But for how long? Devamı
17 Ekim 2008 Cuma
16 Ekim 2008 Perşembe
Ovetto Differenziato
15 Ekim 2008 Çarşamba
Motivating user compliance
Sungwoo Park designed a used battery collector. It may have some usability/reliability issues, but in spite of this I think it's a neat idea because it helps motivate user compliance. Anyone using the device to dispose of batteries gets some feedback--albeit indirectly. [via Gizmodo]Devamı
10 Ekim 2008 Cuma
Return Pot - Electrolux Design Lab 2007 Finalist
a very interesting project on Electrolux Design Lab 2007.
An idea from, Juan Ying-Hao from Cranbrook Academy of Art, Usa: Return pot is a home device, decomposes PLA based bags/bottles into food for plant.
I'm interested in there nature based plastic resins, but not in a very positive way, it isconcerning that they are using a material which is also FOOD.
PLA is a new polymer, made from corn. Here are two links, both defines the PlA then talks about some arguments about the polymer's sustainability..
Corn plastics to rescue
PLA - Polylactic Acid: Is it good for the environment?
Devamı
8 Ekim 2008 Çarşamba
If there is a will, there is a way
You wouldn't think that information and communication techologies should rely on trash generation, but this apparently isn't the case.
Are we obsessed with making trash? Has the generation of trash replaced urination as a means of marking territory? Devamı
Swimming, anyone?
From Wikipedia: "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch ... is an area of marine debris in the central North Pacific Ocean ... characterised by exceptionally high concentrations of suspended plastic and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre." Devamı
7 Ekim 2008 Salı
6 Ekim 2008 Pazartesi
Designer guilt
About a gazillion years ago, Victor Papanek shared with us his belief that "There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them" [1]. Since then, his descriptive account of the relationship between design, business, and society has formed a nucleus of ambivalence for many designers and design theorists. "Sure, we love design, but you can't get away from the fact that we're really just whores of an exploitational capitalist system of artificial consumption."
Design can do better than that.
A rose by any other name
Part of the problem is the name given to Papanek's offender. In the United States, the target of Papanek's grudge is most commonly known as industrial design. I have to confess that when I first heard this term, I was pretty confused. "The people who design the tools and artifacts we use in living are called 'industrial designers'?" It seemed to me that the term 'industrial designer' ought to identify someone who designs industry, not things.
It turns out an "industrial designer" is someone who designs for industry. And this I found quite curious. Other fields of design--graphic design, interior design, landscape design, to name a few--are identified in terms of the output or target of their efforts. However, industrial design is defined in terms of its relationship to a means of production.
A quick examination of history will help us to understand why: industrial design was born in the West out of the Industrial Revolution. And the relationship of captains of industry to capitalism and hyper-consumption has been well documented by others. Part of industrial design's bad rap owes itself to this historical happenstance. But "people's revolutions" weren't revolutions against the machines--they were revolutions against the owners of the machines. What this means for those who insist on viewing Papanek's grudge target as industrial design is that a hyper-consumptionist implementation of "industry" is only one of several possible implementations. Therefore Papanek's bemoaning of the field is completely and entirely contextual.
Others have objected to creating a close tie between the designers of artifacts we use in living and a prescribed means of production, and they have tried to create a more useful, more abstract term to identify the field. The most common alternative that I am aware of is product design. The elegance of this term is that, like other fields of design, it identifies a design specialty based on the end result rather than an expected means of production. It thus frees designers to think in more general terms about the artifacts with which they are concerned. The biggest problem with this term is the meaning associated with the word "product." "Product" is a marketing term, and so "product design" doesn't go as far as it could to separate the designing of things from the market system under which they have traditionally been developed and distributed.
In Turkey, it seems an effort was made to embrace both of these terms. Here the discipline is known as industrial product design. But in trying to incorporate both industrial and product, this hybrid manages to merge the worst of each. An industrial product designer is one who is expected to design Products (a specific marketing concept) using Industry (a specific means of production).
The big however
The important thing to recognize here is that industrial design, product design, industrial product design, and any other permutation of the preceding are only names--names created by simple humans like you and me. They involve generalization. They connote and denote. They are social constructs. And it's up to you to be limited by them or not.
[1] Victor Papanek, "Preface to the First Edition," in Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1985), ix.
Devamı
Design can do better than that.
A rose by any other name
Part of the problem is the name given to Papanek's offender. In the United States, the target of Papanek's grudge is most commonly known as industrial design. I have to confess that when I first heard this term, I was pretty confused. "The people who design the tools and artifacts we use in living are called 'industrial designers'?" It seemed to me that the term 'industrial designer' ought to identify someone who designs industry, not things.
It turns out an "industrial designer" is someone who designs for industry. And this I found quite curious. Other fields of design--graphic design, interior design, landscape design, to name a few--are identified in terms of the output or target of their efforts. However, industrial design is defined in terms of its relationship to a means of production.
A quick examination of history will help us to understand why: industrial design was born in the West out of the Industrial Revolution. And the relationship of captains of industry to capitalism and hyper-consumption has been well documented by others. Part of industrial design's bad rap owes itself to this historical happenstance. But "people's revolutions" weren't revolutions against the machines--they were revolutions against the owners of the machines. What this means for those who insist on viewing Papanek's grudge target as industrial design is that a hyper-consumptionist implementation of "industry" is only one of several possible implementations. Therefore Papanek's bemoaning of the field is completely and entirely contextual.
Others have objected to creating a close tie between the designers of artifacts we use in living and a prescribed means of production, and they have tried to create a more useful, more abstract term to identify the field. The most common alternative that I am aware of is product design. The elegance of this term is that, like other fields of design, it identifies a design specialty based on the end result rather than an expected means of production. It thus frees designers to think in more general terms about the artifacts with which they are concerned. The biggest problem with this term is the meaning associated with the word "product." "Product" is a marketing term, and so "product design" doesn't go as far as it could to separate the designing of things from the market system under which they have traditionally been developed and distributed.
In Turkey, it seems an effort was made to embrace both of these terms. Here the discipline is known as industrial product design. But in trying to incorporate both industrial and product, this hybrid manages to merge the worst of each. An industrial product designer is one who is expected to design Products (a specific marketing concept) using Industry (a specific means of production).
The big however
The important thing to recognize here is that industrial design, product design, industrial product design, and any other permutation of the preceding are only names--names created by simple humans like you and me. They involve generalization. They connote and denote. They are social constructs. And it's up to you to be limited by them or not.
[1] Victor Papanek, "Preface to the First Edition," in Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1985), ix.
Devamı
4 Ekim 2008 Cumartesi
Beyoglu versus Beyoglu
"In Beyoglu of Kahramanmaras, a recycling at home project is about to be realized to recycle paper, tin, plastic and glass with a grant received from EU. The project, run by Beyoglu Municipality and Kahramanmaras TEMA city authority, will be implemented as a pilot in Beyoglu and then if successful, expand to the whole city. The local city government and TEMA will lend out brochures and special plastic bags for each material group. Hopefully Beyoglu of Istanbul will be inspired by the efforts of its namesake."
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
Kayıtlar
