Listening to
DnA this week I heard from Frances Anderton ( I just love her) about
Michael Boyd's exhibit at
Ed Cella Art & Architecture gallery. It wasn't the images that pulled me in after all, it's radio after all but a few things he had to say about his work that made me rush to the website to find out more.
His chairs draw not only on timeless classics but archetypes and even society's most rudimentary pieces through out history. Which reminded me of when my dear friend Jorge was taking photos of the archaic stools the guards were sitting on while I was photographing Niemeyer's big beautiful modern buildings in Brasilia. One a symbol of modernity another, the other the most primitive example of a chair.
Michael mentioned that...
"It's about renewal instead of what's new"
and that the chairs were an "Analogue experiment for a digital age"
When Frances asked if he was worried that some might find the chairs derivative, since you can plainly see the influences of
Rietveld,
Breuer,
FLW, among others. He said.
"Editing is a viable form of creation at this point"
And the thing is I think he's right. As soon as I see something new, something I haven't seem before, the next thing I know I have come across it's doppelganger from half a century ago. This even goes with my own designs. It begs the question of whether sometimes it might be better to not be so informed? Or should you go about it the way Michael has and own up to the many variations and iterations on a theme. Is there no more new at this point? Or is the new strictly virtual?
Hopefully I'll be able to make it down to Los Angeles in order to
see the exhibit before it's gone. I certainly hope so. And I've heard the catalogue is beautifully designed with "patterns" or instructives on how to build the chairs yourself. I've got to get one of those!