By now I have 500 m² of space, and the research into individual objects has deepened accordingly. As soon as I sell something, I use it to buy new objects right away. An addictive pattern is undeniable here. Publications and rewarding collaborations with museums followed. On the economic side, a certain naivety showed itself. My concept followed one principle: if the objects stand out in quality, they will sell, hopefully. Acquiring masterpieces defined the direction. Everything else was secondary. Looking at the current gallery scene, I see that the profession has shifted direction. A great deal of importance is placed on presentation. Gallerists see themselves as curators, with staging given the greatest weight. The gallery's image is actively cultivated, there is pressure to stand out with the "next hot shit," while savvy positioning on social media also gains importance. An attractive presentation is nothing bad and reflects a gallery's sensibility. It contextualizes objects, clarifies their specific qualities, and opens up new readings. It also brings the objects closer to the untrained visitor. At the same time, the staging is meant to add value to the object, to legitimize the high prices. This is where moments arise in which design galleries ingratiate themselves, drift into the lifestyle lane, and try to chase every hype. The gallery focuses on image polishing. Gallerists turn from experts into clever salespeople and marketing professionals.

It reflects a design collector base that perceives design less as an intellectual and sensual object and more as a lifestyle product or investment. Understanding and engagement are presumably more superficial; fewer people have the time to engage with the subject, so it falls to the gallerist to make the objects palatable to the buyer. The pressure on galleries grows to optimize everything around them. The setup, the "location," the hype around the gallerist, and the social media presence are meant to generate authority. It is no longer the objects but all of this that increasingly defines a gallery's quality. The idea of the curator has gained importance, which shows that a gallery now defines itself by the quality of its self-staging, no longer by that of its objects.

This approach is seductive and economically promising, yet for me it is a distraction from what matters. So I accept that my gallery sits in an inelegant suburb, that you enter through a garage door, that the space isn't perfectly climate-controlled, and that the bathroom resembles one in a factory. Certain visitors are put off by it, others enjoy the unpretentiousness. We will not change this approach: we want to make clear that this is about the objects, not about a "lifestyle experience." Bare, direct, and without chichi, our presentation is as immediate as the objects, which already speak for themselves. I am aware that good presentation and a focus on the object don't necessarily exclude each other. But the moment staging becomes the purpose, the gallery itself becomes the product, and the design objects become mere useful tools.

The Art Basel and UBS study, however, attests to the design market's resilience for the period 2023 to 2025. Prices barely fell compared to the rest of the art market. Revenue declines occurred primarily in the high-price segment. The large design galleries struggled with high fixed costs and revenue drops. The market demanded change, and new innovative galleries established themselves.

A generational shift in the buyer base additionally emerged, something that happened gradually but now suddenly hit the design gallery scene and created new collectors as well as requirements. Among high-net-worth individuals, boomers (born 1946 to 1964) continue to represent the collector group with the strongest revenue: they buy expensive but few works. In terms of revenue, millennials (born 1981 to 1996) follow, dominating the market at 55%.³ The experimental Generation Z buys in the greatest numbers, but less expensive design objects, and continuously builds their collections. The market is undergoing a transition that demands more quality and innovation, an opportunity for the entire design market.

Design Establishes Itself as an Investment
Design has moved from a marginal position into the traditional repertoire of collectors. Where design enthusiasm was once confined to a niche area and considered an insider tip, a broad audience is now interested in design. The Art Basel and UBS study for 2025 shows that 20% of surveyed art collectors (high-net-worth individuals) intend to incorporate design into their collection. Just a few years ago, fewer than 3% wanted to add design to their portfolio. These interested parties view design as undervalued compared to traditional art with comparable quality characteristics. Design is no longer considered an experimental field but a serious collecting area and legitimate investment.Only for about 35 years has design established itself as a relevant collectible object. Institutions such as the Vitra Design Museum, Centre Pompidou, MoMA, auction houses like Wright, Piasa, Christie's, Phillips, Sotheby's, and fairs like Design Miami (since 2005) legitimized design as cultural property. The market has reached the phase where furniture objects become collectible investments. While between 2000 and 2020 about 20 design objects achieved prices over 1 million USD at auctions, in 2024 and 2025 alone more than 20 design objects exceeded this threshold. A remarkable acceleration. Design objects by Eileen Gray, Jean Prouvé, Carlo Mollino, Diego Giacometti, Frank Lloyd Wright, or François-Xavier Lalanne, whose Hippopotame Bar just achieved a new record at 31.4 million dollars,⁴ exemplify this development.Design proved crisis-resistant from 2020 to 2025. While the art market suffered between 2022 and 2025 and a price decline was evident, prices in the design market merely stagnated. This resilience makes design interesting for the future and suggests that demand is growing and prices are generally not overvalued.

