Contemplating Zaha Hadid's green furniture design

Dear Zaha, how are you? Before starting this contemplation, let it be clear that nothing regarding the designer furniture is meant to criticize in a negative way. All is meant to provide creativity that will contribute to getting the next release of this designer furniture to be even more stunning.
Many tracks go well when viewing Zaha Hadid's architectural designs. One of those tracks is Raul Rincon's remix of Energy 52's - Cafe del Mar.
Just to heat up things a little will start off with some personal stuff and see where it goes from there. As stated above, the focus will be on your green furniture design. The architecture you design, can you design in such a way because you are not bound to a political mind nor to political obligations?
On the internet there is mentioned a statement of Herman Melville (August 1, 1819 - September 28, 1891): "It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation". Have you something to add to that statement?
On wikipedia.org it is written that you already had created architectural designs in the 1980's but that they were not, technically speaking, able to construct such architecture. Nowadays with computer animation and other software, a lot is possible. Does this mean that you can create even more stunning designs now than when you did in the 1980's and 1990's?
Was your experience in the 1980's that you could design architecture and shapes, using your mind, that were very difficult to come up with by using the software of those days?
"It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation" by Herman Melville. What could it have been that made Herman Melville come to this saying?
Is it truly important, as an architect, to understand what it is Herman Melville is saying with this line?
As a powerful and revolutionary designer you must have encountered numerous of occasions where people just waved your designs of the table, is it not?
When was it that you started to notice the limitations of people, no matter how long they were in the architect or design business, that they simply could not open their minds to new designs that you showed them?
Is it that people are often afraid of things they do not know?
If so, that does not explain why professionals, that you presented your new architecture and new designs with, closed the door for you or just laughed at your architecture and at your design, does it?
There is a fundamental aspect within people that keep them away from being good designers, let alone to be outstanding designers, is there not?
Is it not the feeling of keeping down the competition? No, it lies much deeper than that. How many times have you met architects that just recognized the true potential of your work but did not dare or did not want to put it to practise?
What could you tell about the architectural works and design capabilities of those architects and designers that saw the potential of your work?
In what way were their architecture and design different than those who seriously and immediately waved your work away?
Can it be said that the capabilities of an architect/designer are strongly interwoven with the mentality of that person?
How many architects have you met that had negative mentality but could come up with great architecture?
Which of those architects, that waved your work away but could make good architectural designs, could push limits regarding architecture and design?
How is it possible for one to wave your great architecture from the table and still make great designs themselves?
Is it that those architects did not like your architectural work?
If so, could you then make a clear distinction regarding the direction in which they were looking? Meaning, if they could be great architects/designers, but they waved away your designs, then it must be that something in them that keeps them from designing architecture like you do and consequently you will not find your architectural designs, or aspects of that, in the architecture/design of them. True?
Is it not that, although every architect/designer has probably a favourite style that he/she prefers, one can still be open to other styles and concepts without losing their own?
What does one need to dare and leave its architectural style behind for a while and explore other styles?
When does exploring other styles become a waste of time? Is that the point where the architect or designer, that is an expert in the style you are exploring, is not willing to provide the full insight in that style?
How far would you yourself go when it comes down to providing the insight in your architectural style and design?
What does it take to get skilled in designing architecture?
As with almost anything, when looking at a field of profession it is always the case that there are people who are not particularly good in what they do, there are those who are and there are those who go beyond. Why is it that is the case?
Is it that, when it comes to architecture, one need to be able to understand the building itself, what it wants, how it wants to be positioned, what colours it needs and what shape expresses best that what the building is meant for and what the building wants to show?
To what extend is one able to learn how to design great architecture?
Would you be able to design architecture of people who laughed at your designs, when you were not yet renown for your work?
Have you met architects who, like you, presented people with new powerful architectural designs?
How many of them still design their architecture today as they did back then?
Which of them have switched to other architectural design?
Describe the reason for them to alter their architectural style.
How do those architects, today, feel about the decision they made back then about changing their architectural design?
Was their reason to change their style so they could get bread on the table?
How strong does an architect usually hold on to its own architectural style?
You have your own architect studio with quite a lot of employees. How many of them can work at your studio and keep their own architectural design?
In what way do you treat the young architects in your studio different than the people who you presented with your architecture in your early days?
In your early days, how many architects have you met that could look at the bare nakedness of all architectural design that you, or someone else, presented them with?
Was it pure their experience of being an architect for many years that they could look at the bare nakedness of any architectural designs and comment on it or make design changes to make it better?
How much of the skill those architects had, to look at the bare nakedness of each architecture, had to do with their character?
Is having a certain character, a certain mentality, the key features to become a great architect?
Does one need an open mind to see what the lines are in a building and what those lines could be?
Can a brilliant architect/designer become cranky when asking that person something regarding the design you work on?
Describe the way that one will travel before reaching that point of becoming a great architect.
Is it possible for an architect to have found lines in its architectural design that he cannot explain?
What will the lines be like of architectural works, of the architects that waved your work away, had they have let you work on it for a while?
When would you allow to let architects, that waved your work away, work on some of your architectural designs, to get an even better design?
Is it possible for an architect, that does not like the architectural design of another architect, to still go to that architect and help him to solve or improve that architect's design issues?
How many architects, that you met in your early days, where already at their limitations, when it came to architectural design, while still being relatively young?
In what way does one's believe in God, whatever the religion is, pulls down the freedom of mind one needs push architectural design limits?
Let's go back to the architects that waved your work from the table back in your early days, and perhaps even as they still do today. The bare nakedness, the bare truth, the bare vision of designing architecture. How to come to that point?
How to come to that point where you can leave all behind, for the time being, and start designing architecture?
As with people, not all clothes will look good at all people when they wear it, and that fact does not lie in that there is something wrong with that person, but in the simple fact that there is no match between that person and that piece of clothing. True?
Does the same goes for buildings? Is it that one building will look great with a sharp triangular roof and the other does not?
How to overcome such problems when it comes to designing new architecture and keep your own style?
Can it be that there are assignments on the market of which can be said that your architectural style simply is not what is needed because it would not match with the building itself?
The bare nakedness of architectural design. What one cannot see, one cannot shape?
Does a hallway always is a hallway?
Is a stair always a stair or can it become a hallway?
When does a couch becomes something more than furniture?
The bare nakedness of architectural design; who do you need to get to that point?
Can it be that the bare nakedness of architecture can only be achieved with the help of experienced architects?
Describe the point when one comes to that point where the bare nakedness of the designs he is working on becomes fully exposed.
