consumption

I thought this image would be a good example from our discussion about consumerism and our 'throwaway culture.' What design opportunities are presented by this giant pile of 'trash?'

and what ideas does this image bring up about design?

Context: The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

In order to study a style or period of design, you must look at it in context. Design is constantly changing and reacting, constantly rebelling against the present style. There are always so many factors influencing design that it cannot be expected to stay the same for long. From production methods, to innovations in materials and processes, to social reforms and cultural influences, design is always fluctuating. We go from periods of intense ornamentation, like the Baroque, to theories of design that are the polar opposite, like Mies Van der Rohe's 'less is more.'

More recently, materials and production methods have had a significant impact on design. Because of new materials like plastics, rubberized foam, aluminum, and synthetic materials, designers have been able to experiment with forms and create things that are new and unprecedented. (Think of Gunnar Andersen’s rubberized foam chair for the Museum of Modern Art – page 320 in Raizman) or this one, which we all know:




This freedom of expression has not always been granted to designers. This is yet another context of design, the cultural influence of the time. Remember Hermann Muthesius, in Germany, who rebelled against Art Nouveau and felt that ‘individuality should be subservient to the creation of more practical, rational forms of furniture and fittings.’ (Raizman) If someone today tried to say, ‘Designers, abandon all individual expression, for there is one superior form that we must all strive to achieve,’ we would laugh at them! But during Muthesius’s time, that was exactly what was needed to help unify the country in the time leading up to World War I, lending to a strong sense of nationalism and a national identity that everyone could relate to.

For any given time period or style of design, you must consider all influences surrounding it and how they shaped that period or style. Of course, during the time that a new style is being developed and implemented, it is often unnamed and not necessarily considered a style until we can look back and examine it in context. So my question is, and you can all have fun with this, what would you call the ‘style’ that we are currently in? Consider contemporary designers and architects, (Frank Gehry, Michael Graves, Zaha Hadid, and other designer’s whose work we read about in Architectural Record or Digest) as well as the economic, political, cultural influences, and the influence that is starting to permeate the design community – the idea of ‘going green.’

As we all know post modernism is design that rearticulates a distinct historical style. In Post Modernism classical forms are exaggerated or over simplified. Post modernism thrived during the 80's. Architects and designers like Graves and Venturi were (and still are) legendary for their perspectives. Still I wonder, what does it mean to be a post modernist? Does being a post modernist mean that you have honor for the past or that you laugh at the past? Look at Venture’s Chippendale chair. Is this reverence or is it mockery? And are the shadows of historical forms comforting when portrayed in this whimsical fashion or are they alarming?

Contemporary design & Mass Culture

Obsolescence remained a guiding principle in industrial design for the mass market, but during the 1960s many products abandoned flamboyance and playful novelty in favor of greater standardization and conformity. Products began to have less and less variety between them, but they came in different colors and available accessories offered the variety that the original product lacked. As a result, the industrial designer wasn’t much needed anymore in terms of styling and invention.
Technology was a big motivation behind many of the new products that were aimed at increasing and satisfying the wants and needs of the mainstream mass market. Formica was manufactured in an increasing number of colors and patterns suitable to every taste, including simulated natural and traditional materials.
The major influence at this time was the changing culture. For example, advertising for many products almost exclusively featured women either marveling over the products or playing hostess. What changed was the REJECTION of traditional role models in the 1960s, which lead to the women’s liberation movement. During the 1960s women debated and protested sexual discrimination and sought alterations to the gender stereotypes socialized through education and the media. But this wasn’t the only change in traditions going on. There was also an increasingly diversified youth culture was being joined by other secondary groups of the 1960s, such as “racial minorities, women and homosexuals,” each with a strong desire for recognition. Rebellions, strikes, and student protests during this time ranged from skirt-lengths and marijuana –use to abortion, the death penalty, and freedom of speech, racial discrimination, the voting age and the U.S. participation in the Vietnam War
With all of this change from old to new traditions happening and all the controversy arising, producers wanted to make sure they were appealing to a wide variety of the demographic, which at this time was a majority of youth. What do you think had the most impact on design during this period? Why? Why was it a big deal?