The Investment Potential of Chandigarh Objects
A) Historical Relevance and Market Position
The design of the first half of the 20th century remains unique because of its historical significance and innovation. This era represents the nucleus of the entire design tradition to this day. Pierre Jeanneret and Le Corbusier are still considered the most significant and influential architectural team of our era. This position is historically established and will no longer be relativized even by new designers. These facts define the relevance and value of their works.

Prices for Chandigarh objects have shown their own dynamic over the last 30 years. With the "rediscovery" around 2005, a price explosion occurred. In the hype and price-driving phase cultivated by galleries together with auction houses, an "Office Cane Chair PJ-SI-28-A" reached a price of 12,500 dollars⁵ (today's value about 4,200 dollars). In 2015, it became apparent that many objects were not as rare as claimed, leading to a price correction. The emergence of counterfeits contributed to uncertainties and additionally impaired prices. Prices have been rising continuously again for several years, after questions of rarity have been clarified and clearer ideas exist regarding authenticity. Objects that combine rarity with usability developed particularly well. Armchairs from Chandigarh, for example, are sought after: collector's item, residential object, and status symbol in one.

B) Value Factors and Investment Criteria
Authenticity is decisive. Uncertainty is reflected in restrained bids at auctions, while rare pieces with secured provenance achieve top prices. Prices jump or fall when originals can no longer be distinguished from counterfeits. The significance of authenticity and provenance is increasing and ensures that design as an investment does not suffer loss of value. Certificates on blockchain technology make provenance verifiable and traceable. This technology, successfully used for diamonds to exclude problematic origins, is increasingly finding application in the design market as well.

Price development also increasingly depends on the quality of restoration and patina. Until about 2015, over-restoration was not uncommon: patina was replaced, traces of use eliminated, the surface freed from its history. Such objects are losing value today because these interventions erase important authenticity indicators. Priorities have shifted. Objects with rich patina and subtle, careful restoration gain more value. Patina, rust, and original paint finishes are increasingly appreciated, a development that is intensifying.

The art historical relevance of the designer, limited availability, clear distinction of original first editions from later reproductions, all this promotes value appreciation. Narrative aspects shape value to the same degree. If a myth developed around the designer or object, desire increases and thus also collector value.

Concluding Observations
Chandigarh objects are among the most valuable collector's items in design and have proven their lasting relevance. The strongly increasing demand across all collector generations, the grown trust in design as an investment, and the sharpened attention to authenticity documentation create stable conditions for the market and legitimize value appreciation. This development will intensify in 2026.

¹ Clare McAndrew, Survey of Global Collecting (Basel: Art Basel and UBS, 2025), 21.
² Tippinpoint, "Schweizer Stargalerist Iwan Wirth: Brechen die Geschäfte in Grossbritannien ein?," accessed December 27, 2025, https://www.tippinpoint.ch/artikel/78340/schweizer_stargalerist_iwan_wirth_brechen_die_geschaefte_in_grossbritannien_ein.html.
³ Clare McAndrew, Survey of Global Collecting (Basel: Art Basel and UBS, 2025), 46.
⁴ Sotheby's, "Hippopotame Bar, Piece Unique," Important Design Featuring the Schlumberger Collection, 2025, https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2025/important-design-featuring-the-schlumberger-collection/hippopotame-bar-piece-unique.
⁵ Phillips, "Pierre Jeanneret, Pair of 'Office' Armchairs, Model No. PJ-SI-28-A," accessed December 25, 2025, https://www.phillips.com/detail/pierre-jeanneret/77818?fromSearch=pj-si-28&searchPage=1.

Photographs © Sotheby's.

Early Years and Education
Pierre Jeanneret was born on 22 March 1896 in Geneva, into a family already rooted in architectural traditions. His cousin Charles-Édouard Jeanneret, later known as Le Corbusier, was thirteen years older and would exert a decisive influence on Pierre’s professional trajectory. Pierre completed his education at the École des Beaux-Arts in Geneva. In January 1920 he left Switzerland and moved to Paris, where from 1921 to 1922 he worked in the office of the Perret brothers. This experience under Auguste Perret, a pioneer of reinforced concrete construction, proved formative for his later work.







