unjustifiable.²

But does it matter who was responsible for a building?  And should one even have sympathy with an architect such as Egon Eiermann?

Aside from being the opinion that one should tear down the remains of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche in Berlin to make way for the new church – plans Eiermann had to abandon due to the level of protest in Berlin – Egon Eiermann did tear down Erich Mendelsohn’s universally admired Schocken department store in Stuttgart in order to build his own Horten department store.
A decision that attracted international criticism and even moved Walter Gropius to protest.

Defending his decision Eiermann claimed Mendelsohn’s building was “substandard” and that the building generally wasn’t fit for its function.³

Somewhat amusingly in discussing the Stadthaus in Krefeld Martin Linne, head of the city’s planning department, told the Rheinische Post “Eiermann had the idea that the heating in the roof should heat in the winter and cool in the summer…. The problem is: his technology has never worked properly”⁴

A situation that will sound familiar to any one who has ever worked in a prize winning building in Leipzig’s hip Lower East Plagwitz Village.

Could/should one therefore not apply the “good for the goose: good for the gander” test and tear down Eiermann’s “substandard” Stadthaus?

Schocken (later Merkur) Department Store in Stuttgart by Erich Mendelsohn (Image Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Referring to the planned demolition of the Schocken department store Erich Mendelsohn’s widow is quoted as saying “Later generations will be much better placed to asses Erich Mendelsohn’s importance in the development of 20th century architecture – and so we condemn that one of his few remaining works should be voluntarily executed by his countrymen”⁵

That later generations are better placed to decide on the importance of any cultural good is, we believe, an indisputable fact. But does one actually need the building to achieve such?

When dealing with architects of yore the answer is potentially yes, because all to often we lack the documentation to be able to otherwise assess the work.

However the works of an Egon Eiermann, or indeed an Erich Mendelsohn, are not only well documented in the architects own archives, but we have the reports, interviews and discussions that surrounded the planning and construction.

The building is then just the physical manifestation of the process.

We don’t believe every building is automatically worth keeping, just because it is from architect X or Y.

Where a building is no longer required or is no longer capable of fulfilling its intended function, it must make way for a construction that can.

Which of course doesn’t mean automatically tearing down old buildings. As a first step must surely come the question if one can’t make alterations. Adapt the building to its new function and/or new technological standards.

On the one hand there are ecological considerations in tearing down an existing building and raising a new one.

There there are the costs.

One of the current stars on the international architecture exhibition circuit is the Tour Bois le Prêtre high-rise block in Paris. Earmarked by the city authority for demolition the architects Druot, Lacaton & Vassal proposed instead a “living renovation” of the block. A renovation which has not only improved the standard of life of the residents and greatly reduced their energy usage, but has done so at a fraction of the cost associated with demolition and building anew.

Similarly, in addition to the considerations involving Mies van der Rohe, according to Oberbürgermeister Kathstede building a new town hall in Krefeld would have cost some Euro 20 million more than renovating Eiermann’s building.⁶

Egon Eiermann's Horten (now Galeria Kaufhof) Department Store in Stuttgart.

A further excellent example of such considerations in the context of Egon Eiermann’s legacy can be found just across the Rhein from Krefeld.

The A3 motorway in Duisburg is spanned by a bridge – a bridge designed by Egon Eiermann as part of his German Pavilion for the 1958 Brussels Expo.

Following the Expo the bridge came to Duisburg and for the past 54 years has linked the two halves of Duisburg Zoo.

According to the Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, WAZ, when the motorway need widening from 4 to 6 lanes rather than simply scrap the bridge the responsible planners extended it a bit so that it fitted its new purpose.⁷

Simple decisions that save resources, save money and, for us, continue the constructions legacy better than simply maintaining the bridge as it was where it was.

The context of the bridge’s use has changed. Why shouldn’t the bridge itself also change?

Form famously following function.

Similarly the Stadthaus in Krefeld was originally built as the headquarters of Vereinigten Seidenwerke and has only been used by the council since the late 1970s.

New context. New function. Why not new form?

