apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I beg to differ with the rational in the "Against knockoffs" ...

Much of the R&D for older designs was long ago retired, paid off and with a healthy return on investment.

Also, knockoff companies, for the most part, are not stealing intellectual property. Many of these designs entered the public domain years ago. And if they are not in the public domain, our country has decided that the owner of that property must take the steps necessary to ensure its ownership. Same way with real estate, etc.

That said, I do think designs should have property rights. It is time for designers to step up and change legislation. Disney did it with MM, I am sure we designer can do it as well.

As someone who works in higher-end home furnishing retail I can honestly say that those people who have the money to buy the originals, will buy the originals. The knock offs are for the rest of us schmoes who would have to save up for years to have the extra cash to own an original. I'd like to think that everyone should be happy.

Designs *do* have property rights - design patents, and regular patents. However, not everyone chooses to take advantage of the protection provided. And then they scream when others copy them - legally, because they *chose* not to protect their rights.

You can't have it both ways.

And yes - most of these classic pieces were protected, and that protection has run its course - just like drug patents expire, and then there are cheaper generics afterwards. These designers have made their money off their designs, and now that design is public.

I agree with the previous 2 posts. I don't think Le Corbusier or the Eames Bros will mind.

And Boo hoo, rich people spend $3000 for a chair because it makes them feel superior and find out a hillbilly could buy basically the same thing for $100, HILARIOUS!

As a fairly recent college graduate still paying off debts in a city thats unreasonably expensive I say bring the shame! Cheap, well designed furniture for all!

To the "against knock offs" argument.

That's a logical fallacy and is provably incorrect. How have the houses of Dior or Chanel been hurt by a knock off? And have they stopped designing? Knoll has been copied for decades now -- have they stopped investing? In fact, all three "designers" are mainstays in fashion (clothing and home) because they are appealing to those who can afford and to those who can't.

People, the world is full of referents. If you study anything, be it clothing, architecture, landscape, furniture, music, -- you start to see that everyone borrows from everyone. Moreover, knock offs have been with humans since a wealthy class made something fashionable. Good design informs the retail markets -- this has always been so.

There are price points for everyone seeking good design, be it Target copies $, Room and Board copies $$, or the original designers $$$.

I happen to have a Room & Board budget, so that's where I shop. I wouldn't by a Target copy because there are tangible differences in quality and I can afford the better quality. I cannot, however, afford the original designers...

Those who are patrons of high design (millionaires, hotels, houses of state, musums) tend to fund the arts. Those plebians among us tend to buy the nose-bleed seats, the Ikea versions, the knock-offs. Plebians and our paltry budgets are not going to halt new design. In fact, as some of us climb the ladder to wealth, we create demand for the authentic versions.

Shop away, I say! that's how economies work. It's not trickle down. It's trickle up!

They aren't just knocking off big, old, monied companies: They are also knocking off living, working artisans.

Target has been cited, in the past, for attending art festivals, buying craft items, then sending those items to China to be mass produced, then sold in their stores - WITHOUT the permission of the artisans who created the originals.

Those of you who don't actually create anything, I'm sure, think that's fine. You are selfish and self centered and think that you should have anything you want just because you want it, and if you don't have the money, then stealing is fine.

But those of us who are artists and artisans, and make our livings from the designs we create, no that stealing is stealing is stealing. Period. Why can't I just walk into Bloomingdales and walk out with a Fendi bag? Afterall, I want it. Why shouldn't I have it? I'm entitled to have everything I want without paying, right?

Oh, and those who use the rationalization that the designers of the older designs have already made enough, and so it's OK to steal; who are YOU to say how much is enough for them to earn from THEIR intellectual property?

And I'm sure GothamTomato has never bought a generic drug, either. Pharma companies invent drugs, but eventually have to give them up to the public. All intellectual property expires. That's the way it works. That's what drives innovation and new invention.

As for ripping off small local artists? That's not what we've been talking about here. And that's still wrong.

There are people who own a Van Gogh or a Rembrandt. And the rest of us buy stretched canvases or frame posters.

