Back to top

Where We Work - Studio Marcus Hay

Karl Lagerfield once said "there's something boring about people who have to go to an office for a living".  Equating office work with boring people is, of course, Mr Lagerfield's choice to make.  But in many respects, the office can reflect the person and there's always something interesting about that.

Taken further, the work spaces of creative people are often as interesting as the people that occupy them.  In our view, such work spaces can inform and inspire the occupant and their work.  Indeed, the work space/worker relationship is important in all forms of labour but particular so in the creative world.  It is a relationship that we aim to explore further in the blog as a recurring feature.  Think of it as an ongoing rebuttal to Mr Lagerfield's argument.

The New York studio of Marcus Hay is an active endorsment of our rebuttal.  We have previously profiled the Australian-born style creative director, interior design and writer before.  Here are some visuals of his studio located in the vibrant Chelsea neighbourhood in Manhattan.  Let's visit and take a look around.

What is most notable is that colour dominates the studio.  Varied in hues and blushes, the colours lift the space and gives it an irresistible life.
Who doesn't appreciate the look of a beautifully designed bottle of alcohol and a well-stacked yet properly portioned bookshelf?  Both can add tremendously to the look of a room.  A case in point is Marcus' precisely placed bookcase and the elegant drinks tray above. 
[Note: the terrific Wellington bistro Capitol has a great display of interesting bottles behind the bar. It certainly adds to what is a quality eatery.  Great food and service too. Five stars.]
In New York, the dimension of one's office can greatly dictate the look.  We like the embedded desk here.  It is undeniable stylish, and speaks of a smart and economic use of space.
As an observation, there is a lot going on in Marcus' studio.  Nevertheless, it is beautifully configured and visually alluring.  The artefacts that populate the desks, shelves and walls are many as they are varied.  You get the sense that they all have a backstory that is important to Marcus, his team, and their work.  They are clearly things that matter and provide a semblance of insight into the occupants.  And in the absence of an explanation behind each artefact, it is far from boring to wonder about their respective origin and particular significance. What we can be certain of is that they look great.

Words by Craig Greaves.
Photographs by Jonny Valiant via Studio Marcus Hay.


Contact http://www

Contact may be desirable if feasible, but there is no imperative need for it. Under many conditions rifle-fire is more effective at 5, 50, even 100 yards’ distance than in a mêlée. A victory may be crushingly conclusive without recourse to anything in the nature of a hand-to-hand encounter; but if nothing save a hand-to-hand encounter will secure a victory, the rifle provides scores of opportunities of obtaining that encounter where the arme blanche provides but one, if only the mounted riflemen are versed in that elementary part of their trade, which consists in knowing what and how to use, and when and how to discard, the horse. As compared with the steel horsemen, they are almost independent of ground. Instead of perpetually pining for level swards and open “Cavalry ground,” they welcome inequalities and obstacles, for these are the true conditions of surprise. Indeed, they make use of these obstacles, instead of allowing them to baulk their efforts. Steep ascents often aid them, entrenchments and other defences, natural or artificial, at the point of contact,—hopeless barriers, however flimsy in their character, to shock—can be surmounted by them. But supposing the ground is open, level, and smooth, and a mêlée with the enemy obtainable by quadrupeds, suppose, in fact, the only topographical conditions which can render an arme blanche charge possible, is there no r?le open to them analogous to that of the steel horsemen? Can they not charge home? I shall prove by a quantity of facts drawn from experience that they can, and under conditions which would be fatal to an arme blanche charge. Not aiming at physical shock, not therefore presenting the vulnerable target produced by close formation, they do not need the same degree of speed, nor, consequently, that perpetual 32freshness in their mounts which is the chimera of theorists and the despair of practical men. Nor is the size of their horses—an important element in genuine shock—of any account to mounted riflemen. Within rational limits, the smaller they are the better. Finally, in the process of covering on horseback this last intervening space of open, level ground, when the arme blanche, remember, even at the eleventh hour is still idle, need the rifle, too, be idle? Again, I shall bring ample modern testimony, which is fortified by much evidence from the American Civil War, to show that fire from the saddle, even if unaimed, may be used with signal effect, and in the case of the modern rifle, not merely moral effect, but physical effect. It may take the shape of aimed fire, as against horsemen at close quarters in pursuit, or against a Cavalry “mass,” or groups of led horses; while a few casualties, even from unaimed fire, in the defence, however constituted, produce great effect in daunting aim and nerves alike. Here, mark, is the crowning element of superiority in the rifle. Unlike the steel, which is used only from horseback, it can be used both from horseback and on foot. The first-class mounted rifleman—the ideal type we can construct from direct war experience—will be at home in both. He will use saddle-fire mainly in its unaimed