Abstract:
The ideas which led to the selection of this topic originated in thoughts about the relationship between manufacturing technology and the production of architectural ornament.
Given the broad range of the subject material it was necessary to define my interest further, to find a topic which was symptomatic of these ideas but of a scale more suited to the task.
The original thought was that a chair offered a suitable vehicle with which to investigate the issues of ornament. As a construction within the architectural interior, the chair is a synthesis of function, technology, and ornament. Since architects have designed furniture for the last 150 years, the notion was that given a similar programme - seating, a critical examination could be made. The relationship between manufacturing technology and the production of architectural ornament over a period of time could then be seen in the development of the artifact. In proceeding to gather preliminary information on chairs, I found that the relationship between the chair and architecture is not a simple one. A chair is a complex cultural artifact which in part may characterise architectural issues yet is subject to quite different parameters in its production.
It seemed appropriate to look at furniture designed by architects, to see whether the artifact (the chair) can characterise wider architectural issues despite the restrictions of its smaller scale and simplicity of programme. Walter Gropius wrote in 1947 in 'Is there a science of design';
The process of designing a great building or a simple chair differs only in degree, not in principle.
This report is a test of Gropius' statement. Divided into two sections, the first part of the report takes the statement as a parti. This is followed by a critique which establishes the criteria from which this statement may be judged.