Do the lines on the paper start to come alive and position themselves in ways that you could not have thought of even when you would have had two months to think about a certain line?
The bare nakedness of an architectural design, what do you see? What are the shapes that you see? What forms does the building put itself in to?
When the bare nakedness of the architectural design, of the building that you are working on becomes visible, what use or what value do the people, who waved your work away, have at that point?
Was it all bad that people waved your work from the table?
What survives in the bare nakedness of architectural design?
Who of the architects that you have met, before you started your own studio, have been on that point where they found themselves faced with the bare nakedness of the architectural design that they worked on?
Have you ever met architects who backed away when they found themselves almost going over that barrier where behind which lies that bare nakedness regarding the design of any architecture?
What were architects like in Baghdad during your study?
How often did you found that there was put a hold to the design of a building, because it became too radical, to new, to progressive?
Which of the architecture, in the days that you studied there, were designed, or better said, were the outcome of an architect that had found that point, that area, where the view and mind of the architect found and used the bare-naked view on the building's design?
Is the bare-naked view on the design of a building something that can only be gotten by architects who do not have a narrow-minded view on people?
Can it be that the bare-naked view on a building's design can be gotten by almost any architect?
In what way can it be said that a bare-naked view can be achieved by all good architects, no matter their mentality and character, but that only of few can work with the bare-naked view they have achieved?
let's try to go a little deeper on this because it stays too much on the surface. Let's try to enter that bare-naked view, that fully design minded area, and see what survives in it, what not, and how to use it.
That fully design minded area, that fully dedicated view on the object that is to be shaped into a gorgeous design. That solely view in which no judgement, no faults, no incompetent judgement of people and no boundaries are set.
Is it possible for racism to be present in it when set to that fully dedicated design-mode?
Are there different levels within the fully design-minded mode?
In what way is it possible for a badly mannered person to get to the higher levels of that fully design-minded view?
Let's step out of the vision and feeling of that bare-naked design view and start off with the design of the green furniture you made. Perhaps later we will return and discuss this bare-naked design view. How come you designed this green furniture? Was there no existing designer furniture around that would suit your needs?
Who is the designer that would come close in designing such furniture?
Have there been in the past designers that would have come up with such furniture design?
How would you describe that what you really missed in the furniture that you viewed before taking up the assignment of you yourself designing the green furniture?
If looked at the model of the London Olympic Aquatic Centre, what then can be said about the usage of the furniture for this building?
In what way can visitors be given the feeling of the whole view and shape of the London Olympic Aquatic Centre if they are inside this building?
Is it not that a huge great looking aquarium would make the visitor feel much more in contact with the London Olympic Aquatic Centre than the green furniture would?
How does an architect determine which furniture will suit the interior of a building?
How come an architect always start with the exterior of a building?
Is it an unwritten rule that architects always start with the exterior of building?
How is it that the structure of a building determines the furniture to be used for that building?
In what way is the usability of furniture depending on the room that it will be placed in?
When would an architect determine that a piece of furniture does not have to be functional but only got to have a great design?
When furniture loses it functionality it becomes art, is it not? It becomes solely an object, true?
If there is a point at which furniture loses its functionality and solely becomes an object, a piece of art, when then will an architect use this as an escape route? Meaning, when an architect cannot find the desired design for a piece of furniture to have and keep it functional, the architect can deliberately push up the design and make a piece of art of the furniture, not having to care about the piece of furniture being functional?
What is a greater challenge for an architect, designing furniture that is functional or designing furniture that purely consists out of design?
Are there any buildings that have so much design in them that it takes a great deal of effort to overhaul a furniture's design in such a way that in that high design-environment that piece of furniture has such a high level of design that it will be considered art and not a functional piece of furniture?
What architecture is there that the green furniture can be used in and it have a normal level of functionality? Meaning, which buildings are there around that the green furniture can be placed in and it at the same time not being considered a piece of art?
Is the London Olympic Aquatic Centre such a building?
When reviewing affordable design and architecture, what then can be said about how the architecture is implemented in the furniture of that building?
Does it always have to be that the furniture in such architecture contain the same lines and characteristics of that architecture?
Is it considered a mismatch when the furniture in a great architectural design does not contain the same lines of that architecture?
Is it an unwritten rule that that always must be the case?
How much of the architecture of a building do people experience when being in that building?
Does great architecture always require matching furniture, furniture that has the same lines and characteristics as that architecture?
What do people experience of the great architecture of a building when they cannot experience, see, that architecture when being inside that building?
Is it not that when people can or do not experience the architecture of a building, any furniture used in that building that contains the same characteristic of that architecture, will look misplaced?
Let's say people cannot experience the architecture of a building when being inside that building, can it then be that simply hanging-up pictures of that building throughout the interior will make people experience the architecture of a building?
In what way is it possible to use pictures throughout the interior of a building to make people experience a building in general?
In what way is it the case that the mentality of the people influence the way people experience architecture?
Can it be said that experiencing the architecture or a building can never be fully achieved, simply because people differ too much in their likings, dos and don'ts?
Does it depend on the building what kind of pictures and how many of them, need to be used to make people experience a certain atmosphere?
Is it possible to use pictures throughout the interior of a building to make people experience architectural characteristics that in fact are not part of the building's architecture?
At car shows for example, car manufacturers often use light to make the whole look of a car to come out stronger and nicer. What is the equivalent of the usage of light that car manufacturers use at car shows when it comes down to architects and the architecture they designed?
What are a few important differences between a car show and the architecture of building?
Is it not true that because a car is a much smaller object than a building, a car can much more easily be highlighted, or at least aspects of that car, than is the case with an entire building?
Is it true that because of the size of a building, it's architecture cannot be highlighted like is the case with, for example, a car?
What is the difference between highlighting the design and characteristics of a pen and the architecture of a building?
Can it really be said that the bigger the object the more difficult it is to highlight its design?
In what way is man's perception of influence on how a big object, such as a building or a large cruise ship and its design need to be highlighted?
Does it require any knowledge about a big object for a person to be able to capture, to see the design of that big object?
Would it help, when it comes down to letting people properly experience the architecture of a building, to hand people a small model of that building when entering it?
Should people be sent detailed information and pictures of a buildings architecture prior to their visit?
How many tours should people be given for them to be able to grasp the architecture of building?
Should the architecture of a building always be in such a way that people can always see some part of the structure of the building for them to feel connected to its architecture?
What other ways are there for people to experience the architecture of a building while being inside it but not being able to overlook its whole design?
Is it not that people do not have to see parts of the structure of a building for them to experience its architecture, but that it is a certain atmosphere that must be created by the architect that will make people feel the architecture of a building, to be in contact with its architecture?
