Symposia #8 Reflection 23.4.2010
1. The city of Copenhagen recently installed several new statues on Gammeltorv. What is all about? How do people react and interact with them? If the statues were real human beings, would they react differently to it? Is Gammeltorv a good place for such an installation? Is there any other public space in Copenhagen that would be more suitable than Gammeltorv, and for what reason? Record your observation.
The bronze sculptures by Danish sculptor Jens Galschiøt are being displayed in heavily trafficked Gammeltorv in order to show the pedestrian that the homeless actually do live on the streets. Each individual sculpture tells its own story, and so the sculptures represent real homeless people. People who have been or are currently homeless act as guides for the exhibition, and Galschià passers-by will stop and join in the debate. The sculptures were created for a campaign Ending Homelessness.
The statues almost blend in during a busy afternoon at Gammeltorv. I at first did not notice them but when I did began to read all the titles. Rather then giving the statues names they share a brief story of a homeless individual...most have explanations of why they are homeless or how they are unable to fix their situation. This is an important part of the work...it gives the homeless a voice that is otherwise unheard and as the states are frozen to their form the homeless are unable to fix their own situation.
I sat for about an hour in Gammeltorv enjoying the sunshine, other onlookers, pedestrians passing down Stoget and more specifically I watched people interacting with the statues. I saw children sit on them while parents read the stories. I saw a man look comforted by the homeless man sitting on a green Copehagen bench. I saw a homeless person pass by unhindered by the art. Had the statues been real they would have been located elsewhere, like on the walking streets where if performing they are allowed to stay in the same spot for about an hour. I'm not so sure I've seen a homeless person or beggar in Gammeltorv. I think this is an internet place for the statues to be placed due to it's close proximity of the court house. An older Danish women was to of said that when she were young the homeless would spend time in front of the court house to try and make a political statement...a call for help. Perhaps it is a plea to the government, the welfare state, to help more those who are homeless. I wonder had they not wanted to install the statues a week earlier during the Queen's birthday?
I think that the statues were placed in a heavily trafficked area but I haven't seen people stay too long to read...it is more of a passing by street. Or perhaps people read one statue and assume the story is all the same...The statues are perhaps judged just at the homeless...all one in the same. I think the statues should be placed in miscellaneous areas around Copenhagen. I think they would make a louder statement and also draw more attention if placed alone on a street corner...or maybe two per all large squares in Copenhagen. Then people might be a bit more intrigued. Upon reading the plaques myself I immediately felt almost guilty for doing so. The life-like sculptures and public display almost made me feel invasive and embarrassed to stare. I think this was intentional by artist and campaign alike. The sad truth is that the homeless really do live in the public, they are looked down upon daily by those passing by without so much as a thought as to why they are homeless.
Had the sculptures been placed in a location in close proximity to where the homeless spend time they would not have spoken to the right crowd. While eating my bagel on Gammeltorv I thought about how it would be to have no food. Or to sit in a cold square past sundown. This thought may not have otherwise crossed my mind.
mandag den 26. april 2010
onsdag den 21. april 2010
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?
"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?
Femogtyve
12.3.2010 Guest Lecturer: Pernille Palsbro on Interior Design
Pernille began the lecture asking us what we thought was typical of Danish homes and interiors. As a class we came up with a list including: white walls, wood floors, simplicity, candles, not flashy, clean surfaces, attention to detail, simple materials, functionality, comfort and my personal favorite and contribution 'hygge.'
Since the beginning of DD class 'Hygge' has been a popular topic among myself and other students, whether relating to the style of a room or when we are making dinner together over bottles of wine and have a 'Hygglit' time. While the aesthetics of Danish homes are quite different then to what most of us are used to in the States it's the atmosphere and true coziness of homes here that create a large difference. When I first arrived in Copenhagen I was shocked by the cleanliness and simplicity of such designs and almost uncomfortable as I am at best used to loud designs, over decorated and cluttered homes.
