Target vs designers. shame-less v.2.2, 2.3 & 2.4!
About us
got tips?
Search
design portals
- alison brungart
- apartment therapy
- blinkdecor
- BLTD
- coolhunting
- core77
- cribcandy
- Dallas Modern
- decor8
- design shrine
- design-milk
- designpublic
- designsponge
- designspotter
- dwr
- elmanco
- fabprefab
- felipe zanardi
- floridamodern
- grassrootsmodern
- harry and sal
- highbrowfurniture
- inhabitat
- jmu art
- joshspear
- landliving
- lighting trends
- luxist
- materialicio.us
- mens magazine
- mocoloco
- mod*mom
- notcot
- obsessilicious
- productdose
- SallyTV
- save softball
- ses design
- studio house design
- swissmiss
- the cultivated home
- trendir
- twenty first century retro
- uncrate
- urban flea
- urban kinetics
Blue Ant Archive
- July (33)
- June (88)
- May (84)
- April (95)
- March (91)
- February (79)
- January (81)
- December (97)
- November (78)
- October (91)
- September (94)
- August (87)
- July (110)
- June (94)
- May (113)
- April (103)
- March (99)
- February (85)
- January (94)
- December (98)
- November (96)
- October (122)
- September (105)
- August (138)
- July (124)
- June (96)
- May (293)
- April (220)
- March (159)
- February (159)
- January (146)
- December (109)
- November (175)
- October (174)
- September (122)
- August (33)
43 comments:
Hey man, like I wrote in the other post since I can't afford the real thing these knockoffs are great. I understand the whole idea of the original design being ripped off but this wouldn't be the first time. Expensive, luxurious items are always copied and cheaply made for the general public. The way I see it is, more people get to enjoy such amazing designs.
And if it's a matter of integrity, then why aren't the original designers stopping the knockoffs from being made?
I tend to agree with Antonio... I like the designs.. but who can afford a $900 chair. Cash dose not equal Class...
Cash does not equal class just like knock-offs do not equal class.
The problem is that the price you pay for an original responds to the investment and R&D the company made. Knockoffs are stealing another companies property. They copy a successfull item. If this continues, companies will stop investing and will end up with only shitty products. It's stealing property.
IANAL, but if I understand correctly, these knockoffs can be made legally because the useful article doctrine applies.
It's not theft. It's the rules of the game.
There are two types of designers--Astheticists and Utilitarians. Basically, you have it divided into the groups of people that make stuff pretty, and the people that make stuff useful. These are the extreme poles of the profession and all designers are pulled by both of them, with the people living at the furthest extreme of this gradient becoming completely intolerable. We've all been to parties, were a utilitarian will gripe and moan about how a fun design doesn't improve the world and on the opposite end, an aestheticist will destroy an objects use to make it pretty...we know all of these people.
So, let's look at furniture and what I'll call trinkets or everyday objects that serve such a simple purpose that it's almost impossible to destroy them. Furniture and Trinkets are designed for the most part by aestheticists. There are rare cases where a truly utilitarian approach is taken to furniture or trinket and the entire game of "sitting" is changed forever (Aeron), but these are far and few between. Most cases of furniture are just interesting forms applied to a new material or process. This is a perfectly suitable pursuit, and I'm not mocking the position in any way, nor the thinking behind it. The home and office can be beautiful places now because of these thinkers. THE PROBLEM lies in the value of these goods. The Eames lounge chair and the Barcelona chair (Pavilion if you will) were exceptional pieces for their time and the expense of the piece was justified because of its unique materials and the relatively new processes involved, but you CANNOT honestly tell me that the Eames Lounge Chair today, if produced in large quantities would be ~$3000.
Design should be for the masses, but we keep it tucked away and hidden in expensive corners that the everyday man cannot reach. Places like IKEA and Target should be commended for allowing the layman to afford something that's beautiful and unique in their home, and places like DWR should be admonished for naming themselves "within reach" when they truly aren't. DWR and Hermann Miller and crew have a huge opportunity to help spread design to the smaller towns that don't understand it or don't know about it, but they seem to sit in ivory towers, mocking those of us that have to go to IKEA for something fun and different that's not $3000. As a designer, I want to have a nice home that evinces my profession, but also as a designer, I have a hard time affording the things that let me do that.
