Destruction and Homage

Dow has said ‘Cutting up the shell chair is an act of destruction and of homage.’

One only knows Dow’s is not a chair because one knows it is (was) a shell [Eames] chair.

As the first Incident, IRNo.1 described the context as a place to  
make a complicated situation visible and therefore active.
The problems that arise are available to the many passing publics.

Chairs in a town of chairs.

One only knows it is not an [Eames] chair because one knows it is an [Eames] chair.

Perceptual trickery, in a town that sells chairs.
Trick in a town that sells Eames chairs.

One only knows it is not a chair because one knows it is a shell chair.

Trick in a town of tricks.
A town renown for its red-light history

One only knows it is not a chair because one knows it is a shell of a chair.

If one does not know it is an Eames chair, one would not tend to wonder; could I not sit upon it? Not questioning function, not questioning integrity, not questioning authenticity.
Design Integrity, structural integrity.

One only knows it is not a chair because one knows this chair.

When it is a sculpture it is still a chair. It is still a chair? The chair happens simultaneously with the realization; perhaps this is sculpture, this is an interpretive object. This-is-not-a-chair is the trick. This is a chair is why it is tricky, and an object, an artwork.

One only knows it is not a chair because one knows the chair.
(the known chair has been infiltrated).

Rene Magritte, Not To Be Reproduced

Can I sit in these chairs? If identified, then yes and no.
Chair looks like what it is. It denies what it is. What it represents is in fact a ‘chair’ regardless of its circumstance. In that it is a chair-meaning image.

One only knows it is not a chair in knowing that it is a shell chair.

It is a shell of a chair.
It is a memes chair.
It is a memes chair.