The Partnership with Le Corbusier (1921–1940)
In 1921 he began a partnership with Le Corbusier while still employed by the Perret brothers. In 1922 they founded an office together. This collaboration proved exceptionally productive and led to the realization of some of the most significant buildings of classical modernism. Although Le Corbusier was often perceived as the sole author of their joint projects, Pierre Jeanneret was in fact an equal partner, contributing both conceptually and practically to the development and execution of the designs. The two shared research interests and design principles within a deep and lifelong professional relationship. Together they developed the “Five Points of a New Architecture” (Cinq points de l’architecture moderne, 1927), which became cornerstones of the modern movement: pilotis, the roof terrace, the free plan, the horizontal window, and the free façade.

During the eighteen years of their partnership they realized numerous pioneering projects that became icons of modern architecture. Among the most notable joint works are:
– Villa Le Lac (1923–1924) – a compact house with a refined interior.
– Maisons La Roche-Jeanneret, Paris (1923–1925) – a masterpiece distinguished by its “promenade architecturale.”
– Ozenfant House, Paris (1922) – an experimental building type combining dwelling and studio in a compact structure.
– Pavillon de l’Esprit Nouveau (1925) – a counter-proposal to the dominant Art Deco, presented at the Exposition Internationale des Arts Décoratifs.
– Weissenhof Estate, Stuttgart (1927) – two model houses exemplifying their architectural principles.
– Maison Cook, Boulogne-sur-Seine (1926) – an innovative urban house with characteristic pilotis construction.
– Maison Guiette, Antwerp (1926) – an early example of their principles in Belgium.
– Villa Savoye, Poissy (1928–1931) – regarded as the consummate manifesto of modern architecture and the culmination of their purist phase.
– Villa Baizeau, Tunis (1929) – demonstrating the adaptation of modernist principles to a Mediterranean climate.

Further important projects included the Cité Frugès in Pessac near Bordeaux (1924–1927), an ambitious social housing project of around fifty houses, and the Fondation Suisse, a student residence (1931–1933). Their activities also extended to urban planning. They developed visionary schemes such as the Ville Contemporaine for three million inhabitants (1922) and the Plan Voisin for Paris (1925), which provoked controversial debates about the future of the city. In 1927 they participated in the competition for the Palace of the League of Nations in Geneva; although their design received the most jury votes, it was not realized for formal reasons. While Le Corbusier dominated the theoretical articulation and public presentation of their work, Pierre Jeanneret was integral to the entire design and realization process. His expertise in construction and detailing was as crucial as his formal contributions. This division of labor was characteristic of their collaboration and partly explains why Jeanneret’s role was long underestimated.






Furniture Design and the Collaboration with Charlotte Perriand
Another essential aspect of Pierre Jeanneret’s work is his contribution to furniture design. From 1927 onward, the office collaborated with designer Charlotte Perriand, resulting in a series of iconic furniture designs. Among the best known are the LC1 armchair (Basculant), the LC2 armchair (Grand Confort), and the LC4 chaise longue, now understood as joint projects by Le Corbusier, Pierre Jeanneret, and Charlotte Perriand.
These pieces represented a radical departure from traditional furnishing concepts. They employed modern materials such as chrome-plated tubular steel. The furniture was not conceived as decorative objects but as équipement de l’habitation—equipment for modern living—combining comfort with an industrial aesthetic.
The collaboration with Perriand was especially productive and led to a redefinition of modern furniture design. While Le Corbusier often set the conceptual direction, it was Jeanneret and Perriand who undertook the practical development and refinement of the designs. First presented in 1929 at the Salon d’Automne in Paris, the furniture provoked debate. It marked a turning point in European furniture design and influenced generations of designers.












Jeanneret visits the construction site of the Secretariat building in Chandigarh           Assembly in Chandigarh

The Chandigarh Project from 1951
Another transformation in Pierre Jeanneret’s career came after 1950. Following the partition of India in 1947, the state of Punjab lost its capital Lahore, which became part of Pakistan. The Indian government under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to build a new capital, Chandigarh, as a symbol of a modern, independent India. In 1950 Le Corbusier was commissioned to design the city. He brought Pierre Jeanneret into the project—a decision that proved decisive for the success of this ambitious undertaking.

While Le Corbusier was primarily responsible for the monumental government buildings of the Capitol Complex and traveled to Chandigarh only occasionally, Pierre Jeanneret assumed the day-to-day leadership of the project on site. From 1951 to 1965 he lived and worked in Chandigarh, dedicating himself to the implementation of the urban plan. His buildings responded more directly to local needs and conditions and were more pragmatic than those of Le Corbusier. He was responsible for the design of numerous public buildings, including schools, hospitals, administrative buildings, and housing complexes.

