http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2010/03/19/egg-shaped-house-for-your-backyard/
I would probably rather sleep on the floor than in the niche, but overall, I think it's a pretty cool idea and design, it's portable so you could potentially take it camping (my grandparents always take a trailer when they go), and it doesn't require any home renovations. I looked at the source company's site, and they said that it was designed as a home office, but made portable to get around a number of building codes.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
LINK- Green Toilet Article
http://www.dezeen.com/2010/03/16/ww-by-gabriele-and-oscar-buratti-with-roca-innovation-lab/
We've been talking a lot about 'green' design in this class, and this toilet certainly fits the bill. The water you use to wash your hands gets recycled into the toilet bowl, and then away. Also, it looks very clean and highly-designed. I'm not sure how comfortable it would be, but it's an interesting idea.
We've been talking a lot about 'green' design in this class, and this toilet certainly fits the bill. The water you use to wash your hands gets recycled into the toilet bowl, and then away. Also, it looks very clean and highly-designed. I'm not sure how comfortable it would be, but it's an interesting idea.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Democratization of Design
After four years of education at Columbia, I've heard the term 'democratization of design' maybe hundreds of times, yet I'm still unsure of how I feel about it.
For sure, there is a lot of bad design out in the world. A recent trip to the suburbs to help a friend sort her church's rummage sale reinforced that- there are a lot of things out there, that look awful, don't last, or were never anything special, that were just made and produced as quickly as possible for the largest profits possible. And this is a prevalent theme in design for decades, some crap is new, some crap is 20, 40, or 80 years old. For the most part, especially with the older items, these poorly designed items were designed by trained designers.
On the other hand, having computer programs widely available that do all of the things that a designer used to need special training for can allow some talented designers who haven't been to design school for whatever reason to get their names out there (ie, Ivan Brunetti). It also allows everyone the ability to think that they are a designer, regardless of how their work looks. A couple summers ago, I was interning for a company (to be unnamed) and I was placed for a few weeks in the department that the designer's office was located in, and after finding out that I was a design student, she bemoaned the fact to me that she never had anything to do anymore now that people could just slap clip art onto their flier or what have you. This didn't make it any prettier than it would have been without the clip art, and much less lovely than if they had just asked her to spend a couple minutes designing the flier.
Overall, I think the idea that computers allow anyone to be a 'designer' will have a more negative than positive impact on design culture, but, if it can allow someone with legitimate talent but no money for art school to create some good work, then they should have that option open to them. As the common sports parable goes, you're not really winning if you know the best competition can't compete. And for that very small group of people who will take a group of computer programs and start creating incredible work, I think the opportunity should be there. Rather than whining about how design tools are available to everyone, perhaps designers should become more proactive about teaching the general public about good design and the importance of having a good designer.
For sure, there is a lot of bad design out in the world. A recent trip to the suburbs to help a friend sort her church's rummage sale reinforced that- there are a lot of things out there, that look awful, don't last, or were never anything special, that were just made and produced as quickly as possible for the largest profits possible. And this is a prevalent theme in design for decades, some crap is new, some crap is 20, 40, or 80 years old. For the most part, especially with the older items, these poorly designed items were designed by trained designers.
On the other hand, having computer programs widely available that do all of the things that a designer used to need special training for can allow some talented designers who haven't been to design school for whatever reason to get their names out there (ie, Ivan Brunetti). It also allows everyone the ability to think that they are a designer, regardless of how their work looks. A couple summers ago, I was interning for a company (to be unnamed) and I was placed for a few weeks in the department that the designer's office was located in, and after finding out that I was a design student, she bemoaned the fact to me that she never had anything to do anymore now that people could just slap clip art onto their flier or what have you. This didn't make it any prettier than it would have been without the clip art, and much less lovely than if they had just asked her to spend a couple minutes designing the flier.
Overall, I think the idea that computers allow anyone to be a 'designer' will have a more negative than positive impact on design culture, but, if it can allow someone with legitimate talent but no money for art school to create some good work, then they should have that option open to them. As the common sports parable goes, you're not really winning if you know the best competition can't compete. And for that very small group of people who will take a group of computer programs and start creating incredible work, I think the opportunity should be there. Rather than whining about how design tools are available to everyone, perhaps designers should become more proactive about teaching the general public about good design and the importance of having a good designer.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
LINK
http://community.livejournal.com/randompictures/8404702.html?style=mine
Some neat design things, mostly package design.
