mobilier

In French, the word for furniture, “mobilier”, originates from the Latin word “mobilis”, that which is moveable. In essence, a piece of furniture — a “meuble” — is displaceable. Modernists have attached pieces of furniture to the building envelope not only by literally integrating furniture to surfaces but also because they created pieces of furniture that matched their design philosophy and that fitted within spaces. On one hand, an integrated design piece, on the other hand a sort of mobile unit that is abstract enough to blend in with its surrounding; the now classic pieces of furniture — that of highest excellence — were once part of a total design. They were blending spatially and disappearing visually, and communicating the architect’s vision of offering democratic design solutions — design for the masses. Out of its ideal context, a space designed by the same architect, what does a piece of furniture created by an acclaimed master still retain?

Charles and Ray Eames (My favorite :) Lounge Chair and Ottoman, 1956. Picture from the Vitra website. The description says: “Charles Eames’ declared aim for this chair was to combine the utmost comfort with high-end materials and high-quality finishing. The result: a modern interpretation of the traditional club armchair boasting a convincingly well thought-out construction, right down to its tiniest details. Just as he intended, the chair conveys the impression of a soft, well-used baseball glove, inviting the user to sink back into it.”

Extension of the architect’s vision, the piece of furniture he creates vehicle his thinking. Meant to fit within unique interiors of modernist architecture, the mass-produced — and re-produced — mobile unit becomes a communication agent, a mean for designer to reach as many people as possible — and not always the elite. Even if building re-production has been a hot topic for a while (Prefabrication), a piece of furniture is a much more manageable element to copy with or without license, and cheaper to acquire. More tangible and visible than a coffee table book, it is a three dimensional communication and promotion tool for the architect — as architects pervade more interiors — and if sometimes an object of aspiration for the en-user, an integral part of a collection.

An extension of someone else vision, the piece of furniture carries much symbolism and intent. Having such a piece of furniture in a space that you gave birth to means acknowledging the authority of a considered master. Architects, and interior architects relate to this in different manners. For many architects, space is the showpiece. Architects usually hold on to their creation to the very last and small details and want to control all phases of the design process — Shop Architects uses BIM, the Building Information Modeling software (Any change in price or design is updated all throughout) — including the specification or design (Treating furniture like buildings) of furniture. A particular architectural program however is that of the museum for that the space of a museum needs to tune out so to emphasize the art whose period. Architecture in that case becomes at its best a jewel case that brings art and architecture to a whole. For interior designers on the other hand, the atmosphere of an interior is what matters most. They focus on the assemblage of unique pieces they curates in space. While architects sample theories and concepts, interior architects put together more tangible material, chairs, lamps, fabric… etc. Objects, with all what they may embody are in focus.

To be continued…