Design and mass appeal/ new materials

After World War II the manufacturing industry started to explode due to the new forms of marketing and the public was tuning in and listening to what the companies had to offer. The working class was added to the target audience of the marketing strategies due to the increase in production in the manufactories the working class was earning higher wages. One of the new strategies to increase production after the Model T from Ford came out was the term obsolescence. To companies this meant they would offer options to the consumer instead of just one standard style and that there were always new editions coming out in the market constantly. This idea was endorsed also by the growing ads about “Keeping up with the Jones” and with the new development of new materials. These new materials included different types of plastics that enabled the companies to come out with different colors and textures as well as Formica, a vinyl-like flooring tile, as well as laminated plywood that was used on furniture as a surface covering. This lead to companies simply applying new finishes instead of creating or revising a product and market it as the new “must have” of the season. These manufactories were producing at such alarming rates one might wonder how they had the time to design these new products. This was seen more in the car industry as bands fought to be the first to produce a new design that the public would love. This “mass design” was a very risky business so many companies limited “the role of the design to superficial elements of product housing rather than integrating design with engineering, ergonomics, or other research-based considerations.” This was all due to the large scale of competition brought on by the increasing manufactories and trying to produce the latest and greatest. So due to this high competion do you think obsolescence hurt or helped good quality design as a whole?

little change in interiors...

thought you all might think this was interesting...

"Visitors to the Liberty Hotel in Boston move up an escalator from the street to the lobby as a hotel employee descends on Monday, Oct. 22, 2007. The Liberty was recently converted from the nearly two-century-old Charles Street Jail into a five star luxury hotel." (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia) (yahoo!)

International Modernism

The phrase “international modernism” was first coined by Philip Johnson to describe the architecture of the International Style Exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1932. The phrase is self explanatory in that it refers to the fact that, during the first half of the twentieth century, modernism had found a place for itself in the newly conceived national styles across the globe.

The design of this era (per Raizman) was founded upon the use of new materials such as glass and concrete, the implementation of new technologies for production, recognition of the factors of comfort, importance of fitness to purpose, and the respect of individual expression, Visually, (per Johnson), evident was an expression of volume instead of mass, reliance upon balance instead of preconceived symmetry, and, most definitively, the abandonment of ornament.

The emergence of international modernism can largely be credited to the shared desire of nations across the world to create their own national identity within the global community. These identities were meant to demonstrate the status and power of a nation, to its citizens and to the world, at economic, technological, cultural, and political levels. Design was used as the “commercial face” of the identities, thus resulting in national styles. In order for nations to be able to “stand their ground” within the international marketplace, their style had to be one not only of function and efficiency, but of beauty and appeal as well. Thus, the successful national styles can be described as that of a “marriage of industry and art” which, in turn offers a definition to what is modern. This expanded at an international level as a marriage of “commerce and culture”. Conclusively, international modernism was a result of national identities, shaped through modern design, to offer international appeal.

The International Style, mentioned earlier, was an extreme version of international modernism with strict Rationalist principles. The public buildings designed by Mies van der Rohe (Miles if your Josh) exemplifies this style. They are essentially floating, glass boxes and technically all look the same. They demonstrate the style’s essence in that, design solutions were indifferent to location, site, and climate. There were no historical ties, nor any vernacular qualities. They could literally be built anywhere.

Frank Lloyd Wright’s theory pertaining to the relation of the interior to the exterior was in direct opposition with that of the International Style. Site and location were central to his designs, and his ability to create architecture as the manmade extension of the land played a big part his success.

So, who wins? Was the indifference of the International Style a strength, or weakness? Is a universal solution the best solution, or a limited one? Does the anonymity of the International Style undermine it origins as a symbol for patriotism and nationalism? Give your opinion and reasoning.

