Target vs designers. shame-less v.2.2, 2.3 & 2.4!
About us
Search
design portals
- .re
- 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
- Google Search
- grassrootsmodern
- harry and sal
- highbrowfurniture
- highsnobiety
- inhabitat
- jmu art
- joshspear
- landliving
- luxist
- materialicio.us
- mocoloco
- mod*mom
- notcot
- productdose
- SallyTV
- save softball
- ses design
- swissmiss
- trendir
- uncrate
- urban flea
- urban kinetics
- we-make-money-not-art
Blue Ant Archive
29 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?
Post a Comment