"Japanese insurance magnate Yasuo Goto paid $39,921,750 for Van Gogh's"Still Life: Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers" at auction at Christie's London in March 1987"

Source: https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=160896

Believe me, there is no way I could "save up" enough to buy some of the things I love. The closest I come to being a magnate is having magnets on my fridge.

I don't moan or mourn not being able to have an original. I don't have a problem with an image reproduced that I can have in my price range without needing specialized air filtration and experts to care for it.

Ditto for anything else. I can be quite clumsy. So things end up being banged into or scratched or something happens because of what the cat does.

I love the critters more than I love objects. Critters and clumsy and cost come before originals. Because objects will never love me back.

If I found a knock-off that I liked and that would fit MY life and lifestyle, I'd buy it without hesitation. And not moan or mourn that it was not an original.

If it's not comfortable or doesn't fit my life, it doesn't matter if it is an original or not. It becomes a waste of money for me at that moment.

I bet the cat would like those plastic chairs. With the handy niche underneath to curl up in. If they get dirty, I can put them shower (the chairs, that is). But if it was an original? I'd be freaked out over the cat getting near The Panton.

I think the difference with Knock offs of creative and inovative designers in fashion is that those designs will next year be obsolete, and new and fresh designs will fill the Haute Couture wracks ( quickly followed by the not so Haute wracks!!)We're argueing about copies of very old designs, most of them by designers no longer with us...and these designs should not be the property of one or two manufacturers gready to make massive profits off of others designs- I can see spending huge sums on Haute Couture furniture by young and creative designers( if I had that kind of money), but styles that have been around for as long as say a Barcelona or Eames, should be accessable to all-

and Gotham tomato...no we can't all walk into Bloomingdales and walk out with a Fendi bag...but I can walk down any street in NYC and get me a FakeyFendi....and I challenge you to tell me the difference!!!Plus I know that in 6 months or a year that bag will be out of style, no matter How much you paid for it!!!

Knocking off a design is *not* the same as "stealing" a handbag from Bloomingdales. People often say this, but there's a notable difference.

The stealing of a physical object has been forbidden in human society for thousands of years (with the exception of societies in which property is considered communal).

The protection of *intellectual* property i.e. ideas, songs, poems, etc. from "theft" is a very modern notion that is tied primarily to capitalism and not to morality.

Up until the 1900's, it was considered appropriate to copy and modify the work of others. To borrow and modify the best ideas of those before us was a part of human culture.

This changed in the 20th century only when corporations began to market and profit from the work of artists... so the notion of "theft" of intellectual property is a novel construct, both socially and legally.

I'm not condoning the theft of intellectual property, I'm simply pointing out that if someone physically takes my chair, then I have directly lost a material object -- and this is *NOT the same* as someone who takes the *idea* of my chair, which is an immaterial and abstract concept, and builds a new one using this idea.

Just an Public Service announcement:

Charles and Ray Eames were not brothers! Ray was Charles' wife. They were partners, and it has been said that Ray had more of a hand in the designs, but Charles most of the credit.......

I'd never be able to afford an original. But I still have a right to my place looking good. I still have a right to love good design. End of story.

It's just like when I get something new for the house and someone complements
us on it. I love it when I can say that I got it at Ikea or Target, or even better,
second hand on Craigslist. Creating my personal space in a manner that I can
afford is extremely satisfying.

My feeling is the design world needs to be turned on it's ear.
I'm all for making interesting design available to the masses. It may inspire those who have felt hindered or those who have been unchallenged to step into creative thinking and living. Something so simple can have profound affects on us all.

Maybe we would stop accepting the onslaught of strip mall
architecture, or mini-mansions, or lack of funding for the arts in our children's schools. When you start to care about your
surroundings, there are some obvious disharmonies.

Of course this is just one way of looking at it.

It's not fair. As a member of the moneyed privileged class, I should not have to tolerate trashy low-rent working-class people who can only afford to shop Target & Ikea having the knockoffs of the same knockoffs I paid 10 times as much for. And no matter how much I hold my breath and stomp my feet, they still can buy them. I have no power and no control and nobody cares what I think. Waaaaaah! And some of their places look so much better than my place. Waaaaaah! It's just not fair. I think I shall tell Mumsy...

