In the case of the Red blue Chair of Rietveld we can affirm, after our preliminary analysis that it contains different signs (see the relevant pages), it is however still an open question what he really tried to express. The first impression is that this chair seems not to be designed to satisfy its basic seating function as many of its elements do not further the ergonomic functions at all, on the contrary: they pose severe limits to them. This certainly is not due to Rietveld's incompetence but to his intention to provoke the observer. The chair is obviously meant to be paradoxical. We might ask for example what kind of person Rietveld had in mind to be seated on his chair. It is improbable that he meant it to be a kind of throne because no symbols of power, like lyons or eagles, are present; it also not well suited for onlookers of the television, apart from the fact that in 1918 the television had still to be invented, or to listener of music, for its lack of comfortable upholstery. This chair is not designed even for economical reasons as it can not be produced cheaply as a considerable amount of handwork is necessary. 

I think that he had some type of modern intellectual in mind inclined to contemplate the chair before sitting on it and, whence seated, turn his attention to his environment that normally will be drastically incompatible with the chair's esthetic but that ideally would be an environment of utmost geometric simplification with the elimination of all redundant bourgeois decorations like the Schroeder house, that was actually to be built only in 1924. This man or woman would reconsider the works of man in a revolutionary way by enjoying pure colors, elementary forms, open transparent structures as the symbolic expression of a new society without hypocrisy, composed of democratic persons aspiring the formulation of a new language with simple formal expressions of equally reformulated interpretations, pointing towards an universal utopian harmony. 

The red blue chair means to express the classic ideal of the unity of esthetics and ethics in a modern way.

All signs and every semiosis inevitably point in the end to such a transcendent mystic point of emanation, in Peirce's words, to the * pinnacle of semiosis *, supposed to reside either inside ourselves or elsewhere (note 2). This semiosis is furthermore utopian, being * any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief necessarily incomplete * (CP.2.95-96) 

This top sign, sometimes named Argument, is call here * a belief *. In Peirce's words: 

An argument... is - or at least can potentially be - the consummated symbol, a sign cluster or compound sign. It is a representamen which does not leave the interpretant to be determined ... but separately represents what  is the interpreting representation that it is intended to determine. This interpretation is, of course, the conclusion (C.P.5.76). 

In Peirce's terms, a text,  a combination of sentences, signifies ultimately the whole of the universe as a self referential Third or argument. An argument, collocated at upper symbolic level,  is the final sign of a decalogue, the concluding sentence, the ultimate interpretant (note 3). 
 

A CONCLUSION

 
• the very first testimonial sign of being there something, 
• the initial structural categorization, 
• the actually presented product, 
• the extension to its dominion of similar products, 
• the diagrammatically interpretation of the central concept, 
• the expression of its details and 
• the confrontation with productive and market forces, 
• the localization on symbolic and 
• allegoric functions and 
• the final sign of the very deepest sense is present in every design product. 

Here now we touch the deeper reason for design as a way to contrast this degenerative process. The consumer, stimulated by the exterior aspect of the product, the skin,  is eventually induced to reconsider everyday gestures in a new light, discovering within the rite of ordinary behavior a new meaning of life. Rietveld's chair is an example of a product of daily life that implies such a reconstruction of lost rituality. 

This crown is also a crown of the roots of the, upside down, tree of life. This is the fount of creation, the center crystallized in the midst of Non being, containing within it the potentialities of all to come. It is the comprehension of the First Principle, which hath no beginning ... All  subsequent creation from the pure force of Kether is a gradual concretion into form of one divine force. Form is force locked up into patterns of its own makings. Force is that which is released when the patterns or forms are broken. Force and form are one and the same. (note 4) 

The Cabbala uses the light metaphor for the emanation of this divine power as we can read in this citation from the Zohar, the canonical text of the Cabbala, of the thirteenth century: 
 

Rabbi Isaac said, "The light created by God in the act of creation flared from one end of the universe to the other and was hidden away, reserved for the righteous in the world that is coming, as it is written: 'Light is sown for the righteous.' Then the worlds will be fragrant, and all will be one. But until the world that is coming arrives, it is stored and hidden away." 
Rabbi Judah responded, "If the light were completely hidden, the world would not exist even for a moment! Rather it is hidden and sown like a seed that gives birth to seeds and fruit. Thereby the world is sustained. Every single day, a ray of that light shines into the world, keeping everything alive; with that ray God feeds the world." (note 5)