Understanding Design

[Chris Knight]

I don't think there is such a thing as an absolute in design. It all has to stand within a context and to judge it outside that context is unfair or ignorant.

That context can be many kinds of thing - peer pressure (just think of kids trying to be different with their shirts out of their trousers whereas they are desperately conforming), the environment (eg the room in which furniture is located - I think Eltham Palace is great to illustrate this for Art Deco), the period (I last had Crêpes Suzette in the 70's) and so on.

The trouble with Tony's pieces is that the context is somewhat different for each of us. What background are we judging it against? Without this information and a shared appreciation of it, it is hard to share one's views of a piece.

 

[tnimble]

I reject the sneering put-downs promulgated by some commentators along the lines that most contemporary designers are all overweeningly precious and 'look-at-me', I'm so clever.

I agree with you on this in a sense, I don't think there where any real sneering put-downs (yet) in posted. Most designers (self-taught or with a degree in one of the fields of design) aren't overweeningly precious and don't go look-at-me, I'm so clever. However there are some that do, I always tend to call them 'the real designers' because of that is what they think they are.

The designers already mentioned certainly don't fit that jacket. Why else runs Sam Maloof his foundation and tries to stimulate other people with the seminrs for instance? Most designers do all kinds of things to promote their designes and to look at the work of co-designers. And in a sense copying eachother work.

I myself take great joy in he works of for instance Boulle and Gaudi but also modern designers like Silas Kopf. Sometimes after designing something I think "that looks like this or that work by him or her" but thats fine. A good design is about that it looks good, fits its environment and is well done. That some part are copied or just seem to be copied is fine as long as its not intended to pass as the real thing. Inspiration its called I believe.

 

[DomValente]

That context can be many kinds of thing - peer pressure (just think of kids trying to be different with their shirts out of their trousers whereas they are desperately conforming), the environment (eg the room in which furniture is located - I think Eltham Palace is great to illustrate this for Art Deco), the period (I last had Crêpes Suzette in the 70's) and so on.

In another life I was a caterer.
In the mid 70's there was a snobbishness and bias, the only wine to drink was French and in particular Claret anything else was an abomination.
This was after all "The Square Mile" and that was all a gentleman drank.
Unless he was "up west" with his secretary where he suddenly became Bohemian and drank Chianti in a flask.
Mine was very possibly the first bar to introduce Italian Wines to the 'City'. Initially I was ridiculed and actually lost some customers, eventually though........well you know the rest.
So it is with innovative design. Try it, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Dom

 

[Anonymous]

That context can be many kinds of thing - peer pressure (just think of kids trying to be different with their shirts out of their trousers whereas they are desperately conforming), the environment (eg the room in which furniture is located - I think Eltham Palace is great to illustrate this for Art Deco), the period (I last had Crêpes Suzette in the 70's) and so on.

In another life I was a caterer.
In the mid 70's there was a snobbishness and bias, the only wine to drink was French and in particular Claret anything else was an abomination.
This was after all "The Square Mile" and that was all a gentleman drank.
Unless he was "up west" with his secretary where he suddenly became Bohemian and drank Chianti in a flask.
Mine was very possibly the first bar to introduce Italian Wines to the 'City'. Initially I was ridiculed and actually lost some customers, eventually though........well you know the rest.
So it is with innovative design. Try it, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Dom

Yebbut - a quick flip through Tony's furniture thread begs the question of what is innovative here.
You could see it as fairly old fashioned in that it all involves trad materials, some retro styling and all overworked in an old fashioned craft workshop way.
An exception might be the plywood chair but this is obviously a non starter as a practical bit of furniture.
Doing it differently isn't "innovation" unless it is introducing something new; worth picking up and emulating by others, extending the vocabulary etc
The arts n crafts piece was innovative in its day, and the Wegner chairs are pushing the boundaries a bit, but the other pieces you could perhaps
call "novelty" rather than "innovative" designs.

cheers
Jacob

 

[DomValente]

Mr_Grimsdale wrote:

Yebbut - a quick flip through Tony's furniture thread begs the question of what is innovative here.

Not a lot really, I was alluding to design innovation in general.
No doubt when chipboard and MDF were introduced there was an outcry.
Personally I hate the stuff, but modern design and desires of customers demand its use.
Yours is a niche market, and I applaud it vociferously.
Mine and many others is a market which requires that we continually find new and different designs and materials to satisfy the consumer.
Would that we could all follow your example.
But there are few people who want to maintain the beauty of the designs of yesteryear.
So we keep trying, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.
Actually, I think my tag line says it all

Dom

 

[Anonymous]

Just another idle thought about why everybody needs to know about traditional woodwork and stop trying too hard to be creative.
You could look at it as analogous to open source software - it's free open source design; worked on and developed by a vast army of craftsmen, many of them being more expert than most of us can ever hope to be.

cheers
Jacob