His designs were marked by an intelligent adaptation of modernist principles to the humid subtropical climate of northern India. He developed innovative solutions for sun protection, natural ventilation, and heat dissipation, making the buildings more habitable and functional. He created various housing types for different population groups and income levels that were both affordable and architecturally complex. These designs took Indian living habits and family structures into account, integrated traditional elements such as verandas, and consistently combined them with modernist principles. The buildings used local materials, especially brick and concrete, and were conceived so they could be executed by local craftsmen.

Armchair PJ-SI-01-C by Jeanneret                                                                                 Armchair PJ-SI-04-C by Jeanneret

The Chandigarh Furniture
A) Experimental Phase
Parallel to his architectural work, Pierre Jeanneret developed extensive furniture for Chandigarh’s public buildings and for specific housing projects. This furniture constitutes an independent contribution to the design canon of the 20th century. It differs both from his earlier work and from other tendencies of regionalist modernism. The early objects, particularly the seating furniture up to 1955 (now catalogued as PJ-SI-011 to PJ-SI-12), display a wild, almost childlike experimental spirit. Chairs were constructed from bamboo, rope, metal frameworks, cane, or chains; they were demountable and deliberately ignored the aesthetic principles of modernism. It appears as though Jeanneret created a liberated experimental field in which he cast aside dogma, professionalism, and the stylistic imperatives of modernism.

A particularly striking example is the chair PJ-SI-07-A, whose seat hangs from the armrests by chains. Many of these objects were easy to produce—bamboo lashed together with a few ropes or other improvised constructions. The furniture exhibits a pragmatic, architectural formal language: frameworks support light seat and back surfaces. The contrast between load-bearing and load-borne elements emphasizes constructive logic and lends the objects a raw, almost sculptural quality. Yet these early designs were often too fragile for everyday use; they remained prototypes documenting Jeanneret’s unrestrained creative drive.

Stool LC-14 by Le Corbusier                                                                                          Stool PJ-SI-58-A by Jeanneret

B) Archetypal Design
A more unified formal language and logic soon crystallized. This made it possible to furnish an entire city with furniture types that local craftsmen could produce using available materials. Teak or sissoo beams, assembled into A-, X-, Z-, or bridge-like forms, constitute the structural framework and grammar of most pieces. Western formal clarity meets Indian nonchalance, resulting in a liberating directness without excessive formalism. Did Pierre Jeanneret recognize in non-design the highest form of design—a form in which the poetry of the everyday takes precedence over ambitious formal compulsion? Simple, clear forms generate an almost banal simplicity. Were it not for the small refinements: certain edges rounded, beams tapering toward their ends, fixings cleverly concealed, and particular attention paid to proportions.

India was a liberation for Pierre Jeanneret. Proximity to life and its beauty became more decisive. The same tendency appears simultaneously in Le Corbusier’s work. Archaic and primitive furniture types came into focus. In 1952 he developed a stool for his Cabanon that was nothing more than a box, and in 1953 a stool for his projects in Ahmedabad consisting of a steel tube and a banal seat.

Although functional and pragmatic aspects always played a role in Pierre Jeanneret’s Chandigarh project, this should not be described as functional design. The underlying intention was to create the essential with everyday means. Both Pierre Jeanneret and Le Corbusier sought the essential, with the poetic always forming part of it. In Jeanneret’s case this was more pragmatic and closer to people; in Le Corbusier’s work an additional spiritual and visionary dimension emerged.

Pierre Jeanneret returned to Switzerland in 1965 after fourteen years and died on 4 December 1967 in Geneva.

Photographs © Canadian Centre for Architecture; © FLC/ADAGP; © Sotheby's; © Galerie Patrick Seguin; © Olivier Martin Gambier.

This development of blockchain certificates is therefore not a technical gimmick but a necessary response to a fundamental market problem, particularly evident in Chandigarh design. You now have a physical certificate with a link, P! Gallery has the certificate in its system, and additionally it is indelibly stored on a blockchain server system.

The Problem of Missing Documentation
Chandigarh furniture was never sold in the conventional sense. It was distributed, taken, or auctioned off in bulk. Original purchase receipts do not exist. Provenance often relies exclusively on oral tradition, making these objects particularly vulnerable to forgery. The situation is further complicated by the fact that purchase documents from India are relatively easy to forge and public institutions are easily bribed.

Blockchain as the Solution
Blockchain technology enables, for the first time, an irrefutable digital provenance documentation. The record cannot be retroactively manipulated and is stored forever. Even if the physical document is lost or the gallery dissolves, the certificate remains preserved and accessible.

