In Conclusion: A New Perspective

Over this last semester, my personnel view of the world of industrial design has been influenced greatly by this class. Before the last semester, I expected a class under the title “History of Industrial Design” to focus on the likes of Walter Gropius and Raymond Loewy, taking pages from large textbooks and two hour classes spent in front of an old slide projector, the buzzing cooling fan providing the soundtrack. While famous designers such as Gropius and Loewy were discussed, along with several other influential designers, the class took a quite different approach to what I originally considered a proper history of industrial design.

The world of industrial design is one that is constantly changing and evolving. When analyzing industrial design in the past, it is important to also consider what is occurring in the present, and what seems to be happening on the horizon. By considering the history industrial design outside the realm of the textbook and slides, I was able to realize the true scale of what the topic encompasses. Through the varied topics of each individual lecture, to the vast selection of topics produced through the timelines and blog posts, I have been given seemingly endless perspectives. Each topic, whether it was functionalism and chairs, humanitarian design, or the discussion of art design, brought new insight and showed me how vast industrial design is.

Starting with my first time line which dealt with information storage, I approached each assignment with an open mind, looking to provide a unique perspective, while still considering my own personnel interests. With the lighting timeline, I used my interest in the automotive world to help influence me and provide me with an interesting perspective into the world of light; car headlights. For the next timeline I had to consider functionalism and chairs, I found the wheelchair to be a unique example in which the form was truly influenced by the function. In the following assignments, we had to make blog posts which reflected the class discussion and topic. Through these posts, I was able to post my own personnel opinions and viewpoints on the topics we discussed in class, and while viewing the posts made by others, was able to gain further perspective on the topic.

By analyzing such topics as humanitarian design, art design, functionalism, and even the meaning of design itself, I believe I learned one of the most important factors in good design; perspective. As industrial designers, we must learn that while the ultimate goal may be the quest for “universal design”, it is important to realize that with the vast amount of user perspectives that are out there, we must design to meet those individual needs. To users who swear by functionalism, a product which is designed with an ounce of excess or ornament is considered a bad design. To another user, any product which is simply “this year’s new model”, or is not designed to last through the next ice age, is considered junk. And to some, a product’s aesthetic is the buying point. Meeting the needs of every user out there is simply not possible; however, it is important for a designer to realize the perspective of the user he or she is designing for, and in order to be successful, the needs of the user must be met.


As this semester concludes, I feel that I am walking away from this class with my perspectives on the world of industrial design greatly broadened. As an industrial designer, I believe it is important to analyze all aspects of design, whether it is the past present or future, and it is important to consider all types of design. By utilizing the countless resources around us, by listening to our fellow designers, and most importantly by seeing through the perspective of those who we are designing for, we can help design a better world.

Art Design: The world of Concpet Cars

Industrial Design is everywhere. As a student of an industrial design program, I have been exposed to a vast selection of what is considered industrial design. When someone ask me “what is industrial design?” I usually have trouble defining the scope of what industrial design encompasses. Industrial design is everything from product design, transportation design, service design, package design, ect. One area of industrial design, which is often considered a somewhat grey area, is the world of industrial design which caters to the fine arts world. These forms of industrial design are often produced in low volume or in “one off” quantities. Projects such as these push the boundaries of material use, form language, and product interpretation, and have added a whole new segment to the ever expanding field of industrial design.

As a young student studying industrial design, it seems every day I am learning something new about the field, and receiving some new influence. While I consider myself a traditionalist in some senses when it comes to industrial design; approaching the field from the viewpoint of product design, considering the user, aesthetic, cost, and so on, I find artistic design as an innovative method of pushing the envelope of the design world. During the class lecture on the topic of art design, and while browsing the links posted on the blog, I was constantly reminded of another field of industrial design which seemed very similar; concept car design.

Every year, the automotive world is graced by a handful of showcase events. These auto shows, Paris, Japan, New York, Frankfurt and Geneva being some of the more prominent ones, are used to promote the manufacturer and show the future model lineups. While the shows are often used to show “next year’s new model”, they are also used to show the future visions of the company, and provide the public with an idea of where the company sees themselves ten to even twenty years down the road. By showcasing concept cars, manufactures can show off new technologies, aesthetics, trends, and modes of transportation which will most likely find their way into the automotive word. These concept cars are for the most part one-off multimillion dollar projects which range from full scale non-functional models, to actual running concepts. Certain design houses such as Italy’s Ital design, specialize in the production of concept vehicles, and showcase a new design every year. These concept cars are usually technological and aesthetic studies which push the envelope of car design. These vehicles are highly conceptual, and are often highly impractical in terms of actual production. However, similar to the world of art design, concepts cars help push the envelope of the car design world.

