Description: A sculptural seating installation featuring smooth, flowing forms that function as interactive public art. Located in the open lobby, it creates a welcoming gathering space and contributes to the building’s modern aesthetic.
Supporting: This is a permanent sculptural seating installation designed as part of the public lobby environment. It is not ordinary furniture. Its abstract, organic form is an intentional artistic element meant to welcome visitors and encourage interaction within the shared space. The lobby is publicly accessible with no access restrictions, and the location is safe to approach and stand at. The supporting photo shows the installation in context to verify permanence and accessibility.
Quite apart from the lack of permanance, these are off-the-shelf items. Google Lens can be your friend here, this furniture set is made of of a Vondom Lava bench and set of Vondom Fauteuil Stone chairs.
Yeah, to go along with the advice you were given (and accepted), as soon as I read that statement, my brain asked “Who designed this sculptural furniture?” If you’re going to make a statement like that, you should have the name of the designer/artist available, typically with a linked source, to back up that information. Otherwise, many of us are just going to assume the submitter is trying to make it sound more fancy than it really is.
I definitely agree this isn’t eligible on an artist merit alone, but I wouldn’t dismiss it’s potential eligibility as a social gathering location. Some of that text could probably be worked to explain how the design is intended to create a warm and inviting atmosphere, etc.
Valid point. Though I wonder how often people hang out in the lobby of a corporate office tower. Not that they can’t, but the venue appears a lot more business oriented rather than leisure. Of course we wouldn’t know that from the text, because my community hates giving too much info.
Amount of time doesn’t matter, just as long as a place can be a great place to be social with others. Being at a business tower isn’t much of an issue either, as there are people that work there, and it could be a meeting place for lunch for some, a place to take a break, or even a place to do some work outside of the office.
And I do have to agree with @Gendgi that if this was presented less as an artwork and more as a seating area, it could possibly be eligible as a great place to be social. Right now though, the title/description/supporting text is misleading as the furniture is mass-produces and not made by a specific artist, so those elements should be removed and focus on this being a seating area. Yes, one can note the uniqueness of the furniture, but using terms that make it sound like artwork is misleading and inaccurate.
Aside from the problem of not being able to see it, I struggle to see this as a social space. I don’t think the seating is there for people to congregate at, but as a style statement.
From photos, I’d assumed this was a mall or shopping plaza setting. A building setting the general public would actually wander into, walk, meet friends, maybe take a seat for a while. If it’s “just” an office tower and maybe even waiting lounge area then it’s a different purpose.
Like I say, in the right context I do. I live in an area where during certain seasons of the year and of course weather conditions it’s physically uncomfortable to literally unsafe to spend time outside. That’s one reason I like giving extra consideration to indoor social areas. I do meet friends at indoor seating areas like this in the local malls. Of course, “mileage varies” depending on where it actually is. I’d not approve something that appears to just be a waiting lobby or business break room.
