This article kills me. So while the upper crust of New York frantically hides all evidence of ever owning anything with antlers lest they be mistaken for a commoner that shops at Design Within Reach. Making design accessible makes its better. I agree that overexposure of any one thing is negative, seeing something everywhere is sickening. However, isn't the attitude in this article similar to the following Venn diagram:
I think that affordability has nothing to do with it. The problem is that 'design' has been a word that many people are now confusing with 'decoration'. Many of the objects that we can now buy at the art museum gift shop are nothing more that objects that reflect the consumer zeitgeist.
Although novel (an antler coat rack or a glowing block of wood alarm clock), these products dont have the intrinsic qualities (proportion, craft, detail) that make them lasting pieces of design.
Karim Rashid and Marcel Wanders may have sold a billion pieces of 'space filler', but their products are for the most part ugly. Yea, they may be ironic in a sense, but so is the 'worlds best grandpa' t-shirt that that hipster kid in Brooklyn is wearing. Guess what, both will end up in the garbage in a few years.
This is a problem that I feel that we are experincing in building design as well. Everyone wants the next big thing; we need instant gratification. Ignoring the basic principles that have made buildings last (think classical proportion, real materials, etc), these buildings are like one liners - once you get the punchline, it is time to move on
mdler, I agree. I think that good design transcends trend, and I think that article quotes a lot of trend whores. I actually stopped reading for a bit when I got to this line:
“I’m also finding bamboo really boring now. We have to find a way to use it in a new way.”
I agree with what you are saying, but only because you are stating the obvious. we all know the "intrinsic qualities" these pieces lack - which is why no one really cares if these are around for another year or not. but what i am interested in is the content of the article: if items that were once considered 'high brow design' are immediately purged when they are available in less expensive versions at DWR or west elm, for example.
i.e.. "“What breaks my heart are the really useful things that are now everywhere. A suzani can totally rock a bedroom, but if someone saw it on the edge of your bed they’re not going to gasp and say, ‘Where’d you get that?’ Which they would have last year.”
also, DWR started because it used to be very difficult to get modern furniture (it could take months to get a chair from Italy, for example). The fact that you can now order a chair online from DWR doesnt make it any less nice.
who cares really...if everyone has an Eames chair, it is still a cool chair. I buy stuff because I like it, not because I care that everyone else has or doesnt have it.
there will always be a subset of society who derives its self-perception from the distance between itself and the "masses." best not to get too worked up about them, as they will always eventually be proven wrong about what is "good".
i think most architects, on the other hand -- both present and past -- believe that when something is good, it's good for a long time, and only when the context of the thing changes can the thing possibly be up for re-evaluation. it's why we don't (as modernists) like egg-and-dart cornices or doric columns anymore.
the only quote in there that made sense was from the architect who won't do the gallery reveal anymore. he knew why it existed in the first place and then recognized that the context no longer existed -- and he was tired of being noncontextual. but then he said "we need to do something different with bamboo" or something and blew his cred.
yeah ochona, you bring up some interesting issues esp that the subset of society perhaps are drawn to things because they are not available to the "masses" and really have no concept of quality.
This article sounds like something straight out of Architectural Digest...yugghh.
'trends'
'nifty'
'cliche'
'cheeky'
...annnnd that's where I draw the line.
I may be exaggerating the displeasured sentiment of my fellow archinectors, but the disparity between their 'design ideal' and ours got me thinking about the current philosophical paradigm of our profession.
The problem I always had in architectural history courses was the image-centric, aesthetically-focused agenda of the profession at that time. We, on the whole, seemed more superficial than now...and it seems as though much of today's image-saturated culture has only reinforced that. However, since the age of Modernism and more recently the ideals of sustainability, our agenda as a profession, has broadened (to include, but not limited to out to the social sciences, environmental sciences, industry, etc.). Thus creating the philosophical divide between 'decorators' and 'designers' of today.
Maybe I'm digging too deeply, but thats the reaction I got...
I've posted this in another thread before, but I once read an archvoices article on alternative career paths in architecture. In it, the editor essential summed up 'design' as a broad scope of integrated services:
...we should take care how we use the word “design.” In unguarded moments, it’s easy to say “the design” when what we really mean is “the way it looks”: “I like the design, but the construction is poor,” or “It’s a nice design, but it doesn’t function very well.” We know better: the design includes the construction, it includes function, and—not unimportantly— it includes the way it looks.
"but if someone saw it on the edge of your bed they’re not going to gasp and say, ‘Where’d you get that?’ Which they would have last year.”
None of the contributors to the article, or consumers described there, actually know what looks good, nor do they care. They care that it elicits jealousy from others. They weren't buying it for its durability and thus sustainability, nor because it is an example of new manufacturing technology, or a wonder to the senses. They (of course I don't number myself among them), furnish for fashion.