While some concept cars are considered outrageous, similar to Mazda’s recent Taiki concept vehicle, others are built with production in mind. One of the most famous concept cars is the original Audi’s TT. Debuted at the Frankfort Auto show in 1994, and the work of Art Center Grads J Mays, Freeman Thomas, and Martin Smith, the car soon found its way to production in 1998. When the concept was debuted, it showcased an original design aesthetic which showcased the use of computer generated design which helped create the unique form. The car also made use of a revolutionary laser welding system which allowed precise flawless joining of the metal. While certain aspects of the concept were scaled back, the car had great impact on the automotive industry, and changed the way in which designers approached car design.

Much like the field of art design, concept vehicles help push the envelope of car design. Using new innovative materials, mind blowing and often over the top technologies, and pushing the proportions of the box with four wheels, concept cars while often impractical and probably never feasible for production, help inspire designers, and help bring innovation to the next generation of transportation design.

The Boxfish

We currently live in a world where 500 horse power autobahn storming supercars grace the covers of car magazines, and the greatness of a car is measured in its 0-60 time and its ability to turn its tires into a cloud of smoke as quickly as possible. However, this trend is starting to change. With the rising prices of gas, and the currently heightened public awareness for the environment, the automotive industry is going through a major shift. While the majority of current concept cars are still the fire breathing super machines of old, many manufactures are making a push on alternative energy vehicles. Finding an alternative for gasoline powered engines has led to numerous solutions; some of which are already on the market. Everything from hybrid, hydrogen, and fully electric vehicles have been showcased, and even transverse our streets today. Some manufactures however have found more intermediate steps for the solution, and instead of trying to solve the problem through an alternative power train, have looked for solutions in other aspects of the car; aerodynamics. In 2005, Daimler Chrysler unveiled its Box fish concept.

The boxfish concept vehicle is designed and engineered with aerodynamics in mind. Inspired by the boxfish, a fish which has an incredibly low drag coefficient and a profile similar to a small minivan, the concept is able to achieve a coefficient of .06 in the wind tunnel. Through the observation of nature, the engineers at Daimler Chrysler have created a car which is capable of good gas mileage, as well as having a unique form. Through the mimicked lines of the boxfish, as well as the removal or reduction of the side mirrors window wipers, and parting lines, designers were able to create a vehicle which had all the amenities of a standard four passenger vehicle, while achieving around 70 miles to the gallon. The car is powered by a 140 hp diesel engine, and combined with an innovative emissions control system which converts the nitrogen oxides into harmless nitrogen and water.

The boxfish also has a unique body structure which is made up of thousands of tiny hexagonal pieces which fit together to create a very rigid and lightweight body structure. The engineers and designers at Daimler Chrysler were inspired by this aspect of the Boxfish as well and incorporated the pattern into their own body structure. This helped create a rigid lightweight body for the car which leads to a lighter car meaning a lighter power to weight ratio. All these aspects combine to create an efficient vehicle which is derived heavily from nature. Through this concept, the designers and engineers at Daimler Chrysler were able to show how nature may hold some of the most innovative solutions to our problems. By simply observing what is around us, we are able to find new innovative solutions to making our lives and the world around us better.

http://www.dancewithshadows.com/auto/mercedes-benz-bionic-car-gallery.asp
http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/2005/08/stories/06/1.html

Humanitarian Design

After Dr. Bruce Becker’s presentation on designing for the needs of third world countries, I was left with several perspectives that before I did not fully consider. I have always been aware of the need for designing in the hopes of helping those who require humanitarian aid, but never really considered it to be part of the field of product design I was studying for. While such a field may not be part of my currently foreseen career path, I do now fully appreciate the effort that many designers are putting forth to such a problem, and can now see how we as designers can have such a big impact on the world.

When it comes to the design for need of third world countries, there are many challenges that designers must face. One of the biggest challenges for third world design is the fact that the designer who is designing for those in third world countries may have little to no insight on the actual user he or she is designing for. That particular designer, when designing for users who are part of his or her culture, will have some insight into the needs of that user. However, it is very hard for that designer to design for those in third world countries without serious research, and experiencing the environment they are designing for first hand. This often brings up the question of whether or not we as designers should even be designing for such purposes, and whether or not we are actually doing more harm than good.

