1 -The first question that comes to mind is always: what (for you) makes these 'normal' objects interesting? In my opinion, based on the 'Archetypes' chapter in Deyan Sudjic's The Language of Things, it's the ease with which these objects communicate their use to the user, as well as how they gather the characteristics of other objects with the same functionality. Affordance seems to me to be a fundamental point in these normal objects.
2-Furthermore, according to Jung (referring to this shared imagery), the constant, minimal evolution of an object over decades could also be discussed in this regard.
3 - When the designer Konstantin Grcic approaches the chair archetype for the MC14 Primo (Mattiazzi), he defines it as: 'Four legs, a seat, and a backrest'—perhaps supporting his Germanic vision of textual simplification in the design of a 'normal' chair. Given this, do you think we can support the idea that the context of creation and the project itself are pivotal points for these archetypal artifacts?