All I said was "iconic design - is design that elevated by the power of the Media. "
Let’s not confuse ‘iconic design’ from ‘design icons’. I’d agree that media and advertising have a large say of what product will be deemed a ‘design icon’. But as others have said, an ‘iconic design’ is such before it receives any sort of publicity.
I think it would be safe to say that you must have an ‘iconic design’ first before you have a chance at becoming a ‘design icon’. The publicity won’t work if there is nothing in the design that resonates with the consumer as new, fresh, and exciting.
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?
Again, I think we’re talking about two different things here. The criteria were put together as a (rough draft) guide to help us create (#1) iconic design, which will then in turn BECOME (#2) design icons.
The criteria for an ‘iconic design’ is a little more rigorous than that for a ‘design icon’. In my book, the criteria for a design icon is merely the question " does a segment of a population, or a society view X product as an icon for a type of products?" If yes, the product is a design icon.
It’s a good question, and there are many good answers here.
I have a suggestion however, on how to rate an iconic design:
For example, take a pencil, and draw a rectangle. Inside that rectangle, draw a circle about half the height of the rectangle, and draw a square above it; It’s an iPod (as far as I am aware also, pretty much what I described is the drawing presented in the patent application for the iPod).
If you show that drawing to people and they can identify the design, it clearly shows some sort of iconic stature. Similarly, maybe try the Starck Juicy Salif, etc., etc. Even though it doesn’t work.
Yes, a strong visual representation is necessary differentiator for iconic designs as it gives the design a distinguishing and clearly identifiable character. I guess the discussion of iconic design as potential candidates to become design icons after being filtered out by media is a good way to look at it. We can then study the requirements for candidature and the requirements for selection as two related but different problems.
Certainly the candidate design (or iconic design) has to resonate with the fantasy of at least some section of the consumers to graduate into design icon – with the media perhaps playing the role of the midwife.
Something that I read about brands, in creating this resonance, may be relevant here:
“Brands are evolving into extensions of who we are as people. People seek individuality in a world heading into conformity, and the most explicit way they express is through adoption of brands. The adoptions of brands serve to define a individualâ€
Perhaps in today’s context “design icons†are similar to brands. They help define an individual.
I think that is a pretty good iconic design exercise (not design icon), can you quickly draw it from memory with just a few lines. A few friends and I where doing a design workshop with some highschool kids in the area. One of my friends started drawing thumbnails of Jordans and the kid’s could usually guess which ones they were by the 3rd or 4th line… I think you could do that with most designs that “stick” with you.
I don’t think you can use a tautology for your definition of iconic design. (unless it is popularity that defines the status).
the same rigor applies.
no spec, are you refering to this?:
The criteria for an ‘iconic design’ is a little more rigorous than that for a ‘design icon’. In my book, the criteria for a design icon is merely the question " does a segment of a population, or a society view X product as an icon for a type of products?" If yes, the product is a design icon.
If so, I think the definition still works. The popularity does define the status of an icon. A design is an icon, or it isn’t. It’s the people’s perception of the product that makes something an icon, and is totally separate from whether the the design is ‘iconic’.
Georgous, thanks for the design icon exercise. Maybe we should add to the list of iconic design criteria:
the design must be distinctive in it’s essential form. that is, even if you boil the design down to 3 or 4 lines, it is unique and recognizable. (This works with the ipod, the glass coca-cola bottle, even some shoes, and cars.)
I agree that:
“It’s the people’s perception of the product that makes something an icon, and is totally separate from whether the the design is ‘iconic’.”
This goes back to my 1st post, in that ‘icon-hood’ is not within the realm of Designs’ control.
Many great designs never achieve that status although they were executed perfectly - there is NO method of taking an ‘iconic design’ and turning it into a ‘design icon’. Particularly if you are talking about the general population and not just fellow designers.
Not that the discussion is worthless, just academic.
Many great designs never achieve that status although they were executed perfectly - there is NO method of taking an ‘iconic design’ and turning it into a ‘design icon’. Particularly if you are talking about the general population and not just fellow designers.
great point. As a designer, I think there are a few things you can do to increase your chances of your design becoming an icon. (making sure the design is iconic, carefully choosing projects, choosing clients, etc.) But no matter what you do, there is no sure fire methodology to make your design an icon.