To nullify and condemn the efforts of those attempting to design for humanitarian purposes would be ridiculous. While some may believe that these designers are doing more harm than good, the fact these people are making steps in the right direction can only help the cause. While designers may not be able to find the perfect solution for those in third world countries, through their efforts, a decent solution can usually be found. In the case of the solar cooker, ones first reaction to the problem would probably have been to simply supply those in third world countries portable gas cookers. However, through research, and trial and error, a designer was able to come up with a excellent solution to the problem, and was able to bring the ability to heat food to those in need. Where the challenge lies, is making sure that before a product meant for humanitarian needs is released in the field that it is thoroughly tested in the environment that it is going to be used in, and all aspects of its use by the user are observed.

While designing for humanitarian needs will always be a challenge for the reasons stated above, there are several solutions I believe that can help solve this problem. The designer in this scenario always will be at the disadvantage because they are usually designing for a user for whom it is hard to thoroughly understand. While delivering a tractor to a small Vietnamese village in need may seem like a great solution to someone in the United States, a designer who is thinking thoroughly about the scenario might realize that a simply apparatus that the villagers can use in unison with a local power source such as an elephant may be much more adequate solution. Humanitarian design will always be applied in baby steps. In order to be successful, small steps must be taken, observed, and then assessed before the next step is considered. The biggest and possible final step however, might in fact be the educating of those who are in need to design. The ability to design lies in all humans and through simple instruction and education, those in need could possibly one day design for themselves. Instead of a designer designing for a user who is foreign in many ways, the ones in need through education and resource could possibly design for themselves; this I believe would be the ultimate solution for humanitarian design.

Design and Society

While examining the issue of how products get meaning, and whether a product can control how a person acts, I was reminded of a famous age old question; which came first, the chicken or the egg? Some say the chicken, some say the egg, however over the last thousands or so years this question has been asked, there has never been a finite answer. The chicken could not have come to be without the egg, and the egg could have never come to be without the chicken. While I am sure numerous theories on which came first have been formulated, I see the famous phrase as more of a metaphor for a situation in which two elements directly affect each other through a constant relationship.

The world of design is in many ways is very similar to the chicken and the egg predicament. Many ask the question whether a designer designs meaning into the product, or does society instill the meaning into the designer. While this may seem like a frivolous question to ask, upon further thought on the topic, I believe that it is important that we as designers ask ourselves this. Are designers influenced in their work by society, or do designers influence society with design? Like the chicken and the egg situation, it is really hard to draw a definitive answer.
The fact that there are so many different types of design out there, and so many different applications products are designed for, to answer this question on whether the designer instills the meaning in a product or society instills the meaning in the designer, would be as easy as answering the question of the chicken and the egg. Instead, I believe the best way to address this issue is to separate design into two different categories; design for need, and design to innovate.

Design for need would fall under the concept of the designer being governed by society, while design to innovate would fall under the category of the designer instilling meaning into a product. While all design, for the most part that is, has some sort of innovation, certain products are designed to not simply fill a void for “next year’s model”, but to change society and the way people interact with it as a whole; to lead a paradigm shift. Such a feat is not very common, for society for the most part is quite predictable, and many humanistic patterns can be learned simply through observation. However, ever so often, a product comes along which totally redefines the way we as users think.

While it is not very common, I believe that certain products do have the ability to change the way people think, and it is these products which help us as people evolve our culture. While these innovative products have the power to influence how we as the user acts, for these products to be successful and accepted by society, it requires the skill of the designer to present the product, and a certain amount of luck and timing on whether the product catches on amongst consumers. In conclusion, while much of design is meant to meet the needs of society, there are certain products out there which have been designed with innovation in mind, and if successful, have the ability to control how we as users act.

Functionalism

Throughout the past few weeks, many views and ideas pertaining to industrial design have been discussed in both class, and through the timeline assignments. Through the timelines and discussions, each member of the class has been able to give his or her viewpoint on issues pertaining to industrial design. One of the most common topics of discussion over the past few classes has been over the issue of functionalism.

