My comparisons are the armchair from Koloman Moser (1903) and the armchair from Josef Hoffmann (1903), with its strong compositions, simple lines, and reflection of color executed in a geometric precision. Together Moser and Hoffmann achieved consistency through the use of different sized square geometries: both practical and distinctive. The rigid geometry appearance, become a fundamental characteristic, in which both pieces exemplifies a pattern in one way or another. It is obvious, however, that both consciously used line and color to visual effect, thereby making the expression even purer and simpler. That is to say, both reveal differences in meaning attributed to the external form relative to the function in each piece.
Both Moser and Hoffmann’s armchair are consisted of U- shaped frame of narrow, flat, horizontal slats, one above and one below. However, Moser’s armchair has vertical slat-like rungs of the same width on to the sides, giving a permeable feeling. Therefore, it establishes a communication with all sides that open toward the space around it. The result is the negative form of chair that transitions toward the surrounding space. The armchair’s usage of horizontal and vertical pieces into space creates the effect of a space within the space.
While Hoffmann’s voluminous armchair is formed the same way, but only opened at the top and in the front, allowing communication with the space above and in the front of it. This is to the displacement of a board like frame on all three sides (the back and the armrests), basically completely closing off the three sides. Creating an upper and lower termination of the back and armrests that towers freely over the cube, supported at each corner by square pillars. The result is a psychological and optical opening up that demonstrates the possibility of linking space through the vertical voids around the armchair.
The two used colors in their furniture in different ways, Hoffmann started by exposing the vertical elements of structure with black stain and plan light surface colors to the effect. The resulting impression is of a delicate, transparent frame. He still has a trace of ornamental bands that plays with the dark and light effect on the sides. But the open frame construction also reestablishes communication with the space. Hoffmann use of frame construction along the solid areas of the chair, achieves a virtual permeability. Not as noticeable as Moser’s approach, but allows for a soothing of the chair within the space.
Moser’s armchair sets up a striking play of color and shade between the seat's black-and-white checkered pattern and the surrounding white pattern. Though reduced to the elements of a cube and composed entirely with straight lines. The chair’s placement within the gallery consciously used the lines and color from the chair to harmonize with the predominantly white, geometric features of its surroundings - floor, walls, ceiling and the building as a whole - creating a rhythmical space of cubic forms and contrasting colors. With the chair placed in the middle, there was a successfully ideal embodied sense of composite design balancing architectural and interior design within the small gallery room.
For Moser and Hoffmann, the forward looking generation at the turn of the century in Vienna represented a clear break with the traditional that preceded them. The individual creativity that results from this showed us how both artist and designer during the same year had different approaches to things that were being produces by the Viennese Secession. It is clear by the use of the U-shaped framing of the chair how connected and influenced they were among each other.
