Some of my earlier posts were a little too strong and not intentionally
inflammatory..
Trying to pin down my point.
As an example...
If I consider the latest sports shoe from Adidas, Nike or whatever and I
begin to peel apart how we got to the form, I surely require a thorough and
in-depth knowledge of the world in which the twenty something creator of
that design lives.
Maybe death metal, the Powerpuff girls, anxiety and techno music fuelled
the subconscious of the creator at that point in time -
then these factors must have a very strong in-direct influence on that
product. If I wish to seek the outcome of the final form then my mind must
be able to replay or re-relate the crossplay involved in some manner.
If this is not deemed to be relevant in analysis by the researcher - say we
can evaluate the mid to distant past (there is no-one left to fault us),
there must be a disconnect between what is in front of the eye and the
written analysis of how we got there.
It cannot make it any easier if the creator spurns any attempt at
explaining what happened - and now I begin to understand how design
research gets so fed up with being attacked by practitioners in this way.
We need to design two ivory towers to replace the singular one set up by
the designers (architects really). Maybe the bridge between the two could
withstand severe stress - like the Petronas Towres in Kuala Lumpur.
Will leave it here..
Glenn Johnson
Industrial Design Manager
Industrial Design Studio, B/E Aerospace Inc.
1455 Fairchild Rd. Winston-Salem NC 27105-4588 USA
Tel. (1) 336 744 3143 Fax. (1) 336 744 6934
http://www.beaerospace.com/
|