First off, there is no perfect design. But I have a theory that I’m kinda working on. If it is possible to rid ourselves of all emotional and financial attachments we have to certain objects, could we find the most attractive form?
I don’t think anyone would dispute that a body panel from a 1960’s Ferrari is gorgeous. But why? What is it in our mind, deep in our psych, that makes us attracted to a certain form? Is it because it closely mimics the human body, thus sparking interest from our sexuality? It resembles us, so we want to embrace.
At the same time, our attraction to these shapes may simply be because we attach wealth to them, as a Ferrari is the epitome of expensive taste. Can we think of the form without the emblem?
If humans want to be surrounded by items that resemble ourselves, why is most architecture linear? Because a straight line is “perfect?”
The largest hurdle in this argument (basically that flowing shapes are more attractive than straight) is stripping all associations with the product.
What do you all think? I’ve spoken to a few psychology majors about this and they seem intrigued.
I’m intrigued, and I would love to hear a psychologist’s take on the concept…in fact, I’m sure there is a thesis paper out there on this same subject!
I think beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. My wife thinks Ferraris are ugly, for example. She prefers small round cars with expressive features.
However, I think there is a basic underlying set of rules that will generally make a form more attractive. Things like symetry and proportion.
…and i always thought a circle was perfect (albeit a bit too symetrical to be gorgeous in my view, maybe this is why i rejected achitecture for design)…not so sure about the wealth thing (for some this may work), but i do like the human body analogy and i would take it a bit farther to that of a female human body form and even further in that i can climb into it (return to the womb)…oh, mommy!
Thanks for the Gestalt theory suggestion. I’ve been reading up on it and it’s quite interesting and very relevant.
To MR914’s post, do you think your wife maybe dislikes Ferraris because of what is associated with them by society? They’re kinda pompous and definately not a stereotypical girl car. Going out on a limb here, but I suspect most women would prefer a Miata or Beetle convertible over a Daytona. So then, if a Ferrari (an incredibly expensive piece of engineering) is aimed directly at the male buyer, then isn’t it believeable that they are designed to appeal to male sexual desires?
I have a hard time at this too. Why is it that a 530i looks so darn good to me? Is it because it’s the Picasso of car designs? Is it because of the BMW emblem? Probably both, more than likely the latter. And I think this is true with most product design. It’s the association. How can we strip away these associations in order to get the fundamental design? I suppose at some point we are left with on the intangible function, with no form. The skin becomes beautiful if only as a package of the function.
Sorry, I’m rambling and just thinking out loud here. I’m considering writing a paper on this, after a TON of research.
but I don’t think it is possible to strip emotions or Brand away because form provokes emotion and materials and brand provoke an intrinsic value relationship. If an iPod was made out of cheap plastic and sold at Wallmart with a Gateway logo would it have made it onto design inspiration boards across the world? It the Rio was made out of milled aluminum and actually worked (like an iPod) would we be loving that?
If you took any design from Audi, had it made at a GM factory with crappy tolerances, wheels set in from the body, longer over hangs, panel mismatch, and crap interior materials and slapped a chevy badge on it would it be the same design?
All of these things are part of the design equation. When I was working for a consulting firm, we got a project from Timex to design a line of modern watches for young professionals. We had free reign. We did hot design, made sure good materials where used. Timex costed a few things out, but overall, they where very good. When Timex’s sales force brought the line to retailers, they where told they don’t need product like that from Timex. They have other brands covering that zone. They only wanted pricepoint product from Timex. If you manage your brand into a corner it is tough to get out. Design does not act alone. All of the other links in the chain to the consumer matter.
I have met one person that hated Ferraris, though I suspect there was childhood trauma, because a '60s (250, Dino, whatever) Ferrari is about as close as you can get to universally beautiful.
Emotional attachment is part of what makes a product desirable. It convinces us to hold onto certain things, take care of them. I think an interesting question is how can we encourage this type of behavior in consumers, so that objects will last longer, and they will spend their hard earned money on quality products.
I feel that the current movement in Architecture has chosen more linear forms perhaps because of the juxtaposition of the Linear (the buildings) and the Biomorphic (nature). Also, it could be that the current trend is a sort of “new urbanization” where people are moving out of the suburbs and into urban centers. Therefore, new buildings built away from these areas have a sort of urban/linear feel to keep with the trends happening in the cities.
As for BMW’s vs. Ferraris, its as simple as Italian design vs. German influenced design. I don’t think you will see a BMW that looks like a Honda Civic any time soon, but you may. Products (cars in particular) and architecture have gone hand in hand for many years. Just look at the “Streamlined” designs of the 30’s and 40’s. The Chrysler building and trains and airplanes of those days, all resembled each other.
