9 Comments

• 

  Gerard Van der Leun

  3 years ago

  Z

  3Z

  Reply

  Sadly, that's a collection of both ugly and nonfunctional overly designed objects that will have exactly zero effect on the oh-so-terrible-future in which these spoiled "designers" sans talent will have no room to ride their hobbyhorses.

  !Report as spam
  • 

    Bennett Westling

    Gerard Van der Leun

    3 years ago

    Z

    1Z

    Reply

    It seems you misunderstand the "discursive" portion of "discursive design."  The goal is not function or mass production.  The goal, rather is to foster a discussion about material/object culture.  The objects themselves may not have a direct effect, but I would argue that the world will not be saved by direct effects -- rather it will be saved via constructive dialogues and societal change.

    !Report as spam
    • 

      site li

      Bennett Westling

      3 years ago

      Z

      1Z

      I agree, good design is not always about our shinny commercial good with sexy appearance. When we look back the timeline of many big designers' work, we'll find there are always some 'ugly', 'confusing' or 'nonfunctional' piece. Like you said, those kind of study are unlikely to put directly effect on the current design trend nor make any sales, but they are important process for young designers to explore their own design philosophy.

      !Report as spam
    • 

      site li

      Bennett Westling

      3 years ago

      Z

      1Z

      besides, I don't think they are ugly, I think they look pretty unique and cool.

      !Report as spam
• 

  Aaron Tuck

  3 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply

  As an industrial designer, I often look at these articles and wonder why someone would bother putting this sort of thing on  a design website. I think it's more suited to juxtapoz or cool hunting, and would be classified under the 'art-design' heading like much of the Campana Bro's works. It is interesting as a thought exercise, but what value do these objects bring? Most of them look like something that wouldn't be out of place in contemporary art museums around the world. Will these objects be useful? Will they end up in landfill?

  
  

  If the designers can use what they have learned from this to discover solutions to the problems they are addressing with these works, then maybe "design" will eventuate rather than contemporary art or abstract discussion. 

  !Report as spam
  • 

    Bruce and Stephanie Tharp

    Aaron Tuck

    3 years ago

    Z

    Z

    Reply

    Aaron, I think the short answer is that there are different definitions and boundaries of design. The longer answer follows...
    
    It seems like you are raising a questions from the perspective that design is limited to the same type of practices from the early 20th century. Many feel that the field has expanded to include other intentions beyond profit-making on functional, mass-produced work. (One could easily say that much of the Campana Brothers' work is just that though--so perhaps you are making some other distinctions.)
    
    We feel that product design should be afforded the same ability to participate intellectually as other design disciplines. A graphic designer can design a better voting ballot, and no one challenges her when she then also design a political poster--one is utilitarian and the other is discursive. Are political posters beyond the realm of what graphic design is?
    
    It would be interesting to hear you describe the traits of something that you feel falls into your design camps, and of others that do not. I think that you might find that it is a difficult exercise to make clean distinctions. (I know because I spent months trying, and which is why we wrote The Four Fields of Design article for core77 a while back.
    

    !Report as spam
    • 

      Bruce and Stephanie Tharp

      Bruce and Stephanie Tharp

      3 years ago

      Z

      Z

      ...continued/truncated from earlier comment
      
      It might be worth reading that article, even if only as a basis for some common language or a starting point from which to deviate.
      
      Fundamentally we have a more pluralistic view of design as an expanding field. Others of course are also just as free to have a more traditional and narrower view. Such questions of disciplinary bound are not unique to design and they will likely forever be asked of any field that people care about and seemingly matters. We encourage dialogue and discourse about this as a way of making better sense for yourself and your interlocutors, especially as there is no right answer. As the linguist Michael Silverstein once told me (and the 25 other budding anthropologists in the room), "Of course I'm wrong. We're all wrong. But are you wrong and interesting? Are you wrong and useful?"
      

      !Report as spam
    • 

      Nila Rezaei

      Bruce and Stephanie Tharp

      3 years ago

      Z

      Z

      what an inspiring reply. I really enjoy studying your theories.

      Working in a product design environment, it really bothers me sometimes how we are so restricted to design for 'quick' problem solving (that meets clients needs), but unfortunately we all need to survive. 

      Hope we can implement more of this into our practice.

      !Report as spam
• 

  scott klinker

  3 years ago

  Z

  Z

  Reply

  Our next design: a hobbyhorse!

  !Report as spam