I live in South America where even policemen buy ripped DVDs of the latest blockbusters.

Plagiarism is a sport down here. It's a shame and all but art (To wear, to observe, to sleep in, etc., etc., etc.,) is not available for all and people will always find ingenious (Even if not ethical) ways of accessing to said art.

I'm not going to pay $5000 for a Knoll Barcelona chair. You can't prove to me there is $5000 in physical value there - it's mostly just profit margin and brand. I will happily pay $800 for something that is of comparable quality, substantially identical, but just isn't called a Barcelona chair or made by Knoll.

There are two ways to differentiate a physical product. One is by brand and authenticity, which is all about emotional value and status. The other is quality. Some people are going to pay for both, some will only pay for one or the other, some will pay for neither. Personally, I don't give a damn about brand, but I will buy quality almost every time. If it happens that the brand variant is high quality and a decent price for that quality, that's what I will buy.

I had this exact same argument with someone on the comment wall of a SMALLCOOL entry (one of the international ones). He thought the fact that they had knockoff chairs immediately made their place uncool, I said a huge part of the small cool contest was being able to make a lot out of a little, and to make a beautiful space without a hire-a-designer budget.
I think that the fact remains that those who can afford a designer name will buy the designer name, and therefore knockoffs are not taking significatn profit away from designers. If I could afford a Saarinen dinning table, or an Eames molded plastic chair I would buy them, and feel proud to have the real thing. But as it is I see no harm in buying the ikea look-alike.
The thing is, I am sure that there are those who think that 245$ for a chair is affordable. But for me, and for a lot of people, 75$ for a chair is pushing it.

Not all of them but most of knockoffs have to compromise something because they have to keep cost down. They aren’t exactly same as original measurement, materials and construction. As a designer, I hope people respect a little bit more for original configurations. That's what all designer use his or her brain for. I don't have to own everything I like. I rather go to museums to see originals and talk about how nicely designed. Licensed products are always on claigslist. You don't have to pay $6000 for Knoll Barcelona. A friend of mine found Cassina LC4 lounge chair for $500 at Salvation Army. This world has been already filled with things, please buy used. If you still want to buy new furniture and can't afford more than knockoff price, please pick something last long time.

I agree with sorin -- in this case, the price of these originals is no longer related to intellectual property, but rather sheer profits for the companies that create and sell them. They are making a killing off of these "originals."

Also, I never understood the term "original reproductions." They are not "originals." But they are not knockoffs either. Is, say, a piece from Modernica considered an original, even though it is a reproduction?? How do they charge the same prices for it. I don't understand the differences here. Maybe someone can explain that to me (I'm all for learnin!)

And lastly, I'm so glad that somebody else highlighted the irony of the name "Design Within Reach." What the hell do they mean by that?? Because it certainly is Out Of Reach for the vast majority! I've been thinking that very thought myself for quite some time now!

We are not rich, we have kids, pay bills, yet we buy originals. We cannot afford to buy any item we want- strolling through moss in soho can be depressing with its $30,000 padded chandeliers, or ingo maurer's amazing lighting fixtures, roche bobois, etc. I cannot afford a tesla roadster and cannot move into a 2500 sqf loft in tribeca either. It doesn't mean I go searching for cheap crap from ikea or target. It means if I cannot afford an original Panton chair, then I either do without it, save up for it or buy something else. I am not entitled to have anything I want. Boo Hoo. Cannot date any person I want either- they have to consent and some people are just out of my league and I have to accept that.

Also, the quality is not the same, the details aren't the same. And there's not that feeling of investment one has when you've paid for quality. You are making more careful decisions about what is being purchased. Is that $30 knockoff going to travel with you from house to house for years, or will it end up in the trash heap next time you move, redecorate, or simply get sick of the thing? Surely it has no resale value.

People talk about the "R&D being worn off years ago", but many deceased designers now have foundations and museums which are enriching their communities, and some of the money goes to them, such as the Noguchi museum, in our neighborhood in Queens, which has an excellent community outreach program for families and young kids in the area.

