C/L/S: A Bit of Good-Hearted Satire

[John Wick]

I have a theory. I call it "The Sitting Theory."

As far as I can see, everything you can sit on falls into one of three categories: Chairs, Loveseats and Sofas.

A Chair is designed for one sitter.
A Loveseat is designed for two sitters.
A Sofa is designed for three or more sitters.

All seating design falls into these three categories.

Well, you may ask, how about a stool? A stool is not a chair, loveseat or a sofa. I retort: but only one person may sit on it. Therefore, it falls into the Chair category.

Likewise, you may inquire about which category a bed falls into. Many people may sit on a bed. However, since three or more people may comfortably sit on the bed, it falls into the Sofa category.

In fact, if you really think about it, everything in the world falls into my Seating Theory. Desks, rocks, turtles and even other people (who, depending on their girth, may be Chairs, Loveseats or Sofas).

However, it is important to remember that C/L/S also teaches us not to use Seating Implimentations (see Glossary) improperly. True, more than one person may sit in a Chair, but then we are not using the Chair in the way it was designed. This, of course, is the fault of the Chair, not the Seaters.

I have more to say about my Seating Theory, but I'm sure the rest of you have much more to say about it. I eagerly anticipate your feedback.

Winking all the way,
John

[Marco]

And then ... there are sectionals, those "sofa-like" objects that configure into one and two person seating arrangements (and more)!

They are sold with false claims of supporting *all three* CLS requirements to naieve furniture seekers in search of the Ultimate Seating Arrangement. This henious fraud is perpetrated across numerous furniture outlets on thousands of unwary victims, all of whom claim to have bought the one-true-seating arrangement. They are of course, idiots! Where does the rest of the sectional go when it ISN'T. BEING. USED.!? And how can it claim to be the ultimate end-all-be-all seating arrangement when it clearly fails to match all Decore Themes (see Glossary).

Don't be fooled. :wink:
-M.

[Mike Holmes]

My only objection to sectionals is that they are in reality actually just three, four, or five Chairs lined up together to give the illusion of a single sofa. This doesn't change the fact that they are still actually Chairs and that when atop them we're all just sitting alone (though in close proximity).

But we've missed something really important. Ottomans. Sure you can sit on one alone, but isn't an Ottoman usually used as a Chair that one puts their feet on while resting in another Chair? This half-a-person occupancy has yet to be addressed by Mr. Wick's CLS model, and threatens to discredit it entirely.

Mike

[Marco]

I am not now and have never attacked sectionals. Sectionals are just fine (if they make you happy in your twisted little world). Many of my best friends are sectionals. I just point out that they are marketed fraudently (defined to mean misleadingly) and their users claim to have (and wrongly believe they have) the Ultimate Sitting Device. As you point out, they are merely a string of chairs and as soon as the sitters try any love-seat hanky-panky the sectional will separate and they'll fall right through the cracks! (I know).

-M.

[John Wick]

But we've missed something really important. Ottomans. Sure you can sit on one alone, but isn't an Ottoman usually used as a Chair that one puts their feet on while resting in another Chair? This half-a-person occupancy has yet to be addressed by Mr. Wick's CLS model, and threatens to discredit it entirely.

Mike

With all due respect Mike, you're arguing outside the point. Just because an ottoman isn't designed to be fit in doesn't mean it doesn't fit within the Theory. _Because_ it can be sat on by only one person, it falls into the category of "chair" despite what the actual designer of the ottoman had in mind when he designed it.

Tongue still firmly in cheek,
John

[Mike Holmes]

With even more due respect, John, you could shoehorn an Ottoman into your Chair group, but, c'mon, really, have you ever seen one used in that fashion. In all my days of sitting on things I have maybe only once seen ssomebody sit on an Ottoman. The vast majority of times it has instead been used as a foot rest. What your model does is to relegate the potential functionality of footrest furniture to a role for which said furniture was not designed. Do you actually propose that footrests be used as seats during actual sitting? They are not well designed for the purpose. Instead they are well designed for resting the feet, a use in which the sitter actually uses two pieces of furniture simultaneously.

So, while CLS as a model does speak well to single, double, and tripple capacities of furniture in an abstract manner, it fails to address actual seating as it occcurs in situ. So we have to consider the practicality of such a model. Sure I can describe an Ottoman as a Chair, but will that help me employ it in a manner befitting it's design? No! Only by accepting the furnitures optimal partial capacity can we employ it in a manner that makes full use of its best features.

This is a classic synechdoche, John. Not all furniture that can be used to seat only one is a Chair. Only furniture that is designed (successfully I might add; we're talking practical use here, not theoretical seating requirements) for a single occupant should be designated a Chair.

And lets not get started on the Throw Pillow and Cushion angle again, you know how upset that gets me. I am willing to talk upholstering, however.

Mike

[jburneko]

On 2001-11-12 18:04, Mike Holmes wrote:
Instead they are well designed for resting the feet, a use in which the sitter actually uses two pieces of furniture simultaneously.

And that my friend is exactly the point.  The Ottoman is in fact PART OF a chair or perhaps PART OF a love seat rather than a seating vessel itself.  Without some acompanying member of C/L/S it is in fact wholey useless.  It does not deserve its own category because without being paired with something within the model it is functionally pointless.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

This whole discussion is so lame.

I think your whole C/L/S Triangle sucks. How can you label me like that? How dare you? I'm an individual and I can sit on whatever I want, whenever I want.

