I have heard the argument that the standard of “design as an icon” is worthless without a consumable, readily accessible base, or even something more than just name recognition to support it. Or that without a purpose, design is just fashion.
Interesting that Capellini was bought out and has been forced to run itself like a Fashion design brand. Creating:
“complementary accessories to increase visits to the store – B&B branded objects. We’ll change the small objects regularly, not the large ones…”
Has branding trumped design? Is design about to become an extension of fashion, a trendy, readily consumable, substance free product of the voracious appetite of consumerism? Is it just a newer evolution in the continuum?
Etymology: Middle English facioun, fasoun shape, manner, from Middle French façon, from Latin faction-, factio act of making, faction, from facere to make – more at DO
1 a : the make or form of something b archaic : KIND, SORT
2 a : a distinctive or peculiar and often habitual manner or way <he will, after his sour fashion, tell you – Shakespeare> b : mode of action or operation
3 a : a prevailing custom, usage, or style b (1) : the prevailing style (as in dress) during a particular time (2) : a garment in such a style c : social standing or prominence especially as signalized by dress or conduct
not exactly the reply I was hoping for. Actually it was more of a critcal thought type of post; you know discourse…Hence the: “I have heard the argument…” disclaimer. After reading the article its struck me as an interesting discussion…
I’m not interested in defining purpose per se; nor am i debating design being separate from fashion; rather it seems that design, is using a fashion industry model more and more, in selling its design.
Quite the opposite of what some try to do in ID…you know features and benefits, ergomonics, engineering, etc.
Moreover it seems that in order to accomodate craft, Cappellini is now forced to act as a higher ended Urban Outfitters.
design has always had two sides, way back in the early days and now; there are the design as art and design as practice peeps - Loewy, Dreyfus, Wiener Werkstatte - practice types; Tiffany, Noguchi, Sottsass - art types.
I think it is an ongoing discussion - which path is better for the field - design is large enough for them to coexist and is better off for it.
kind of agree t the point that there is enough space for everone to exist. similarly, the fact that either consumersism or the practical angle, …quite an amigious situation. what one likes the other may not like…
it should ideally be a happy co-existance of both. in a world like today, everyone has his own likes and dislikes, and very strong mind sets.
what one likes to personally design depends on an idividual, which in turn is decieded by his grounding.
that way, you like what you do and you do what you like and cater to that segment which takes up your kind of stuff!!!
simple isnt it???
In the case of Ettore Sottsass, I think it is incorrect to put him in the category of “art types” – in fact he has much in common with the designers of the Wiener Werkstatte.
Sottsass is far too often, incorrecetly, reffered to as an “Anti-Modern” designer.
Throughout his career, Sottsass sought to extend the importance of Modernism beyond merely serving the consumer society. Sottsass was a strong believer that design could change society. He revitalized Modern architecture and design …freeing it from the ideological contraints of post-war Rationalism – showing that there is far more to Modernism that only “form-follows-function” and “Less is more”. Sottsass gave colour and humanity back to Modern design.