Target isn't only copying midcentury classics either- they're copying people like Starck as well, who deserve to earn money from the use of their designs. It's just wrong, especially when Target could be working with designers the way they do with their clothing lines. Umbra does this- produces affordable original design stuff. So do context furniture, pablo pardo, and many other smaller manufacturers. You can also get smaller stuff such as Alessi and suck uk for not too much. There's always Muji. There's also craigslist and ebay. And DIY. It is not necessary to buy knockoffs to have stylish, affordable stuff.

By the way, the name "Design Within Reach" refers to availability and the fact that the stuff is in stock and ships quickly. Most places you have to wait weeks or even months for some items to ship, especially for Italian stuff. Their name is confusing, but they never claimed they were cheap.

I agree with nboxwell. People who have money to spend on the originals (and the things at DWR are originals) will buy the more expensive product. It's a symbol of status in the buyer's own mind. "I can afford the best, so the best is what I'll have."

People like bronislava are in the minority and (I'm sorry but this will sound catty) are often deluded by the "status" that they wish to reach by buying the original goods. While I agree that sometimes the original is better than the knock-off and worthwhile, in other instances the only difference is the label. I would hope that readers like bronislava are investing in the originals which they can barely afford only when the difference is tangible (e.g. real leather v. pleather).

That said, DWR is rather misleadingly named. bronislava is right about what the name means. Check out their company philosophy is rather interesting and can be found here: http://designwithinreach.com/category/customer service/about dwr.do

Hello, licensed reproductions aren't "originals," they're reproductions of successful products originally made decades ago.

Don't kid yourself. You want an "original" that looks that good? Be prepared to search for years or plunk down a hell of a lot more cash at an auction house. A new Picasso print is a reprint whether you buy it from your college bookstore or someone hawking giclees Authorized by the Artist's Estate. No sticker will magically transform it into something it's not.

elvedon is right- they're not actually originals! (sorry for the sloppy language).

My point was simply that you can get "legitimate" design affordably by going elsewhere. If Stylebites can find, say, a knockoff shelving system identical in quality to a vitsoe system I'd love to hear about it. But I'd still be more interested in a solution that avoids the ethical issue.

As for the status issue, I'll bet all the people with knockoff Gucci bags in NYC care nothing about status. If you're not concerned about status, then why buy the knockoff Panton at all? You can get an authentic chair from Karim Rashid on Umbra for $60. Some of the stuff on DWR is similarly priced to Crate and Barrel or Room and Board anyway.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I'm going to bite my tongue and resist the argument about being selfish and wanting design at a cheap price/stealing ideas/intellectual property etc etc.

Knockoffs are there for people who can't afford the real thing. If there was no market for them, they wouldn't be making them.

How is it hurting the designer? By getting their design out there? As stated above; there will always be someone who wants nice things but doesn't have the $ for the real deal, and there is always some rich executive who only buys the very best (with the very best price tag); sometimes only *because* the high price tag. Why should expensive --looking-- items be only for the 7 figure incomes?

I would rather see a knock off that is loved and appreciated, than the same designer piece that sits in the corner gathering dust because the person can afford two dozen more just like it.

I can't come down hard on one side or the other of the debate. (I bought a Hans Wegner inspired rope chair from an estate sale that is clearly not an original.) But if you choose to buy knock-offs here's something to consider. North American and European companies have to comply with safety and environmental laws in their countries, and many companies take it a step further, trying to find environmentally responsible materials for their products. Do you think the knock-off companies, who typically manufacture in China or other countries with loose regulations, do the same?

I was at a trade show where an American company was showing a new environmentally friendly chair. It was recycled material, Cradle to Cradle certified, etc. A man was picking up and photographing the underside of the chair. When one of the company's staffers asked him not to do that, he smugly replied, "I'll have an identical chair being manufactured in China within 3 months." So... do you think this guy will use the same Cradle to Cradle processes as the actual manufacturer? Of course, what he's doing is illegal and breaks patent laws, but it's hard to regulate and costly for designers to pursue.

Am I saying you should feel guilty for buying a knock-off if you can't afford the original? No. But maybe there are other beautiful objects in your price range. Just don't go into it blind is all I'm saying.

