Seksogtyve

16.2.2010 Lecture Reflection: Objectifying Design

Objectify and Design are practically one and the same. To objectify is to give something purpose or use and as earlier mentioned without use or function design becomes art. Design already has a purpose therefore it does not need to be objectified. Designs are things we use on a daily that aid us in our every activity. Such as kitchen utensils, a properly constructed bed, eye glasses and power outlets. It is however important that while these all have functions and are used as tools, that they offer aesthetic stimuli and pleasure. If objects were designed purely for function we might be surrounded by unfriendly, cold, obtrusive objects in our homes that would negate happy lifestyles. Thus designers are challenged to create designs that service form and function well. These items can be considered "Brudgunst" or "Every day art."

"Brudgunst" is a term that fills the questionable void between what is design and what is art...this is an argument that is entirely subjective. Can good design be considered art based upon purely form and aesthetic value? Can can something we use every day stand alone in a museum display and be regarded as artistic genius? Duchamp's urinal is a perfect example of an every day, very useful object-turned art. Over the years many people have collected, valued and displayed china sets in their dining rooms as objects of beauty...was there ever a time when the porcelain plates were just plates? Bri cannot say enough about her Dyson Ball vacuum cleaner, how beautiful it is, it's design is perfect and aids her vacuuming to a perfect T...is this art? Are Verner Panton's many textile patterns graphic art pre-curtain? The list goes on...

The point I try and make is that, while my point of view is subjective, the whole argument and discussion is silly. Design is an integral part of society that we cannot do without. In most cases designers, architects and artists alike have an inability to create something that at minimum does not agree with her or his own aesthetic appreciation. Designers have a trained eye to create what is appealing and practice creating what is more  importantly functional. All designs are to be created as some sort of a tool. A tool for sitting. A tool for eating. A tool for typing. A tool for telling time. Since forever we've valued these tools for their function as well as their beauty. So do these "Every day art" pieces fall into their own category to bridge the in between of art and design? We chose to surround ourselves with tools we use every day and often select those which posses a certain beauty we are drawn to. When stripped down beyond task can every day objects stand alone as art? Can design exist without objectification?