Sit on this

I remembered reading one day an article on the walrus written by, Julia Dault, “The Perfect Seat”.

It begins by introducing a formula. 

David Holmes, a professor of psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University in England, developed a formula for the perfect posterior. Using the equation (S + C) x (B + F) / T – V, Holmes claimed, you could account for the appeal of any female bottom, factoring in its shape (S), circularity (C), bounce (B), firmness (F), texture (T), and pertness (V). 

The formula is interesting because we aspire to identify formula’s to solve our problems. An applicable solution to our design problems and something which can take some of the effort out of producing forms of seating. Once a formula is identified, its a matter of simple customization, thereafter. The formula becoming a fundamental.

The article continues to investigate, deep into the history of the chair, which is still continuing to evolve. There is still an obsession with the chair. During the EQ3 presentation, I saw that even though the idea of working with trends to create furniture; either to make it more affordable, more easily manufacturable, and comfortable. We still haven’t found a solution to our obsession. I assume that new trends, new technology, new manufacturing techniques, and new materials all support the change to finding new forms to our derrière’s dilema, The article also addresses one of the more important factors in the manufacturing of chairs. It readdresses the formula.

The formula might look something like this: (H + I) x (F + E) x (R + V + B) / X, accounting for historical resonance, innovation, function, experimentation, and the reflective, visceral, and behavioural reactions to design. But the equation hinges, finally, on the perpetual X factor of our finest asset, the all-telling and most likely imperfect derrière.

In this frame of mind, our bodies, which constantly change and are varied across the globe, push the chair into new situations. In an assumption that chairs are absolute. In a different view, we can  question whether or not we need to be sitting at all. Already so much of our daily time is spent with our body contorted into semi-comfortable positions. I found this article relating to this conception of why we need to reevaluate our conception and design of the chair, that piece of furniture we battle against almost everyday of our lives. Chairs are a cause of a large number of bodily problems that result simply from bad posture. It is a wonder we still use them and have adapted them so readily into our environments. If your driving your sitting, in class your sitting, on the bus you sit (if your lucky), when you eat you usually are seated. Not that chairs are evil, I love sitting, but the article brings up a point.

From a fundamentalist perspective, chairs should all be destroyed, says Cranz. But, to be pragmatic, they could at least be made more body-friendly. This job should have fallen to ergonomists but, she argues, they cannot seem to agree even on issues such as chair height or whether arm rests are necessary. And, anyway, they’re missing the point. Physiological problems stem from positioning the torso at a 90-degree angle to the legs. “They never challenged the right-angle seated posture itself,” Cranz says.

So should we abolish the chair? Maybe…I found this article supporting the notion.

For example, he mentions the “Stand-up Desk”. Now, I’ve never really considered this idea. Apparently, not only great writers like Hemingway, Woolf, Carroll, Nabokov and Winston Churchill used standing desks, but many leaders of large organisations do. This caused me to reflect on something that I’ve noticed about my own thinking habits: all my heavy duty thinking, I tend to do while pacing or standing at whiteboards. Bliss quotes a USC study that indicates an acceleration of 5-20% in the brain’s information-processing speed while standing instead of sitting, as well as a marked improvement in reaction time for anyone working on difficult tasks. He also mentions the fact that a desk should be about elbow height, and that there should be a bar to raise one foot occasionally to prevent back problems.

This article was completed, in entirety, standing up.

Justin