Hi all, while in bed, I was thinking about art and design, and while brainstorming by myself I started to ask questions to myself. so here I am, out of bed, trying to recall what went on in my head and recording it. They may be very disorganized… so sorry about that
Sometime around the beginning of the school year, Tim brown came to my school for a talk session with bruce nussbaum(am I spelling it right?). It was right around the time tim brown had his new book, change by design. I attended the presentation, and not surprisingly, many others came too.
The presentation itself in the beginning, seemed pretty similar to his most recent TED talk at that time.
At one point of the talk he mentioned something like “these days, design is small.” (this is what I recall)
He was talking about how many designers are too concerned about prettiness, rather than substance.(something like that. May be wrong). And the word “small” seemed very demeaning of romantic/subjective prettiness.
I wanted to ask during the Q&A, but I didn’t have the nerve to speak out in such a massive older students/adult crowd.
Really? is an aesthetically pleasing, simple product less meaningful than a sustainable water storage unit designed for africa?
Of course aesthetics are applied to highly functional objects. But I guess the problem was, what I kind of got from his words were; if a product does not contribute to the advancement/benefit/necessity of mankind, it is not a good design.
So for an example, a high end designer furniture does not really solve any problems. The technology for sitting down is already here. But they are unique and possibly more aesthetically pleasing than many other furniture in the market.
So would this high end designer furniture be less “valuable” or “meaningful” than a chair that is sturdy and lightweight and pollution free and affordable because it does not serve a better, so called, “purpose?”
The high end furniture would be serving an emotional desire or need for a few people - Is that not as important as necessity?
emotional desire could also be said as indulgence - is that not a necessity for everybody? (not only talking about LV bags or fast cars, but the concept.)
I know a lot of people strictly divide between art & design, but a lot of the leading schools in industrial design are art schools that require a portfolio consisting of few, if not all, fine art pieces. why is that so? If design really should be about developing something tangible, shouldn’t design schools require more science and math?
It seems like a lot of people seem to have an negative attitude towards design with more subject than object. I don’t understand this.
I guess I have these thoughts because I think design as art. I define art as “an autonomy of ideas or emotions expressed through a physical medium, that does not have a direct relationship to ones survival (instinct).”
so an ipod would still be art/design to me, since it does not have a direct relationship to our biological survival (seems like it is these days though)
but once design plays a role in…lets say… literally saving the world - that would be more engineering/science/design. not art.
Since some time, everybody is like “sustainability, sustainability, sustainability, more green, green…” I know that it is a critical issue, but I cant help but feel like the designers got punched in the face in a boxing match, and they’re so busy picking up the broken teeth, they forgot about the fight.
I believe that a good product is a product that connects with the user at an emotional level, which can be achieved by many factors more or less. I also believe that the majority of those connections are made through aesthetics.
at this point I don’t even know what Im talking about. haha…got it out of my system though…
Im a young student, so please enlighten me if I sound stupid, or ask to clarify certain things if needed.
Thank you for those who read.