figfortytwo

OK, that last post reworked

2010-12-01T07:38:00.000-08:00

My last post has been bothering me somewhat - it was a little naive in places, although I think a somewhat important first step to get at what I want to get at.

The idea of trying to categorize all the specific items we might need is a bit mad. I have just been reminded of Don Normans exercise of looking at his desk and all the items designed and made - they exceed 100 - that’s just around his desk. To begin to list all those things will be an endless task. Where I think this has come from is what Saul Griffith is talking about regarding heirloom design. He calls for us to stop making consumer crap and start making thing that will last. What this actually means and how it plays out is what I’m trying to sort through. In the world of contract office furniture, that which we at figforty are intrinsically connect to - what constitutes consumer crap? I’m certain it’s there, but where does a meaningful difference or improvement rub up against the consumer crap element in that category?

I have been reading Henry Petroski’s The Evolution of Useful Things”. This seems to get at what I’m getting at, in fact it seems it’s already been written. He goes so far as to say that very little of we make is in fact of necessity - it is almost all of luxury. We don’t ‘need’ air conditioning, but it’s nice to have. I’m not sure this helps, but it does add to the thought process. So to add that to Griffiths thoughts, creates a more complex set of things to ponder.

But what is interesting about Petroski is that he reveals that almost all of the items that drop into this category are evolving, never perfected, and that any new one simply comes out of one persons perspective of an irritant, or failure of the one at hand, and that then gives birth to another. Only over time as society evolves and changes does what exist give rise to yet another. This is the process I hope to spend my career being involved in. But what it inherently suggests is that new things render older things obsolete. This is not necessarily good.

To take one of the many streams running through my head about all this is to see that there seems to be a scale between sheer necessity of life (air, water), and sheer luxury (spa treatments, DVD’s). I have often tried to think of ‘objects for living”, which in my mind point to tools (what the previous post seems to be about). Things we use everyday in our daily lives, things we might not even be fully conscious of - car keys, door handles etc..

Where I want to go, where I think few have been before, is to acknowledge this cycle of usability and validity, to acknowledge that through this cycle as well as the wearing out of things that they way we make things is not right.

It’s as if we collectively have been part of a rapidly growing company where decisions are made in haste and as the growth continues more decisions get made, and previous ones become the norm, and remain unquestioned...although they should be. I think we are at a time when we need to ask some of those questions.

I'm thinking about essential objects

2010-05-17T12:55:00.001-07:00

I have recently completed a Continuing Education Unit course for the IIDA entitled "Design In_tent(s)ion". I'm trying to talk about the design of objects to an audience predominantly comprised of folks focused on environments, as opposed to 'things', like us. It has raised a bunch of questions, mainly about what it is we 'value' and why. Why should one thing be regarded higher than another? I think there are a ton of reasons for this, but I'm looking to try and articulate them, particularly to try and unpack the DNA of the good ones, in the hopes that this can filter through all our work.

So, I'm beginning with creating a list of the essential things we live with, and then good examples of them, along with bad examples. This will ideally turn into a list of projects where, with a renewed understanding we can design new versions.

This all comes from a keen desire to stop filling the world with consumer crap. It comes from an acknowledgement that all things will wear out, regardless of how well designed or made they are. All of this is of course under the realization that all the stuff that surrounds us, regardless of what it is or how well it measures up to this standard I'm pointing at, employs people......including me. So with that, how do we make the things we 'need' in new ways?

Heirlooms...really?

2010-03-10T19:38:00.001-08:00

I have read recently a few articles about 'heirloom design'. I have also heard it said that in a similar way, the way to solve our environmental problems is to make the thing last forever. The idea of heirlooms also has with it a sense of value in an object that I think is lost. So not only might it last a long time, and carry with it, its owners history, be better for the environment by lasting longer, saving the owner money in the long run as a result, but indirectly places more value on the thing. If you intend to have it for a long time, you may take much more care in selecting it, factoring many other factors than simply cost. This would have a hugely positive impact on our lives. The commoditization of things I believe has not only caused a lot of environmental problems but has also dehumanized us, turing us from human beings with infinite value into consumers, simply a source for income, and the more we spend the more valuable we become.

Regarding the idea that making it last “forever” eliminates the environmental argument about the thing, while I appreciate the sentiment, it is short sighted - a thing may last a hundred years, perhaps two hundred, but after that time, its useful life will come to an end. And what happens to it then? It's length of functional life does not give license to do whatever we please. A modification to the argument that I read recently talks of the repairability of things - this gets at it..they also wrote of the industry it would create domestically - the things can be made wherever, but to fix it, it has to be next door. Therefore this approach not only creates a more sustainable way of making things, but also creates new industries. This is clearly not a new idea....and because it is not new, does not mean it has no value - that will be the subject of my next post.

So whether you call them heirlooms or not, things should be valued in their creation, selection, purchase and ownership. They my or may not save the plan et, but for certain they will make your lives brighter, and may even save you money.

What is it to design a thing?

2010-03-10T19:36:00.000-08:00

Quite an audacious title to this post I think. I am treading on extremely well trodden ground, but hear me out.

It seems to me, that I am not the first to think there may be a few subtleties floating around our beleaguered profession (that o Industrial Design), beyond the typical, debates about the definition of Industrial Design, that are not helping our cause. I challenge anyone to deny that who we are is a little murky when viewed by the general public. So as much for my own edification, I want to have a crack at bringing some focus to the thought.

