We have developed a vernacular in our work that favors humor, happiness and human impulse over the function and form that is typically associated with design. We want to create pieces that have enough emotional impact to feel more like they are living in their setting than serving a programmatic function there.

Because our working methods and interests are decidedly different — Simon’s are naturally closer to the classical and scientific while Niki’s focus on the emotional and expressive — we have had the luxury of being complementary sounding boards for one another in every aspect of our lives, not least in our work together as The Haas Brothers. In the case of our beasts, our opposing approaches have helped us fine-tune what we consider to be the anthropomorphic ideal, balancing impulse and analysis in an effort to create an object for which one can feel empathy.
In the world of things that look like animals, there is a formal and emotional spectrum that runs from toy to taxidermy — the toy end of this spectrum being very generic and favoring attributes such as cuteness and the taxidermy end being very specific and favoring superficial realism. What strikes us as interesting when comparing these two poles is that between a stuffed animal which is extremely simplified and a stuffed animal that looks nearly lifelike, it is likely than any human who encounters the two will feel more affection for the generic version of the animal.

The psychological mechanism behind this, which we equate to the concept of the “uncanny valley” in humanoid robotics, is instinctual and automatic. Our goal with our beasts, particularly because our use of real fur keeps us in constant flirtation with the taxidermy end of the spectrum, has been to understand and manipulate this emotional response.