Fat Chair, Skinny Chair
Savannah, Georgia artist Mark Wentzel has created an “obese” version of the famous Eames Chair (obviously, I included pictures of both versions of the chair, for comparison’s sake). This “XLounge” chair was made for an art exhibit in Washington, D.C. called “Useless.”
Wentzel says:
The piece is obviously about consumption. It gives the opportunity to a particular viewer to grab their stomach and say, “Wow. That’s me.” I felt that this Eames chair was a crucial part of American iconography — I think it really resonates with a wide range of people. And the standard structure of the Eames lounger was conducive to expanding its upholstery. I thought of using a La-Z-Boy. But you can’t easily make a La-Z-Boy any fatter than it is. You can just make it bigger.
Journalist Kriston Capps writes:
Mark Wentzel’s Xlounge looks like an absurdly obese version of [the Eames Chair] inflated beyond the point that you could realistically sit on it except by mounting it like a supersized beach ball. But black leather and an ottoman usually signal comfort, so the thought of trying is still strangely appealing.
[Note: Capps first identified the chair wrongly as the Barcelona chair, and later issued a correction.]
The purpose of art is, of course, to make people think. So, my friends, what do you think? What is Wentzel trying to say here, and what is your reaction? Me, I’m still thinking.
Via bookofjoe.
Posted by mo pie
Email us
I think that I’m not for sitting on, thus fat does not make me useless.
(That said, I think the chair is awesome-looking, and I suppose it could be a valid commentary on overconsumption, since it’s overfull and overburdened. It’s just that I dislike the rampant conflation of overconsumption and fat.)
I second Fillyjonk’s comment that I am not for sitting on, and therefore my weight does not make me useless. Because it’s a chair, I think perhaps he’s trying to make a point about Americans’ generally sedentary lifestyles. However, as I’ve seen noted a number of times already on this blog, fat people (myself included) are often very active and skinnier people can, of course, be quite sedentary. So, I guess it’s a simplistic way of looking at our bigger problem of not being active enough as a society (because we drive everywhere, have desk jobs, etc.), and in the process, it reveals the artist’s (and society’s) assumption that fat people couldn’t possibly be active, productive people. Clearly, we are all just sitting around like overstuffed chairs ;)
I think it looks kind of cool as a piece of art, but that it is basically the product of the artist jacking off to his own self-righteousness, self-importance, and general belief that he is “better” than our society and all of those fat people who supposedly consume too much 24/7. And of course there is the whole contrast between the beautiful lines of the original chair and the “hideous distortion” produced by overstuffing it, which obviously lends itself to viewing fat people as a hideous distortion of the human body. I also find it hard to see it as a general indictment of overconsumption, because it is obviously meant to mimic a fat body. So I find it annoying.
I must be at a disadvantage, because before this, I had never heard of Eames or his chair. I am 22 years old, and I consider myself to be more informed than a lot of people in my age group. Wentzel’s message is lost on me and probably anyone younger than me. Honestly, the top chair looks a lot more comfortable and inviting and interesting, and I’d rather own it than the boring iconic Eames chair.
That being said, I am now going to wiki Eames and correct my ignorance.
I think he is operating under some basic misconceptions about fat. His finished product is interesting, and I am particularly struck by how the seat of the obese (god, I hate that word) chair looks like a belly.
The belly, and something about the arm rests, makes the fat chair look occupied. And so it is a lot more visually interesting to me than the skinny chair. Also, I think it’s interesting, he didn’t create an emaciated version of the chair that wouldn’t hold the weight of a sitter – that would have been actually useless since the function of the chair would have been completely undermined and the fat chair is still, as someone else observed, pretty appealing as a comfy and squishy thing on which to sit.
I think he should have named the overstuffed piece “My Ego and Sense of Artistic Self Importance” and the other one “My Actual Artistic Importance;” then his statement would have contained more truth.
I think what made me cringe the most was the title “Useless.”