Art Deco & Industrial Design, II

Industrial design emerged as a response to the lack of diversity found in products like Ford’s Model T. Although the use of Fordism did much to revolutionize production, even leading to American industrialization as “the basis for prosperity and economic recovery” in other counties, as the 1920’s loomed on it became evident that Ford’s success, built on the idea of every product being the exact same, was not going to last. People had begun to opt for used Model T’s, because they were in fact the same as the new ones being produced. A solution to this problem was found by another car manufacturer, General Motors, who began to offer their vehicles in a variety of colors and to use the principle of “planned obsolescence” which hinged off the idea that new colors or styles would be preferred over older, out-dated ones. This idea, along with heavier advertising, brought about the position of the industrial designer. More than just designing a product the industrial designer was said to fill the middle ground “between advertising’s concerns for consumer appeal and planned obsolescence, humanistic concerns with progress through improved performance and social responsibility, a desire to work closely with the engineering in the organization of a product’s working parts, and individual creative expression.” Notable industrial designers include Bel Geddes, who was hired to redesign kitchen ranges to create more consumer demand and chose to tackle the issue of ease of cleaning; and Walter Dorwin Teague, who redesigned cameras for Kodak and was able to incorporate elements of design that also served functional purposes. This idea of designing products for usefulness is seen even more with the occurrence of WWII, when it became an issue of “shortages, restrictions, and the retooling of industries” to meet production needs of the war effort.

The industrial designer started out solving the problem of “how do we sell more of a product?” but developed into a person who deals with all facets of the product from the design down to the how it effects the of quality of life. What effect do you think the development of the profession of the industrial designer has had on the world today in terms of what is produced and, also, how do you think it relates or has shaped what is required of us as interior designers.

Modern Movement II

The move to modernism was not only a shift in styles but also the killing off of others. The art nouveau style, infiltrating furniture, architecture, and fine arts, was planted to grow into a revolutionary movement. Although debatably it did revolutionize design. It never reach its full maturity in growth as it was cut down.
Although it can’t be pinpointed, the short life of art nouveau has been attributed to competition from antique dealers and cheap departments stores. Leading to a deprivation of the exclusive audience wanting and consuming modern style.
In the beginning stages of the art moderne development there was a balance between representing classical and other styles in a more abstract way, often constrained by principles that the style holds. (Abstracted forms, symmetry, and lines) There started to form an appreciation for the function of items and the best form to show that. This was often done by stripping styles down to some basic elements and principles.
That is show well in Henri Matisse’s quote,
“What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and tranquility, devoid of troubling subject matter, an art which could be, for every mental worker, for the businessman as well as for the man of letters, for example, a soothing balm, a mental calmative, something akin to a good armchair which eases his physical fatigue…”
This brings me to my discussion of conformability and modernism/art moderne/deconstructivism. Is modern design comfortable? That is the overall question I ask. Is the stripping of furniture, for example, to a bare form going to be more comfortable because it eases your fatigue through tranquil, simplified design? Have we sacrificed out comfort for design? To what extent have we or have we not? What fields of design? Examples could include cars, transportation, furniture, and space.

"Modern Movement I"

The ideas of modernism began to spread when Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson organized “The International Style,” an architectural exhibition in 1932. Seventy-Five projects were presented and many of them shared the same characteristics that are mentioned in Pyle’s text: Flat roofs, smooth, white walls, large spans of glass, asymmetrical plans, and the absence of ornamental or historical detail. These projects were considered to be designed under the idea of function, rather than what is just aesthetically pleasing. Eleven of the projects were highly based on interiors, here noting a key principle of modernism – That the design of architecture be first based on the interior arrangement of a space, ultimately leading to the exterior's design. Hitchcock and Johnson describe the new modern style as abstract, cubistic, and representative of the “machine age.” In its simplicity, modernism also lead to further exploration in form through steel and concrete.
Because of the new approach to design, others viewed it as very progressive thinking. Putting the past behind and moving forward. Many countries, particular in Europe, were uncomfortable with these new ideas, limiting progressive thinkers, and opposing everything that was not eclectic or an imitation of history. Modernism was the belief that design should be for and used by everyone. Therefore, it developed in areas where democracy and social idealism flourished. With its evolution, do you see modernism as a result of politics, a style driven only by technology and engineering developments, or just a matter of taste? Maybe, perhaps, none of these apply to what you perceive. In what ways do you see the principle of modernism used today?