I’m doing research on what makes a design ‘iconic’. Anyone have any thoughts or references on this?
I say Iconic means the archetypical reference in a given product category. ie. The specific product that people visualize when you say “mobile phone.” This seems to fit the definition “An icon is an image, picture, or representation; it is a sign or likeness that stands for an object by signifying or representing it, or by analogy, as in semiotics;” (Wikipedia)
I also think that a “product icon” can be different than a “design icon.”
“Kleenex” = product icon
“Razr” = design icon
“Macintosh” = both
do your think popularity has a part in it…can a iconic product not be popular?
good question… hmmm, I do not think an iconic product has to be popular
but I think it would provoke a “hey, what is that?” from someone standing across a crowded room… whether familiar (popular) or unfamiliar (what the?) I would think it should be striking… it seems that could be accomplished by:
- being so familiar it is ubiquitous (the Chuck Taylor)
- being so unique it stands out years later (Barcelona chair)
It seems difficult to point out contemporary iconic products, because I am so close to them. I think a decade or so shakes out the ordinary… was Russell Wright’s stuff iconic at the time? I don’t know, I wasn’t around, but history has reflected well on it.
http://www.russelwrightcenter.org/
It’s a tough one, you could argue it a lot of ways.
I don’t think so. Go back to the definition.
Otherwise you start confusing iconic with great design. Iconic products are usually great design (because design helps the product succeed as the archetype) but not always.
The classic potato peeler for instance: Everyone has an image of it, but as OXO showed us, it was lacking in the design department. Someday perhaps the OXO version (design icon) will replace it as the iconic peeler (product icon.) That will probably take at least a few more decades and millions produced.
I just discovered a great way to find out what’s iconic in any given category.
Type the category name into Google Image Search.
The first picture will likely be the image of the “iconic” product for that category. (I just did it for “peeler” and the first image showed both the classic and the OXO in one image–imagine that!)
I think an iconic design must have either mainstream popularity or notoriety within a given population. Back to the definition CG provided: an icon represents or stands for something. To act as a successful icon to a society, it must be in the collective consciousness of that society. People don’t need to like it; just be aware of it. Otherwise what I picture when I say ‘coke bottle’ would be totally different from what you picture…
That bieng said, I think it takes years (or very good marketing) to make an icon. If it takes years to turn a design into an icon, what do you call an iconic design before it is iconic? Was the iPod always an iconic design? or did it start out as ‘redefining’ and turn into ‘iconic’?
Can you design an icon in an established category, where a previous icon is in place? Anyone seen Karim Rashid’s ‘Kone’?? Is this going to be an iconic design?
What about a icon being country centric…or a icon representing a country, what would a country be without its icons?
34.67% of people thought a cup of tea was a icon for England. (link here)
Very doubtful. The classic Dustbuster or DirtDevil show no signs of budging in the collective conscious as icons in that category.
I do think that Rashid has established at least one iconic product: the Garbo can. Even Windows XP’s trash-can icon references the Garbo design. An icon of an icon!
Yet my “Google test” for “garbage can” reveals not the Garbo, but a “classic” corrugated metal garbage can. When I search for “waste basket” you get the classic wire-mesh design. Guess that shows that the Garbo has a ways to go as far as a product icon, despite it’s status as a design icon.
But the question is “what makes a design iconic?”, not “what is the singular Icon in the collective conciseness”, which a google image search may not be the litmus test for … google MP3 player and you get the Oakley Thump… #2 is the iPod video
I still maintain it is highly subjective and debatable… until the google mind search comes out later next year, but even then it is a moving target, both in terms of time and geographic region … I’m not saying we shouldn’t debate it for 4 pages though… 
Great point Yo. As a designer, I’m not only interested in what the ‘icon’ is for a certain product; I’m more interested in how to make my designes ‘iconic’ whether or not they ever become the cingular ‘icon’ in the collective consciousness.
Here’s a couple criteria i’ve come up with for what makes an ‘iconic design’:
- Unique, and recognizable. The design must be an archetype in itself, and quite removed from any other embodiment of the product. (inventions have a leg up on this one (since there is no competition), and it doesn’t take excellent design to be iconic. Think of the original rollerblades or the original nintendo…good designs, but they would get lost in any sort of competition)
2.Substance There must be original elements in the design that other designs can play off of.
(iPod is a great example: it was a ground breaking design that others have imitated in material, processes, styling, navigation etc… Microsoft’s Zune will never be an icon, as it merely echos the iPod in design, and offers nothing new.)
-
Form follows function It helps if the design looks like what it does. If not, the designs threatens to become art, and will struggle to be a readily identifiable design. (I think Kone is an example of this; and most of Rashid’s designs. He blurs the lines between design and art; and while he is successful in the first two criteria, it’s hard for the layperson to identify what his products do from a picture. This prevents them from ever being ‘iconic’. (I’m thinking Kone, and the upside down method bottle)
Any other criteria?
Thanks, Nice list, I think you have summed it up well.
yes, but aren’t we all constantly striving towards those 3 items?
What is it that translates/seperates good design methodology into iconic design?
I have to think it’s your 2nd posting - popularity, or perhaps more presicely, ubiquity. Either via mass production or mass translation into copies.
The humble coffee mug is an icon and if I say ‘Holland’ something iconic pops to mind (by definition).