So what is a “thing”?

There are of course many debates around what “Industrial Design” is, but I think it is generally accepted that it somehow relates to industry. And by industry I mean those people and companies that are focused on the task of making physical “things”. They buy resources, turn them into something useful and then sell it.

So what is it to design a “thing”?

The Industrial Designers role in this, of course, is to help the said company with deciding what to turn the material into, and possibly how they might best do it. As the invisible wedge bears ever deeper between the designer and maker, other roles and specialties of study have emerged. These have been added to the proposed breadth of activities an Industrial Designer needs to be versed in or at least aware of as being vital to the activity. I propose that the further a designer gets from Industry, the further they move from what it is to be an Industrial Designer. The task of designing something is extremely complex, and anyone who has designed a thing and seen it through to production is painfully aware of what it is to completely design something. Implementation is not an activity that can be outsourced with any real control of the outcome. To abdicate responsibility after the creation of the concept, I believe eliminates the claim to having designed it. You may have conceptualized it, you may have created a theme, or construct within which a given thing may come to be, but to allow others to navigate the perils of implementation, tooling, testing, etc, to make all the choices required to see something to it's end, removes the legitimate claim to having designed it.

Many great things of course have come about by someone setting something in motion, and then having little or nothing more to do with it. In my view this allows them to place their names along side those that followed it through, but no higher or lower. They cannot claim to have designed it, only participated in the process.

Greenhorn

2009-12-18T10:31:00.000-08:00

We launched our maker project for 2009. It is a simple wire manager and redirect. It was an experiment in desing and making, that has finally come to fruition. All design, development, prototyping, manufacturing, packaging, was done locally with a focus on minimizing the impact on the planet. We have gained alot of insights into North American manufacturing that we will share in subsequent posts. But for now, go buy one, and let us know how it works.

Here's where you get it.

Ikea's Billy Turns 30

2009-11-10T17:19:00.000-08:00

Seems like only yesterday I was a bright eyed university sophomore, filling up my room with the best Ikea had to offer. Well maybe not the best, but hey the good news is that they're still making most of it. The Billy bookcase is 30! -Article

It is somewhat frightening that Billy is $18 cheaper now than it was when launched in 1979! It is at the same time a triumph of efficiency and improvement as well as a tragedy of our bargain obsessed culture.

heirloom design...build it to last

2009-11-09T14:47:00.001-08:00

Terry sent me this article today, and I think it's worth sharing. I'm not sure about the title, but the content is bang on!

All Hail the Increvators! (Not Really)

2009-11-05T18:19:00.000-08:00

Read a great review of a book called "Baked In" extolling the need for marketing to have a greater hand in product design. Link Here

I'll start by saying that I have not, nor do I intend to read this book, unless the local library decides that it is worthwhile to add to their collection (Not holding my breath). I am commenting on my interpretation of the chasm between marketing and design.

I am a child of a marketing family, advertising and sales were what my parents discussed around our dinner table. From the time that I became sentient of what exactly marketing was and the swath of consumption that it has created since the end of WWII, I criticized my parents, holding them somewhat accountable for the situation of the world. A short while ago my dad, cornered me with the rebuke that 'design is not that different from advertising, as we are both trying to sell more stuff!'. This really got to me as I had no argument against it, and deep down I knew that this was a most bothersome aspect of my profession.

All of us as designers at some point are guilty of "Increvation". Which is a contraction between incremental and innovation. This is where a designer or design group panders to the whim of a marketing department with the goal of producing more slightly modified junk to be consumed and disposed of in mass quantities. The designers goal is to make off with some money, the marketing department is trying to look good, and earn their short sighted bonuses.

But upon reflection, and much reading of inspiring designers, and real innovators, I have realized that the true goal of current cutting edge design is to Do Less Better. The old model of bringing a design to market to simply be bought used and discarded is a hopelessly antiquated concept.

This is why "Baked In" as an argument for marketing leading the design process is a non-starter;

The first ante (must have) for any new design is that it should be to sell less, and sell it better. To change the traditional consumption model wherever it can be changed.

This is anathema to the entire premise of marketing! Marketers and advertisers are ranked and rewarded for how much more stuff their handy work can sell. Tell a marketer that the #1 goal of a new project is to sell less, or less often, or not even sell, their head will explode!

Marketers can keep their Increvation. Maybe this book can help some people to Increvate better. We are working towards something greater.

between opinion and rant

2009-11-03T05:40:00.001-08:00

Many times during our working day, Terry and I end up either airing opinions or simply ranting about any given thing. Those things range from politics to technology, and more often than not, around our (the collective 'our') peculiar relationship with the objects that surround us. Why certain things exist, how they came to being, who buys them. In the free flow of our office, these conversations often produce what, at least we think, are ideas worth noting, sharing and offering up for some broader criticism. As anyone in the design world is well aware, nothing of real value is shaken by a healthy dose of criticism it is only strengthened.

So the intent of this blog is to try and capture some of these thoughts, offer them up to scrutiny, in the hopes that we might at the very least exercise these ramblings than run through our heads and round our office, and at the very most, learn something form this process and those that may respond to it.