here is a nice talk of rose lovegrove..I liked the way that he differentiated himself from those blob guys and another ind. designers that using "form" for consumerism trends...
Thanks for the link. In 2005 Ross Lovegrove was a Prof at one of the industrial design studios at my university only for a half year. There are a lot of rumours why he left. What a shame to lose him.
Lovegrove, he should thank capitalism. Very nice "funky" stuff, but where is the engagement to users? This guy is just a Karim Rashid clon. He should use his verb better as a TV preacher.
besides,from what i see on that lecture, he doesn't copy the nature..he is trying to understand how that growth patterns and forms are being shaped in the nature and then adapting these structural logics into his products...isn't this enough and logical way of working method which differentiates him from the other "filleting edges" guys?
despite his ego - "my project was exhibited in TIME magazine, not bad for a guy from south whales" - lovegrove is FAR from the only one that uses this logic, so i don't think he is unique or differentiated at all in that sense.
why was he on TED? i think he brings the level down, and not only because of his ego. his work is interesting but i am not convinced that it is sustainable or necessary, or even very unique...the thing about natural evolution is that it doesn't require a huge investment. certainly not to make a stair that is unsafe and very likely only SEEMS to be new...that bit alone convinced me that he is first and foremost a stylist and the rest is a rationalisation...there is nothing un-natural or wrong about a square house. it all evolved too. and takes the shape it does for a good reason.
i liked dan dennett's presentation better, especially the bit where he reminded us that "evolution is better than we are". that is, that it designs better and more intelligently than any designer ever will.
though it is not often discussed the opposite is also true, as dan well knows, and there are many inneficient pieces left over from evolution, even in our own bodies. nature does not make holes in order to be efficient or to achieve some higher purpose. there is no purpose at all. And not all that is extraneous is actually removed, that is a fallacy (think of the appendix). what evolution does is allow change to happen constantly so that a solution for a particular situation can emerge. it is very often not the best solution because it does not start from scratch. which is the most interesting lesson to learn from nature. perfection is a myth, and the best fit is only temporary.
I was focusing on his works rather than his ego or personal jokes about himself so I should have skipped that part sorry..thanx for the clarification anyway.
Actually I liked the idea of "seamlessnes" on his works,those furniture types really need loads of joint and bolt details but he seems to be successfull about ommitting them clearly..the catch is he does not hide them with extra skins or cushions, he is producing new connection details according to his research about bones,bodies,polymers etc..that is not a unique approach to design but still seems for me an intelligent way of working.
jump, you were right about evolution though..there is no purpose at all, making holes may not be an efficient or has a reason but it might too..those traces should be examined carefully, they are not always perfect.
I love some of his chairs, actually, but agree with some of the critics here. He doesn't seem to be particularly rigorous about his investigation or application of natural principles in his work... and he certainly seems more interested in pointing out that his gadgets were the "first ever," rather than elaborating any particular advantage that was rendered by his design process.
I do like the quote: "I'm not putting Charles Eames furniture in architecture." That should be a new rule, no Eames, no Bertoia, and no Mies furniture in your renderings, please.
Sep 18, 06 11:21 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
13 Comments
Thanks for the link. In 2005 Ross Lovegrove was a Prof at one of the industrial design studios at my university only for a half year. There are a lot of rumours why he left. What a shame to lose him.
how would you say he differentiates himself from the other "blob guys"? he himself said he acts on instincts rather than science.
...and he seems to ally himself with greg lynn, the blob-meister himself.
Lovegrove, he should thank capitalism. Very nice "funky" stuff, but where is the engagement to users? This guy is just a Karim Rashid clon. He should use his verb better as a TV preacher.
well he is not a scientist..is he ?
besides,from what i see on that lecture, he doesn't copy the nature..he is trying to understand how that growth patterns and forms are being shaped in the nature and then adapting these structural logics into his products...isn't this enough and logical way of working method which differentiates him from the other "filleting edges" guys?
despite his ego - "my project was exhibited in TIME magazine, not bad for a guy from south whales" - lovegrove is FAR from the only one that uses this logic, so i don't think he is unique or differentiated at all in that sense.
why was he on TED? i think he brings the level down, and not only because of his ego. his work is interesting but i am not convinced that it is sustainable or necessary, or even very unique...the thing about natural evolution is that it doesn't require a huge investment. certainly not to make a stair that is unsafe and very likely only SEEMS to be new...that bit alone convinced me that he is first and foremost a stylist and the rest is a rationalisation...there is nothing un-natural or wrong about a square house. it all evolved too. and takes the shape it does for a good reason.
"...nature likes to drill holes in things...nature does not make form as much as she removes the extraneous."
I appreciated this semi-verbatim quote, and I'm certain I'll be giving it some thought.
Enjoyed the link. Thanks.
...another one, for the kids:
"...overtime is the passion of design, so either join the club, or don't."
i liked dan dennett's presentation better, especially the bit where he reminded us that "evolution is better than we are". that is, that it designs better and more intelligently than any designer ever will.
though it is not often discussed the opposite is also true, as dan well knows, and there are many inneficient pieces left over from evolution, even in our own bodies. nature does not make holes in order to be efficient or to achieve some higher purpose. there is no purpose at all. And not all that is extraneous is actually removed, that is a fallacy (think of the appendix). what evolution does is allow change to happen constantly so that a solution for a particular situation can emerge. it is very often not the best solution because it does not start from scratch. which is the most interesting lesson to learn from nature. perfection is a myth, and the best fit is only temporary.
I was focusing on his works rather than his ego or personal jokes about himself so I should have skipped that part sorry..thanx for the clarification anyway.
Actually I liked the idea of "seamlessnes" on his works,those furniture types really need loads of joint and bolt details but he seems to be successfull about ommitting them clearly..the catch is he does not hide them with extra skins or cushions, he is producing new connection details according to his research about bones,bodies,polymers etc..that is not a unique approach to design but still seems for me an intelligent way of working.
jump, you were right about evolution though..there is no purpose at all, making holes may not be an efficient or has a reason but it might too..those traces should be examined carefully, they are not always perfect.
I love some of his chairs, actually, but agree with some of the critics here. He doesn't seem to be particularly rigorous about his investigation or application of natural principles in his work... and he certainly seems more interested in pointing out that his gadgets were the "first ever," rather than elaborating any particular advantage that was rendered by his design process.
I do like the quote: "I'm not putting Charles Eames furniture in architecture." That should be a new rule, no Eames, no Bertoia, and no Mies furniture in your renderings, please.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.