WHOA! People pay for a product's PERCEIVED value. Everyone perceives value differently. But one person's perception should not be forced upon another. A counterfeit is a deliberate copy that is sold as the genuine article (complete with fake trademark and origin information). But a knockoff is a look-alike product sold under ANOTHER brand name.

Grocery store brands are knockoffs of national brands. Discount store clothing labels follow the lead of international designers. It is legal and ethical to buy a knockoff, and prime manufacturers knock off their own products using differing color schemes or trade names to target specific market segments.

Blue Ant Studio (the originator of this blog item) misrepresents at least one of the knockoff items they criticize. I bought a copy of the Emeco Navy Chair - a classic aluminum chair designed by the US Navy in WWII. The $400 original is brushed aluminum as is the alternate. Neither Target nor Stack Chair Depot (where I bought) present their version as the designer original. The fit and finish is great. No bad welds, no paint or pitting, not a cheap copy but a fine example of equivalent quality at 75% savings. Emeco didn't lose a sale, because I'd never pay their price.

Knock-offs are about affordable style. That's it. Nobody is fooled, I don't think, they just want something that they admire, at a price they can afford or are willing to pay. They settle this way so they don't have to settle another way - buying something that doesn't look like what they want.

Designing your space to aesthetically please you is all it is about. And money. Snobs, and I can be one sometimes, want the elite, the exclusivity of having the authentic. I would be more inclined to want something long-lasting, but in this case, I need a chair immediately. I don't have time to leave a space and use a folding chair until I can afford a real Eames product like I do with some of my other furniture I'm waiting to find and buy. If I want to spend the amount of money I have to budget for this on an item I JUST LIKE, then who is to berate me for wanting a look or the store for providing it at my price point?

It's especially silly to think everyone should want to purchase furniture with an idea for resale. Argument framed this way: "This item will be garbage, it will fall apart just like any cheap chair, and then where will you be?" I'm not interested in denying myself the furniture in the interim while I save up for the potential resale of an item, because the fad will be over by then. Maybe that's what you're worried about: saturation and boredom while you have a chair nobody will want in a few years (hypothetically) because the mid-century hype will be over because all the poor people are tired of looking at it, and the rich people will be tired of all the ripoffs making them feel so not "with it," lack of being elite and unique, and quickly switch gears to another style before the poor people have time to copy them yet.

I used the example of my crappy office chair that looks about like crap and did fall apart. Why not buy a knock-off if all you can afford is a chair that will fall apart? Nobody is interested in resale values on this end of the argument. It would be nice, it's good, it's green, but then there's reality, economy, and the immediate need for a chair that doesn't make you want to throw up.

I'm glad I don't really like this Eames style in the first place.

Basically, you are having an intellectual property discussion. It's like saying all of the poor people sporting Louis Vuitton knockoffs are hurting LV's bottom line, when in reality 99% of those people could not afford the real thing, so it is not hurting their profitability.

The bluebloods will still shop at Louis Vuitton and Herman Miller. I think the cool thing about Target offering designer classics for less, is their entire brand identity.

Remember when they launched their Isaac Mizrahi clothing line and that revolutionized cheap chic and masstige as we know it?? For those of us who don't have thousands of dollars to blow on a single chair, or would rather use the money for frivolous things like college tuition or donating it to charity, Target is a great place to get luxe for less.

I totally see the point of both sides and I realize that this is a difficult discussion. Much like discussing religion or politics really. It can never end. However, I would like to know if anyone has links for the Panton chairs on the Target website. I searched forever and couldn't find them. Thanks!

You sharpened another good point: how many people who buy the authentic are doing so because they are trendy posers with money anyway? How many are doing it for the true love of a classic period of design and a long-lasting design theme in their home, and how many are doing it to hop on the current trend bandwagon, and then sticking your nose up at people who can only afford to do it with knock-offs?

Design Within Reach "never claimed to be cheap" but they marketed their name with intention and designed it to be misinterpreted, no? Upper-middle income trendy posers can shop here and satisfy their urges to design their home like everyone else's without waiting... isn't that it? Fill that void of inadequacy quick, or else it will be too late. Marketing is marketing, catchy and deceptive lures, to bait people by how they see themselves - and it's passively snobby to people who can't afford to shop there with a phrase like "within reach". This topic reminds me of that other topic this week of debranding your shampoo bottles... so nobody knows you use Suave? Who would debrand a salon-worthy expensive bottle of shampoo? But shop at DWR and get an authentic new copy of a chair by a company that has been legally permitted to produce chairs designed by Eames.