What Is Documented
Each P! Gallery blockchain certificate contains comprehensive documentation: the authenticity of the object, a detailed condition report, photographs for unambiguous identification, the complete restoration history, as well as the expertise and verification by the gallery. The current change of ownership at the time of certification is recorded.

Securing Value for Generations
The significance of these certificates becomes especially clear when passing objects on to descendants or selling them. Here, the reputation of the issuing gallery and the completeness of documentation are crucial. The market becomes more transparent, forgeries become identifiable, and secured authenticity leads to sustainable value appreciation.

With this step, P! Gallery sets a new standard for handling valuable design objects, ensuring they serve not only as aesthetic enrichment and emotional fulfillment but also have a secure future as investment and store of value.

The topic of veneer is different and depends on each item. The thin veneer has been glued to plywood, so it is more fragile and has been more often replaced during the last seventy years. Auction houses and prestigious galleries accept the replacement of the veneer top, as it’s part of the Chandigarh reality. The type of replacement should be documented in the certificate, which many galleries or auction houses neglect to do. Insist on transparency here.

Replacing cushions, cane, upholstery, or foam is needed standard, not affecting value. But when it comes to repainting metal parts, opinions vary. P! Galerie rejects this practice entirely; many other galleries have a less strict approach. Pedja Hadži-Manović, an expert and gallery owner, states: “The richness, depth, and traces of use and time in the paint are essential to the item’s character, history and, value. I consider repainted objects worthless.” Since some buyers prefer their items in a more presentable condition, many galleries follow these wishes and repaint them.

Some furniture was repaired between 1960 and 1985, and these repairs now carry their own patina - part of the piece's history. Far from reducing value, these repairs are often beautifully executed and add richness to each object. It shows the respect for the items from that specific earlier epoch. Everything depends on the object, the scale of the intervention, and the type of restoration. Full documentation is non-negotiable. This again highlights: Transparency is essential when it comes to authenticity.

For additional stabilisation, the objects are sometimes the items get dismantled, and inner screws are added. These interventions are necessary for stability but must be done professionally so they remain invisible from the outside. Each item requires a tailored approach to balance usability and originality.

Pierre Jeanneret's furniture tells a story through its imperfections. Old cracks, layers of scratches, worn lacquer, and oxidation from decades of human touch, these are the fingerprints of authenticity. With an increasing number of fake items on the market, it is relevant to purchase items where the proof of authenticity has not vanished due to a poor restoration approach. It is best to accept the character of an item and to avoid manipulated items, which may appear more pleasant at first glance. At P! Galerie, deep scratches or holes are addressed subtly; they should not dominate the overall impression. An item should be experienced as the holistic vision of its creator, scars and all.

Always ask the gallery about interventions and work with one that has proven experience in this field.

Selection process :
Pedja Hadži-Manović, for example, selects personally every piece for P! Galerie, purchasing only unrestored furniture. In India, invoices from officials and provenance documents are easy to fake, and don’t meet the standard of a reliable provenance. Visual examination of each item is therefore crucial, it reveals the true condition and exposes manipulations. Restored pieces often lose vital indicators, so every object must be examined in its unrestored state.

P! Galerie focuses intently on the surface and its quality. As a result, the gallery avoids items with sanded surfaces—where critical information has been erased—as well as the popular black Chandigarh pieces, since dark paint can hide manipulations. Unlike auction houses, a gallery bears legal responsibility for the items it offers. Pedja emphasises that gallery owners must be “paranoid”—not just to protect their reputation and clients, but because selling a fake constitutes fraud and is a criminal offence. This distinction sets serious galleries apart from many vintage resellers.

Our restoration approach:
Restoration requires a delicate balance between preservation and usability. These collector pieces derive their value from authenticity, so restoration must be minimal and respectful. Never sanding them, as this would destroy their unique character and erase the very signs that prove their authenticity. You will see small holes, small cracks, old chips, irregularities, and insect damage—especially on undersides, which galleries like P! Galerie leave untouched to preserve authenticity.

Living with Jeanneret:
These are antique pieces made for daily use, with one caveat: cane seats require some attention. While cushions are recommended to prolong their lifespan, Pedja admits he doesn’t use them himself.

The richly patinated wood is remarkably resilient. New scratches? They simply become part of the story, blending seamlessly among countless others. A touch of polish or stain can render them almost invisible. Broken parts can be fixed nicely. In a world where damaged items are often discarded immediately, Chandigarh pieces carry a history of destruction and repair. It’s a wonderful facet of their story.