I very much doubt you can devise a process of creating a ‘design icon’
Iconic design is a new historical phenomenon. It did not exist in the past the way it is does today. Iconic design in the contemporary context - is design that elevated by the power of the Media.
I doubt one could devise a reliable process to create iconic designs repeatedly, but I do not doubt that an object can be intentionally designed to be iconic.
Back that up please. I doubt it very much.
- the media is only beginning to remember what design is, they had more of an idea who Raymond Loewy and Frank Lloyd Wright were in their day, than who Karim Rashid, and Frank Gehry are today.
- iconic objects always existed, back to the Venus of Willendorf
The Motorola Razr was designed to be Iconic from the start–Tim Parsey’s words. The StarTac was iconic (and obviously a best seller) so they actively sought out how to make that happen again. They knew that the attribute “wafer thin” could make that happen, and they were right. (They were wrong with the Pebl, also designed to be iconic.)
i would agree that iconic design would talked about in the contemporary sense, because design at least in the way most would understand it, is a young field.
you might say loewy was the icon in a sense and flw was an architect, they have historically always had always been icons and positions of importance…
yes iconic objects have always been around but i do not think it is in the same context being discussed here. maybe media does in some way elevate design in that it can cause an awareness that was not previously possible?
- Unique, and recognizable. The design must be an archetype in itself, and quite removed from any other embodiment of the product. (inventions have a leg up on this one (since there is no competition), and it doesn’t take excellent design to be iconic. Think of the original rollerblades or the original nintendo…good designs, but they would get lost in any sort of competition)
2.Substance There must be original elements in the design that other designs can play off of.
(iPod is a great example: it was a ground breaking design that others have imitated in material, processes, styling, navigation etc… Microsoft’s Zune will never be an icon, as it merely echos the iPod in design, and offers nothing new.)
- Form follows function It helps if the design looks like what it does. If not, the designs threatens to become art, and will struggle to be a readily identifiable design. (I think Kone is an example of this; and most of Rashid’s designs. He blurs the lines between design and art; and while he is successful in the first two criteria, it’s hard for the layperson to identify what his products do from a picture. This prevents them from ever being ‘iconic’. (I’m thinking Kone, and the upside down method bottle)
i think #1, definitely works, for #2 i think maybe, what about things that become iconic for negative reasons (it is tangential but it might be helpful to look at things that are icons for bad design?), #3 is probably least important because after all, couldn’t a product be iconic and not be the most functional?
does an iconic design have to be pervasive in our consciousness? can something be an icon and not be known? do icons stay icons?
What then is the difference between a classic product and an iconic product ?
Classic designs I believe are designs that have been bestowed a status due to a complex process. In the past power resided with empires which have left behind classic designs. As the world changes power shifts.
Now, power resides in the hands of the media. The power to define good and bad design also resides with the media with its strong corporate sponsorship. In the globalizing world, the media is very very powerful and I believe is primary responsible for creating design icons.
This is not to say that design icons have no design value. I think the ipod is a brilliant piece of design and functional too. The orange juicer on the other hand is sculptural and dysfunction. Both are iconic. But what made them iconic is not their design, but the excitement that was lavished on them by the media.
It is naive to think that the media goes around picking up unknown but wonderfully designed product to thrust iconic status on these unsuspecting designs.
IT IS NAIVE to think the media decides what iconic design is, other than that, you are coming from left field.
Apple was a cult brand before the iPod, the media was little interested in them. It was their own iconic design that made it an iconic product… a good overall system (iTunes) and clean, iconic marketing ensured it popularity and spot in the media limelight. Whether or not it ever became popular, the ipod would still be iconic. The Newton was iconic… it also sucked and was a bomb in the marketplace.
I assume you are writing about the Stark Juicer? I would not say that object is a media darling, it’s designer is (in some media channels, the average writer at Time magazine probably does not know him, or the juicer). It is however iconic.
Mass media and political power have nothing to do with iconic design. Charles and Ray Eams, and Isamu Noguchi where not partying with William Hearst. Iconic design is about design. It is just easier to point out the classics because we can see them more clearly. Hindsight is 20/20.
IT IS NAIVE to think the media decides what iconic design
May be I should clarify this. Media does not have mind of its own. The media does not decide on anything. All I said was "iconic design - is design that elevated by the power of the Media. " . Whether it comes from the left or the right is irrelevant.
I guess, we should look at the critical combination of media and marketing in propagating the iconic designs of our time.
In the listing of important issues for iconic desings, media and marketing should be included. Without it, there is no iconic design - in the current context.
Another important point raised here from the examples of ipod and the juicer is that they are both associated to well known people featured in the media. So may be, iconic desings can only come from such already known people.
There is a huge difference between the way Charles and Ray Eames worked with companies. I think they did very little to promote themselves or their designs. This is not the approach we see today.
There were iconic objects in the past. Like the statues of gods. The word icon I guess relates to such. Then there are classic designs like all the historic architecture that we see - that get to be famous for representing an era’s history and culture. They represent other things. Iconic Designs imply they represent design - or design as thier key virtue. This kind of iconic designs of the present did not exist in the past.
Can you think that iconic designs (known mainly for their clever design) existed in the past, say before the 18th century?
Can you think of an iconic design that can from a little known designer ?