Nothing wrong with buying something that is inspired by something else.

But carbon copies are not inspired. If I had a knock-off I would have to tell everyone that comments on it that it is a knock-off. I think it's only fair--to the observer and to the original manufacturer.

I never understood the whole knock-off bag thing. I don't really understand fashion either for that matter.

It's silly to think that only rich people have Barcelona chairs, Herman Miller loungers, etc. How many people have handed down pieces? How many people have bought them at garage sales or auction? It seems like the easy way out to buy a copy of an iconic piece if you know what it is.

Perhaps the issue here is making copies available to the untrained eye?

i think part of the beauty of owning items you like is the search for the at a good price.

i have a vintage herman miller eames aluminum group chair. i searched and searched for the one that i wanted in the color of hopsack that i was after. a few of them went too high for me, so i waited. when the time was right, i got it. it wasn't all that much more than the target version. it has the old four star base, which i prefer and i plan on never buying another desk chair.

there are still deals out there. i went to broadway antiques a few months ago and bought 4 white eames side chairs with a stacking base (narrow mount) for under 40 bucks a piece. i knew that the narrow mounts were sought after, so i bought them. i walked out of there with those 4 chairs for 156 dollars. removed the bases and put them on ebay, where they promptly sold for 860 dollars. thus allowing me to buy more vintage furniture.

i also have an 'eames' desk made by modernica (they used to make them for herman miller). i greatly prefer the modernica one to the new licensed herman miller version. it has a more substantial top and is sturdier and looks a lot more like the eames desks that were in production when the eames' were still around. so is this a knock-off? i dunno... maybe not anymore than the modernica shell chairs that are made by the same process and on the same molds that the old eames shell chairs used to be made on.

i agree that much of the licensed eames stuff you buy at DWR (especially the now non-fiberglass shells) is mostly flimsy junk, charles and ray (who were husband and wife, not brothers as one of the top posts calls them) would not be pleased with these items at all.

my ultimate point is that through knowledge and patience you can outfit your space with original and great quality items that will have a story behind them other than 'i got it at target' or 'i plunked down 2 g's at DWR for it'

A lot of this debate seems be centering on normal people vs. the rich design snobs, but this happens at all levels of design. It happens to famous designers, but it also happens to young designers trying to eek out a living at their trade.

If you don't believe me, read this article by Jenny Hart, a DIY advisor from Venus magazine who thought she was partnering with a company to license her designs and instead found out they were stealing her ideas.

http://www.venuszine.com/articles/diy/resources/2633/Crafting_a_Business_with_Jenny_Hart

This is a complex topic. It's not just about money.

Oops. The link got cut short. Try this.

http://www.venuszine.com/articles/diy/resources/2633/Crafting_a_Business_with_Jenny_Hart

Ok, happened again. I guess it's too long. Here's the whole thing, copy it, paste it in your browser and delete the space before Crafting.

http://www.venuszine.com/articles/diy/resources/2633/ Crafting_a_Business_with_Jenny_Hart

Sorry.

Regardless if you purchase an item that is an original or a knock off or a licensed reproduction, so long as you buy within your means is of paramount importance. We have become such slaves to consumerism and all of its trappings that we have become a debtors nation. If you can afford to buy it on the spot or pay it of in a monthly statement cycle, go for it. If you can't do either, but really love the piece, than save up for it or put it on lay away.

Whether one is pro or con with respect to this issue, it cannot be denied that the modern design movement of the mid-20th century was never intended to target only the elite. Rather, it was intended to promote functional design that could be easily produced and appreciated by the working masses. It is highly unlikely that the likes of American designers Charles and Ray Eames or George Nelson would have foreseen or approved of today's exclusive market for their products, which have become inaccessible to most. Even top-notch auction houses like Wright in Chicago recognize this trend and are attempting address this imbalance with its yearly Mass Modern auction. More "gatekeepers" to great historical design should follow suit, which may lessen the tension that is apparent in this debate.

