These are “digitally tattooed wooden bodies” as designers Naama Steinbock and Idan Friedman of Reddish describe their furniture pieces. Basically it is wood being digitally printed on.
Point made: wood and print really marry well and the motives feel just right. In addition, the wood seems to represent the unevenness of skin well. These furniture are also nice reminders of the origins of Japanese tatooing which developed in close connections to wood bloc printing. I also get the parallel between tattoos as unique pieces and the technic of digital printing which also allows each furniture to be unique, i.e. having a different print as the designers explain in the furnitures’ discription.
But what intriges me most about this furniture is what the designers themselves have to do with this traditional form of tattooing? Why did they chose this as an influence for their design? Without explanation, it just seems to be another form of commodifying “the exotic Other”. Why would Israelien designers who speak about the possiblity of their furniture pieces to become a “platform for expressing a strong cultural identity” (if this is ever possible) chose to present a furniture which a lot of people would rather connect to Japan?

Images from