she said.she said.
This week, reproduction furniture...go!
Social stratification may be relevant to sociologists but should have no impact on good design and who has access to it.
It does not take money to recognize the beauty of a leather chesterfield or a mid-century designed dining chair. However, it does seem to take money to own one.
For someone with a good eye for highly designed furniture but not the bank to support it reproductions are a good alternative.
Just know that a reproduction will give you the feel but not the quality. An authentic Saarinen table will run thousands of dollars and will basically outlive you. However, for less than two hundred dollars you can get a tulip inspired table from mass marketer Ikea.
For those that think reproductions somehow rob the originals of revenue – chillax. There is a place in the market for both. There will always be people who only buy names. For them, reproduction is like a four letter word. The allure of the knock off always comes down to price. Most people, when given the choice, would always choose authentic over reproduction as long as they can afford it. In a recession sensitive era it is dangerous to encourage people to live outside of their means. Buy what you like and buy what you can afford.
SIDE NOTE: It does seem ironic that the Eameses designed their molded plastic armchair in 1948 for entry in an International Competition for Low-Cost Furniture yet current production of their furniture seems out of reach of the average wallet.
I tried to find what one of the Eameses Eiffel plastic chairs would of cost in 1950 and found NO information. I did run across this one blurb, not about an Eames chair but a fellow mid century designer…
ChristopherB is spot on about current prices vs. what they were in the actual mid-century, even adjusted for inflation. My mother and my aunt bought my grandparents a Harry Bertoia Bird chair (with ottoman) in 1968 for $90. If you use the government's own inflation calculator, $90 in 1968 would mean roughly $550 in today's dollars. Certainly not the $3,000 price tag it fetches in stores like Hive.
____________________________________________________________
Before opining the pluses and pitfalls of reproductions, a little research was in order. I started with “hallway research” with the husband. When asked to render an opinion on reproductions, he replied, “Well, when a man and women truly love each other…”
“Wait! Stop”. First pitfall discovered.
This is a post about reproduction furniture. Everyone clear? Good.
Let’s visit a more predictable research source, the Google box.
In general terms, I think reproduction furniture is fine. After all, most of us will never be able to afford or even find originals. Reproductions put good design in the hands and homes of the masses. It’s a democratization of sorts.
Of course, the term reproduction is broadly applied in the above context. To be more specific, the second pitfall is determining the line between inspiration and imitation.
How does one solve for the difference between design as homage versus knockoff? I thought the answer would be elusive. Not so. After a few minutes of focused efforts on the Google box – and a few hours of misguided tangents – it really comes down to authenticity.
It’s authenticity on two fronts – provenance and lifestyle.
On the first front, a piece is either an original or its not. Presenting it as otherwise is a lie and, if you’re selling the piece, is stealing from the original creator.
To the latter, what is authentic to you – your life, your home, your happiness? A finished room is one you’re happy in. For some that means Ikea. For others, Crate and Barrel. And for still some, Knoll and Design Within Reach.
My recommendation, define your brand of authenticity and you’ll be well on your way to a finished room.
