>The crucial fact about design is that electronic dproducts and bikes etc.,
>are just a tiny part of one's life while housing/dwellings/home is the
>integral part of one's life.
Thanks for acknowledging the difference. From the "product design" point of view, one of the burdens that limits fresh and innovative approaches to theory is the legacy of a century of conceptual blurring between architecture and objects.
>Few would ever wish to have one's life rotate around an innovative housing
>design. Innovativeness in this contemporary world means something quite
>alien to everybody.
Possibly. But 1/ the visibility of technology in the house is quite low,
2/ there is a significant proof that already accepted form languages allows for more diversity then what we are confronted with.
It seems to me that part of the problem comes also from the willingness to "close the system" of construction within arbitrary, if not artificial, units (the pseudo-village, the neo-piazza etc), rather than adopting an "open systems" approach to the process of occupying and using space. There are probably already (at least in some European countries) enough elements of regulation: land-prices, maximal height of buildings, color schemes of facades, distance to the street etc And these do not restrain creativity in design (do they?).
Regards
Jean Schneider
Faculty of Product and Strategic Design
University of Art&Design Helsinki/Hämeentie 135C/00560 Helsinki/Finland
[log in to unmask]
phone: (358) 9 756 30 261
fax : (358) 9 756 30 345
No Spam > messages from AOL accounts are trashed automatically
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|