As for Target doing the blatant copying, I'm not sure that I approve of the manner it's being done, but it's nice to see that someone is at least offering it to the masses in an affordable manner. I’ve been asked the question, “how come IKEA doesn't have one true competitor in the US...not one...” Perhaps Target could be that competitor, but it would have to move in a more respected manner that helps rather than apparently hurts the design community. Perhaps Target's efforts would be better spent licensing designs and building strong in house teams like IKEA rather than "ripping off" other people's ideas. But for now, if I can spend $20 rather than $80 and it’s practically the same product, I’ll see you guys at Target.
"The problem is that the price you pay for an original responds to the investment and R&D the company made."
No, not really. Yea, there's some R&D, but most of it is just gigantic amounts of markup. The furniture industry, as a whole, has massive amounts of markup and cookie-cutter producing stuff that is 50 years old is pretty much pure profit.
Yes, I wish Target would hire new talent to come up with modern takes on these, but barring that, I think it's nice to have the option to have the 'inspired by' piece affordable to the masses.
The people buying these are trying to buy a nice chair. The people shopping at DWR are wanting the status symbol and/or the higher quality of the original. Entirely different markets.
the barcelona chair design is almost 80 years old. however classic or beautiful that are limits to the cache anything like that can hold.
the entire point of mass produced furniture is to be fashionable.
if you cut a hole in the seat so you can shit through it then you still don't have an outhouse.
they, outhouses, are also classic, but they are not fashionable.
i'd apologize for being vulgar, but bowing at this altar is more offensive than my language.
there are limits, oops
cash does not equal class,
but stealing design is definitely no class.
a design is a design.
stealing design is not right.
yes, many people cannot afford a $3000 chair.
but why steal? because you cannot afford something that doesn't mean you should steal.
just work harder.
the panton (cantilever) chair, for instance, come from vitra in the more expensive fiberglass version ($1000) or the injection molded version ($250).
so if you cannot afford the fiberglass one, get the plastic one. if you still cannot afford $250, they make you a mini version just for you to look at.
but buying a $50 knockoff is just not right.
if you love the design, support the designer and the licensed manufacturer.
i m sure some of the original designs have passed 50 years.
but i would buy original, for the quality and yes, just the satisfaction of owning an original and not a copy.
Everyone is up in arms about Target utilizing/stealing classic designs. Making comments about R&D and such. There are things we cherish cheaper, generic knock-offs of like prescription medicines (talk about R&D money!).
Target is bring a classic design and style to the masses. There are no patents that would still be valid considering the length these designs have been around. And goods that do have secrets to their success stay that way by keeping it a secret - like Coca-Cola.
I agree with c$ on all that was said. Target is helping the general public to acquire pieces that were previously out of reach (The DWR comment is so true). Style, taste, and timeless design should not be inaccessible to all but the wealthy.
I think of them more as affordable reproductions as opposed to "knock-offs". Like buying a nice print of a piece of art, instead of buying the original that is way our of your price range. To me it's only a knockoff if they are claiming it's their original design.
DWR statement was to make design available, never to make design cheap. This has to be one of the most misunderstood mission statements ever!
In regards of Target. I just go there to buy diapers and toilet paper... nothing else.
These are not "similar" designs. These are rip-offs of the originals. If you can afford a $3000 lounge, go to Crate and Barrel or pottery barn and get something you can afford... or maybe you can buy a Pontiac Fiero with a Ferrari fiberglass body, since Ferrari is such a nice design and it should be available to the masses or maybe a fake rolex. That's not different than wearing a toupe or a comb over. It's fake. no matter what you tell yourself at night. and all that crap is being made in china with probably some toxic dyes. Enjoy your fakes!
Are the posters for sale at Blue Ant Studio copies of these same designs? Why is your making money off someone's design any different from target doing it?
I think all these comments about the design being blatantly stolen are pretty absurd. If Target doesn't legally have the right to reproduce cheaper copies then why aren't the original designers stopping these knockoffs from being reproduced?
Again, this isn't the first time this has happened. Expensive items are always reproduce and offered at a cheaper price. It has nothing to do with design integrity.
And the comment that if you can't afford the original you should work harder is not only ignorant but it's also offensive. I work my ass off, I make 6 figures and I still can't justify spending $6,000 on a chair. Yes it's beautiful and I'd love to own it but spending that much on a chair is not realistic or even responsible of me. These original designs are marked up like crazy and it has to do with that people will pay that money to get them. Has nothing to do with R&D.
Why do people buy fake hand bags?
Why do people buy fake furniture?
You know inside that they are fake. Are you trying to fool someone?
The details will not be the same. The texture, the materials, the smell, the weight. These will not be the same. The thirty year Barcelona chair still looks the same, still costs the same. There is something to be said for that.