Is it a kind of flow that must be created within a building that pulls people in and makes them experience the building's architecture?
Is furniture one major contributor that helps an architect creating an atmosphere in a building that is tuned according its architecture?
What about the colour of the walls? In what way does colour play a role in letting people experience the architecture of a building?
What about the materials used within the interior of a building? In what way does that help people in getting in contact with the architecture of a building?
Before continuing, let's go back one step and see what can be done to highlight the architecture of a building compared to highlighting the design and colour of a car at a car show. Is it not the case that architects often also use light to highlight the design of a building?
Name three buildings in which the architect used light to highlight the building's architecture.
Is there a difference in using light to highlight the architecture of a building and using light to make the architecture of a building appear nicer?
What does it require, of the materials used in a building, to make the architecture of the building come out nice when shone upon at night time?
Is it really architecture that is highlighted when an architecture of a building is illuminated at night or is it something else that is highlighted by that light?
When is the architecture of a building fully visible? Is this always during daytime?
Can it be that the architecture of a building does not always have to be designed for daytime? Meaning, can it be that an architect chooses to give a building such architecture that is solely designed for night-time?
What could be a reason to give a building architecture that is only well visible at night?
What would such a building look like during day time?
Can the same apply for furniture used by an architect? Meaning, can it also be that an architect designs furniture that will only be functional during when it is dark within the building?
Do Hollywood directors also use these techniques? Meaning, architecture and design that is solely designed for night-time?
Is the green furniture such a furniture that is only to be used in rooms that have very little light in them?
Is it pure man's perception in a dark environment that will make people experience the green furniture as a nice object?
Which parts of the green furniture need to be slightly illuminated for people to indicate those spots of the green furniture that can be sat on?
What about those spots of the green furniture that can be used to place one's drink on?
Is it that the Green furniture can also be used within sporting facilities?
Is it that e.g. indoor climbing facilities would be able to make good use of the green furniture?
Could it be that the functionality of the green furniture lies not within ordinary usage of furniture?
Could people who need to recover from a serious accident, e.g. people who need to learn how to walk again, could have a great help from the green furniture?
What was the initial thought of designing the green furniture the way it is done now?
Which of the earliest sketches of the green furniture would make excellent underwater furniture?
If placed within a room of the London Olympic Aquatic Centre, what then would be the required design of the chair that would be used within a short distance of the green furniture?
What can be said about the difference between an object being furniture and it became an object to perform exercises with?
Is it possible the green furniture is a multifunctional piece of furniture? Meaning, the green furniture can be used as a chair, a table and a bed.
Is it possible the green furniture is a multifunctional object? Meaning, it can be used to work on, to read, to get a good rest, to be inspired by?
What is the difference between furniture and other objects within a building?
Does it always have to be that furniture must meet the requirements of the people making use of a building, or can it also be the other way around; people having to behave or act within a way that is expressed by the furniture used?
Can it be the green furniture can be used to present people with a challenge?
Would the green furniture make an excellent object to be placed within the designer department of the Zaha Hadid Architect's office in London?
What function can the green furniture have when placed within the design studio of Zaha Hadid Architects?
What comes thirst, designing furniture for a building and then the architecture of the building or vice versa?
How many architectural designs are there that were designed after the whole interior of the building was designed, including its furniture?
Should it not always be that the furniture and the rest of the interior should be designed first and second the architecture of the building itself?
Where lies the heart of a building, with its architecture or with its interior?
Would the green furniture match with the interior of an old English tea house?
How come the green furniture would also fit in a sauna?
Would it depend on how one feels to find that the green furniture is a match or not, while that person being in the same room?
What is the mentality, or better said, the sharpness and openness of people's mind while being in a tea house?
In what way does the sharpness and openness of people in a tea house differs from the one of people who attend a management meeting?
What is the mentality, or better said, the sharpness and openness of people's mind while being in a tea house?
In what way does the sharpness and openness of people in a tea house differs from the one of people who attend a management meeting?
What about a sauna? Is it not that people in a sauna are far more relaxed, less aggressive and more open minded than in a management meeting?
Is it not that in a sauna people would much more appreciate exotic, loosen and flowing design of the sauna environment, rather than office design furniture?
Is it known that people in a sauna have much more the need for the lines the green furniture has because people in a sauna enter a certain mindset after being some time in a sauna?
If so, how can that mindset be best described?
If the green furniture is going to be used in a sauna, should the Green colour be replaced by a more blueish colour, or would the need of changing the green colour of the green furniture depend on the type of light that is used within the sauna?
Would it suit the green furniture if its design would be equipped with some sort of markings, similar as the tattoo markings on a person?
Why should there not be chosen to put commercial advertising on the green furniture, when placed in a sauna?
Is it not that people do not want to be bothered by commercial advertising while being in a sauna?
What is being in a sauna is all about?
Is being in a sauna the same as clearing your head while making a long walk through the woods on a winter day?
Some questions back it was asked if there was architecture around that is solely tuned to be shown at night or in darker areas. Can the sauna also be considered as a place where architecture is tuned in such a way that it comes out more in this darker sauna environment?
Are all saunas well-lit or are there also saunas that are deliberately less lit, but in such a way that people have more privacy, that people are set more at ease; a less lit sauna in which the lesser illumination is tuned in such a way that it enhances the relaxing capabilities of that sauna?
Is it not that in such a darker illuminated sauna there is no need for very strict design furniture?
Is it not that in such a darker illuminated sauna people would value the green furniture much more simply because it looks much more shapeless, more loose, more flow-like; more in phase with the people's mindset at that moment?
What music is played in saunas?
What music need to be played in the sauna to enhance the design of the green furniture?
Picture the darker sauna room for moment. Where do you see people sitting? Where does the steam come from? Is it a classic sauna where water is poured over hot rocks to make steam? Is there enough light, day and night, to distinguish shape and other people?
Which parts of the green furniture would stand out more in such a darker sauna environment?
Would that be the base of the green furniture or the plateau on top?
What about its whole appearance?
What is it about architectural designs that are tuned for night-time that make it stand out more?
Does the design of the green furniture also must be changed for it to be more visible in a darker sauna environment?
In what way does the shape of the green furniture allows for it to enhance its own design when placed inside a dark sauna environment?
Is it that because of the thinner base and the broader top plateau, the light in the darker sauna environment will enhance the design of the green furniture, hence, also make it more visible for the people in the darker sauna environment?
Is it possible to create a one on one ceramic version of the green furniture?
If so, is it possible to give the look of the ceramic version of the green furniture an old rocky look?