I am not for sitting on when it comes to Other People, but i love it when one of my cats curls up on my belly, or when my Maya-dog rests her head on my thigh or belly. They’re telling me they love me, but they’re also telling me i’m comfy. In the summer the cats curl up on me because i’m softer, but in the winter they curl up on Ben because he radiates more heat. But that’s cats for you.
When i look at the first chair, the “obese” one, i think that it is not functional as a chair. But a chair has one purpose. It is not supposed to be multi-functional. You sit in it. That’s all you do in chairs (well, that’s all you’re supposed to do, *ahem*).
Is he saying that people are not multi-functional? That people serve only one purpose? If so, what does he suggest that purpose might be? Since a person is Not A Chair, his analogy is highly imperfect, and as such, his message is skewed, if not lost altogether when looked at in a wider view.
Then again, the deeper message (as people are not chairs, expecting to get meaning from a “Fat Chair” is about as realistic as expecting everyone to conform to a “factory-made” specification) contradicts the immediate message (fat makes you useless). But the deeper message that i’m getting from it was most likely unintentional.
After spending a few minutes looking at the “obese” chair, i switched my glance to the “normal” chair. It looks skeletal by comparison, and suddenly it looks a lot less inviting, a lot less comfortable. I wouldn’t want to sit in either one, honestly. But then again, i am picky about my chairs. Because after all, It’s Just A Bloody Chair.
I think that “Useless” is a title more appropriate for someone who wastes time and resources creating a non-functional chair to preach at overweight people who are actually CONTRIBUTING something to society.
Amen Aezalea! I was thinking nearly the same thing.
I think the artist’s commentary is what turns me off about this more than anything else:
[i]”The piece is obviously about consumption. It gives the opportunity to a particular viewer to grab their stomach and say, “Wow. That’s me.”[/i]
First of all, he assumes that the “particular viewer” does not already know they are fat, such that seeing this chair would produce a “wow” moment? Please. Then, of course the viewer who is fat is fat only because of over-consumption, “obviously.” And, of course, there’s the title, “useless” which really limits any greater discussion of the work, doesn’t it? He boils it down for us – chair is fat, chair is useless. This approach shuts down what could otherwise be an compelling look at form and function in our society. But no, instead he goes for an elaborate fat joke and calls it art.
The actual construction of the “fat chair” is interesting, because he does manage to make it look human. But the fact that he chooses to be both simplistic and condescending in his discussion and naming of the artwork doesn’t make me think much of the artist.
Ah, crap, I screwed up the coding on the quote, and it should read “a compelling look, etc.” not “an.” Sorry.
I need more coffee.
Whoa. It’s a chair, but FAT!! And he called it “Useless”!! Ha ha ha! So CLEVER!!
The piece is obviously about consumption. It gives the opportunity to a particular viewer to grab their stomach and say, “Wow. That’s me.”
A “particular viewer”? Why, whatever could he mean? What “particular viewer”??
Omigosh! Do you think he means FAT viewers?? Wow! I’m astonished I saw through that oh-so-sneaky bit of code-speak!
Okay, even I can’t sustain that much sarcasm.
Seriously, “it gives the opportunity”?? What, does this guy think fat people don’t have mirrors? Does he see his jumping on the already-terribly-overcrowded fat-bashing bandwagon as some kind of public service or something?
Please.
I admit, he did a good job of making his chair “obese”, I just wish he’d done it for a better reason than, “Dude, it’s a chair… but FAT!”
I don’t know what the artist was thinking when he made this piece, but for me, the title of “Useless” was kind of thought-provoking. To me, this is not necessarily a statement that fat people are useless, but instead makes me think of the disconnect so many people in our society have with our bodies. Throughout the vast majority of human history, we have depended on our bodies for our livelihood, for transportation, for entertainment, but in modern society there is scarcely a need to use our bodies at all. And so many people now have bodies which are not very functional. Of course, this is not true only of fat people, but the growing prevalence of severe obesity is, I think, a symptom of this disconnect and an obvious visual representation of it. But of course, I have no idea if this was the artist’s intended message.
