My idea of "Commercially Successful" would be:
Sold in reasonably large volumes.
A product which extended the companies market share and market geography.
Remain in production a decade or more
Good profit margins
These are success indicators from the manufacturers point of view. Often museum curators do not take these factors into account when they select products to display but these are the reasons why companies employ and reemploy industrial designers. Users have different success indicators in evaluating a design. I think that the price is not important but successful design does not need to be expensive. Ikea seem to have a good model.
The chairs which Eames designed for Herman Miller are still made in relatively low volumes. I visited the factory a little over a year ago and they seemed to be running production batches of around 20 of the plywood and leather ottoman Lounges and Raye Eames Stools. These Iconic pieces of design cannot be making large profits for Herman Miller today. The Aaron Chair I would consider to be commercially successful.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Professor, 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
______________________________
>>> Kjetil Fallan <[log in to unmask]> 11/24/03 11:52AM >>>
"EAMES DID HAVE A DESIGN CONSULTANCY AND DID DESIGN FOR CORPORATIONS,
INCLUDING IBM WHOSE LOGO HE DESIGNED"
Ray AND Charles Eames (Wife & husband) did have a design consultancy and did design for corporations, e.g. furniture for Knoll. (Although I thought the IBM logo was the work of Paul Rand). But what interests me here - since the term "commercially successful" was introduced to the debate - is: What is a commercially successful product? (or a designer of such) - Can Eames' outrageously expensive furniture designed for Knoll be called commercially successful? Maybe, since too many rich people have been stupid enough to pay way too much for a chair and thus made the production commercially viable. But to me, this triggers the question of economics, which is (at least in the world of design history and design museums) shamefully neglected.
Shouldn't price be an important factor in the qualitative assessment conducted by us as historians and curators? To me, good design is available design (in addition to all other criteria, of course). I have a hard time appreciating a product as good design and a commercially successful product unless it is affordable. This is no vendetta against the Eames's - it applies to a disturbingly large part of the designs by "famous" designers. Nor are the designers the only ones responsible - manufacturers naturally tend to squeeze every last dime out of the "Great Name" they have been lucky enough to commission (or paid big royalties for to get a license). As I see it, this is yet another problem created - often in retrospect - by the annoying quest of turning (parts of) design into art.
I am sorry for the digressive topic in these conference days.
Regards
Kjetil Fallan, Research Fellow & Doctoral Candidate
Dept. of Architectural Design, Form and Colour Studies
Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
[log in to unmask]
+47 73595023 (office)
+47 90937874 (mobile)
|