Would it be preferable not to use a dark colour for the ceramic version of the green furniture, but to use a light rocky colour for it, such as a brownish sandstone or perhaps a reddish colour that is found in the Colorado River area?
What delicacy should any black markings have that would be applied to such a ceramic brownish or reddish version of the green furniture?
Let's leave the sauna behind for a while and go back to the technique in how to let people experience a building's architecture. Let's say the architectural design of a building is chosen in such a way that it would match the green furniture, how many of the green furniture must be used for the people inside that building will feel in contact with the building's architecture by seeing the green furniture?
Does a green furniture must be located throughout the building every 15 meters? Every 5 meters? One on each floor? Only on those locations that have a key-function in the building, or are located near key-locations in that building?
Should there be a whole field of green furniture near the entrance of a building? Meaning, the green furniture will be used in a numerous number near the entrance of the building and at the same time nowhere else in that building.
Should there be no actual green furniture used in the entrance of that building but only a big sized picture of the green furniture on the floor?
Is it really that people must see the green furniture, while being inside the building, to be in contact with the building's architecture that matches the green furniture?
What about the tiles used near the entrance of that building, should each tile bear a small picture of the green furniture?
Should small models of the green furniture be hanging from the entrance's sealing?
Should people be given a map of the building, when entering, that tells what characteristics of the architecture are to interpreted as a link with the green furniture?
Which part of the green furniture can serve as a functional part for activities done by people while entering a building that has a spectacular architecture?
Which part of the green furniture can serve as a functional part for activities done by people while entering a building of which its architecture matches the green furniture?
What can the clothes of the employees, who work near the entrance of the building, contribute in letting people see or feel the connection between the building's architecture and the green furniture, used throughout the building?
Does the shape, the whole look, of the green furniture can be used excellent to be mounted vertically to a wall, i.e. mounted vertically to a wall with its base?
Does making the door handles of the entrance give people a feeling that the green furniture is linked to the building's architecture?
What should the size of such door handles be for visitors of that building not to overlook the matching door handles?
What size should the door handle not become because it will be inconvenient for people to grab, when entering the building?
Which part of the green furniture must be carefully shaped/positioned, when using door handles that match the green furniture, because it might be that people will hurt themselves with simply by grabbing the door handle?
What would the fire department say about such door handles when they come and check the fire safety of the whole building?
Has it ever been that the architecture of a building had to be changed because the fire department concluded that that architecture was designed in such a way that if a fire would start, the architecture would be a major contributing factor in spreading and intensifying the fire?
Could it be that also the green furniture can be in some way responsible for intensifying a fire?
Could it be that because of the broad curved base of the green furniture, the air current going over the green furniture's curved base will contribute in intensifying the fire?
What about the broad curved base of the green furniture contributing in guiding the fire in a direction?
Does the design of the green furniture need to be changed for the green furniture to be recognized by the fire department as being a designer furniture that helps putting a fire out?
What characteristic could the green furniture have that makes this furniture a must in all buildings that need a strong fire prevention?
Has it ever been known that an architect equipped a building with certain furniture because that furniture had such fire prevention characteristics?
What designer tools were used to design the green furniture?
Do fire departments also use designer tools to study how well protected a building is?
Do fire departments also take the design of furniture in consideration when determining the fire hazard of a building?
How detailed does a fire department looks at the design of furniture when it comes down to pulling a fire hose through a hallway or an office area within a building?
In what way does the design of the green furniture makes it possible for the fire department to more easily pull a fire hose through the building containing quite a few of the green furniture?
Does the green furniture makes an excellent shelter for people to hide when a building is on fire?
When applying matching door handles, regarding the green furniture, would that be a lifesaver by the fire department?
If asking the fire department, what then would they recommend regarding the design of the green furniture to be modified for the green furniture to even fit more to be of help to the fire department?
In what kind of architecture would the fire department make the green furniture compulsory to enhance a building's fire safety?
What do the lines of the green furniture tell a fire chief commander when standing inside at the entrance of a building that has its architecture linked to the green furniture?
What do the lines of the architecture have to do to match with the green furniture inside?
Does it need a human presence for the architecture of a building to fit the design of the green furniture inside?
What is it about the ceiling of a building's entrance that it must be doing to make a match with the green furniture?
What do the ceiling's lines have to do for people walking in to the building to feel that the green furniture is linked to the building's architecture?
How much does the ceiling have to bent for visitors to immediately being able to grasp the connection of the green furniture's design with the architecture of the entrance?
Picture the green furniture being in a well sized office that can easily have the green furniture placed within it without the green furniture being too big or too small for the office. How much curves/waves do the ceiling need to have for the green furniture and the office to be undoubtedly connected to each other in a nice and stylish way?
Would one wave in the ceiling be sufficient?
What about just an equal sized wave on the ceiling, as is on top of the green furniture, located on that spot on the ceiling as where the green furniture is located?
What about using only one wave on the ceiling of which its curved lines are vertically a little, but obviously, steeper than the wave on top of the green furniture, how would that look?
Can it be that to make the design of the green furniture match the office, only one wave in the ceiling, just above were the green furniture is located, is enough to make the green furniture fit the interior of the office?
Is using such a wave in the ceiling enough to make the design of the green furniture fit in the office?
Is it not, that when the dimensions of the office are in a way that make the office has a certain depth, when standing in the doorway, the green furniture would make a great look being in that office when the ceiling, above the green furniture, is in a wave like shape?
Would it not that such a look makes the green furniture in the office like a scenery, an isolated scenery?
What parts can be used to make such a great looking scenery go bad?
Would this be a chandelier?
What about a chandelier that bears the same colour as the green furniture, would that make the chandelier give something extra to the scenery or will it take away something of the great appearance of the scenery?
Is there a chance that if the chandelier will have the same colour as the green furniture, that the chandelier on the ceiling will look like a solid green shapeless and nasty object?
How should the layout, the design, of the chandelier be for the chandelier to merge with the green furniture located beneath it?
What size should the crystal elements of the chandelier have for the chandelier not to appear as a solid mass?
In what way does the distance from which the chandelier is viewed, contribute in making the chandelier look like a solid mass just hanging above he green furniture?
Do the elements of the chandelier need to be positioned in a way to merge with the shape of the green furniture?
What is the design that comes to mind when thinking of a chandelier?
Does a chandelier always need to have a classical design?
What is the most classical design of a chandelier?
Who were the leading designer in those days that chandelier-making and usage were as common as today's lamp-making?
How can the main challenges of those chandelier designers be best described?
Were their challenges when making a chandelier always pretty much the same?