Me and my whole group are totally going to tell all our friends how useless this is.

Buck Futt

******
(Oh, John? Eat me. -R)

[Mike Holmes]

No, now you're arguing against Mr. Wick. His contention would be that the Ottoman is a chair all by itself. You say it is nothing by itself (though obvioulsly one could sit on one by oneself inf one wanted to). I say that it is something by itself, but not a Chair. Consider that, while the Ottoman is used in conjunction with other furnitiure that (given similar parrerns of material especially) it could be used with several different pieces of furniture, possibly every one in the room. So while its traditional use is functionally dependent on other furniture it is not dependent on any other single type.

Would you say that the Ottoman was part of a Chair while being used by a Chair sitting footrester? And then that it is part of a Loveseat while being later used by a Loveseat sitting footrester? Preposterous! And you would not say that it is nothing, would you? Certainly you admit the existance of footrests in general? Then why should a model of things sat upon neglect the footrest (which the prepounder of the model already agrees to)? No, footrests exist and they are half-occupancy devices. F/C/L/S.

Mike

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Greetings from Finland!

I am the member of the IKEA LAP-school of chair design (called Seatajyist). Perhaps you would be interesting to join our discussion lists where we discuss the virtues and nature of IKEA LAP, which emphasize strict-adherence to the concepts of SIT. LIE. SLOUCH. We do not encourage or promote using footstools of any kind for that is against the nature of true Seatajyist thinging.

I am also looking to require a guitarist for my black metal band //HEXENHAMMUR\\. We are primarily influenced by Mozart and Bach, as well as classic Finnish black metal such as DARKWOODS MY BETROTHED, ENOCHIAN CRESCENT and BLACK SWAN.

- EMPEROR GRYMMTOOTH DARKSPIRE

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-11-12 18:20, Ron Edwards wrote:
This whole discussion is so lame.

I think your whole C/L/S Triangle sucks. How can you label me like that? How dare you? I'm an individual and I can sit on whatever I want, whenever I want.

Me and my whole group are totally going to tell all our friends how useless this is.

Buck Futt

******
(Oh, John? Eat me. -R)

Please Ron, you can't deny that the model as a whole has the ability to predict seating goals? You yourself are practically obsessed with Chairs (specifically stools, but that's for another discussion). You've noted how the Chair form in general gives you an unparalleled autonomy of seating. How can you sit there (ahem) and tell us that you can't be labeled when you are practically the posterchild for one of the four branches of the model.

(By the way, I've never been able to nail down your footrest proclivities. I'm guessing that given your tendency to use stools that you also like barrails. Or am I out of line.)

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Finland, Finland, Finland, it's where I'd most like to be.

So everyone is aware I am in general down with the whole S-thing that the Fins do. I do not, however, pretend to understand their problems with footrests.

BTW, Jared, I can play a bit of Malmsteen (I am a Viking, etc). Can I get a tryout?

Mike

[John Wick]

I just looked up the definition of "good sport" in the Webster's. I found Ron's picture there. Go figure.

Take care,
John

[Gordon C. Landis]

On 2001-11-12 18:04, Mike Holmes wrote:
With even more due respect, John, you could shoehorn an Ottoman into your Chair group, but, c'mon, really, have you ever seen one used in that fashion. In all my days of sitting on things I have maybe only once seen somebody sit on an Ottoman.

Mike -

Not to invalidate your whole argument - as you do make some good points about the model needing a place for an ottoman AS OTTOMAN, and not merely as a stand-in for a chair (or worse - as a mere APPENDAGE of a chair) - but you're making a claasic mistake here: equating your experience with that of the whole ouvre of Seating.

I have, in fact, seen many ottomans used almost exclusively as chair-substitutes in my day.  I myself have fond memories of the green, wheeled ottoman in my parents' family room, upon which I sat watching many of the great events of my youth.  I even have dim memories of my father resting his amazing, high-tech(!) Poloroid camera next to me as I sat upon it, watching through blearly eyes as some guy named Neil Armstrong walked around in a funny suit.

Sitting on ottomans has a long and noble history, as far as I'm concerned.

Gordon C. Landis

[Gordon C. Landis]

Having pointed out some issues with Mikes' rebuttal, it's only fair that I bring what (to me) is the most GLARING error in Johns' thesis to light.

On 2001-11-12 16:46, John Wick wrote:
However, it is important to remember that C/L/S also teaches us not to use Seating Implimentations (see Glossary) improperly. True, more than one person may sit in a Chair, but then we are not using the Chair in the way it was designed. This, of course, is the fault of the Chair, not the Seaters.

This is absurd - the "Chair" can't possibly be at fault for anything.  But you're not really talking about the Chair, are you?  You're using the Chair as a stand-in for the Chair Designer - a practice you've occassionally admitted to being interested in yourself.

And I can see that you plan to design a Chair that no Seater could POSSIBLY use for any but its' intended purpose, and then sell it to us for a premium due to its' "superior C/L/S properties".

I ain't buyin' it.  Oh, and bad news for your model - a Seater can ALWAYS find a way to use a C as an L, or often even an S.  Just like some people only allow one person on a Sofa.  You're trying to control the Seaters, and (as Ron pointed out, in his somewhat obnoxious but none-the-less accurate way) that just isn't possible.  Sorry.

Gordon C. Landis