Which of course in terms of the IBM Campus means one could relax the planning regulations in terms of the interior and technical considerations so that the buildings can be used in a new context.

Saves resources, saves money and, for us, continues the ….

Decisions to keep or demolish buildings are largely emotional. But they shouldn’t be.

There can be very good reasons to preserve buildings that have a particular importance, but such decisions must be made in a sober, cases-by-case way.

And we shouldn’t have so much fear of changing buildings. Change is after all what keeps us all fresh, helps society evolve and develop. Is what made architects such as Egon Eiermann so important.

The three examples above of Egon Eiermann’s work highlight the problems involved in dealing with the legacies of modernist architects. And also make clear that in the coming years there will be an awful lot of similar decisions to be made in relation to an awful lot more modernist buildings.

And so now is perhaps a good time for all involved to decide what is truly important.

Just a thought….

1.http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.kulturdenkmal-der-alten-ibm-zentrale-droht-der-abriss.4c6dc2b4-0660-4200-b930-b10a7134205f.html Accessed 30.04.2013

2.http://www.krefeld.de/C1257455004E4FBF/html/1B42165B3F003134C1257944005909D6?opendocument Accessed 30.04.2013

3.http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-42622632.html Accessed 30.04.2013

4.http://www.rp-online.de/niederrhein-sued/krefeld/nachrichten/stadthaus-wird-ein-aha-erlebnis-1.2757924 Accessed 30.04.2013

5.http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-42622632.html Accessed 30.04.2013

6.http://www.krefeld.de/C1257455004E4FBF/html/1B42165B3F003134C1257944005909D6?opendocument Accessed 30.04.2013

7.http://www.derwesten.de/staedte/duisburg/expo-bruecke-zog-von-bruessel-nach-duissern-nach-neudorf-id7881543.html Accessed 30.04.2013

Older readers will be aware that we have often held up the absence of some of Germany’s most important designer furniture manufacturers as an unmissable indicator of an inherent weakness in the IMM Cologne brand.

Those same readers will therefore understand the confusion we felt on seeing that Wilde+Spieth would, finally, be attending IMM Cologne in 2013.

We were delighted they were participating. We however now have one argument less.

Based in Esslingen near Stuttgart, Wilde+Spieth were originally a manufacturer of roller shutters, then in 1948 Egon Eiermann approached the company with a simple request for extra wide blinds for the Ciba AG factory he was building in Wehr, Baden: a simple request that Eiermann then extended with a brief “Kinderchen, can you also build chairs?”.

They could.

And Egon Eiermann’s hopeful question was to evolve into one of the most productive, successful, but for all innovative, partnerships in the chronicles of German furniture design.

Together Wilde+Spieth and Egon Eiermann released over 30 product ranges, and even today some 43 years after Eiermann’s death the two remain inseparable, while chairs such as the SE 18, SE 42 or SE 68 have gone on to take their rightful place in the high pantheon of European design.

Many of Eiermann’s early collaborations with Wilde+Spieth were launched at the International Möbel Messe Köln – the bi-annual forerunner to the current IMM – and so it was somehow more than fitting that for the company’s debut at the modern IMM four Eiermann classics were being presented in new colours from the Le Corbusier “Les Couleurs” collection.

In addition, and in many ways more significantly, Wilde+Spieth also used IMM Cologne 2013 to launch three new products: CU! by Avinash Shende, TG1 by Thore Garbers and Typus by Edelhoff & Nettesheim.

It seemed therefore obvious to take the opportunity to speak with Wilde+Spieth’s CEO Thomas Gerber about the new products and living with Egon Eiermann’s legacy, but we started by asking why, after all these years, they have finally decided to show at IMM Cologne….

Thomas Gerber:  Whereas we have often exhibited at, for example, Orgatec with the Egon Eiermann classics, we never really ever felt we had that many objects that could be seen as “domestic furniture”. This year however we are releasing three new products, products that all fit well into the home furnishings sector and we felt that IMM Cologne would be a suitable place to launch them. On the one hand because of the fair’s international profile, but also we feel the mixture of visitors – so architects, large chains but also small, independent shops – largely reflects our target audience.

