Last night, Toronto-based design duo Lateral Architecture celebrated the opening of their THICK2D exhibition at YYZ Artists’ Outlet, much to the delight of the city’s most ardent architecture and design enthusiasts. Focusing on issues of space, functionality, and the role of the designer, the show encourages a reconsideration of several uses of domestic and exurban space.
As their moniker might imply, Lateral’s Lola Sheppard and Mason White—professors at Waterloo and U of T, respectively—provide solutions to design conundrums you’ve probably never even imagined. Yet upon experiencing these pieces, unexpected aesthetic questions arise. Pictured above, the Soft Shelf redefines wall-mounted storage using felt and industrial-strength Velcro. Other highlights include the Lunar Table and Indent Bench, which challenge the apparent necessity for flat surfaces while dining.
Innovative and thought-provoking, THICK2D runs through October 20.
Photo by Jayson Young.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
So pathetically wrong, on so many levels - it's almost perfect in its stupidity.
Such an articulate anonymous critique!
Wow! Clearly, I missed the mark on this one... I admit, I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to architectural theory, but at least I've come close to perfection, so that's okay. Care to elaborate, anonymous? Or anyone else? Let me know.
In what way does this not make the task of storing, making available, ordering and protecting books (the only thing shown in it) worse than conventional systems would be a good question, i should think. Here are some more questions:
is it easier to find a book stored in this?
is it easier to reorganize books stored in this?
does this reflect the normal (eg alphabetized) systems for ordering books?
does this propose or facilitate a better way to store, organize and protect books than the systems already existing?
Is this scaleable? How scaleable?
does this work well with the normal range of sizes of books?
how do the load limitiations normally found in existing systems compare with the load limitations for this system?
visually and otherwise, does this do anything more than gratify a desire for novelty, or are its innovations related to any substantive improvements in the task it proposes to perform?
if only novelty is being gratified, does this reflect the inability of a increasingly post-literate / illiterate society to focus on substantive tasks, and to be distracted by and confuse difference with progress?
does this reduce stress on the books?
what is the ratio of books stored to area/weight/materials/energy for this system compared to the ration for conventional systems?
would this promote or discourage literacy?
is this as easily expanded as other systems used to store books?
does this reflect the needs of people who read, love and depend on books, or does it reduce books to the meaningless content of an ugly sculpture that feeds the vanity of its creators?
finally: does this solve a problem larger than the desire for attention on the part of two professors?
bonus question: what can you conclude about the relationship of architecture professors to books from this "solution to design conundrums you've probably never even imagined"? Is there a reason that you've never imagined them? Is there a reason you've never seen a unicorn?