This Friday’s Museum of Possibilities addresses furniture that can be rotated, upended or turned upside down to reveal a distinctly different function. Over a span of nearly 30 years, this trivial and relatively unimportant design challenge has intrigued me. It is a persistent idée fixe for me. It would be dishonest to suggest that such furniture would be indispensable, useful or necessary for a small home or office. Frankly, it is no more than an intriguing design puzzle.
I have a friend, Dirk Dieter, who lives in a single-family home on a sliver of land not much wider than the grass strip that parallels some sidewalks. His home, a few blocks from the Pacific Ocean south of San Francisco, occupies literally 250 sq. ft. He could use one of these designs, perhaps! Of course one of the several weaknesses of these ideas is that when one function is in use, the other is unavailable. But I challenge my dear Neatorama readers to think up your own flip-over, multiple-use furniture. It is lots of fun to imagine them!
Visit Steven M. Johnson at his website.
Comments (9)
i got the right vase for your design if you wish!!!
magicvase@gmail.com
half this stuff is brilliant
i mean seriously
if i see one more car model that looks like every other car model
if i see one more hideous piece of shaker style furniture
i will punch everybody in the face
it's the future already
That's a challenge for you, Steve. :)
There continues to be something of a disconnect between some of my commenters and the original intent of my work, which was as HUMOR. Sadly, I must consider the possibility that the humor is so weak that some folks assume I am serious, and therefore a bad designer. If my ideas seem "illogical" or if something I show represents a "fire hazard" that's because I made it that way intentionally. I usually work at making them flawed in some way. When my young son, while still in diapers, showed his first evidence of a sense of humor, it was when I intentionally told him something that had a MISTAKE in it. He found mistakes funny. I needn't go on and on here, I guess....
Oh well. But thanks Gauldar!
Call me crazy, but as a kid I would've found this pretty cool so long as the taser was set to low and the teargas exposure wasn't too long. I'm sure they've all been exposed to this stuff themselves as part of their training and that they were careful while dealing with kids.
Same goes for guns. It's not always bad to let a kid handle a gun so long as there is responsible supervision and training
A police officer I worked with related a tale of how they would tear gas officers so they would know what it's like. He declined the experience.
I don't think I'd call it child abuse. Steohawk, parents do own their kids, don't they? Get over it. The attitude of kids not being "owned" is exactly why so many kids are out of control.
There are plenty of good parents, with good kids, who don't feel the need to resort to taking the position of treating their children like property. And no shortage of child abuse on every level as the default pattern of societies that treat children as "owned".
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of obnoxious children. But I'm not willing to go back the things were and thing that's an improvement...
Officer: Well we use these tasers blah blah blah
Kid:Can I try it?
Kid 2: Ohh Me too?
Kid 3 Me Too?
Officer: Umm I dont know
Parent: Sure why not.
Officer: Ok
Zap
Sounds like fun to me.
This form of argument is about as effective as "believing" your child does not have an undiagnosed heart condition before you allow him a shock to the system.
If you insist on the power of blind supposition with regard to keeping children from harm, please allow me to direct you to the contraceptive aisle. I KNOW condoms can prevent bad parenting.
Maybe those kids were tested for heart conditions before the tasering took place. You're assuming they weren't. At least the defenders acknowledged that they were making unqualified statements.