jeffthompson / design2 Goto Github PK

I believe every aspect of life is connected to the others: from art to science, sleeping to eating, and childhood to adulthood (interchange those words in my examples however you like). It's impossible to separate them because one always influences another. So I absolutely agreed with Dieter Rams when he sets down the 10 Principles For Good Design. I don't know if I completely agree with every point made, but I agree with the idea that there are certain things to consider while designing anything. And after reading the article excerpt from Design and Crime I feel the importance of his points were emphasized.
The importance of individuality has gone so far as to make aesthetic the most critical part of design. Not always, but sometimes. I remember when I was looking for a pocket watch to buy I found clocks available in all of these shapes: the shape of an apple, a digital camera, an owl, and airplane. Although I understood why they were appealing, I found that the design overlooked the purpose and functionality of the watch. If I bought one of those designs, it would have been useless to me.
There has (arguably, always) been a desire to stand out, thus the Art Nouveau disaster. I think Rams’ points were emphasized when the book excerpt talked about the "completeness" of the design. Complete sounds very static. It sounds unchanging and strict. It sounds like it will forever live in one specific time period. So i appreciated when I read point number 7 which states that design should be long lasting.

In the first reading, I agreed to most of the principles that Dieter Rams said about a good design, especially no. 7 where he said good design is long lasting. For example, the design of a cup. This design has a very specific function, which is to carry liquid. A open ceiling of a cylinder shape is the most simple and functional design, therefore after thousands of years, we are still using the same design. The simplity of a cup design also resemble principle no. 10, where good design is little design as possible. However, I don't necessary agree to this. Over-decorated design could also be a good design, as long as it's the goal of the designer.

While reading both Design and Crime by Hal Foster and 10 Principles by Dieter Rams, I tried my best to keep an open mind, as these readings have the potential to mold me into a better designer. I would like to pick out a quote or two from each excerpt that I appreciated and didn't appreciate, as most writings have their own pros and cons. In Design and Crime, I liked how design as a whole has been growing and expanding, or having their own "inflation". Most of the time, design is a very underrated profession, and not many people know there comes a lengthy process when it comes to designing. Foster says, "Design is inflated as the package all but replaces the product." Reading about how design is important when it comes to package and design was especially important since both go hand in hand for companies selling consumer products.

Of all the 10 principles in which Rams spoke about, I would have to agree mostly that

1. Good design is innovative,
2. Good design is as little design as possible,
   and
3. Good design is thorough down to the last detail.

I agree that design is innovative; we are given our minds to imagine and create.
As a minimalist at times, I too can agree that good design is as little design as possible.
Good design to the very last detail makes the art as a whole very aesthetically pleasing.

"How does an entity declare itself within an environment? Design"

This quote perfectly describes my relationship with design now that I have some knowledge on the topic. I notice that I am more critical of ways in which all things are designed, not just corporate, but small things like arrangement of a room, small aspects of design that we often overlook. The way we design the world around us plays a huge role in how it is perceived and plays into the aura that it gives off to people that interact with it. From ordinary things like street signs, to more obvious brand designs intended for consumption like Snapchat and Twitter, design has become ever more important because it is a part of everything we consume. Foster mentions that the 'conflation of aesthetic and utilitarian in the commercial goes back to Bauhaus and the second Industrial revolution in the early 20th century', and that ever since then, design has become more specialized and personalized to the point where the packaging has become more important than the product.

I think that's a relevant problem in today's society, when designed elements are often the doorway to further interaction with a commercial/personal brand, product, website, etc. When so much information is available to us within the moment, good design (which is subjective) is the first indication of what our next move will be. For instance, while browsing the internet, the way certain sites are designed will automatically tell us if they are harmful, if they are official, what their product or selling point is, and the tone with which they conduct business. In a more tangible form, while walking the streets of New York, the design is a major indicator of where I am, because each borough, each intersection, park, and alleyway has its own flavor, its own cultural significance, a lot of which comes from human design. Design has a 'political economy' and significance in our 'attention deficient society'.

I also agreed a lot with the Rams reading. It, like a lot of readings, smartly condenses design concepts and thinking into easily digestible ideas in the form of 10 principles for good design. I found a lot of parallels to film music, which is my forte. I especially identified with:

4. Good design makes a product understandable - as the entrance point it should clarify and make a product identifiable.
5. Good design is unobtrusive - like film music, it should feel like it just exists there (it may have its own aesthetic and design qualities, but these won't intrude on the intended message)
6. Good design is honest - no explanation needed
7. Good design is long-lasting
8. Good design is as little design as possible - Overthinking the design will only cause clutter, dysfunction, and confusion. As with music, the final result should be the viewer's immediate and visceral response, so the simplest version of design is often the most powerful.