Allora, the chairs are in "Casual Seating" called Reno and they are $259.00 for two, black and white are not available, but there is red, green, orange:
http://tinyurl.com/59cw95

I tiny urled it because the links to Target are impossibly long. That link started off as 210 characters!

And, no, I'm STILL not paying $259.00 for two plastic chairs. But I like this bench for a landing strip area:
http://tinyurl.com/634kcr

I was thinking that the drawers would be the place to sort incoming mail. But then, I'm weird. And I'm proud. ;)

I ONLY HOPE THE PERSON WHO EVER SAT ON ANYTHING SUES EVERY SINGLE CHAIR DESIGNER EVER!

(sounds ridiculous? Because it is.)

A CHAIR IS A CHAIR.

Some chairs are prettier, some are uglier, some hi-q, some low-q. It's not like Eames, Nelson, etc. were the ones who actually invented any of their crap, they just re-designed an existing product. So for anyone to truly believe that ANYONE owns ANYTHING in this world is full of ignorance and must be very poor inside.

chicagoesq, what you said sounds good in principle but it is, unfortunately, incorrect. the items that you speak of by the designers you speak of were (when adjusted for inflation) every bit as expensive in the 1950's as they are today. there was never a time when they were 'within reach' of everybody. i'm not saying that is how i want it, only that is how it was.

djluckyonline, there's a big difference between "inspired by" and "knocking-off."

In the 50s, many designers started experimenting with plywood as a new furniture material. If someone saw the Eames plywood chair and thought, "that's cool, I'm going to try to design a chair using plywood too." That's ok. It's part of the normal evolution of thought and design. That's being inspired.

If someone saw the Eames plywood chair and thought, "I'll made a chair that looks just like this and sell it for less" that's not inspired. That's a knock-off.

Let's not confuse inspiration with knock-offs.

djluckonline--

Where do you stand on song sampling and music piracy?

Is a song just a song?

The furniture in my house ranges from Ikea, some of the typical knockoffs to some rather nice pieces vom Knoll, Ligne Roset, Vitra etc (essentially all of the nice stuff was purchased at deep discounts to MSRP). While this is a tricky debate, some of the statements above don't seem based in fact or careful thought: Viewed side-by-side, the difference in quality between e.g. a Vitra Eames lounge and a $1000 chinese knockoff is rather obvious. To claim that the high-end manufacturers differentiate themselves by a stamp and number only is somewhat disingenuous. Are their prices justified? Without inside knowledge, that is rather hard to tell. However, the fact that there is very very little *original* high quality contemporary design available at e.g. crate&barrel prices (not to mention at the West Elm or Ikea level), could suggest that maybe $3k or $5k is what it takes to manufacture a sophisticated lounge chair out of quality materials outside of some chinese sweatshops.

I would be interested to hear people's views on the ubiquitous Bombo knock-offs. Unlike the Eames's, Stefano Giovannoni
is very much alive. Is it ok to rip off his design, just because Magis thinks the bar stools are worth $500?

Here's a twist: the Verner Panton "knockoff" chair is listed on Target's website for $259.99.

The Panton chair at hivemodern.com is $245.

To knock-off or not to knock-off? that isn't even the question.

When it comes to making purchases in this day-and-age there are a lot of things the we all need to think about... and they are related to the knock-off debate... but much more important.

When any of us make a purchase we should ask ourselves:

Where did this product come from?
What materials were used?
Are the materials environmentally safe?
Who made this product?
Were they paid a living-wage for their labor?
Were precautions taken to ensure that their health was protected while making the product?
Were precautions taken to ensure that the health of the environment and the people living nearby were protected?
Who designed the product?
Were they paid fairly for their creative contribution?
Where is the product sold?
Does the store pay a living-wage to their employees?
Do they have benefits?

These questions are essential. When something is cheaper then it seems it should be corners were cut some place... and though there are many items that are over-priced simply because of the name on them.... there are also many products that are expensive because the makers are committed to producing products that don't do more damage to our already hurting world.