(smow)blog: Before we come to the new products, until now Wilde+Spieth have concentrated, more or less, solely on the classic Egon Eiermann chair designs. While that presumably has its benefits, in how far is such a close association with such a famous furniture architect a burden?

Thomas Gerber: While taste itself, fortunately, only changes very slightly over the years, the popularity of design classics is cyclical and so while there are periods when classics such as the Eiermann chairs are very much in, there are also periods where they are very much out. And such phases are very hard for us. A large proportion of our business is contract and so if the project manager tells the architect that they don’t want design classics for a project, then we have a problem. Which is also one of the reasons for the new products.

And that is when the real curse starts, because when we announce we are releasing something new the expectations are so high. It is expected that we will release something that is just as good as what we currently have, is cheaper than what we currently have, and which has the potential be the next classic. And that makes it very difficult. Over the years we’ve co-operated with numerous designers and architects, but until now never had anything that we felt completely comfortable with…

(smow)blog: Until now! This year you have three new products, what “clicked” here that perhaps hadn’t in the past?

Thomas Gerber: Probably that we approached the search from a different perspective! This time we pretty much let the designs find us rather than commissioning someone to develop something. With, for example, the CU! chair by Avinash Shende, we discovered it at Salone Satellite in Milan, were instantly fascinated by it and so decided to explore if it could be something for us. And then once the decision was made to take it on all we really had to do was tweak it a bit so that it can be serially produced.

(smow)blog: Which we presume means you’re confident that it will meet the expectations?

Thomas Gerber: We wouldn’t be showing it if we weren’t! And, for example, before making the decision to take on the project we took the chair to architects showed them it, and got 100% positive feedback, which was then one of the reasons we decided to say yes.

(smow)blog: The one thing we notice immediately with CU! is the colours. Was the decision for such a bright palette also a result of this feedback from the architects?

Thomas Gerber: Partly. But much more CU! is a cheeky, fresh product that simply cries out to be colourful. Also it can be used outdoors, for example, in cafes, bars, etc, and who says cafe chairs can only be black and white?

(smow)blog: To end and, staying with colour. You’re also launching four Eiermann classics in hues from the Le Corbusier “Les Couleurs” collection. Why the Le Corbusier colours?

Thomas Gerber: Because it all passes so well together. When you look at Le Corbusier and Egon Eiermann they are both from a similar age, had similar passions and ultimately the colours look so good on the furniture that it really is a coming together of what belongs together!  And of course a chair is just one part of a room design, inevitably you also have other furniture, wallpaper, floor coverings, etc, and such objects are all available through other manufacturers in the Les Couleurs palette. Consequently, because the shades are all based on natural tones and compliment one another you can either use one colour throughout a project or effortlessly combine colours, and we find this inherent harmony in Les Couleurs a really fascinating concept.

IMM Cologne 2013: Wilde+Spieth Egon Eiermann chairs in new shades from the Le Corbusier "Les Couleurs" collection

The SE 68 and SE 42 in Le Corbusier "Les Couleurs"

IMM Cologne 2013: CU! by Avinash Shende for Wilde+Spieth

The table Typus by Edelhoff & Nettesheim for Wilde+Spieth. Here with 2 SE 68s. (Photo Wilde+Spieth)

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

On December 17th 1961 the New Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche in Berlin was officially consecrated. Designed by Egon Eiermann the new church was and is a very self-confident, modern replacement for the Old Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche; a building that to the regret of many Berlin residents fell victim to an allied bombing raid in 1943.

In keeping with all his projects up to that period Egon Eiermann didn’t just create the building but also designed the furniture and fittings for the new church.

Fortunately for us the new chairs weren’t actually in situ for the Consecration Service – and so our post can also be a little bit late.

The New Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche was Eiermann’s second church project – and just as he re-used and re-worked architectural elements from the Matthäuskirche, Pforzheim in the New Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche so to did he carry over elements of the furniture design…….

Starting with the use of chairs rather than benches.

