I agree that Mark is very talented but I think that his skills lie more in applied style and non-verbal visual and cultural communication than in mechanical function. I do not see a lot of mechanical innovation in Mark's work. His concept for Ford could not have been manufactured though that was probably not it's intention. I am not suggesting that his work does not have value. I wish that there were more designers like Mark in the world. Loewy did human factors studies for the interior of Sklab which is less demanding than designing the hardware.
My notion of design covers both areas. I think that internal designers are weaker on applied style and stronger on function and market knowledge. They usually have a lot more in depth knowlege about the industry. A knowlege of what has succeeded and failed in the past. I think that the best result comes from a creative tension between external and internal designers. I like the competitive model for external designers developed by Castelli which I used at Haworth where a company hires three or four different designers in different parts of the world to submit initial concepts and then develops one concept with input from internal designers and some features of the two unsuccessful external designers blended into the final product, while making sure that everyone is adequately compensated for their input.
I taught at the institution that Mark studied at in Australia and bought some of his studio equipment from him when he left Australia. There are good reasons why Mark, Stark and frog don't do Medical devices. Danny, Mark's ex-partner designed my studio interior in Sydney. and (as an aside) I also worked with your company BEAROSPACE San Diego a couple of years ago on the iRadio vehicle web browser for Motorola while at I was at frog.
Companies with strong engineering and less internal commitment to id do tend to work with Iconic designers like Mark. Companies which have been working with id for a long period of time do not. His designs are beautiful objects but not always big sellers. Stark's range for Target I believe has been withdrawn form the US market because of poor sales. Companies like Philips with a big and long term internal id commitment tend to produce products where the id, marketing and engineering are more tightly integrated. They usually do not hire designers like Mark. Development cyles are longer and more discussion takes place. I think that the Castelli model is more successful at producing products which last in the market. If a designers work has a thematic style then it is a signal to me that the designer is not really listening to their client's needs because different clients have different needs and this should result in a diversity in their work. One designer has a relatively narrow outlook no matter how talented he or she may be which will not suite every product purchaser in the world.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu
______________________________
>>> <[log in to unmask]> 07/10/03 02:56PM >>>
Rob,
Sorry - do not agree for the most part with your post.
This is an old discussion. Loewy etc lived in an age when the complexity of
the products they were designing was often far less than it is today.
Saturn V (Loewy worked on Skylab) is supposedly still the most complex and
powerful product ever produced by man. Old discussions are invariably the
ones still not resolved and the ones often of most value.
The design hero ranges of Target products to me lack a sensitivity to
scale, function and human interaction....They are using designers as a form
of co-branding because they feel that their own brand is not as strong as
it could be.
Design has not hurt Target's bottom line:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=TGT&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l Would
your successful commercial alternative be Walmart? (which is World No.1)
Designers like Stark and Newson follow more of a renaissance model but
most products are designed by anonymous designers working internally at
companies like Motorola or Samsung. I think that the removal of fame and
ego from the equation results in a better design. Manufacturing companies
tend to spend more time and money and follow a more rigorous process
internally than they do when they use famous external renaissance type
designers.
The total of a team of good specialists is better than the efforts of one
good generalist.
Don't agree with the premise that inhouse designers are best. They are
often swamped with the knowledge of why things cannot be done.
We have just finished working with Newson on the new seat for Qantas.
http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/travelClasses/businessSeat
His attention to detail and perfection are astounding (he's a jeweller by
training), streets ahead of standard inhouse competency,
(yep - people like me).
(PS. p135 of this month's ID is what we do in-house)
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 3207
B/E Industrial Design Studio
"Rob Curedale"
<rcuredale@ccscad To: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
.edu> cc:
Subject: Re: Design Chasm
07/10/2003 10:25
AM
"Glenn Johnson wrote:"
Mark Breitenberg of Art Center, USA in his most recent ICSID publication
(June 2003?) relates to the holistic way in which early designers worked -
particularly referencing Loewy, Dreyfus, Teague, etc. and how design and
technology should be merged. He even goes as far to say that this is how he
thinks design should be taught - not the specialisations that we have
today.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu
______________________________
|