Frankly, for those who spend money on such utter shit I think they should apologise for diverting manufacturing capability from something more worthwhile than imminent landfill filler. Caveat Emptor: I'm comin' a getya.
MDLER......
in 6 years of school I never heard you say something that I agreed with.... what the hell are they putting in the water out there? And by proportion, do you mean the thick wall or the wrapper?
i have acquaintances who like to surround themselves with the herman miller and knoll catalogs. they think it makes them knowledgeable about design. whenever i go to their house i feel like i'm stepping into a dwr. it's definitely not cool.
765, be sure to take the eames lounge for a test drive before you buy. i was very disappointed. it's too small for me; the top of the head rest hits me mid-neck. instead i am coveting this...
And THIS is why I didn't go do industrial design after four years of school - I couldn't bring myself to make more crap destined for the landfill.
I'm looking for places to intern this summer, and I have YET to find a company that specializes in anything OTHER than plastic injection moulding. Give me a break.
Too much junk and not enough good design. The result is what you see in the article - 'experts' trashing the very things that were 'must-haves' just months ago. I don't regret my ID schooling for a minute, and now that I look back on it, I'm glad I didn't get into the field. It's frankly embarrassing.
The best product furniture design happening today is by non-professionals. At least they have a sense of humour.
Is design less pure once it is "affordable"?
This article kills me. So while the upper crust of New York frantically hides all evidence of ever owning anything with antlers lest they be mistaken for a commoner that shops at Design Within Reach. Making design accessible makes its better. I agree that overexposure of any one thing is negative, seeing something everywhere is sickening. However, isn't the attitude in this article similar to the following Venn diagram:
http://www.itsnicethat.com/images/156.jpg
Once it is available, it becomes pedestrian?
hmmmm
Although i must admit, i do not like what is pictured in the slide show. Antlers = ew.
i disagree. they are okay if you are a hunter.
I think that affordability has nothing to do with it. The problem is that 'design' has been a word that many people are now confusing with 'decoration'. Many of the objects that we can now buy at the art museum gift shop are nothing more that objects that reflect the consumer zeitgeist.
Although novel (an antler coat rack or a glowing block of wood alarm clock), these products dont have the intrinsic qualities (proportion, craft, detail) that make them lasting pieces of design.
Karim Rashid and Marcel Wanders may have sold a billion pieces of 'space filler', but their products are for the most part ugly. Yea, they may be ironic in a sense, but so is the 'worlds best grandpa' t-shirt that that hipster kid in Brooklyn is wearing. Guess what, both will end up in the garbage in a few years.
This is a problem that I feel that we are experincing in building design as well. Everyone wants the next big thing; we need instant gratification. Ignoring the basic principles that have made buildings last (think classical proportion, real materials, etc), these buildings are like one liners - once you get the punchline, it is time to move on
wow, mdler, while i agree with most everything you wrote, for a second there i thought you were per.
mdler, I completely agree. Great post, sir.
careful people - back away from the edge.
we may be entering a rift in the space-time continuum. people are agreeing with mdler.
i repeat. step away from the edge.
mighty
you were agreeing with me on another thread....
you can have well designed decoration, btw
i find it very disturbing that many architecture schools no longer teach the fundementals of design....
mighty
tumbles and I ate at Les Amis in SF this past weekend....damn tasty
mdler, I agree. I think that good design transcends trend, and I think that article quotes a lot of trend whores. I actually stopped reading for a bit when I got to this line:
“I’m also finding bamboo really boring now. We have to find a way to use it in a new way.”
Uh, right. OK.
mdler-
I agree with what you are saying, but only because you are stating the obvious. we all know the "intrinsic qualities" these pieces lack - which is why no one really cares if these are around for another year or not. but what i am interested in is the content of the article: if items that were once considered 'high brow design' are immediately purged when they are available in less expensive versions at DWR or west elm, for example.
that's what i want to talk about.
i.e.. "“What breaks my heart are the really useful things that are now everywhere. A suzani can totally rock a bedroom, but if someone saw it on the edge of your bed they’re not going to gasp and say, ‘Where’d you get that?’ Which they would have last year.”
palindrome
DWR sells origional pieces
also, DWR started because it used to be very difficult to get modern furniture (it could take months to get a chair from Italy, for example). The fact that you can now order a chair online from DWR doesnt make it any less nice.
I dont support DWR, btw
who cares really...if everyone has an Eames chair, it is still a cool chair. I buy stuff because I like it, not because I care that everyone else has or doesnt have it.
there will always be a subset of society who derives its self-perception from the distance between itself and the "masses." best not to get too worked up about them, as they will always eventually be proven wrong about what is "good".
i think most architects, on the other hand -- both present and past -- believe that when something is good, it's good for a long time, and only when the context of the thing changes can the thing possibly be up for re-evaluation. it's why we don't (as modernists) like egg-and-dart cornices or doric columns anymore.
the only quote in there that made sense was from the architect who won't do the gallery reveal anymore. he knew why it existed in the first place and then recognized that the context no longer existed -- and he was tired of being noncontextual. but then he said "we need to do something different with bamboo" or something and blew his cred.
i know DWR sells ORIGINAL pieces.
that is the point of the article: stores making design accessible.
anyone care to address the issue i am putting forward?
yeah ochona, you bring up some interesting issues esp that the subset of society perhaps are drawn to things because they are not available to the "masses" and really have no concept of quality.