Chair for the Matthäuskirche, Pforzheim. Designed by Egon Eiermann

For the Matthäuskirche Eiermann created a simple, almost rustic, wood and wicker chair; and for Berlin Eiermann used the same basic form, albeit in new materials and with a new accent and attitude.

In many ways more urban. More sophisticated.

Keeping the same frame form, with the rear cross-support set slightly forward from the back legs, Eiermann replaced the wicker seat from Pforzheim with a belt supported structure. The most striking feature of the “Berlin chair” is the open construction that exposes the belts as they wrap around the frame; for us a clear nod towards the way wicker is attached to a frame, and thus a statement of the chairs lineage.

Chairs in the New Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche, Berlin. Designed by Egon Eiermann

On the back Eiermann incorporated the two de rigueur features of church chairs – a place for hymn books. And a hat hook.

As we all know Egon Eiermann had, and still has, problems with people trying to compare his work with, inevitably earlier, pieces by Charles Eames. And so much as we like and approve of the small black ball hat holder – part of us can’t help wishing that he’d chosen a solution that looked a little less like a Hang it All hook …

The hymn book holder - and hat hook

What Eiermann sadly didn’t carry over from Pforzheim to Berlin was the use of his famous table frame as the altar. However that decision is probably more related to the numerous differences of opinion that existed between Eiermann and the Berlin Diocese as regards the project rather than any deliberate decision on Eiermann’s part.

In 1958 Wilde + Spieth released the “Pforzheim chair” as the SE 119 – according to Arthur Mehlstäubler¹ the first chair Eiermann created for an architecture project that subsequently ended up in series production. And so for us a project that marks an important step in Eiermann’s final move towards being a fully fledged “furniture architect” in the Danish sense. As the SE 119 the chair was used in the dining room of the German Pavilion at the World’s Fair 1958 in Brussels.

And in 1962 Wilde + Spieth released the “Berlin chair” as the SE 121, and from 1964 it was used in the Chancery of the German Embassy in Washington.  Without the hat hook and hymn book holder.

Sadly both chairs are no longer in production; however, the churches still stand and at both one can enjoy a delightful insight into a very specific part of Egon Eiermann’s oeuvre.

1. From Kielmeyer, Barbara, Ed. “Egon Eiermann – die Möbel”, INFO-Verlag, Karlsruhe 1999

The New Kaiser Wilhelm Gedächtniskirche Berlin. With Eiermann's chairs, complete with hat hooks and hymn book holders

As many of you know we don’t do trends. Never have. Never will.

But others do.

And back in 1964 the trend in West Germany was leather furniture. At least according to Der Spiegel.

In “Haut und Haare“, a delightful article, that admittedly probably shouldn’t be read by anyone planning buying a Barcelona Chair for Christmas, the unnamed Spiegel author not only explains just how much of a trend leather had become in the West German living rooms of the day, but exhibits a wonderfully casual acceptance of illegal copies.

And shows how times have changed.

For example it, somewhat sweetly, refers to “The company W. Fehlbaum, Weil am Rhein, ….” As far as we’re aware the company was officially called Vitra in 1964; but obviously the name wasn’t considered important or familiar enough to warrant being mentioned.

For as indicated in our piece on “Design in Use, USA“, the designer furniture industry is genuinely a lot younger than many of us realise.

Young. But maturing.

The Eames Lounge Chair from "The company W. Fehlbaum, Weil am Rhein": Apparently sold like warm cakes in 1964....

Back in the day when the world was still in black and white, Der Spiegel and other serious newspapers and magazines regularly featured researched background articles on the designer furniture industry. Indeed up until 2000 Der Spiegel – and we’re honestly not being sponsored by them, they’re just a very good example – had “Furniture” as a regular feature category in their Culture section.

Then they stopped. Until recently. When the subject came back as “Design”

We genuinely nearly chocked on our cornflakes when we saw they had published a background piece on Vienna Design Week 2011. A background piece! With an interview!