Where their challenges when designing a chandelier always the same?
How many different styles/designs of chandeliers could be distinguished in those days?
Which design of a chandelier could be best described as being a common one?
Where were the most prestigious chandeliers located?
What was it that a chandelier designer was faced with when determining the proper design standing in a client's living room that the chandelier would be put in?
How did chandelier designers cope with the fact that most client living rooms had a straight ceiling?
How was it that chandelier designers coped with the thick wooden beams when designing a chandelier for a castle's living room or large hallway?
Have there ever been chandelier designs that showed that chandelier designer struggled with matching the design of the chandelier with the furniture in the room that the chandelier was going to be used in?
In what way did chandelier designers used colour for the chandelier elements to match the design of the chandelier with the furniture in the room?
What shows that chandelier designers were not afraid to come up with radical chandelier designs?
What could be said was the drive for these chandelier designers to come up with such radical chandelier designs?
Was an important reason for these radical chandelier designs that chandelier designers were struggling to keep up with the fast-changing interior of living rooms? Meaning, was the layout of the interior and design of the furniture in the living rooms changing/evolving to rapidly for chandelier designers to keep up with matching their chandelier design to this rapidly changing environment in which their chandeliers were used?
Is there an example that shows that chandelier designers have tried to change their design to bend the rapidly changing environment, in which their chandeliers were used, in such a way that they did not have to try to keep up with new developments, but that these new developments would go in a direction in which their chandelier designs would much more easily merge with these new developments?
To what extend did chandelier designers used new materials within their chandelier design?
If, for the office in which the green furniture is to be located, a chandelier had to be designed for it to hang directly above the green furniture, what then would be the materials to be used to design that chandelier with?
To what extend did chandelier designers used non-crystal material for these materials to participate in the chandelier's overall design?
Who was the chandelier designer that had used exotic materials in his chandelier design to get a better chandelier design?
Is one of those materials the usage of platinum?
What would a chandelier look like when that chandelier is partly constructed with the same material that the green furniture is made of?
If a chandelier designer is asked to implement one of today's gadget technologies in his chandelier design, which technology then would he use when asked to design a chandelier for the entrance of the Google main office building?
To what extend does a chandelier requires additional items for its bare origin to have a good design?
What things are used by architects to make their building come out great looking?
Is it that architects nowadays make more use of additional items for them to get the proper architectural design?
Where lies the line that separates the true architectural design form additional techniques used to give a building a certain look?
Is, for instance, the usage of blended coloured windows for a building a part of true architecture or is it an additional technology to make a building look good?
Can it be said that the main architecture of a building lies in its walls, floors and ceilings?
What was it that architects in ancient Rome had to work with to come up with a stunning architectural design?
Can it be said that architects in ancient Rome would make a much better use of the green furniture than architects would nowadays?
How was it that architects in Rome worked with integrating furniture design with the room in which they would be placed in?
Was it not true that in ancient Rome people were much more focused on beauty, in all aspects of life, than is the case with people today?
Is it not that one place this beauty, in ancient Rome, was a common factor was in public bathing houses?
When considering such an ancient bathing house, how then would the people in those days make use of the green furniture?
Would this perhaps be to perform a massage on?
What about that, using the green furniture as a stretcher on which the client lies down to get massaged by a masseur?
What furniture did masseurs in ancient Rome used to lay their clients down to provide them with a massage?
Was it not that most ordinary people in Rome had a better concept of life itself?
Was it not that people in ancient Rome were much more aware of how to integrate furniture in a room?
Why is it that it can be said that it is not about any particular style to integrate a piece of furniture in a room, but that it has to do with universal rules?
Is it about universal rules or is it about a certain feeling when it comes to making the implementation of a piece of furniture fit the entire design/atmosphere of a room?
How is it nowadays regarding a piece of furniture being regarded as successfully being integrated within a room?
Let's go back to ancient Rome for a moment. In what way is it that Romans were much more focused on using furniture that served a purpose?
How keen were the Romans on using furniture succeeded in fulfilling its purpose?
Where would the Romans could have seen use for the green furniture other than in a public bathing house?
Where in ancient Rome were new designs put on display?
How creative had ordinary Romans need to be to decorate their own interior?
Can it be said that they were much more open to new furniture designs than people are today?
How well would the green furniture be looked at by people when it would have been put on display on a market in ancient Rome?
What are the odds that Romans would have considered the green furniture something that would be a nice piece of furniture to have if it would be made from marble?
What furniture was usually made from marble in ancient Rome and what was the reason for Romans to particularly use marble for that furniture?
In what ways were the Romans able, in contrast with people today, to see the lines within furniture and it blending in with the room that it was used in?
Would the green furniture suit to be used in a Roman office?
If so, would this then be that this would be the office of a politician or would this be the office of a carpenter?
In what way were the Romans, as the people of today, very careful when it comes to choosing their furniture and decoration for their offices because of those people might be considered very radical, and with that, a threat for their colleagues in power?
On the other hand, can it be that the green furniture could have been considered a favoured piece of furniture with people that were rebels by the ruling power in ancient Rome?
What lines and shapes within furniture were of aesthetic value?
If one can distinct the way a piece of furniture is shaped, what else then can that person see/distinguish with the interior of, let's say, an office?
Is it not true that people nowadays have not got that ability to pick up if furniture in e.g. an office match with one-another?
Is it not true that people nowadays are much more keen on what other people think about the furniture they have in their office?
Is it not true that people nowadays are much more keen on what other people say behind their back about the furniture they have in their office?
Is it not that it is more important to use furniture in one's office that is liked by other people simply because to safeguard one's career?
In what way is it possible to use furniture that lies outside the scope of what people consider of value for their career and still can be sure that they do not place themselves outside the group of people with whom they work?
Is it not that at the end of the day people know that they have seen a stunning office interior even though they are afraid to admit this when being faced with the group of people they work with?
Where does this mentality come from that people can be placed outside the group if their likings and doings are not of that of the mainstream found within that group?
Is it because of the incompetence of man?
Is it because people are quite easily scarred when they are faced with something they have never seen before?
Or is it that people are quite easily filled with fear when they are presented with something that is simply new to them?
Why is it that something such as e.g. a replacement of office furniture with newly styled furniture can bring fear to people?
What is it that triggers such fear in people that they do not want newly shaped furniture within their office?
To what extend can it be that applying new furniture within one's office can trigger the same type of fear within different people?
How come applying such new furniture in one's office can trigger fear in everyone to whom that office is allocated?
Could it be that this is the case because all the people allocated to such an office all have a similar mentality, character?
