Dear All,

An issue in one of Kai's notes sheds light on the problem of
assessing the nature of good design. It also illuminates the 
difficult  nature of conducting a survey on what it is that 
constitutes an example of good design. 

Kai writes, "the relationship between the recipient and the piece of 
art itself in a set of certain conditions." While it may be the case
that "the emotional message comes out more clearly in those pieces,"
these emotions are lodged in time rather than being timeless, rooted
in culture and language, experience, and openness to new kinds
of experience as well as to the experiences we meet across cultures.

This is exemplified when we read some of the writing in which critics or 
historians have describe works of art or design thought at one time to be
"masterpieces," Their words often use elevated language to express the 
experience of the transcendental. At the same time, this often involves
cliche, received opinion, and commonly held ideas. Take a look at 
Clyfford Still's writing on painting -- especially his own -- or some of 
Clement Greenberg's elegant essays. Beautiful writing -- elegant criticism.
But is it true that the works described are as great as the authors held them
to be?  

This issue seems to be unavoidable when we speak of the "timeless."
The qualities that make a Rothko painting seem "timeless" to
one eye do not seem "timeless" to someone that prefers Rembrandt or
Vermeer. These in turn hardly seem "timeless" to someone who prefers
Hakuin calligraphy and ink work. So it is with the Enso. I'm well aware
of Zen traditions and the Enso. I would probably praise these works --
but I am also aware that in a conversation such as this on a research list,
I'd also have to attribute my judgment to factors outside the "timeless"
quality of the work itself.

It seems to me that the common quality in the many artifacts that Kai
describes as possessing an ineffable or indescribable quality is the fact 
that Kai believe them to have this quality. Kai as the receiver and judge
is the common factor that unifies them.

Again, take a look at Greenberg. Or, for that matter, read Herman Melville,
who places transcendental words in the mouth of a New England preacher
who might well be talking about "timeless" design -- or at least about the
"timeless" paintings of a Still or a Rothko: 

"But oh! shipmates! on the starboard hand of every woe, there is a sure 
delight; and higher the top of that delight, than the bottom of the woe is
deep. Is not the main-truck higher than the kelson is low? Delight is to 
him - a far, far upward, and inward delight - who against the proud gods 
and commodores of this earth, ever stands forth his own inexorable self. 
Delight is to him whose strong arms yet support him, when the ship of this 
base treacherous world has gone down beneath him. Delight is to him, 
who gives no quarter in the truth, and kills, burns, and destroys all sin 
though he pluck it out from under the robes of Senators and Judges. 
Delight, - top-gallant delight is to him, who acknowledges no law or lord, 
but the Lord his God, and is only a patriot to heaven. Delight is to him, 
whom all the waves of the billows of the seas of the boisterous mob can 
never shake from this sure Keel of the Ages."

That, say, or a painting by Clyfford Still. Or possibly a chair by Hans
Wegner. Or ... dare I say it? ... a "timeless" juicy salif by Phillippe Starck.

Look, I don't want to seem sarcastic here -- I know Kai intends this as a
serious thought -- but all the people that praise these entities, paintings,
and artifacts as "timeless" are equally serious. I am lucky enough to have
an original Bruno Mathsson chair in my office. It belongs to my kind-
hearted and generous Swedish wife who decided that my move from the
Norwegian School of Management to the Swinburne University Faculty
of Design warranted the loan. I like it because it represents and speaks of
a time and a place -- it is comfortable, and it is anchored in a culture,
resonating with a wealth of experiences. 

That, rather than timelessness, is what makes it great. At least to me.
I also recognize that some people might actually prefer a chair by ...
well, you name your designer.

If I had my druthers, I'd live in a house built and furnished by the Shakers.
I actually managed it once, for several months in the summer of 1972.
A moment in time ....

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia


Kai Reinhard wrote:

--snip--

I finally found the time to answer. You're all right that an artifact 
has to be analysed regarding the circumstances of its use and creation. 
I know that. But: thats not all. There is something (sorry for the vague 
term) above all this circumstances that makes an artifact timeless. Look 
at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enso

It's just a brush stroke but it tells me a thousand times more then the 
circles I created. I don't understand what makes this thing so special. 
I feel it, but I can't tell what it is. And it's not only this certain 
enso, I've recognized the same "behaviour" in other artworks. For me it 
doesn't matter that the enso comes out of the zen religion. It's in an 
ipod as well as in graphic design. Those works feel like they are 
breathing... and that disturbes me.

Maybe it's just the relationship between the receipient and the piece of 
art itself in a set of certain conditions, but as far as I can judge as 
a professional it seems that the emotional message comes out more 
clearly in those pieces. I'm not talking about emotion in the classic 
categories (love, hate etc., but more in a personal way. It's like the 
maker included something in his work, he or she want's to express.

What I try to find a common principle that is in all artifacts, that 
makes them have "quality" or not. I think it's not possible to catch it 
with analytical seperation.

--snip--