This switch from “Furniture” to “Design” is characteristic of a development that effectively began back in 2010 when The Guardian appointed the highly experienced and respected architecture and design journalist Justin McGuirk as “Design Correspondent” A decision that caused other publications to sit up, take notice and move occasional design pieces from the “arts” section into their own category.

And so slowly but surely a subject that for a decade has been the sole preserve of blogs is becoming mainstream.

We obviously welcome the introduction of all high profile publications into the design discourse – not least because we hope that it helps filter out those charlatans whose modus operandi is reprinting press releases and photos in the hope of getting good Google rankings and so generating advertising profit.

However it would be a shame if those journalists covering design for the mainstream press lost sight of the “furniture industry” aspect.

For we firmly believe the designer furniture industry, and those designers who hope to make a living from it, would be better served by a press that properly analyses, questions and criticises rather than by the current crop of servile B2B publications who equate content with advertising revenue.

In that sense we’re obviously looking forward to seeing how #milanuncut develops in 2012.

And if Der Spiegel join the debate.

Yes, that is a direct challenge to the colleagues in Hamburg

Haut und Haare is a “trend” piece, and it admittedly isn’t a trend piece that asks any especially hard questions. But in its style and attitude it is a trend piece that reminds us that designer furniture journalism can be more than fawning sycophancy. How many publications today would have the confidence to print a quote from a modern Egon Eiermann denouncing all furniture designers as plagiarists?

And for us the article ends with the heartwarming news that one person shares our distrust of trends and was bucking the leather fashion of the day – West German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard who had ordered 16 Eames Lobby Chairs for Bonn. In fabric. Not leather.

Ludwig Erhard. Bucked 1960s furniture trends.(Photo: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F015320-0010 / Patzek, Renate / CC-BY-SA)

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)

Under DMY Berlin 2011 lancerede Daniel Wahl aka Weltunit sit nye skrivebord Wilbur.

Bordet er specielt designet til den klassiske Egon Eiermann bordramme, og Wilburs primære funktion er at hjæpe brugerne med at genvinde kontrollen over deres arbejdsareal.

Hvad de fleste ikke ved er, at Egon Eiermann udelukkende designede bordets ramme, da det var meningen at brugeren selv skulle levere eller fremstille deres egen bordplade – mange af Eiermanns studerende brugte eksempelvis gamle døre på toppen af deres bordrammer.

Dengang blev alt lavet i hånden på papir, og derfor var skrivebordsorganisering hovedsagligt et spørgsmål om hvordan du stablede dine dokumenter. Derfor var bordpladen i sig selv mindre vigtig, den behøvede ganske simpelt bare at være flad.

I dag har situationen i høj grad ændret sig, hvem kender f.eks  ikke til problemet med kabel-spaghetti og skriveborde fyldt med opladere samt andre af den moderne verdens nødvendige onder?

Wilbur er Daniel Wahls svar på disse problemer.

En ‘tunnel’ under bordpladen har plads nok til at rumme både kabler, opladere og eksterne harddrives – og teoretisk set også dine kiks eller småkager, hvis dine arbejdskolleger mangler respekt for de søde sagers ejermand og dennes ejendom!

Adgang til tunnelen opnåes via en udskæring i bordpladen, en udskæring der er udsmykket med slidser/åbninger, som tillader kabler at komme igennem.

Det er alt sammen så simplet at det er til at græde over.

Wilbur produceres i Tyskland hos MDF og findes i en række forskellige størrelser, farver og materialer, og med flere muligheder for udskæringens placering, alt afhængigt af hvor dit kabel skal placeres.

Yderligere information kan findes hos www.weltunit.com

During DMY Berlin 2011 Daniel Wahl aka weltunit formally launched his new desk top Wilbur.

Specially designed for the classic Egon Eiermann table frame, Wilbur’s principle function is in helping the user regain control of their workspace. For all cable organisation.

Unbeknown to many, Egon Eiermann only designed the table frame – the intention was that user should supply their own top.

And indeed many of Eiermann’s students simply used old doors on top of their frames.

Back then everything was done on by hand on paper and so desk organisation was essentially a question of how you piled your documents. And so the nature of the top itself was less important. It just had to be flat.