1. Illegal Reeditions?
Suppliers like Srelle (Belgium), Phantom Hands (Ireland), Dimo (Ireland), Klarel (USA), and Objet Embassy (Holland) and many others are flooding the market with Chandigarh furniture, claiming to honour Pierre Jeanneret's legacy. But here's what they don't tell you: Jeanneret's copyrights are protected until 2037, and none of these sellers have licences. Their defence? The Chandigarh workshop was a collective effort where everyone owned everything together, they create a story of a "open source design approach". It sounds democratic, almost noble. Except it's completely wrong. The copyrights belong to the actual authors - Pierre Jeanneret or Le Corbusier. Not automatically to project managers or architects working under their direction, for example Balkrishna Doshi. Take Eillie Chowdhary and the Library chair - since it's probably her design, the copyright goes to her. If she was executing Jeanneret's design, it would go to him.

But all these suppliers operate as if this question doesn't matter, as if they can bypass it entirely by claiming some shared, collective ownership. They work without permission, hiding behind a romantic story: that these pieces existed in some copyright-free limbo because intellectual property didn't matter back then, or because they're using "original techniques." It's a convenient fiction. Indian and Western copyright law exists precisely to protect the author's rights and prevent this. The chairs weren't abandoned. They weren't forgotten. Jeanneret's estate owner simply isn't protecting the rights. So nobody cares. And the illegal distribution continues worldwide - from Belgium to Ireland to the USA to Holland - unchecked.

2. Cassina names copies simply hommages
Cassina owns the Corbusier copyrights. They've spent decades advertising their "originals." They've built an empire on authenticity. So when they couldn't get the rights to Pierre Jeanneret's Chandigarh furniture, they did something remarkable: they simply copied it anyway and called it "hommage."

It's a highly problematic. They talk about tribute, about honouring Jeanneret's legacy, carefully avoiding mentioning that it's by Pierre Jeanneret. But compare their homages to the originals - same sizes, same proportions, same details. No essential differences. These aren't interpretations. They're reproductions. The same company that aggressively hunts down suppliers violating Le Corbusier's copyrights now pretends the rules don't apply when it's profitable. They've found a lucrative loophole: if you can't get the rights, just rebrand appropriation as respect.

3. Fraud: New chairs sold as Vintage Originals
While one market focuses on new items, there is another market of galleries and vintage sellers which offer old, authentic items by Pierre Jeanneret. Since they are valuable items, there are frauds, which try to offer brand-new furniture artificially aged and sold as 1950s–1960s originals, less as copyright infringement, but as criminal fraud. The market is quite innovative. Selling new objects as vintage is a criminal offence and punishable by prison in the EU/US under fraud statutes. But there are more subtle frauds, where damaged parts have been replaced but not appropriately documented. Acting like each part is original mid-century, and avoid that part. Galleries or vintage sellers act here as not knowing or pretending, but not knowing would not protect them against the accusation of fraud. All this is not unethical; it's criminal.

4. Vintage Originals
Vintage chairs from the Chandigarh period are the most authentic option available. Unlike reeditions or copies, they are genuine historical objects with inherent value. While reproductions lose value immediately after purchase, vintage pieces maintain or increase their worth over time.

Each vintage item from Chandigarh is unique. No two chairs look exactly alike, and this individuality gives them an aura that mass-produced items simply can't replicate. Most reeditions appear sterile - perfect shapes, flawless wood surfaces. Vintage pieces have patina, traces of use, and subtle distortions that tell their history. If you prioritize technical perfection, these authentic items with their imperfections won't suit you.

Price is another consideration. A vintage floating office cane chair (link to our PJ-SI-28-A) costs two to three times more than a reedition. For large-scale projects like hotels, the lower price of reproductions seems practical - but this ignores the fact that vintage pieces appreciate while copies depreciate.

However, even the vintage market has risks. You might pay premium prices for a fake or a heavily restored piece with replaced elements. Success requires either expertise to authenticate pieces yourself or finding a gallery with a proven reputation.

How to Decide?
Choosing isn't just about comparing options. There are deeper questions worth considering.

The ethical question:
Is it important to protect the rights of the author? Since Pierre Jeanneret is dead, copyright protection benefits the rights holder, not the creator himself. Ignoring copyrights isn't ethical, but the harm caused may appear negligible - it's often treated as a gentleman's delict, and a bit of Robin Hood mentality can make it easier to justify. Every supplier comes with a moral story: protecting the heritage, respecting Chandigarh's vision, honouring original techniques, supporting gifted carpenters. These marketing strategies cleverly sidestep the copyright issue. But the question remains: is copyright always something good we should respect, or is it a blocker creating a monopoly that prevents humble design from being appreciated by people with smaller budgets? That depends very much on your perspective.