I know these theories are a stretch, but I just wanted to get my comments out there.
to be able to comment to this i decided to think of the feelings/emotions i have when i see a perfect design. the things that crossed my mind were that when i see a perfect design i feel like everything is flowing, there is nothing to interupt my pleasure while looking at the object, there is nothing that makes me stop and think “why did he put that there?”, it just seems like everything is there for a reason and everything is in it’s right place. now this is going to sound crazy but it’s like the whole design belongs to me and agrees with me soul…ok maybe i’m taking it too far
linking perfection to the gestalt theory is a really good start in my opinion as it is all about “a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts” and definately alot to do with synergy.
most people do link perfect design to brand and status symbol but is this such a negative thing? i don’t think so as often the brand is one of the elements that creates the wholeness.
I’ve given the idea of using a scientific approach to achieving a perfect form some thought. Personally i do not see designing as a science, instead I view it as a subjective activity with no universal truths. To me that is one of the things that is interesting about it.
As mentioned in a post above, the Hochschule für Gestaltung persued a similar goal, by basing every form on the given function the product should perform. The problem for me with this is that the function needs to be defined by the designer. This can be done with the help of research, but based on personal experiences, the functions of everyday products are many. As you mention, a Ferrari is beautiful to many people, but this is because it fulfills a lot of functions, where transportation from A to B probably isn’t the main function. A Ferrari functions as a symbol of wealth as mentioned, it symbolises quality and craftsmanship, danger etc.
Jeleena writes about the emotions she has when looking at “a perfect design”, but not all people look for the same thing. In other words the function of product differ from person to person, and furthermore changes over time.
I’ve given the idea of using a scientific approach to achieving a perfect form some thought. Personally i do not see designing as a science, instead I view it as a subjective activity with no universal truths. To me that is one of the things that is interesting about it.
As mentioned in a post above, the Hochschule für Gestaltung persued a similar goal, by basing every form on the given function the product should perform. The problem for me with this is that the function needs to be defined by the designer. This can be done with the help of research, but based on personal experiences, the functions of everyday products are many. As you mention, a Ferrari is beautiful to many people, but this is because it fulfills a lot of functions, where transportation from A to B probably isn’t the main function. A Ferrari functions as a symbol of wealth as mentioned, it symbolises quality and craftsmanship, danger etc.
Jeleena writes about the emotions she has when looking at “a perfect design”, but not all people look at things in the same way. In other words the function of product differ from person to person, and furthermore changes over time.
Personally, I feel that one cannot strip away the emotional aspect of the design. Intrinsically and inherently, designed products create a response from a person based on all the elements of the design woven as one. The branding adds to that emotion. The form adds to that emotion. The materials add to that emotion. And all of this adds to the design. If we could seperate the the shape from everything else, identify the exact qualities that make it attractive and repeat that, we still would have some products that are more appealing than others Too me, an appealing design is a combination of all the factors merging together to create a beautiful piece (to others it might not be). One of the things I love most about design is that it isn’t always scientific, that it does rely on intuition, intangibles, and emotion. That, sometimes, a design is attractive just because and you don’t have to explain why (I always do, but that’s me as a designer). I’m not sure that you can break down design into a science -you would be removing the human element in the creation. That’s the thing the about emotional response, it’s not always logical, predictable, or explainable.
Oh, and I created a thread called “Designing The ONE perfect solution” back in July. I for one do believe that there is one perfect solution to every well defined problem.
interesting indeed, like asking if ‘perfect’ design is nurture vs. nature. If what we think of as beautiful is a social convention learned or if it’s something that we are born to recognize.
I dunno cg. Didn’t the Communists and Monopolists already try this? Remember when there was only one phone and you had to buy it from AT&T.
This type of philosophy often sounds good on paper, but falls way short in reality because it leads to corporate or governmental complacency. If we are going to make the perfect thing, who judges it as perfect? Who decides when it is not perfect any longer?.. sometimes I don’t want perfect. I want rough around the edges. That would be perfect for me at that time!
I think there may be as many truly perfect solutions as there are users multiplied by days used.
cg: If you are refering to the infant studies I’ve heard of, they were studies of infants reacting to humans. There is indeed certain features that humans react to in other humans.
Products aren’t humans though. I’d like to see another study of infants looking at animals or cars. I would be surprised to see infants react more favorably to a Countach than a Kia Rio.
I do agree with you though that there is always a perfect solution for every problem, but the solution changes with every person and every minute.
Didn’t they also test those theories on people’s reaction to “beautiful” faces and the keys were that “beautiful” people tended to be the most symmetrical, and for babies the most familiar or most like their mothers etc… when you break it down even further. It’s easy to draw off conclusions with some of those if certain definitions are taken for granted like definitions of beauty…and aren’t further analyzed.
A lot of what’s considered beautiful, shapes and proportions come from what you’re exposed to and accustomed to. There are celebrities that most would consider beautiful that to lots of other people are completely hideous. It comes from what you’re taught and are used to. The common theme among different types are probably things like symmetry, etc… but things like “nice” proportions / placement, contrast, etc…aren’t universal.
, seems i was not logged in at the time. New user of this forum forum…