The situation has changed, and who doesn’t know the problem of cable spaghetti and desks over-populated by chargers and other necessary evils of our modern world.

Wilbur is Daniel Wahl’s answer.

A “tunnel” beneath the table top is spacious enough to accommodate not only cable but also chargers and external hard drives. And theoretically also biscuits: if your office colleagues are no respecters of confectionery proprietorship!

Access to the tunnel is achieved through a cut-out in the table top, a cut-out that is decked by cover with slits that allow cables to come through.

Its all so simple it really does make you want to cry.

Wilbur is produced in Germany from MDF and comes in a range of sizes, finishes and with various options for the cut-out cover depending on where your cable needs to be.

Further information can be found at www.weltunit.com

Eric Degenhardt presents his new Tur-Tur. In the foreground the new kids In-Out lounger

Richard Lampert is no newcomer to the world of kids designer furniture: products such as the Eiermann Children’s desk – a reduced, child friendly version of the Egon Eiermann table frame – or the Turtle kids swivel chair by Peter Horn having become established family favourites.

However, irritated by the general lack of high quality, designer furniture available for children, Richard Lampert decided to initiate his own range – with the help of a wonderful array of young international design talent.

And so it came that to pass that the new Richard Lampert “Kids Only” range was officially launched at IMM Cologne 2011.

Like an indoor tree-house “Tur-Tur” by Eric Degenhardt reminds us a lot of the Bouroullec’s 2000 Lit Clos concept piece.

Just for kids! Which is obviously no bad thing.

In 2010 we threw a huge fit over the seemingly endless stream of “high chair” pieces we were being confronted by at design fairs and student shows.

Tur-Tur however appeals to us because unlike all the other works we’ve seen which are intended for adults looking to re-find their inner child: Tur-Tur is for real kids.

High up above the adult world kids not only have their own space in which to develop – but also that wonderful feeling of being allowed to do something special, something that only you can do.

Which as a kid is unquestionably one of the most liberating feelings.

In addition the steps can be used for hanging things on and over, there is storage space on the back and one can also “camp” under it.

Degenhardt’s fantastic 2008 “In-Out” lounger has also been re-sized for children.

We obviously didn’t test it – but it does look every bit as good as the adult version.

Dutch wunderkind Bertjan Pot, meanwhile,has produced – in our opinion – one of his best works in recent years with the tyre shaped bean bag “Pit Stop”.

Rocker by Doshi Levien - winner of a Best of Best, Interior innovation Award 2011

It might not be the most innovative piece he has created; but it is without question the most functional and most practical piece he has created in recent years.

A real highlight of the collection for us however is Rocker by London design studio Doshi Levien.

Formally reminiscent of Walter Papst’s Rocking Sculpture – Rocker is a much simpler, much more interactive design which we’re certain the average child will not only use for gently rocking forward and backward on.

Rather as a general instrument for exploring and testing.

And for adults, the mix of wood and plastic not only give Rocker the allure of being some forgotten 1970s Danish design classic – but means that it won’t look out of place in any room of a house. Meaning the temporary appearance of kids furniture in your house needn’t interrupt your own styling concept.

All in all the Richard Lampert Kids Only collection is a well-balanced and intelligently compiled range.

And more importantly one that, for us, has set the bar in terms of designer kids furniture just a little higher.

Through the keyhole: Richard Lampert introduces his new Kids Only Collection

Richard Lampert and the Kids Only Collection designers

For us the highlight of the new Richard Lampert Kids Only collection: Rocker by Doshi Levien

Pit Stop by Bertjan Pot

Back in October 2010 the design blog pixelgangster.de ran a competition with a Richard Lampert Egon Eiermann desk – supplied naturally by (smow) – as the first prize.

Entrants were asked to say why they deserved the desk.

In his winning entry Benjamin asked his friends why he deserved the desk – would your friends be so generous?

Ours probably wouldn’t.

But then we already have an Eiermann Desk!

Benjamin’s winning video (in German with English subtitles)