Like many issues pertaining to Industrial design, functionalism can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and in many cases is based upon personnel opinion and bias. Much like the question of “what makes a good design?” providing a definition for functionalism is a question that is very hard to provide a finite answer for. Through class discussion, the slide presentations, and presentation of the timelines, I have been able to view a large variety of opinions and viewpoints on these issues, and through this observation, have been able to enrich my own perspectives on the topic of functionalism, and overall improve my understanding of design as a whole.

During the chair timeline, we were asked to look at functionalism, and represent the topic through a timeline pertaining to chairs. The functionalist movement which began in the late 19th century and exploded in the early 20th century with establishment of the Bauhaus School by Walter Gropius, was based on the idea that a design should be stripped of all ornament allowing the structure of the object to clearly express its function and purpose. Products designed according to the principles of functionalism convey this idea of expressing function through a variety of methods. Through the use of material choices, revealing of the structure and internals, and use of visual cues to highlight certain areas of functional importance, designers have been able to convey this idea of functionalism. However, through the class discussion, and through the observation of the timelines, I have come to realize that the principles of functionalism are ones that can be interpreted in many different ways.

While I believe we can all agree on the fact that functionalism revolves around the concepts of removal of ornament, to fully define what ornament is and what true removal of ornament is brings up several gray questions. Many find functionalism as a mere stripping of excess. While this does sound similar to the removal of ornament, the simple removal of excess does not denote functionalism. Simply taking the shell off a mechanism to show the internals or to simply design a product with the least amount of parts and materials does not fall into the realm of functionalism. In some ways, the main guiding principle behind functionalism actually is slightly hypocritical. When an object is designed to be free of all ornament to express the function, many do not realize that the parts left now become the new ornament of the product.

When approaching the chair timeline assignment, and trying to find a way to tie it into the idea of functionalism, I started by looking at what the main function of a chair was. The main function of a chair is to allow the user the ability to sit, comfortably, elevated from the ground. The first chair might have been as simple as a rock or log, yet over time has evolved drastically. Not only do chairs come in a vast variety of styles and designs, they have been created for hundreds of different applications and uses ranging from office chairs, to dining room chairs, to the seats for the bleachers of a stadium. The primary function of all these chairs remains the same; to seat the user and provided an elevated seating position off the ground. However, the secondary function of these chairs is often left to the hands of the designers. A dining room chair must be able to support its occupant, yet should also fit the decor of the house and match the rest of the furniture in room. An office chair must also first provide the user with a seat, but at the same time give them the correct ergonomic comfort for sitting for long hours, as well as blending into the general aesthetic of the workspace. While the primary function of all these chairs is still to provide the user with a comfortable seat, they all also have a secondary function which is to provide the user with another feature, or help the seat fit into the environment that it is being used in. After thinking about the primary and secondary function of a chair, I began to ask myself whether a chair which uses ornament or decoration as a function can still be considered a functional design because its function is not only the supporting of its user, but the function of fitting a certain aesthetic. From this I concluded that while functionalism can be defined as the removal of ornament, the fact that what is left behind now becomes the ornament. Functionalism itself is a design style and aesthetic, and is one that is very hard to define in stone. After thinking about this, I decided to look at what I thought were chairs that defined true functionalism; wheelchairs.

While looking at all the types of chairs, I came across wheelchairs. Wheelchairs I thought were excellent examples of functionalism because the main aesthetic of these chairs is their function; the ability to roll, and the wheels that allow the chair to do this. A wheel chair is basically a chair with wheels, and it is these two elements which govern the general aesthetic of the vehicle. All wheelchairs must have both a seat and wheels to function, and it is up to the designer to decide how to arrange these two elements in such a way in which they appear aesthetically pleasing. Since the form and general appearance of the chair is governed so much by the wheels of the chair, wheelchairs are some of the most functionally designed chair pieces. While regular chairs can use a variety of ways to hold the seat of the chair at an appropriate level, wheelchairs must all have at least two wheels to operate; because of this, wheel chairs are excellent examples of functional design. While I still find it hard to completely define what is and what is not a clear example of functionalistic design, through my exploration into the topic, I believe I have found a clear definition for what I believe should be considered functionalism. While I am slightly amused over the idea that functionalism can itself be considered a mode of applying ornament to an object, I believe that there is a clear aesthetic to functional design that most can agree on. While much is still left open to debate over what exactly is functionalism, through this exploration I have helped define the term for myself, and now feel fairly confident in applying what I learned to my own design process.

History of Information Storage