I have a great dining room set that my grandfather didn't need when he downsized from a house to an apartment. With the sideboard and two china cabinets he and my grandmother had, they barely had room in their dining room for the table, and I fondly remember how fun it was to file in to our seats in a particular order at the holidays. There was no getting up until the end of them meal really because the room would have to empty out to let the person in the back corner out. Luckily there is lots of space in my apartment for the table.
I was moving the chairs to sweep and noticed again that only one of the six chairs has arm rests. Then I thought what an interesting study of society furniture can be. You only need one chair with arms for the man of the house, right? Keep in mind the table is probably 50 years old, so that would have made sense at the time. I suppose if you had a triangle-shaped table, it would also make sense - the one person at the base gets arm rests and along the sides you just let your arms hang at your sides. My table is a rectangle though. No space-related reason not to have a chair with arm rests on both ends except that the wife has to get up a lot during dinner to make sure the meal is served properly. I bet you could base a dissertation on the societal impact on furniture design.
3 comments:
Hm, that is a random thought.
But hey, it beats law school.
I wouldn't say that is a waste of brain power--it's kind of interesting, actually. So there.
Now the you mention it, my grandparents have a dining room set kind of like that. Although I think there might be 2 chairs with arm rests.... or was it just one? All I know is that the ones with arm rests were also wider, so they didn't get used.
It does make you wonder about the implied "master of the house" feeling.
Post a Comment