Hi Toon,
An interesting perspective on this is the work on "non intentional design"
and "design by use" by Uta Brandes and others. Conveniently, one book covers
illustrations, the other covers theories.
1. "Non Intentional Design" by Uta Brandes and Michael Erlhoff (Daab, 2006)
is a book of photos of "non-intentional design" or NID--there are just a
couple pages of text describing the principles of NID (reversible and
irreversible conversion, multi-functionality, and location change) and some
of the common motives for NID.
http://www.amazon.com/Non-Intentional-Design-Multilingual-Brandes/dp/3937718
931
2. "Design by Use: The Everyday Metamorphosis of Things" by Uta Brandes,
Sonja Stich, and Miriam Wender. I haven't read this yet, but it looks like a
strong analysis.
http://www.amazon.com/Design-Use-Everyday-Metamorphosis-International/dp/376
4388676
I think the phrase "design-in-use" may lead to more theories as well.
Dan Zollman
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research
> in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of toon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 7:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [PHD-DESIGN] The "intermediatness" of a product
>
> Hi all,
>
> You may remember me form earlier threads, I am a product designer (in my
last
> year of my study) and have to think about what I would like to show the
world at
> my graduation.
>
> I started out with the concept of happiness and products, you helped me a
great
> deal with this. I found out that this (as the concept of ethics was about
a year ago)
> is abstract and very hard to translate to the physical world.
> I looked at "the motivation of the designer" (for the modernists that was
to make
> the world a better place) and "the intention of the designer" (that
sometimes is
> different from what happens with the product in the real
> world.)
>
> And from these ideas I came to look at a product (that most take as an end
point
> of the design) as an intermediate product, that will find its final form
with the user.
> Like El Lissitzky said "Every form is the frozen instantaneous picture of
a process.
> Thus a work is a stopping place on the road to becoming and is not a fixed
goal."
>
> To give a simple illustration, one can take a cup and use it to put
flowers in, than
> the cup is not a cup but a vase. So the user can "change" the product.
> It is clear in modular systems like LEGO. There the product you buy (the
physical
> blocks) are not the end product, the concept of building is.
>
> Does anyone have any other illustrations or theories on this subject.
>
> Thanks for you valuable time.
>
> Toon Welling
|