How can that mentality/character be best described?
Could it be that people who are allocated to such an office, i.e. with new or revolutionary furniture, are happy with such furniture because of its beauty but the group that they work with do not share that view?
Let's say that new/revolutionary office furniture is the green furniture. What is it that makes people who are afraid or non-willing to admit the green furniture's looks, while they know that the green furniture is a very good design, to adapt the green furniture's characteristics?
Is one way to do that, making an intermediate version of the green furniture before releasing the green furniture as it is now?
Can it be that people are afraid of using the green furniture as being a new part of their office interior because the green furniture breaks a barrier within furniture design?
Does breaking a barrier mean that people lose the safety a barrier provides?
Does breaking a barrier mean that designers lose the safety a barrier provides?
What does it mean for a renowned furniture designer to be suddenly faced with a furniture design that that designer never has thought at?
What kind of mentality does any designer need to have to cope with designs that he had never imagined?
How quickly can a designer work with the new design of a piece of furniture of which its design is completely new?
Can it be said that a quality designer does not have to come up with a new design for a furniture himself to implement that new furniture successfully?
If not, who gets the most credit, the designer who designed the new furniture or the designer who adopts the new furniture and implements it successfully?
What does it take to come up with a completely new design for a piece of furniture?
What does it take for a designer to come up with a new design?
What does it take for a designer to interpret his feeling into a design?
What is the difference between being able to come up with a new design and implementing that new design?
Is it not that when one can come up with a new design, one is also able to implement that design successfully?
To what extend is it that a designer who came up with a new design is best suited to make the most stunning implementations of that new design?
Is that a successful implementation of a new design depends on how well one can understand that new design?
To what extend is a new design a translation of the designer who came up with that new design?
To what extend is a new furniture design a translation of the designer's view when overlooking e.g. the office that agreed to have a completely new furniture designed for?
Is it a designer's expertise to come up with a new design for furniture that can easily be understand by other designers when they are presented with the result of that new furniture design?
To what extent is it needed that a designer is skilled to understand the vision and interpretation of the designer who created this new furniture?
To what extend is it needed that the designer of the new furniture can make the furniture's design accessible for non-designers, people who simply buy or use the furniture?
To what extend is it that people buy designer furniture? Meaning, what is the reason for people to buy designer furniture?
Is buying designer furniture the same as buying art? Meaning, do the same principles apply when it comes to buying furniture?
What are reasons why people decide to buy a piece of art?
Is it because that piece of art moves something within its buyer?
People are people and that means that daily people can feel happier or sadder than the day before, people's insight in life and art can change, etc. How to make sure a stunning furniture design stays stunning throughout time?
Is it that a good design is always able to move people, or at least will make people say: "...yes...that really is some design...".
Is it really a designer's touch to be able to make, or better said, to tune a design for it to move people no matter how they feel?
What does it take to come to such a design, a design that is solely tuned for that purpose?
What is the price that comes with such a design, a design that moves people no matter how they feel?
What time does it take for a designer to come up with such a design?
Is it always that the time needed to create such a design is always longer than to come up with a design that does not have to meet those requirements?
Is designing fashion the same as designing furniture?
How many differences are there between designing fashion and designing furniture?
When an architect and a fashion designer are set side by side, what then can be seen in the way they handle their object that need to be made a design for?
Is the difference between an office that requires a new furniture design and a celebrity who requested a new fashion design really that big?
Is it not that the object that a new design is made for is not important but what matters is the ability of a designer to observe the object in need for a new design?
If an architect is asked to look at a celebrity to make a fashion design for this celebrity, how then will the observation of this architect differ from the observation done by this architect when it comes down to adjust the architecture of an existing building?
Does an architect really needs to understand the characteristics of materials used to create a new fashion design or a sketch of the new fashion design for that matter?
If so, why is it that one needs to have knowledge about material used for fashion to create a stunning fashion design?
What lies in material, used for fashion, that gives a designer clues on how to design a completely new fashion design?
Does one needs to understand the anatomy of man to come up with a great fashion design?
What is it that values a fashion designer greatly regarding, his customer, that he really needs to complete a matching fashion design for that customer?
Is that something the wishes of the fashion designer's customer?
Is a fashion designer able to outsmart the fact that one design suits one but at the same time is not a match for someone else?
Is it possible to masquerade someone's mentality and character by using fashion?
If so, what then happens with that someone's masquerade when that person starts to talk?
How much does someone's voice tell about that person?
Is it possible to masquerade one's mentality and one's character by talking in a certain way?
What is needed to get a good look behind a great fashion design and behind someone's apparently decent way of talking?
What do the eyes of a person reflect? What does someone's eye tell about that person?
Are the eyes not that part of one's body that reflect all there is to tell about that person, or at least an important part of who that person is, what that person's mentality and character are like?
How does a fashion designer cope with any difference that might occur between his fashion design and the true mentality and character of a person that shows through that person's eyes?
Is applying sunglasses the only way to overcome the problem of a fashion design not matching with the true mentality and character of a person, shown from that person's eyes?
How is it with furniture? Is it possible that a furniture design does not match the character of a person?
Try to give a few examples where stunning furniture design does not match the person living amongst it?
Is it not that the interior of a living room can be completely different form the character of the person living there?
Can a person be happy living in an interior that is not tuned to that person's likings, even though from a design point of view the interior is truly stunning?
Does one not choose an interior on the same principles that one choose one's clothing?
Does one not choose an interior the same way one chooses his clothes?
Why is that one can be completely unhappy about one's designer clothes while their designer clothes are fabulous?
Where does this match come from, the match that we feel when it comes down to fashion and furniture?
What can be said about common rules when it comes down to furniture design?
Where lies that border crossing where a designer leaves the common rules, the universal rules, that tell when a furniture's design is a good design?
Are those universal rules in any way connected with the wisdom of ancient philosophy?
To what extend can be said that determining if furniture or fashion have a good/balanced design comes down to having a clear mind?
When is it that we need a clear mind the most?
What view on life, on our own situation or a difficult problem that we face, does a clear mind provide?
Who can deny the fact that once we look at things with a clear and empty mind, we can usually see the things as they are and what they should be?
What do designers call that state of mind, that state of mind in which a clear mind makes one see the true nature of things, the true soul/identity of a person or an object?
In a clear state of mind, what is it that gives one that strong feeling of certainty that a design is okay or that a design is not yet properly balanced yet?
How does an artist know, while working on a new painting or other expression, that what he is doing is okay, is balanced, from a design or art-like view?
What is it that makes an artist guide his actions when it comes down to what colours to use?