But, we are a disposable society, we dispose of the important things like relationships (business and personal) food, electronics, resources, etc. more than ever so why not get a replica for less that will be tossed in a few years?
In regards of the "Anonymous" post (don't you love them?) about the posters; we made our own drawings of "furniture" to create a "graphic" composition of elements. It's like you are a photographer that features the empire state building on one of your pics but you can't sell your photos because of that, or Julius Shulman having to pay royalties to Neutra for the photos he took of the house back then. Now, if Julius Shulman starts a construction company bulding homes with the designs from Neutra, that's another story.
So it's not OK for Target to reproduce these to make money but it is OK for Blue Art Studio to reproduce their likeness to make money?
Does anyone else recognize the complete hypocrisy in that? At least you're getting something functional from Target.
the prices of the originals are the real rip-off and everyone knows it. maybe if herman miller didnt charge a 300% markup id feel bad for them. but go ahead and take the high road, ill goto target and retire at 50 with the money i save.
and you cant use likenesses of celebrities to sell your stuff, why should celebrity furniture be different?
sounds like some designers should have majored in business but that might entail actual work. you cant blame target for producing and marketing stylish furniture at a market driven price, even if they copied designs, and the markup on some designer furniture is ridiculous for not even being art
The very idea that these "authentic" design objects hold enough of an inherent aesthetic power to justify their cost to anyone but a slim majority is laughable.
The notion that people should just work harder to afford the "original" or shop where they belong is insulting and tasteless.
The assumption that a hefty price tag means an item is not made overseas, or with "toxic chemicals" is just plain stupid.
The point is, there's a market for affordable, modern pieces. That market is made up of people excluded by the qualifier "affordable," but not "modern."
Enjoy your $3,000 originality.
I agree that it is shamless and insulting that Target do this. However, don't blame the people who buy it, as some on this thread do. "If you can't afford the originals, work harder"? Elitist, short-sighted, AND crass.
While there is an artful and aesthetic argument to be made against the knockoffs (and it is a valid argument), it is also proof that design is sometimes inherently a matter of taste and uselessness/usefulness. People argue about the "feel" and "materials" of the original; however, in the end, a chair is a chair for most people, and you have to accept that the ivory tower view of design isn't the only valid one, and that the audience's intent can change that.
Yes, Target shouldn't make blatant ripoffs. However, it is no more crass than buy a Van Gogh print or picture of the Eiffel ower to hang on your apartment wall. Cultured? Probably not. Original? Hell no. But you can still enjoy a design without needing the original. There's a need for cheap design. It's one thing to hate Target for doing this. It's another to insult people for not being able to afford iconic chairs.
Besides, Blue Ant sells posters of these same chairs and enjoys profit from the original design. It's all to be taken in context.
Hi Tony!
In regards of the posters, please read my comment above... or even better, just read it here:
we made our own drawings of "furniture" to create a "graphic" composition of elements. It's like you are a photographer that features the empire state building on one of your pics but you can't sell your photos because of that, or Julius Shulman having to pay royalties to Neutra for the photos he took of the house back then. Now, if Julius Shulman starts a construction company bulding homes with the designs from Neutra, that's another story.
how do you guys know a licensing fee isn't being paid?
Wow, the only thing shameful are some of the comments on here. Granted I'm not a chair nut that would blow $3000 grand for a chair . . . but it's a fifty year old design.
Okay, Target knocked it off, but I can only imagine that the designers would be absolutely _flattered_ To know that after all this time thier design is still so wonderful that a company like Target would reproduce them.
You guys aren't in an ivory tower, you're just full of crap. Granted it may not be the original, but they may be just as well made. Seems to me you elitist creeps think people that don't get a trust fund check should sit on ugly chairs.
God forbid someone out there doesn't make the same money as you . . . they should just work harder? Do you have any idea what real people do for a living? You can't just work harder and get enough for $3000 chair. Besides that, imagine we might have houses to pay for or a kid to feed. Grow up and realize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Just like your "graphic" composition of elements". Get over yourselves.
If Target is violating copyright laws than absolutely, they should be prosecuted.
Love your posters.
"we made our own drawings of "furniture" to create a "graphic" composition of elements."