This article sounds like something straight out of Architectural Digest...yugghh.
'trends'
'nifty'
'cliche'
'cheeky'
...annnnd that's where I draw the line.
I may be exaggerating the displeasured sentiment of my fellow archinectors, but the disparity between their 'design ideal' and ours got me thinking about the current philosophical paradigm of our profession.
The problem I always had in architectural history courses was the image-centric, aesthetically-focused agenda of the profession at that time. We, on the whole, seemed more superficial than now...and it seems as though much of today's image-saturated culture has only reinforced that. However, since the age of Modernism and more recently the ideals of sustainability, our agenda as a profession, has broadened (to include, but not limited to out to the social sciences, environmental sciences, industry, etc.). Thus creating the philosophical divide between 'decorators' and 'designers' of today.
Maybe I'm digging too deeply, but thats the reaction I got...
I've posted this in another thread before, but I once read an archvoices article on alternative career paths in architecture. In it, the editor essential summed up 'design' as a broad scope of integrated services:
...we should take care how we use the word “design.” In unguarded moments, it’s easy to say “the design” when what we really mean is “the way it looks”: “I like the design, but the construction is poor,” or “It’s a nice design, but it doesn’t function very well.” We know better: the design includes the construction, it includes function, and—not unimportantly— it includes the way it looks.
palindrome
are you a design snob?
To answer Palindromes question, I would say no it isn't.
...but it depends. On what the designer means by pure and the factors/qualities on which the evaluator bases a good design.
mdler -
hmmm that's an easy thing to define and a difficult thing to admit.
we'll see
ryan j i think you are onto something!
This could dovetail nicely with the higher prices boost pleasure thread.
The key quote seems to be
"but if someone saw it on the edge of your bed they’re not going to gasp and say, ‘Where’d you get that?’ Which they would have last year.”
None of the contributors to the article, or consumers described there, actually know what looks good, nor do they care. They care that it elicits jealousy from others. They weren't buying it for its durability and thus sustainability, nor because it is an example of new manufacturing technology, or a wonder to the senses. They (of course I don't number myself among them), furnish for fashion.
Frankly, for those who spend money on such utter shit I think they should apologise for diverting manufacturing capability from something more worthwhile than imminent landfill filler. Caveat Emptor: I'm comin' a getya.
Yes, you see...this is all part of the equation of market equilibrium.
MDLER......
in 6 years of school I never heard you say something that I agreed with.... what the hell are they putting in the water out there? And by proportion, do you mean the thick wall or the wrapper?
that you loomie?
It takes years before anyone ever reaches my designs.
I was saving up for one of those Eames chairs! Dammit! It ain't even in my Reach yet and it's already not cool? WTF?
I'm better than cool. I'm pre-moistened.
i have acquaintances who like to surround themselves with the herman miller and knoll catalogs. they think it makes them knowledgeable about design. whenever i go to their house i feel like i'm stepping into a dwr. it's definitely not cool.
765, be sure to take the eames lounge for a test drive before you buy. i was very disappointed. it's too small for me; the top of the head rest hits me mid-neck. instead i am coveting this...
And THIS is why I didn't go do industrial design after four years of school - I couldn't bring myself to make more crap destined for the landfill.
I'm looking for places to intern this summer, and I have YET to find a company that specializes in anything OTHER than plastic injection moulding. Give me a break.
Too much junk and not enough good design. The result is what you see in the article - 'experts' trashing the very things that were 'must-haves' just months ago. I don't regret my ID schooling for a minute, and now that I look back on it, I'm glad I didn't get into the field. It's frankly embarrassing.
The best product furniture design happening today is by non-professionals. At least they have a sense of humour.
For real furniture, the stuff that lasts longer than Chernobyl, my vote goes to Established and Sons:
beautiful.
Expect to be underwhelmed by cheap knock-offs very soon.
In a strange twist, I think these antlers (circa 2004), are still cool:
anything built/designed with tee-nuts in particle board sucks donkey go-nads
Tee nuts aren't bad..... but ACORN nuts are where it's at!
(I had a 600+ page hardware catalog once upon a time....)
its not the nuts...but the partical board/nuts combination........
tooooo many blowouts with that combo
Chin nuts?
Deez nuts
hahah......
daddy...what do you call nuts on the wall
etc....
etc
what do you call nuts on your chin.......
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.