I can’t believe i forgot to respond to this part: It gives the opportunity to a particular viewer to grab their stomach and say, “Wow. That’s me.”
Well, actually, i can believe it because i’m going to totally cop out on creating my own response, as someone on YouTube has already said it SO much better than i ever could. Why re-create the wheel?
I agree with most of what y’all said here. However, even tho I am not a chair and not meant for adults to sit on, my lap was made for grandbabies/toddlers and puppies and kittens and cats (I omit adult dogs as most of the adult dogs I’ve owned were definitely NOT lap dogs YMMV). Although for some reason, most kittens seem to be drawn to resting on my ample chest instead of my lap…..
As far as the “Useless” title and why he didn’t do a overly skinny chair to compare to the other 2 chairs, he didn’t want to make a statement on the BMI chart, he wanted to make a statement about over-consumption. Now, I think if you’re talking over-consumption as in “I have to have every new, improved gadget that comes out, no matter how well the older one works”, his art fails miserably. If you’re talking the fat-stereotype of over-consumption, he’s doing quite well at perpetuating that falsehood (granted, some fat people over-consume, but so do some thin people, and how do you portray over-consumption by the thin?). Personally, neither chair appeals to me at all, I’m picky about what I sit in/on.
And so many people now have bodies which are not very functional.
I agree that people are more and more disconnected from their bodies but I think that is actually a symptom of a body-hating culture. And to decree, even through art, that a body that has fat on it is useless is a statement that just REEKS of body hate.
Oh, LaWade, I think the disconnect happened long ago. We, in America, in particular, are good at denying that our bodies are a whole and connected part of who we are. But I think that it is completely out of line to say that “there is scarcely a need to use our bodies at all.”
I am case in point to this. I have a somewhat sedentary job, and although I have tried to have an exercise routine, I’m probably not as active as those bikers I see riding miles every weekend. Still when I got sick 5 weeks ago (and have persisted in being sick – I’m being treated for Lyme disease), I quickly learned how much I rely on my body for basic things. I can’t clean my house. I can barely make it through a day at work. I have had to postpone all extra exercise because just going out to dinner with friends is exhausting. When you can’t use your body almost at all, you realize how much it is that we rely on our body to be functioning.
*sigh*
This kind of hate-art makes me so sad.
the problem with people who have such blatent hate for fat people is that they are invisible. If you just looked at the artists picture you’d say..hmm..nice looking dude..maybe he’s intelligent and interesting. but in actuality he’s an ass. At least fat you can see. i’m fat and everyone can see, I can’t really see what an ass you are and therefore stay away from you.
Spins, I think our different takes on this are a matter of perspective. I’m talking about how people have lived for most of their existence, that is to say without cars or refrigeration or running water or any “modern” conveniences. Being sick now is an inconvenience, certainly, but if you’d had an illness like Lyme disease 2000 years ago, you would have been dependent on your friends and family for your very survival. The fact that we can feed ourselves and bathe ourselves and do laundry and go to work even when we’re sick is to my mind a testament to how little we now depend on our bodies.
One reviewer writes, “Mark Wentzel uses an iconic mid-20th-century Eames chair to meditate on the mercurial nature of aesthetics. Wentzel inflated the sleek chair to Rubenesque proportions. By doing so, he’s imposed one era’s aesthetics on another’s, underscoring the protean nature of beauty.” Which is another way to look at it.
“Useless” is the name of the show; “XLounge” is the name of the chair. The chair fits the show because, as a chair, it is useless. It’s un-sit-downable-on.
While taking that personally is one valid response [and is, sadly, supported by the artist’s own comments], it’s not the only possible response. I think it’s nifty-looking, and while I don’t think anyone’s shaking the earth by putting out a message about the dangers of overconsumption, if one absolutely feels he must go to the well on that message one more time, this is a witty way to do it.