...very true, you are making an artistic interpretation
" It's like you are a photographer that features the empire state building on one of your pics but you can't sell your photos because of that, or Julius Shulman having to pay royalties to Neutra for the photos he took of the house back then. Now, if Julius Shulman starts a construction company bulding homes with the designs from Neutra, that's another story."...actually, you're not completely correct here...it all depends on usage. I you take a photograph of the Empire State Building, a Neutra, etc...you have to get what's called a Property Release to be able to use it for any commercial enterprise...Julius Schulman was hired by Neutra to photograph those houses.
Your posters are capitalizing on the same exact market as these Target chairs. To say that you are exempt because you drew the images on your computer is false. Not to mention your "Alphabet" poster is just an iPod commercial with furniture instead of people. Don't misunderstand me, I like your posters. But you are taking someone else's furniture design and presenting them in a format that is blatantly lifted from a now iconic ad campaign. And selling them for a reasonable price. Target is taking an iconic furniture design (re-tooling) and selling them for a reasonable price.
As I stated in an earlier post ... it's upsetting that Target—a company with an impressive history of partnering with recognizable designers (such as Michael Graves, Thomas O'Brien, Victoria Hagen, Dwell Studio, Isaac Mizrahi, etc) in order to bring design to a more affordable price point—would even consider selling imposters on the same shelves. What's even more abhorrent is when Target describes these products as the originals! "Nelson's famous Mod Spice Clock has come back to the future ..." http://www.target.com/Retro-Natural-Woodburst-Wall-Clock/dp/B000JUTCA0/
For many Target consumers, I'm sure they believe they've just purchased the real deal.
Mediabistro caught this recently:
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/furniture/design_mcscandal_mcdonalds_mixes_real_arne_jacobsen_chairs_with_fakes_68581.asp
... when some London McDonald's restaurants stepped up their image & began furnishing their interiors with Jacobsen chairs, there was design praise abound. It was then discovered that McDonald's was using fakes next to the originals. The CEO of Fritz Hansen promptly ended their contract. He was quoted as saying "We simply will not cooperate or trade with companies who accept piracy, cost what it may. The fact that McDonald's has chosen to use pirated copies is even more surprising since the company itself is legendary across the world in pursuing trademark and copyright suits to safeguard its product and name."
Target is very much like McDonald's, in regards to protecting their property. See here:
http://trudalane.net/2007/10/23/timbuk2-and-target/
or here:
http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2007/10/07/music-choice-on-target/
Apparently Target feels that infringing on other's work is acceptable, as long as it doesn't happen to them?
originals still hold their value. What people are pissed about is that others paid less and have the same "type" of items.
PLUS and I'm sorry most of these designers got their designs off something. VERY FEW are truly total creators of a design.
Also if your paying $900 plus dollars for a chair i doubt your caring what Target puts out since blowing that's kind of money on a chair doesn't phase you.....
if target were the only ones doing this, that'd be one thing. All the ire directed at Traget proper is just silly.
corbu was all about making design available to the masses. he saw the machine age and mass production as the tool sto that end. coming up with a design and liscensing it to a corporation that will charge everyone out the ears, such that only the wealthy can feel good about where they put there butt, is hardly in the spirit of modernism as seen by the likes of corb and others. squabbling over who gets what liscense and how they can make the money off of it is ardly helping either. all it really does is help peole who think that modernism is about image more than problem solving (which is certainly not) to feel good about spending a boat load of money on stuff.
The propblem with that spiel about the R&D being applied to the price is just silly especially when talking about knock offs of saarinen, corbusier, and mies who did the 'R&D' (not the mabufacturer), and who, as it turns out are not, god rest their souls, being shorted their due royalties.
the above was me, sorry about all the typos. i had a kid yelling at me from the bath. back to corb. so far we have the ingredients of great designers and mass production in his intended recipe for 'the masses' to have access to great design in the modern age. the ingredient he didn't count on, that's in full effect, is unchecked corporate greed. the gajillion dollar markup that slips past some of us as paying for quality or 'r&d' costs, is often just padding a ceo's pocket (and in a perverse way, stroking the egos of those who spent so much money), and (often, but obviously not always) has very little to do with the designer making any money. especially when they happen to be dead (mies, corb, and saarinen).
maybe one day design will actually get to the point that it is concerned with solving problems (with people and their environment) first and foremost. many of the great designers past and present have had that in mind, but it doesn't feel like we're there yet does it?
"Cash does not equal class just like knock-offs do not equal class."
Talk it up Einstein.
Like most people I just took a huge hit on the market. I'll be buying knock-offs and worry later about your definition of 'class'. I'll be using the difference to pay loans and bills.