The first reading touched at one point on the ubiquity of design and its prevalence in every aspect of modern culture. This is something that i have thought of before though not quite to the magnitude and scope that the author was alluding to (on the level of designing personalities and genetics). He went on to talk about branding being paramount and often exceeding the functionality of the company those designs represent and that is something I’ve seen and thought about as I look around from day to day. Design is everywhere from every restaurant or store that you pass to every logo on the side of a truck driving down the road. When you start to look for it its almost overwhelming and its interesting to consider the roots of the designed culture we live in and its implications for our future.

The second reading is very much in line with a unity of form and function. The one that spoke to me was the last point that ‘Good design is as little design as possible.” This principle resonates through my own design and choices and its validating in a way to have it put so bluntly and implicate that minimalism isn’t somehow less, but is in fact good design. A lot of thought goes into each design decision, and though the end result is often sparse and simple, it was the product of careful placement and a lot more went into the design that it seems at first. Not only is it not ‘bad’ but it is the mark of a good design that there is more to it then seen on the surface level.

For the most part, I agree with Rams' Ten Principles of Good Design. I agree that design should be environmentally friendly, honest, and thorough to the last detail. I don't agree with the tenth rule, which is 'Good design is as little design as possible'. I understand that sometimes going back to the basics and being simple in your design choices can be successful, but I also feel that doing the opposite can be successful too, if not more so. For example, designing a poster for a music festival. A nice, simple, clean poster may be aesthetically pleasing to look at, but I know I wouldn't stop to look at because there is nothing interesting going on. If you did the opposite and used bold colors, lines, and shapes to create a design that is out of the box, I definitely would stop to look at it to see what the poster is about. I'm sure many others feel the same way too, it's just a matter of being bold enough as a designer to take a risk and design something not so traditional.
Another rule that also got me thinking was the seventh rule, which is 'Good design is long lasting'. This piece ties into Foster's writing about how design can always be improved and modernized. Look at big companies like Apple. They are constantly working on new products and ideas to release to a constantly changing and evolving consumer base. A new iPhone comes out every year with new updates, like Siri and Touch ID, and new design aspects, like a slimmer body with a larger screen. Yes, the idea of the iPhone is long lasting, but there is always something that can be changed to improve the overall product design.

What I believe is a common theme in the Foster reading is the claim that effective design must be different and distinct. The same is true for “brand equity” - in order for a brand to effectively convey its values and stand out from the competition, the brand design must be unique and particular. Companies must also seek to constantly change and improve their brand to keep customers interested. Foster said that, such as with Ford's Model T, people get bored of the same products and the same designs - they want something different. I believe this is why successful brands such as Coca Cola are constantly working to change and improve their image. I completely agree with Foster that distinct design is the most effective design, and that design is extremely important in establishing brand equity. Let’s take Moleskine, for example. These notebooks are desirable to most, even for their high prices. There is something about the simple, sleek design that makes them attractive to a range of people. However, as S, M, L, XL suggests, designers must have “lines of merchandise to suit all customers.” This may be why Moleskine also offers a line of products with special covers - from Disney themed to Game of Thrones themed.
I agree with most of Rams’ principles of designs and can relate some to Foster’s points. Innovation and aesthetic are key in creating distinct designs. I also agree that design should be honest, useful, understandable, and environmentally friendly (I do not believe art should harm the Earth, only make it better). However, I think that design does not always have to be unobtrusive. When it comes to products, this may be important, but design should also be used as the designer’s form of self-expression. I think that, yes, design should be long-lasting, but I think a good point to add is that design should be ever-changing - just as Foster implied, and just as companies such as Coca Cola and Apple change their products over time to adapt to an changing world. In order for design to be long-lasting, it must be adaptable and versatile. Finally, I do not believe that the best design is simple design. For some people, simple design may be appealing. Yet others want more. I do agree, however, that design should always emphasize its essential aspects in order to be efficient.

Shannon McConnell- Foster:Rams Response.docx

"...the commodity was its own ideology, the Model T its own advertising..."

That quote really got me thinking. I can't think of a product today that doesn't need advertising (or rather that isn't a product of advertising). In today's society, I can't imagine something something that becomes insanely popular just by word of mouth, and if there was such a product, I don't want to imagine how chaotic things would get. This is an interesting concept that I haven't really thought about before: that at some point, someone had to come up with an intriguing design in order to get people to notice a product. Reading that back sounds a bit silly, however, something that a lot of my generation takes for granted is that we expect everything to be advertised and don't realize that at some point, someone had to come up with the idea of package design.

Trying to determine what makes {insert creative thing here} "good" is always a tricky debate and, quite frankly, a debate that I try not to get into very often. Art is objective. "Good" means different things to different people in different contexts. However, one thing that I appreciate about this article is that it doesn't make the argument that all good design is/does {insert principle here}. That being said, I do agree with Rams that all 10 of those principles do contribute to good design.