This is indeed a fruitful discussion. We realize here that there are many factors involved in the creation of design icons. May I compile:
For a design to become a design icon - it has to have distinctiveness (for recognizeability) design merit (to be noticed, liked and applauded), fulfill some social need (for people to benefit from associating or relating to it) create profit (for the manufacture and designer) something that interest people (for media to yap about).
So a design becomes a design icon by the creation of a self propelling virtuous circle that re-enforces itself, pumping itself up along with those associated with it - to icon hood.
Needless to say that all good designs do not automatically qualify. Icon hood awaits those designs for which the rest of the loop is already in place.
I disagree with this too–too many non-icons fit that definition. I definitely don’t think it has to be liked or applauded, or fulfill a need, or create profit.
Plus you forgot to compile my definition, which basically states:
Product Design Icon = An enduring design archetype that comes to signify or represent all other designs in it’s category.
great point. As a designer, I think there are a few things you can do to increase your chances of your design becoming an icon. (making sure the design is iconic, carefully choosing projects, choosing clients, etc.) But no matter what you do, there is no sure fire methodology to make your design an icon.
I disagree, I just think that the methodology isn’t well understood (yet.)
Well, let’s not split hairs. there is no EXISTING sure fire methodology. And I’d add that it would be VERY difficult to create an executable methodology to make your design an icon. An Icon is subjet to the capricious will of society. Anything that erratic is hard to plan for. I imagine the best strategy is to fufill all the ‘iconic design’ requirements on enough products, and let the odds work in your favor.
I’d like to play devils advocate here. I think both CG’s definition and the compilation work. There are 3 ingredients in CGs def to make an icon: longevity, originality, representation.
The things you disagree with (applauded, or fulfill a need, or create profit) are all needed to create longevity. If people don’t like the product, or it doesn’t fufill a need, or create a profit, no one would make or buy it. This ends longevity, and prevents an icon from forming.
I agree that there are too many non-icons that fufill the criteria. Why? Because forming an icon not only takes all the right ingredients, it needs that final element, which is public embrace. This is the part that seems to prevent so many ‘iconic designs’ from becoming icons.
I agree with you there cg… Looking at most iconic products, I’d almost say that in many cases it wouldn’t be applauded, fulfill a need, or create profit… at least not initially. Many iconic products were risky half guesses at best, loved by a discerning few that turned into a cult following, that grew over time into mass appeal (maybe) making the company money (maybe), just look how long ago most of the Design Within Reach catalog was designed, and it still hasn’t caught on with the masses.
I think it is difficult to pin down as it all varys from case to case, industry to industry. Here’s a few iconic products (not necessarily Design Icons…)
Paper Clip
Original iMac
Original Beetle
Starck juicer
Graves Tea Kettle
Porsche 911
Tolomeo Desk Lamp
Motorola v70 (way more iconic then the Razor, but not nearly as successful)
Some of these fulfilled needs, made money, became the archetype for their genre (or became a genre), but all of them are visually striking, and visually very memorable and have some element of simple beauty.
I agree that there are too many non-icons that fulfill the criteria. Why? Because forming an icon not only takes all the right ingredients, it needs that final element, which is public embrace.
I have attempted to include the conditions for public embrace as a positive feedback loop creating a virtuous circle capable of re-forcing and amplifying itself. The attempt here was to try and define the dynamics that creates an icon instead of trying to define what makes an icon.
CGs definition in terms of : longevity, originality, representation is valid in terms of defining an icon and is not necessarily in conflict with definition by dynamics of its creation.
Paper Clip
Original iMac
Original Beetle
Starck juicer
Graves Tea Kettle
Porsche 911
Tolomeo Desk Lamp
Motorola v70 (way more iconic then the Razor, but not nearly as successful)
These are all great designs and iconic to a great degree except the first one. The paper clip fails despite the brilliance of its conception, as it fails to excite the media. I would also add another condition for iconhood. It should not be too common.
The paper clip is one of the best examples of a design icon. SK, I don’t follow your logic.
I agree that the Motorola V70 is iconic in the category of “stylish mobile phones” but if you go up to the category of “mobile phones” I think the original MicroTAC might win out–When you see clip-art for mobile phones, that’s what they look like. That goes back to my suggestion that there are “design icons” and “product icons.” “Design icons” are more associated with fashion than function.
…is it a question of scope?
An original VW beetle is an icon - signifying a great deal of things.
A fireplug is equally iconic - but it’s only an icon of itself.
anyone remember that lamp Stark did by asking people on the street to draw a lamp, and averaging the sketches?