Is a work of art always considered to be balanced if the artist who made it was in a highly emotional state of mind?
Is there a difference between expressing in what an artist feels and that artist making a balanced work of art?
Is there a difference to what people say when they are emotional and when people have a clear state of mind?
Is emotion always needed to make a balanced work of art?
Did the great artists from the past used emotion to generate their work of art?
If so, did they ever lose their view of quality when it came down to judging their own artistic output?
Can it be said that the great artists from the past could deliver such balanced and high levels of artwork because their emotion was strongly related with their need to deliver beauty/high quality?
Can it be said that the great artist from the past all had in common that it was not about expressing emotion in a work of art, but feeling strong emotions when completing a work of art that was overwhelmed with quality and beauty? Meaning, the emotions that were triggered in them when completing a stunning work of art generated such a strong and addicted emotion that that emotion itself became a drug, a goal in itself, and with that the need for those great artists to try make more stunning artwork and consequently receiving more and stronger emotions in return.
Is art not as much about emotions but more about aesthetics?
Is it not that aesthetics is a factor that triggers emotions in all people whether they want it or not?
Is it not that true aesthetics is something no one can really pass without feeling the greatness that comes from this aesthetics?
Even for a person who really dislikes the designer who made that highly aesthetic artwork, how would such a person feel inside when he beholds that artwork?
Is being a critic a way of protecting oneself towards that feeling that tells that someone that the designer that he dislikes so much has really made a true and highly aesthetic artwork?
Can you determine by the intensity that one delivers his critics, how much such a person is moved by the highly aesthetics artwork of the designer that he dislikes so much?
Can one tell by observing the behaviour of a critic how frightened that critic is by tracing what that critic is saying and to who that critic is saying it to?
When such a critic has artists/designers that he values, what then can be said about how deep that critic is moved by the artwork of the designer that he dislikes, by looking at how much that critic is leaning on the artists/designers that he values?
Can it be said that such a critic is deeply moved by the artwork of the designer that he dislikes, when he adapts that artwork and tries to house it amongst the designers that he values?
When is listened to what arguments such a critic is saying, can it then be that by listening to it with plain common sense, that it is quite easily to determine that that critic is deeply moved by the artwork of the designer that he dislikes?
So what does this all mean when it comes down to the green furniture?
What critic did the design of the green furniture received when it was revealed?
What were the reviews from great Italian designers?
What is the average time a modern Italian furniture designer need to determine if a furniture design is a good design?
What is the average time a modern truly objective Italian furniture designer need to determine if a furniture design is a good design?
Does it depends on the nationality of a designer to being able to properly judge or give feedback on a furniture design which is completely different from the furniture designs that can be found in that designer's country?
So much for the critics and judgement of others. Let's see what can be triggered or revealed regarding the green furniture's design. What catches the eye when having looked at the green furniture for ten seconds?
Is the thing that catches the eye the most, in a period of ten seconds, the fact that the green furniture's design is hard to grasp?
Is there a best way that allows for a furniture's design to comprehend?
Does furniture always need surroundings for it to stand in to bring forward that furniture's design?
If so, is that also the case with architecture? Meaning, does a building needs to be amongst other buildings before its design can truly be seen?
Does modern furniture design always need modern surroundings to show its design?
Does modern furniture design always need modern surroundings for its design to make any sense?
What is the difference between the design of a furniture and that furniture being able to blend in with its design in the room that it will be in?
Is it not true that green furniture's design is unchangeable, as is for the rest of the furniture and architecture of the room that it is in, and that the green furniture blending in/matching the rest of a room's interior is a completely different story?
Who would know exceptionally well that each object on its own has a purpose and a design and at the same time has a time and a place for it to be?
Who is it that knows that all his objects have a time and a place for them to act/to be and that when those objects do not have to act/have to be, can still be admired and enjoyed?
Is one such person not a man who uses a lot of different tools?
Is one such person not a man who uses and owns and cherishes his different tools?
Is one such a person, or better said - character, not Tim the Tool Man Taylor?
Does such a character not enjoy all that the tools have to offer, whether he uses them or when they are neatly aligned in the garage?
To what extend can it be said that an equivalent of such a character like Tim the Tool Man Taylor, is the owner of a furniture store that is specialized in designer furniture?
If taking a look in such a specialized furniture store, what then can be said about how that owner has put his designer furniture on display?
What could that owner tell when it comes down to why he chose to display the designer furniture the way he chooses to do it?
Where in this store would the green furniture fit in?
At large plain furniture stores it can be often seen that they have created multiple living rooms, each with its own style and own furniture, it all blends in looking at each living room separately, does it not?
What is the need for the owner of that specialized furniture store to create multiple living rooms, each with only designer furniture that have something in common?
Is it not that when it comes to designer furniture, such as he green furniture, it can be said that because it is designer furniture, the only thing that furniture needs to display itself is space?
What is the relationship between design, whether that is furniture or car design for that matter, and the space/the direct area surrounding that design?
Is it not that the stronger the design the more space that object needs for itself to show?
Or, is it not that the stronger the design the more space that object needs for itself to show?
Let's say that is the case, can it then be said that because it is furniture and not some lamp or a door, that the green furniture can have multiple sizes of space among itself while showing its design?
In what way can it be said that because the green furniture is not e.g. round but has as layout that is somewhat stretched, the spaces it can occupy are greater in number as when the green furniture would have had a square or a circular layout?
Is it not that the stretched layout of the green furniture gives it more a natural look, a natural design so to say?
What layout of the green furniture can be changed to give it an even more natural design?
Is the design of the green furniture balanced and refreshing but at the same time natural and familiar because its layout and design are also found in daily life, in nature?
Zaha Hadid also designed shoes. When looked at her shoe designs, or her desk designs for that matter, can it then be said that the lines and shapes she uses in her designs are all fresh, new and alive but at the same time naturally balanced?
What other designers have also reached such a naturally balanced design in their artwork?
Where can we see artwork of designers in the past that show that these designers were struggling to give their designs those new and refreshing lines and shapes but at the same time trying to keep it natural?
To what extend can it be said that the green colour of the green furniture contributes to the natural look of the green furniture's design?
What about the bulge on the left side, looked at it from the front?
In what way does that bulge contribute to the overall design?
What would be the description regarding the bulge from a designer's perspective?
What would also have been a good spot to locate the bulge, other than on the left side?
If one pictures the green furniture without the bulge, in what way would that person be attracted to the green furniture's design?
What can be said is the natural aspect regarding the bulge?
In what way does the bulge adds to the smoothed curved plateau of the green furniture?