In any case, having hysterics about the “time and resources” the artist wasted on this piece is awfully silly.
That one chair looks really comfy.
Actually, I agree with what byrneout says.
I also agree that fat-hatred is horrible, but… that wasn’t immediately what came into my mind when I looked at the chair. Really it wasn’t. Maybe I’m being Pollyanna-ish, but I don’t assume that if an artist paints a fat person it’s necessarily with the aim of poking fun at the person, or criticising them. Similarly with this sculpture.
(What the artist says is a different matter, and possibly not relevant.)
Out of interest, I would like to see what other artists decided to put in the “Useless” exhibition.
In all fairness, the “fat” ottoman peice looks much more comfortable than the “thin” one. So there! Uh, towards the artist! lol
It is way too obvious. Based on the artist’s comments, and his thin picture, I know it’s not some daring, self-revealing commentary. It really is just a glorified fat joke. For those reasons, I think the XLChair is useless as art.
It is “neat” looking, but in a way that makes it appropriate for Photoshop Phriday, (a showcase of manipulated images), not a museum or art exhibit.
Hi there,
This is Peter Teiman writing from Switzerland.I have often wondered if airlines specifically design their seats for people with Anorrhexia. Whatever the deficits of the Eames chair are, there is no doubt that it has remarkable back support.
Peter Teiman
I hate to say this because it’s super cliche but … does the fat chair look phallic to anyone else?
Ah, I have to correct myself here… I was thinking that the chair was called “useless” and not the show. Even so, the artist’s commentary (granted they’re not intended to be part of the piece,) shows his attitude toward fat people and their supposed “overconsumption.”
And byrneout, I see your point as far as the chair fitting the show goes, and the chair is visually interesting. And while I can separate myself from the message enough to appreciate the execution of a piece, the message of fat = useless is pretty clear, and I still find it annoying.
Or, to put it another way, I once saw a guitarist who played this nutty V-shaped double-necked guitar… I gather that he’s world-renowned for his “shred metal” music. And while I could appreciate his ability, could even see that he understood classical music theory, I still disliked the actual music. You know? I guess that’s how I responded to this art piece. It’s interesting, it’s well-executed, but I still don’t like the tone.
Jessica–
Yes! It Does!
Thought provoking, yes. But: is it the intent of the artist merely to provoke thought–or is it to influence and direct thought?
I wonder if the artist would read these comments regarding his piece, all so full of different viewpoints and opinions, and feel he had succeeded?
No joke intended with XLounge. The “particular viewer” is a friend named Joel who responded, as stated, upon seeing the piece for the first time.
Much of contemporary art is disconnected from the general public, everyday people. By making the chair anatomical the art seeks to connect the idea with our humanness. The issue of cultural consumption has, indeed, become a bit cliched, but an issue, none-the-less. XLounge is intended to be a stylish visual analogy for the disproportionate scale of American consumer culture.
Personally, I consider XLounge to be voluptuous and sensual, not at all hideous. This is my opinion.
Yet, the success of the art is based on the dialog it produces, sometimes rendering the artist irrelevant…or even an ass.
Wow, how awesome that you stopped by! As you can see, your piece generated an interesting discussion–actually a much more interesting one than I even anticipated.
I haven’t spoken up in the thread yet, but the piece did make me think about consumer culture. I do think Americans tend to overconsume, particularly natural resources. It made me think of all the XL cars on the road and how much they piss me off.
That doesn’t really respond to your statement of purpose, though. Anyone else?
The over-consumption theme, if applied generally, and not to fat people specifically, is very appropriate for today’s culture. Personally, the only thing I can say I really over-consume is books (I would have hundreds of thousands of books if I could afford them and had the room to store them). I drive a 10-year old minivan (my husband’s truck is 18 years old), and I wear my clothes until they aren’t fit to be worn anymore. Neither my husband nor I go and buy stuff just to have the best, latest, or newest gadget on the market. If we don’t need it or won’t use it much, we do without. We recycle as much as we can, and buy as sustainable as we can. I’ve always been that way, mostly because when I was younger, I didn’t have a lot of money for extras. I’ve gotten so used to pinching pennies till they scream, that I do it to this day. I’ve never seen the sense in consuming for consumption’s sake, and advertising doesn’t really reach me on any level, as I’m pretty much cynical when it comes to that kind of thing.
