rationalisation
How much of the design should be rationalised to be acceptable to the audience (or the client). How do you measure that rationalisation? If I just make up a story about the design, which was created purely without a rational reason, would that be regarded as not a valid rationalisation?
It seems that a lot of graphic designs are created through this kind of process. A collection of odd random images and messages that might be put together in a certain way. The story behind it is whatever story that the creator tells to people. It seems graphic designers have more freedom to not to rationalise their designs when compared to industrial designers. But aren’t they designers, too? Aren’t we? Why should there be difference?
Maybe, it is a sort of design process that industrial designers go through as well. Who knows how our good ol’ Starky came up with the citreous juicer? Maybe he doesn’t have any rationalisation behind this. Perhaps he just woke up to it.....
posted by Anonymous at 8:57 PM
4 Comments:
perhaps for 'beautiful' objects of graphics we dont need rationalisation. but if something has meaning (whether or not it has beauty) it needs a backround and a reason for that meaning.
you could make a kite and it could be a beautiful kite but have no meaning other than what other beautiful kites have. but if you have a kite which shows our connection to objects, or childhood memories, then that is a powerful symbol, product and meaning which requires a rationalisation.
* 'beautiful' objects or graphics
If a graphic designer makes an image that he/she hasnt really thought through, then no harm is really done. But if an industrial designer designs a product the he/she has put enough thought into then they could be left with thousands of copies of a objects that doesnt really work. Basically, i feel its not really fair to compare us to graphic designers because we have some much more potential to cause harm.
is that in terms of sustainability though? if starck creates a juicer that looks sexy, and that a thousand people buy but never use, is that worse, or better?
likewise, if i rip a beautiful poster off a wall witht eh intent to stick it on my bedroom wall, where has that poster gone? to be recylced? graphic design doesn';t live forever. in some ways it has a much shorter life span. we're raving on about juicy salif from 1990, but what graphic design has stayed arou d that long?
i guess if you;re talking harm then industrial design defintely has potential to deepen the waste trench, but graphic design has the quickest redesign of all. posters on the side of workshop (as you walk back from cafe 108) are changed every week for puma. thats destructive.
i still think beauty is staying power. juicy salif stays because it is beautiful not because it is functional. it is an icon, but for no reason than for beauty and possibly innovation - but so what that french bloke rethought gravity and how we juice a lemon.
the fucker doesnt even work.
Post a Comment
<< Home