Some neat design things, mostly package design.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Graham Foundation
The Graham Foundation provides grants for projects (see library) and now offers art exhibitions to the public. They continue to expand their exhibition space, initially only the bottom floor was shown and the second was offices, but now the second floor has been included into the exhibition space. The building has very high ceiling and lots of woodwork on the floors, stairs, wall panels, framing, ceiling beams... I can see how it would have been too expensive for its original owners to maintain.
The exhibit that we went to as a class examined a number of problems in urban areas, and how different people in different cities answered those problems. Some of the responses were serious, and had been implemented by city officials and architects such as the elevated farm in a park in Queens, NYC, while others were more silly, and more meant to make a statement, rather than be practical, such as the suits that fit over park bench handles meant to prevent you from napping.
One thing we talked about in the ballroom after seeing the exhibition was how some of this stuff seemed like very cool ideas, and it made people feel bad that it wasn't practical in Chicago. People felt upset that some of these guerilla answers to society's problems weren't being implemented near us, and that this exhibition, while showing ideas from around the world, didn't really do anything in terms of change.
I disagree. Creative thinking is an important aspect in art, perhaps the most important aspect, and as designers and artists, we should be able to see the things that are being done around the world, and consider their effect and how they could be implemented in Chicago. Rather than feeling depressed that things aren't changing around us, we need to take the seed that was planted in our heads from that exhibition, and organize our friends around us to make some of those changes viable in our own communities. Maybe we can't have goats roaming around our parks cutting the grass and fertilizing the soil, but we should be able to think about that solution, and consider ways in which we could alter it to make it more suitable to the Chicago climate and Chicago's laws. Perhaps, instead, communities could take ownership of their parks and work together to come up with solutions instead of simply expecting the Chicago Park District to fix everything. Perhaps a group of friends tired of seeing an empty lot could go in at night and plant flowers and crops. Perhaps someone can do some research and find out if the L.A. public property-fruit tree law exists in Chicago as well, or they could look up where all of the hidden cameras in Chicago's loop and other areas are so that those looking to avoid them can do so.
This exhibition wasn't meant to simply be looked at, it was meant to be thought about, and meant for those who see it to turn around and create change within their own communities.
The exhibit that we went to as a class examined a number of problems in urban areas, and how different people in different cities answered those problems. Some of the responses were serious, and had been implemented by city officials and architects such as the elevated farm in a park in Queens, NYC, while others were more silly, and more meant to make a statement, rather than be practical, such as the suits that fit over park bench handles meant to prevent you from napping.
One thing we talked about in the ballroom after seeing the exhibition was how some of this stuff seemed like very cool ideas, and it made people feel bad that it wasn't practical in Chicago. People felt upset that some of these guerilla answers to society's problems weren't being implemented near us, and that this exhibition, while showing ideas from around the world, didn't really do anything in terms of change.
I disagree. Creative thinking is an important aspect in art, perhaps the most important aspect, and as designers and artists, we should be able to see the things that are being done around the world, and consider their effect and how they could be implemented in Chicago. Rather than feeling depressed that things aren't changing around us, we need to take the seed that was planted in our heads from that exhibition, and organize our friends around us to make some of those changes viable in our own communities. Maybe we can't have goats roaming around our parks cutting the grass and fertilizing the soil, but we should be able to think about that solution, and consider ways in which we could alter it to make it more suitable to the Chicago climate and Chicago's laws. Perhaps, instead, communities could take ownership of their parks and work together to come up with solutions instead of simply expecting the Chicago Park District to fix everything. Perhaps a group of friends tired of seeing an empty lot could go in at night and plant flowers and crops. Perhaps someone can do some research and find out if the L.A. public property-fruit tree law exists in Chicago as well, or they could look up where all of the hidden cameras in Chicago's loop and other areas are so that those looking to avoid them can do so.
This exhibition wasn't meant to simply be looked at, it was meant to be thought about, and meant for those who see it to turn around and create change within their own communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