So, taking a look at the chairs from that perspective, I can see the fat chair as being useless (not easy to sit in, probably not comfortable if you did figure out how to sit in it). I’d say his idea probably hit the nail on the head.
In fairness, “Useless” is the title of the group art show, not this piece of work. The concept behind the show is that ordinary objects have been modified to “explore the flip side of functionality.” In the case of XLounge, the very quality that makes this chair appealing, its padded comfort, has been taken to such an extreme that it is no longer useable.
However, I don’t believe that Mr. Wentzel could be unaware of the implications of submitting a chair with proportions similar to an obese human’s to a show about the denial of function by form, whether he finds the form repellent or voluptuous.
Although the aesthetic “usefulness” of a human might be dictated in part or whole by form, an artist, of all people, should appreciate that we have many valuable qualities not dictated by our shapes. Moreover, even if we overlook the fact that being stuffed is not the same as consuming stuffing, as everyone here has pointed out, the contours of obesity are not interchangeable with the condition of overconsumption at a social or an individual level.
However, I don’t believe that Mr. Wentzel could be unaware of the implications of submitting a chair with proportions similar to an obese human’s to a show about the denial of function by form, whether he finds the form repellent or voluptuous.
I’m with you there, Ginger; “well I find it attractive” is a bingo square whether you’re talking about a human or a chair. (Well, not usually, but in this context.)
I will grant that the dude, assuming it really is the dude, is performing a great coolness by looking for and participating in commentary on his art, in a non-inflammatory way. I hope he’s really gratified by the discussion he’s generating. Frankly, I think we’re his best audience, since we’re not just going to look at the chair and say “huh-huh, chair’s fat.” We’re going to discuss overconsumption and how it relates to appearance, and the assumptions and stereotypes surrounding both. I think it’s great that he recognizes this and isn’t trying to alienate us.
Does it really matter what the actual title of the chair art is, if it’s being exhibited as a unit in an array of objects presented under the title of “Useless”? Particularly if the artist is clearly presenting the Eames/skinny chair as the classic/normal/generally-accepted-to-be-aesthetically-pleasing baseline unit of the comparison?
Other people have said this better than me, but presenting the “Fat” Eames chair (which its obvious parallels to the human form) as a comment on “overconsumption” encourages a simplistic responses to very complex issues. Being fat is not simply about consuming too much. Getting un-fat is not simply a matter of consuming less.
the contours of obesity are not interchangeable with the condition of overconsumption at a social or an individual level.
Ginger, well said.
Thanks to the artist for stopping by and clarifying your quote and participating in the discussion.
XLounge is intended to be a stylish visual analogy for the disproportionate scale of American consumer culture.
Given that the chair has been “humanized” in its shape, it’s a bit difficult not to extend your meaning to include the people whom the chair resembles. Pair this with the inclusion of the piece in a show called “Useless” and the gut-level message becomes fat = useless.
I’m curious if our response has been in any way similar to the response of those who saw the piece in person? (Your friend notwithstanding.) Often my response to art I can see in person is different from that which I see indirectly, like this.
Art? In Savannah? SCAD, I guess. Savannah is the autistic cousin to the rest of Georgia, Just like Atlanta is NOT georgia. If Georgia could just get rid of Savannah and Atlanta, it would be a much better place to live.
“Art? In Savannah? SCAD, I guess. Savannah is the autistic cousin to the rest of Georgia, Just like Atlanta is NOT georgia. If Georgia could just get rid of Savannah and Atlanta, it would be a much better place to live.”
Says who?