Fenster writes:
A theme found regularly on this blog (or is it a preoccupation? or an obsession?) concerns the shortcomings of much of contemporary architecture. Do some of the same issues hold for design, in a broader sense?
Some years back, I was in conversation with the Dean of Design at a high-toned art college. She had just shown me her etchings–well, no. Rather it was a spread in a high-toned design publication in which her work was showcased, having won a design award. I liked her work a great deal but could not escape the impression that a fair amount of what passed for great design in terms of awards smacked of snobbery, elitism, conspicuous consumption and–here comes that word–“theory”.
Now, some of my reaction comes from the fact that at heart I remain solidly middle class. A great sage once remarked that society would be better off with 90% of the populace bourgeois and the remaining 10% rebels of one or another stripe. I think that is true of individuals as well as societies: I am happy to be about 10% rebel myself, and am willing to concede the balance to solid bourgeois values.
And so when I see, say, a watch like this winning an award I have to wonder, this is good design?
It is not easy, for me at least, to make out the time from those two small green thingies. And you have to touch it to activate it, adding effort to what is ordinarily a simple matter of looking. On what grounds is this “good design”? Or is it just a fashion accessory for some urban wannabe?
And here’s an $80,000 Tag Heuer.
According to the company, the design “is more shock-resistant and requires less maintenance because of the belts and micro ball bearings.” Yum!
How good does a watch have to be, really? Skin divers will want them to work underwater and some folks somewhere I suppose will worry about the errant second or two missing from time to time. But for me Timex, generically speaking of course, is just fine. For me, in this instance, good enough is good design. There is such a thing as design for living.
My friend the Dean took great offense when I used this phrase. Good enough? Good design? Egad man, get a hold of your philistine self! We debated the issue for a while, long enough for me to realize discretion was the better part of valor, and that I needed to concede the point, set and match. She seemed to grasp something of my main idea, but it was clear I had strayed into matters intensely theological.
Now, do I believe a lot of what passes for great design is actually great design? I surely do. Especially when market forces are at work, there is a ton of pressure brought to bear on squaring market appeal, functionality and cost. The ongoing fight between Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Google for primacy, especially with mobile devices, will continue to yield great design dividends.
But the high-toned awards aimed at a cognoscenti? Of that I am far less sure. Perhaps it is just my middle class bias. Feel free to pass along your opinions, natch.
Blowhard, Esq.
Callowman
Sherbrooke
Eddie Pensier
Enzo Nakamura
Epaminondas
Fabrizio del Wrongo
Fenster
Brundle Guy
Glynn Marshes
Paleo Retiree
Atypical Neurotic
Question Lady
Sax von Stroheim
Sir Barken Hyena
The Mistaken
Uncouth Reflections 
The best design of watch known to me is the nurses’ watch: you don’t even need to twist your wrist to consult it.
http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9074714/c_1/1|category_root|Jewellery+and+watches|14416987/c_2/2|14416987|Ladies%27+watches|14417290/c_3/3|cat_14417290|Nurse+fob+watches|14417303.htm
LikeLike
Wired had a piece about this a little while back: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I remember seeing this a while back and that was what got me started again on the idea, but I couldn’t remember where I had seen it so I couldn’t link. It is nice to have.
LikeLike
“The perfect is the enemy of the good”
The best designed things seem the least designed, at least if we’re talking about usability. Two of my favorites from recent years show this: Line6 Pocket Pod guitar practice amp the Flip video camera. Neither looks particularly designy but they are masterpieces of usability. I’d like to see more things that actually reach this goal than fancy looking stuff.
They both do exactly what they need and not one bit more. And that I think is the most difficult design challenge.
LikeLike
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Deep-Fried Edition « Patriactionary
A great discussion here between two famous designers:
http://www.designindaba.com/article/milton-glaser-massimo-vignelli
This excerpt talks to why a designer may need to “go big” on theory, concept or size:
“Milton: Nobody good in this field or at the highest level has done it for either notoriety or money. They all loved their work. They were passionate and curious about it. Nevertheless we’re in business and one of the problems is getting significant work. You want people to come to you with a big project, not just a little paperback book. This is the reason why fame or notoriety is important. If you don’t become known, you will only get modest assignments. In order to have a career, you have to be conscious of the effect of your work on the world. If the work is not extraordinary, you are not going to get anywhere.
Massimo: To me, the work was always the by-product of an approach and a concept. Looking back at my life, when I started, I was anxious to do certain kinds of graphic structures and typography based on understanding the product – the semantics, syntax etc. Once I became good at doing small jobs, I wanted to get big jobs, which is why we started Unimark. We realised that large corporations didn’t like to talk to studios, they like to talk to other corporations. So we started Unimark with offices all around the world – a huge structure – so that corporations would feel comfortable and we could finally get jobs that we wanted to do. This is exactly what we got and the theory really worked out. The aim was to perfect the environment and substitute the trash with things that we thought were less trashy, which was our kind of design.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. It really is worth it to “read the whole thing”, as the internet saying goes.
I especially like how both of them struggle with art and utility. Is it a dichotomy? A false dichotomy? A yin-yang? An opportunity for the occasional win-win?
LikeLike
Yes, that was interesting. I guess if one were to in some way equate utility with objectivity and art with subjectivity, then the point about even objectivity being subjective may apply.
Art and utility definitely provides some tension to work against.
LikeLike