I also understand that people are on budgets. That we all deserve good design... regardless of what your job is. I'm a grad student... who lives on a tight budget, when I started to furnish my first apartment (small, cool midwest finalist Rachel's Grad School Getaway) I asked myself all of those questions. When I couldn't find an item in my budget that was sustainable and well designed I bought used and refinished it myself. Then again, I would rather buy something made of real wood at a thrift store and fix it up then buy something that looks really cool but isn't built to last.

This debate should be about the designers... but it should also be about every single person and place that touches that product before it gets to your home. In order to change the situation our world is it is imperative that we all become conscious consumers... regardless of our budgets.

Rachel D

It's a bit of tit for tat. To be a top designer your work will be replicated. It's been this way since the time of Athens. Today style is replicated quickly so a top designer needs to always be progressing like technology.

My opinion is this...

If I had the budget for a real barcelona chair, and wanted one, I wouldn't go get the knock off at Target just because it is cheaper, I'd buy the real one (shit, I probably wouldn't even KNOW target had a knock off). But if Target never made a knock-off, and since I DON'T have the budget for the real one, I WOULDN'T BE BUYING THE REAL ONE!

Basically, you are arguing that the originators or licensed producers of these products are losing out because the would-be buyers are buying the knock off instead. Sorry, but that just isn't happening!

NO one is being ripped off here! The only thing that might be happening is that Target is making a trifle more money, and I have a cute chair for my living room.

Seaside -- I just read your comment...thanks for that. Puts it all in perspective!

pvett, reread the description at Target, the price is for TWO chairs. You get TWO chairs for $259.00

People buy what they can afford. Those who can afford to buy the name will buy the name. Those who can't will buy what that they like at a price they can afford.

The nearest analogy I can think of: Those who can afford Green Giant canned corn will buy Green Giant canned corn. Those who need to save ten cents will buy the store brand. Both are getting canned corn. Aside from the argument that they should have bought fresh or frozen, the reality is that some choices are based on the realities of the budget.

Does anybody know where one might acquire a knock-off or second hand or otherwise cheap nelson swag leg chair? No offense to the Nelsons or the Millers, their family legacies, the integrity of their designs, their foundations, licenses, brand identities, or potential profits lost.

Aldyth--

But the store brand is not *pretending to be* Green Giant...

I have to agree with Rachel D on this one. I refuse to purchase knockoffs, especially those tempting handbags. There have been several articles written about fake designer handbags, sunglasses, and other accessories and where these items are made. A lot of these goods are made by children working in deplorable conditions. Now I'm not running out and buying designer goods either because I'm saving my money to buy my first home. And when it comes time to furnish it, I will save my money and purchase the best that I can afford - be it second hand or brand new.

All the store brand shampoos and some other health/beauty aids are packaged to look like the brands they are emulating. If you can't afford Pantene, you can buy store pantene. If you choose Garnier instead, you can have the similar shampoo in a similar green bottle. Same thing with breakfast cereals sometimes, and soda bottles. Sometimes, they even try to copy the name of the product by naming theirs similar and printing in the same colors, going just far enough not to copy the logo. What's in the package may be very close, it may even be produced by the company that makes the brand name, or it's a weaker variation, or something different entirely.

I mean, if we're going to go down this route, packaging is packaging. This chair is a package of a chair. It's not the same chair, it just appears to be almost as good without the price. What people are paying for is to look at and a place to put their behind. It's an element of vision, not art in itself- it's a chair in a chair's place, not particularly chosen to fool anyone. What other people who buy authentic are paying for is workmanship that doesn't exceed the intrinsic value of materials and labor, as well as a high markup on legacy and certification, which in part, pays to retain the lawyers in case of copyright infringement (and I don't see a real law suit here, just this moot snobbery crap), as well as the shops to maintain square footage in more exclusive neighborhoods. If there's much left, it goes to foundations and trust funds. Maybe that money goes on to do some good in the world, or you can pay charities directly, including yourself.

"moot snobberycrap"

Er, um, no.

I live in a 'knock off' kind of budget. No pride here.

To those who mentioned products by Umbra as cheap original design, as opposed to Target's evil evil knockoffs...

What happens when you buy Umbra Loft from Target? Does the design implode and become a singularity?