How much would the green furniture's design have been more natural if the colour of the green furniture would have been a sandstone colour?
Take a closer look at the green furniture's shiny surface. How come it is chosen to provide the green furniture with such a surface?
Would a dull colour not have been better?
When is it that an object's designs become trapped within the colour that is used for that object?
When is it that an object's design becomes trapped within the way it is set-up within the room that it is used in?
What other ways, besides colour and set-up of a designer object, are there for that object's design not to flourish to its maximum?
Are colour and set-up of a designer object the major aspects of a designer object that must be chosen carefully because they can make the designer object a success or a flop?
In what way would the green furniture' design gain if the green furniture's base will be buried in little layer of sand?
How many types of sand are there that can be used to let the design of the green furniture come out more?
Can rocks be used to let the design of the green furniture come out more?
Imagine that somewhat large rocks will be used, located around the base of the green furniture. Why is it that in this case it can be said that using rocks in such a way will have the opposite effect, i.e. that it will block the outcome of the green furniture's design?
Is there a type of rock that can be used, that is also of a reasonable size, but will not lock down the outcome of the green furniture's design?
Is it mainly because of similar looks that rocks found in a river, round and smooth surfaced rocks, will let the green furniture's design come out much better than mountain rocks will because of their different shape and non-shine surface?
Is it wrong to say that all mountain rock will not work properly with the design of the green furniture?
Is it right to say that there are types of mountain rock that can let the green furniture's design come out more?
What are the odds that when non-similar mountain rocks are used with the green furniture, the green furniture will stand out in that display as if it were distant from the those rocks, not wanting to be a part of them, not being balanced with them?
Is it with every display of the green furniture that rocks are used with, that the danger of the green furniture's design not being in harmony with those rocks is because the shine surface of the green furniture?
Is the trick with every designer object, when using additional objects to make the design of the main object come out better, to always use additional objects that have something in common with that main object?
Are there any examples where designers used additional objects that, on first sight, did not had anything in common with the design of the main object?
Could it be that in those cases the designer used additional objects of which their similarity with the main object was not to be found in the looks of those additional objects but in non-physical aspects of those additional aspects?
When looking at the green furniture's design, can it then be said that one of such object that will be in harmony with the green furniture's design because of the non-physical aspects of that object which are in harmony with the green furniture's design, is sand?
Why sand?
What is it with sand that one can without any doubt say that sand is that material that has non-physical aspects that makes sand be in harmony with the green furniture's design?
Additional objects being in harmony with the design of the main object, that is what it is all about when it comes to putting a designer object on display with additional objects, is it not?
And at the same time, when displaying a designer object that will not be put on display with additional objects, all that needs to be looked at is at the free space the design of that objects needs for its design to show itself?
Let's return to shiny surface of the green furniture for a minute. It is already stated that an object's design can be hold back by not providing that object with the proper colour or surface. It Is also stated that instead of the shiny surface a dull surface would have hold back the design of the green furniture a lot less. What other choices besides shiny or dull can be chosen for the green furniture?
This one is very simple, what about using shiny surfaces together with dull surfaces?
How come it can be said that it is better to use a dull surface for the base of the green furniture and not a shiny one?
Is that because a dull surface has more of a non-fragile appearance, have a more solid look than shiny surfaces do?
What about keeping the green furniture's surface shiny except for the bulge on the left side?
Why is it that one should set oneself open to experiment with only changing the shiny surface of the bulge and not the rest of the green furniture's surface?
What is it about this bulge that makes it such a fundamental part of the whole green furniture's design?
To what extend can it be said that this bulge shows/tells all there is to tell about the green furniture's design, in a similar way that the eyes of a person show the full character of a person, who that person really is?
How large can the area around the bulge be considered as part of the bulge without compromising the bulge itself and the whole look of the green furniture itself?
If the bulge can be considered that part of the design that tells all there is to tell about the green furniture's design, like the eyes of a person, can it then be that just as with a person who puts in coloured contacts and changes that person's whole look, changing the colour of the bulge changes the whole design of the green furniture?
If experiments should be done, to see how applying different colours for the bulge changes the whole design of the green furniture, which colours should then be used for such an experiment?
Should it also be part of this experiment to see how large the area around the bulge can be considered a part of the bulge?
What is the philosophy behind Philips' Living Colours?
How much research did it took for Philips' engineers to come up with the philosophy of Living Colours?
If answered truthfully, what then would be the answer of Philips' engineers on how long they have known that colours from a lamp affect people's state of mind?
If they would have known this for a long period, why then only come up with this Living Colour product so recent?
If answered truthfully, what then would be the answer of Philip's engineers when asked to what extend their knowledge derives from military expertise?
The Living Colours lamp from Philips has a natural design, does it not?
How come Philip's engineers choose for such a natural design?
If their explanation for choosing a natural design is clear, what then would be their reply on the decision of giving the Living Colours lamp a shiny surface?
If looked at the sketches of the Living Colours design, in how many of those cases can be seen that the designers/engineers considered providing Larvicolous with a dull surface instead of shiny surface?
What was the reason not to go ahead with a shiny surface?
Even though Philips choose to use a shiny surface for the Living Colours lamp to have, would Philips agree on that a dull surface would have addressed the natural design of the Living Colours lamp much more?
Now that the Living Colours lamp has a shiny surface, would that then mean that the Living Colours lamp can be used together with the green furniture?
Would letting the Living Colours lamp work with the green furniture and its design be as simple as placing the Living Colours lamp on top of the green furniture's plateau?
What comes to mind when considering using the Living Colours lamp in conjunction with the green furniture?
What comes to mind when considering using the principles of the Living Colours lamp in conjunction with the green furniture?
What comes to mind when considering using the principles of the Living Colours lamp in conjunction with the green furniture's bulge?
If the bulge would have been made in such a way that it can also display light in an identical way that Philips's Living colours can do, what then comes to mind?
Should the bulge then still have the same colour and shiny surface as the rest of the green furniture, when applying Phillips' Living Colour technology in to it?
Would using a dull surface for the bulge, applied with the Living Colour technology, will look too much like the bulge is alive?
Whatever way is chosen with the bulge, is the most important thing for the green furniture's design to stand out, the bulge being in harmony with the rest of the green furniture?
If looked at the green furniture's design, how then other to describe that the bulge on the left is in harmony with the overall design of the green furniture?
What else is there for a design to be other than it being itself, in harmony, properly balanced within itself?

| home | archive | about |

Contemplating Zaha Hadid's green furniture design

It is possible to continue on this subject but for now it ends here.

Links referenced in this contemplation

General remarks