The quality question:
Precision of shape doesn't define quality here. It's about the proportions, how closely they follow the original vision of the author, and the beauty of the result. Colour of wood, richness of texture, and thickness of the beams define the character of each piece.

The patina is the most relevant aspect - it makes these simple geometric shapes come alive and defines the uniqueness of each piece. This touches on what philosopher Walter Benjamin described as the "aura" of artworks when questioning the reproductions of art. The uniqueness and history of an authentic object make us see more in it, project more meaning into it, creating a different relationship than we have with what we recognise as a reedition or mass product. Aura and patina are the elements that make vintage items richer - and these are nearly impossible to replicate in reeditions.

The price question:
The price question: Some see these chairs as investments, some as collectibles, some care purely about authenticity. But if budget is your priority, then a reedition becomes a legitimate option - a way to afford an object you love without financial ruin.

In the end, it's all about priorities. What matters most to you: legal clarity, investment value, aesthetic soul, or simple affordability? There's no universal right answer. Just understand what you're buying, what you're supporting, and what trade-offs you're making.

Curated by P! Galerie, the exhibition posited a provocative thesis: that the most compelling Swiss design is not defined by its adherence to moral or aesthetic conventions, but by its willingness to subvert them. In the gallery’s owner and curator’s words:

“Bad Swiss design is decent and moral. Good Swiss design, however, is archaic and radical.”

A hidden genealogyn:
The exhibition exposed a parallel history—not one of refinement, but of defiant directness, where the humble, the coarse, and the seemingly naive reveal a deeper, archaic tradition. This tradition does not seek validation through dogma, style, or intellectualism, but through a specific radicalisation: a relentless reduction to the essential.

Swiss Design as Non-Design:
The most radical Swiss works exist without categorisation. Technology, pragmatism or functionalism are relevant, but just as frameworks. Swiss design embodies a puritanical modernity: rejecting the striving for effect, rejecting conceptual overdetermination. Here, design is pure reduction. Meaning comes not from visual decisions, but from what must be. Here, the archaic and the primitive overcome questions of style and fashion. They do not negotiate with trends and attitudes; they exist beyond them. Here Swiss design gets relevant and is more radical than the French, Italian, Nordish or Bazil Design tradition, which focus primarily on style and aesthetics, and intent to please.

Today, design is often just decoration:
It shines, it pleases, it sells - but it says nothing. Driven by market logic or nostalgia, the industry churns out stylistic quotes instead of substance, effects instead of experiments. Even rebellion has become a marketing strategy. Design has become a well-dressed, pricey prostitute, a product of an aggressive industry.
This is why P! Galerie has chosen to present a limited selection of radical Swiss Design: works that refuse to conform, that challenge rather than please, and that reclaim design’s power to provoke and question.

Have a look on our selection (pdf) .

Instead of repeating the usual narratives about “Swiss precision”, “rational intelligence” or “functionality as virtue”, the show focused on non-conformism, rawness and doubt in design. Important objects by Pierre Jeanneret and Le Corbusier from UNESCO World Heritage sites, or by Tom Strala, were placed directly on the museum floor – no plinths, no glass boxes. The exhibition ground itself became a conceptual element: a chalk-drawn layout of a virtual building – no more, no less – ephemeral and fragile. A method borrowed from Brecht’s epic theatre and later seen in Lars von Trier’s Dogville. Not projected emotions, thoughts or morality – rather a void that allows everyone to create their own perception. Because the objects stood directly on the ground, visitors were allowed to touch them. Chairs were not isolated as art objects – they remained physical, usable things. The show rejected both object fetishism and educational authority. Visitors could engage freely, without being reduced to passive observers or admirers. They were invited to question, reflect, connect.

This format avoided all decorative distraction. It was a gesture of reduction – but not minimalist in the marketable sense. It insisted on essential presence, on the sculptural truth of each object. Nothing was hidden, nothing polished. “Design is not polite,” said Pedja Hadži-Manović, who curated the exhibition. “It must be radical. It must resist the culture of compromise.”

In this spirit, the show embraced a set of works usually neglected in the Swiss canon: experimental, imperfect furniture – humble, primitive, almost childlike. A side of Swiss design that had long been ignored was made visible here. But it was precisely this aesthetic of the humble and playful that resonated with the Omani visitors, a culture where restraint and simplicity still carry meaning. Rather than preaching sustainability or morality, the exhibition created a space for reflection: on value, fragility, and the unexpected common ground between distant cultures. The layout – chalk lines slowly fading – became a silent metaphor for impermanence. What remained was clarity.

