This post is part of a series capturing my journey to develop a signature furniture collection.
In the first post, I defined goals, set the scope, discussed the power of iteration, and how to leverage self-doubt for excellence. If you haven’t read that post, check it out here.
At the time of striking these keys, I’ve produced a set of prelim designs for the collection. I like them, but I’m not committed to them yet. You could say I’ve agreed to a second date.
This post will dive into my process up to this point, unforeseen challenges, a different perspective on style, and what comes next.
How We Got Here
From the very beginning, I established a plan that would allow me to make progress even in the face of uncertainty – a process that accounted for iteration, and for self-doubt. This made it much easier to start because I knew there would be checkpoints along the way to course correct if I felt I was traveling down the wrong path.
Here’s the plan that led me to where I am now:
-Action: Create sketches of all designs
-Checkpoint: “Do you like them enough to move onto 3D modeling?” If yes, move on. If not, redesign.
-Action: Create 3D models of all pieces.
-Action: Print out renderings, make comments on each design, and assess cohesiveness of collection.
-Checkpoint: “Am I still excited about this design?” If yes, make corrections. If no, stop and redesign.
-Action: Make changes and re-evaluate.
By building these checkpoints into the design process, I gave myself multiple chances to both assess the designs as stand-alone pieces, and as parts of the collection. In theory, all the guess work would be removed, and by following this process I would have six designs I was in love with.
Well theory and practice are like oil and water sometimes.
Unforeseen Challenges
Let me redefine the scope of this collection for context. The goal is to design a lounge chair, a bookcase, a coffee table, a dining table, a media console, and a desk.
Some of these designs seemed to just float graciously from my pencil – appealing form, functional requirements met, and a satisfying balance of simplicity and complexity.
Other pieces presented much more design friction.
To illustrate this spectrum, I’ll use two of the designs as examples: the coffee table (low friction) and the bookcase (high friction).
Functionally, the coffee table presents little demands – a flat surface to place things. Shelves and storage drawers were ultimately deemed unnecessary as these features might inadvertently create clutter.
Strength requirements are also not a primary consideration - items placed on a coffee table are typically small and light. That doesn’t mean the occasional rambunctious child won’t use it as a dance floor or diving board, but for the most part the abuse level is low. (Stay off the furniture kids).
Due to simplistic functional requirements, I was able to focus primarily on form.
I played with asymmetry in this design, the main feature being a waterfall edge from the top to one side. A stretcher both on the top and bottom join the waterfall side with the opposing angular leg assembly.
I made minor tweaks to this design in between iterations – removal of storage drawers, and making the bottom stretcher meet the waterfall edge instead of extending past it.
Why I like it:
-Every part serves a purpose
-It emphasizes the material (the waterfall)
-It catches my eye
-It feels sturdy while feeling open.
The bookcase was a different story.
The fundamental design is a combination of a cabinet bottom with open shelves on top. The bottom cabinet allows for concealed storage as well as a place for books that are too tall for the upper shelves.
Compared to a bookcase with open shelving all the way to the floor, this concept appealed to me because your view and access to books on the shelves are at a comfortable position. Straining to see or getting down on all fours to grab a book from the bottom shelf didn’t seem like a good design to me so I never went in that direction.
With the function roughly established, now it was time to explore form, which felt like a merry-go-round of uncertainty.
The element that perplexed me the most was how the cabinet and shelving portions would be integrated. I built a bookcase previously with ladder-style uprights supporting a similar cabinet/shelving combination. I liked this idea but wasn’t sure I wanted to replicate it here.
Another option was having a base that only interfaced with the cabinet. The cabinet would then form the base for the shelving portion. This seemed like a worthy avenue to explore but I struggled to come up with ideas that didn’t seem like two unrelated parts forced into one design against their will.
An enduring thought while working through these iterations was “keep it open, keep it open”. I know the effect a closed-off piece of furniture can have on a room – it makes it feel smaller. That’s not necessarily bad if the space is large and creating a more intimate environment is the intent, but I wanted this collection to enhance the feeling of space in a room, not reduce it.
My latest iteration presents a stout, minimalistic base that supports the lower cabinet, and open shelving on top supported by dual uprights on either side.
Currently, I feel good about this design. It feels elegant with the brass cabinet pulls and matching brass bars on the uprights. The cabinet and base are simple. I feel my eye drawn to the joinery between the uprights and the shelves, and the subtle curvature of the shelf front faces. I can sense the restraint – making certain elements modest to not fight for your attention. Checkpoint cleared.
Rethinking Style
It’s only been two weeks since my previous post on this topic. Since then, I’ve completely changed my perception of style. Let me explain…
My previous take was that the collection needed a cohesive theme – a common thread underpinning all of the designs. I wanted them to feel like “siblings, different personalities but same family values”.
So, what’s changed?
While cohesion between the pieces is important, I don’t want to force it. It should come organically though the design process by moving in directions of interest, and away from one’s of apathy.
Said differently… style should not be forced – it should evolve naturally from listening to my own taste.
It’s important to understand the difference between what is impressive to you and what you like, a lesson I took from entrepreneur Paul Graham. If your design feels impressive but you don’t really like it, you’re doing it for the wrong reason – to impress others.
Following your own tastes means producing a design that lights you up. That’s where style will emerge. It will infuse organically into your work, and become more pronounced as you become more experienced.
Forcing a style eliminates options for growth and truth in your work.
The best way to develop style is to forget about it.
What’s Next
I plan to give these designs some time to percolate. I’ll come back to them after a period of time and see if they still give me the same vibe. Time away from your work can have a powerful effect on your perception of it. As said before, perspectives change so quickly, so it behooves me to use time as a tool to help determine what design elements will endure.
The below renderings show the latest versions of each design. These were all created using Fusion360 CAD software.
