Certain ideas need to be allowed to persist, even if there is no evidence of their having any value. The reasons for doing this might not be immediately apparent but they need not be known for this allowance to be given. Ideas need to be allowed to continue on the basis of what they need. If they do not ask for attention, do not ask for money, do not ask for practitioners and do not ask for validation, what is the harm in letting them do what they need to do? Sanctuaries are structures that give such inert desires that do not require much a nestling space. A nestling space only means that a space to develop from a spark to a fire is available. Resources for adding fuel to the fire exist.

But what are the criteria of such an offer of nestling space? The criteria is purely instinctive. When we feel that a desire has yet not become enveloped in a puddle of cynicism, we include it in the sanctuary. Cynicism does not allow a desire to achieve its ends. The desire gets stuck in limbo, not being able to reset and not being able to go ahead and pursue its ends either. This sanctuary does not have only a personal implication for us. It has a wider implication even if you do not care about us or the Museum. We are not saying that culture is infectious so we indirectly and invariably have some influence on the way things will shape up. But we are stating that till the total annihilation of all the sanctuaries that offer nestling spaces is completed, there is no victory for either side. Sanctuaries are detested and their role in fermenting opposition is not easily tolerated.

But this depends on what the nestling space offered is able to trigger. Provided the nestling space is actually able to seed a drastic set of alternatives, it will really end up meaning something. The truth is that there are far fewer resources available for causes that are taking a bet on the future that might never be realised. There is a simple one-to-one correlation between investable futures and liveable realities. If an idea does not have the desperate desire to become investable, then it is an empty symbolic gesture and cannot be taken seriously. Not being take seriously means that there we retain no power and remain a benign entity on the landscape.

Chair might be designed frugally and frugality as a design principle might compromise on the principle of comfort. A frugal chair might even be a stool and get away with it. Frugality in design tends to be biased towards the performance of the function. Maybe this comes across as a pressure, it must seem that to be frugal one must be functional. But there are other values of frugality. There could be aspects of comfort built into an object but it might still be frugal. Frugality needn’t be opposed to comfort.

We can state that because frugality is an aspect of the spirit, and the spirit does not necessarily manifest through a lack of features.

A lack of comfort means that the end user of the object will not use it very often. This will always be opposed to the objectives of the designer. If a chair has been made, it ought to be used.

Function is not really a parameter of comfort. It is actually the other way around. Comfort and function are even opposite sometimes. Comfort wants to lead us to a space that lays the minimum impediments in our enjoyment of it. Comfort is the count of the number of impediments in our experience that could be removed. Actually comfort is a synthetic parameter. We are comfortable with what we are used to. And we can get used to precisely anything.

As far as comfort is in question, and within the larger context of chairs, the function of an object claiming to be a chair might be none.

A chair has only one function, it wants us to relieve us of responsibility to keep standing so that we do not tumble and fall. Falling is undesirable because chairs and beds are not friends and a fallen being is only suited for a bed.

There is no generic human to be found. Everyone is specific. Everyone is distinct, maybe not in their preferences but definitely in the criteria that emerge from their physical and psychological being.

Design as a practice focuses on profiles of individuals that they cater to through mass-produced objects, in this case mass-produced chairs. But individuals cannot be neatly segregated into profiles and categories. The extent of how much they know themselves and who they really are, are two different things. People generally do not know who they are but when they sit on a chair, the entirety of their self is sitting on the chair and responding whether the chair is comfortable or not. Even the parts of their own self that they do not know, get to respond.

So even if they had complete self-knowledge, they could only ever be partially catered to by mass-produced design. In the state that we currently live in, mass-production has become an excuse for the poor execution of briefs.

There are broken chairs that are not even functional anymore. Broken chairs cannot be used as sitting surfaces anymore. They can only be symbols for their intended function. But broken chairs can be repaired and once chairs are repaired they can be used for their intended purpose but at the same time the fragility of their brokenness comes across as a fact also. How is the ghost image of the broken chair unshackled eventually from the chair that has been repaired?

Can the image of an object ever be repaired? Or are objects maligned forever after they break once?

Are they ever able to inspire faith and trust again? Or are they forever only perfect objects that have failed once? They can be functional now but if they have broken once they might as well break again and this bring in the precocity and doubt in the face of their renewed function.

Sitting is a posture designed for temporary rest and a permanent ability to work. Sitting and working have a firm relationship. The owner of the factory wants the factory to function. The machines in his factory could only be operated while standing. The employee had to stand, operate, sit, rest, stand, operate. This was the cyclic rhythm of the employee. Every time the employee missed a rhythm, there was a fall in production. One cycle was supposed to get completed in x seconds.

If the world wasn’t held hostage by greedy capitalists, the chair would be comfortable thing to sit on. But because generally the world depends on the rhythm of our body, chairs are designed to be accessories to produce their effect.

One day the owner of the factory met the manager of the factory to discuss an increase in production of the factory.

The manager asked for better chairs.