This was not a compromise.
It was a radical curatorial decision.
A non-conformist stage for objects that don’t obey.

What do you like about Chandigarh‘s design?
I love Le Corbusier and his cousin Pierre Jeanneret, both of whom left us fantastic buildings. There must be a reason why we consider them to be among the most relevant architects of the 20th century. Most architectural theorists respect their work because it promoted the concept of modernity, but what makes their opus so rich are the existential questions it raises, which give their designs a spiritual dimension.

The philosopher Walter Benjamin highlighted the ritual aspect of art, and the fact that it acts as a gateway to our subconscious, with its fears, lusts and other emotions. This is where art and design become intense.

But they designed for a modern society promoting rationalism. That contradicts your point of view.
Of course, and Chandigarh is a city that aimed to create an ideal of a modern and rational way of living. But, to be honest, their buildings were not very functional, complexity was more relevant. They were also able to invest their rational ideology with an irrational and metaphysical aspect. Le Corbusier once defined architecture as serving the beast, the heart and the spirit (servir à la bête, et au coeur, et à l’esprit). That is quite anti-rational, and emphasises the animalistic aspect of perception. Behind the rational facade there exists a deeper layer, one that touches our soul.

Is that the key to understanding their objects and architecture?
I believe so, but I would avoid the word ‘understanding’. Design is like art a medium that works with images and creates many different sense impressions. Some appear illogical and are not always even clearly understandable, so design acts more like an oracle. Through design we get a vision of the meaning of eternity, life, death, freedom, grandeur, play- fulness or banality. The abstract nature of design encourages us to pose questions, which can be quite existential. Finally, we are concerned less about the object itself and more about its ability to reflect our emotions or spiritual ideas, which are more profound than rational thought.

Can a simple table really contain such complexity?
Sure, otherwise it wouldn’t touch us. For example, the Conference table (see in this photo) by Pierre Jeanneret looks really banal. But that roughness also expresses radicality, thus provoking essential questions about being. This table represents purity, as if everything superfluous has been erased. We become curious about the existential or the unspoiled. Here design prompts us to reflect on ourselves and our inner being.

So you think the table shows some deeper truth?
Yes, in a way, but not as you think. Everything in Pierre Jeanneret‘s design appears to be pragmatic and honest, but truth in art is always an illusion. There is this fascinating contradiction in trying to appear true, which Pierre Jeanneret understood and played with. So, for the library table he designed a thick top, giving the impression of a single, solid piece. But when we look under the top we can see only the border is thick and the rest is thin. Truth and illusion are both present and show a specific world view.

So it's the complexity of the human being that you are trying to find in these objects?
That is what touches me most. These pieces are tools to access ourselves, to engage with eternal topics that are always relevant. I don’t care about zeitgeist and mannerist questions, I need depth to become stimulated. However, I think that each person is touched by these objects in a different way: by their formal simplicity, nonchalance, rough character, and rich patina. There are so many layers in his objects and you see a new one each time.

Why are these design pieces priced so high today?
The topic of value is completely different from that of quality. OK, these objects are expensive because the most important 20th-century duo of architects designed them. Each piece is unique, with different dimensions, and quite different to the industrialised mass production of someone like Eames, Mies van der Rohe or Kjaerholm. Now that Chandigarh has finally become a World Heritage Site it is attracting much more attention. Additionally, these pieces have an incredible patina, which shows their history and this is quite rare for modern furniture. In economic terms, value reflects how rare and important an artwork is – issues that are essential for me as a gallery owner. But if you want to approach these objects more deeply, you need to have your own response and avoid preconceptions.

Don’t you think it’s perverse that this design for poor people has become so expensive?
Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret made designs for rich and poor in the same way. They were looking for a language that suited humans but not one for any specific social class. But yes.

But now people pay €100,000 for a table by Pierre Jeanneret – isn‘t that crazy?
It‘s probably crazy if you have no money. If you can afford it, then your budget is higher and it looks different. Imagine that you are very rich and can choose between a good table that costs €1000 and my fantastic table costing €100,000. If you don’t have to worry about money, why would you buy the cheap one? This table is magical, look, it’s a primitive artefact – ascetic roughness, archetypical shape, its generosity. Additionally, this is one of the most important tables of the 20th century. That is the beauty of money, you can exchange it for something spiritual, like this piece of design. Yes, it may be perverse to pay €100,000 for a table.