... and yet how many that post here with outrage also blithely download music and movies for free, bypassing those artists 100%? Lets not pick and choose when to act with integrity and when to steal - and no, I do not have an album on itunes or in a record shop. I would simply like to see our world regain its sense of valuing all artists regardless of technology easing theft, or Target's rather sad grabs.
This argument is stupid... Stop wasting your time. Every single person in here is guilty of prescription to the "knock-off" society... From the shoes, jeans, shirts, hats, underwear, furniture, car, blender, microwave... List goes on... Honestly you don't have anything better to do. I can understand it this argument from an artistic integrity point of view... Flip side few and far between "sell out." How many designers are sitting on this post?
This argument should be more about copyright law than about moral standards. Commercial furniture companies originally held the copywrite on these items -- granted by the designers OR NOT. KI, Steelcase, Herman Miller - they all reproduced "designer" furniture. When the copyright expired, the design was up for grabs.
Target was just smart enough to run with it. Happens all the time, like it or not.
saw this thru apartment therapy, and had to add my two cents-- target is one of the most charitable corps around, giving 5% each year to the communities they do business in. knock away, i say.
Great design costs money. It should. Well designed and made items cost money to research, design and make. To supply an overindulgent and wasteful culture with stolen (or copied) designs produced cheaply helps no one. It simply adds to consumption and cultivates this errant notion that people have the "right" to great Design at somebody elses expense.
And ultimately, it does not help the cause "of design for the masses". It simply adds to the landfill another piece of irresponsibly made, cheap, of the moment crap.
Some try to give good design to the masses. Ikea does (or tries). If Target wants to do this, then let them actually do just that. Without copying designs. And hopefully, they'll do it with regard to the environment as well.
It's all about what you value, if you value "Good Design" you will pay $3,000 for an original you will have for a lifetime, your children will hand it down to generations below them. A few re- upholstery jobs and furniture polish, it will always look as good as new.
If you don't value "Good Design" you and your offspring can continue to purchase Knock-Offs and throw them in the landfill year after year when they break and wear out.
Why is it people will spend, $35,000 for a car that they only drive for 5 years, however they won't spend $3,000 for a piece of furniture that would last a lifetime?
Now put a set of wheels on a "Classic Modern Chair" that you can drive down the street for all to see and everyone would have an Eames Lounge Chair on wheels!
Point: People should have more respect for Their Environment, The Environment and The Designer who orginally designed the piece of Furniture. It's all about Respect!
I value design as much as the next mod furniture lover, but I also have children and dogs. I don't want to be the kind of mom that yells at her kids for smearing peanut butter on her $3,000 chair or has a nervous breakdown when one of the dogs throws up on it. It's a matter of practicality. When my kids grow up and we run out of pets, maybe then I'll consider an investment piece. Until then, I want the style and beauty of an Eames classic without the fear of it being ruined by the other living things that share my home.
Stealing and forgery are illegal. Copying isn't. Fashion has lived with knockoffs since Caveman Bernie saw a cool loincloth on the "Dirt Carpet" and "knocked it off".
The way I see it, it is a matter of personal taste and circumstance. If you'd cringe every time you saw the knockoff chair in your living room, it is not worth the price you'd pay for it, however low that is. If you'd cringe every time you saw the genuine chair in your living room, remembering when your kid came thisclose to spilling grape juice on it or how many months worth of rent it cost, it's not worth the price you paid for it. Use what makes you happy. If that means buying things to impress your friends, well, that's pretty shallow, but that's your prerogative. If that means buying something "inspired" by the original so you can have something aesthetically pleasing but not be loaded down with credit card debt (or have no savings) then more power to you.
I was also disgusted by the "just work harder" comment. Really?? Because we all know that paychecks are directly proportional to someone's effort, especially these days. What a boorish thing to say. Get your head out of your rear end.
Clearly, every argument here against target selling copies is baseless, smug (mainly smug), and downright illogical.
Nobody is getting shorted in the companies that manufacture originals. The people who buy the copies probably wouldn't ever buy the originals anyway (ever hear of price points?).
If anything, having more of the copies out there makes the originals more valuable, because, they are originals. And, one thing you have all overlooked is that because copies are available to the plebians, these pieces remain popular. For decades. They aren't just some pie in the sky item that fades into history. It's not like there aren't some great new designers today.
So, the way I see it, you smug people can still be smug (and wrong, foolish, silly, etc), but you need the masses. And, you need the copies, too. It's a win win.
Please stop being so smug. And, if you could just post the links for the target items so I don't have to search through 230 pages of chairs, that would be GREAT!
Post a Comment