I have now grown used to this and embrace the functionality and simplicity of the Danish home. I am going to miss it all very much. I am still impressed by the hidden designs of my coat rack or the simple wood plank book shelves in my room. I have grown used to the untreated floor boards and use of simple leather materials. I've gotten used to the small scale of living spaces and the intimacy created by close quarters. I love my open closet and few paintings on my wall. It seems while practiced in architecture "Gesamtkunstwerk," is also commonly used in Danish homes. As I've spent times with Danish people I've noticed that their attention to each other and relaxed moods are all part of the 'Hygge.'
Denmark is a small country and most things, other then people and personalities are also quite small. The simplicity of life style and subtle notions of wealth and value in homes are all a reflection of the Danish people and their pride. Last night I had dinner with a Danish family who I just met and spent the entire time feeling relaxed and welcome. I find myself a little in awe in a Danish home. While there is only nice things there isn't an over load of showy design. I find myself addressing the simple details of their decor and wonder if my family or country could ever do the same. It's as though the Danish home is small and simple to ensure that the people insider her walls are the focal point. I feel like most of the Danish people I've met are as honest as the materials inside their home...whether the design reflects the Danish nature or the Dane the home I am not sure.
I live in a very large country, with gigantic vehicles, loud designs, over sized homes and basically glutenous habits. For far too long the people in my country have prided themselves on having everything and anything...many vehicles, the biggest flat screen televisions and homes with 10-15 rooms. I'm used to bigger is better attitude. The Dane's live quite oppositely. While I realized this reflection is a bit off topic I am fascinated by the actual existence of 'Hygge' in my every day here. I'm find that the home and spaces in which we exist truly do effect the quality of life and how we live.
Pernille began the lecture asking us what we thought was typical of Danish homes and interiors. As a class we came up with a list including: white walls, wood floors, simplicity, candles, not flashy, clean surfaces, attention to detail, simple materials, functionality, comfort and my personal favorite and contribution 'hygge.'
Since the beginning of DD class 'Hygge' has been a popular topic among myself and other students, whether relating to the style of a room or when we are making dinner together over bottles of wine and have a 'Hygglit' time. While the aesthetics of Danish homes are quite different then to what most of us are used to in the States it's the atmosphere and true coziness of homes here that create a large difference. When I first arrived in Copenhagen I was shocked by the cleanliness and simplicity of such designs and almost uncomfortable as I am at best used to loud designs, over decorated and cluttered homes.
Denmark is a small country and most things, other then people and personalities are also quite small. The simplicity of life style and subtle notions of wealth and value in homes are all a reflection of the Danish people and their pride. Last night I had dinner with a Danish family who I just met and spent the entire time feeling relaxed and welcome. I find myself a little in awe in a Danish home. While there is only nice things there isn't an over load of showy design. I find myself addressing the simple details of their decor and wonder if my family or country could ever do the same. It's as though the Danish home is small and simple to ensure that the people insider her walls are the focal point. I feel like most of the Danish people I've met are as honest as the materials inside their home...whether the design reflects the Danish nature or the Dane the home I am not sure.
I live in a very large country, with gigantic vehicles, loud designs, over sized homes and basically glutenous habits. For far too long the people in my country have prided themselves on having everything and anything...many vehicles, the biggest flat screen televisions and homes with 10-15 rooms. I'm used to bigger is better attitude. The Dane's live quite oppositely. While I realized this reflection is a bit off topic I am fascinated by the actual existence of 'Hygge' in my every day here. I'm find that the home and spaces in which we exist truly do effect the quality of life and how we live.
Femogtyve
19.4.2010 Symposia # 7 "Special 1"
To compare and contrast Copenhagen or rather Denmark's transportation system to another is nearly impossible. Honestly the only comparisons are the modes to transport: Bus, Train, Metro etc. Any other city I've traveled in has been quite confusing and the multiple facets of transportation are so far from integrated, in Boston in-particular.
Boston's transportation system is a mess...road infrastructure included. Many years ago the city attempted to fix their mess by creating a new high way system which resulted in the catastrophe many New Englanders refer to as the "The Big Dig." Since such event, and as long as I can remember the roads and transit systems in and out of the greater Boston area have been unorganized and difficult to use. Anything far from convenient. For example I used to go from my college in Beverly to visit my boy friend at the time in Worcester. By car the drive from North of Boston to West of Boston is around an hour... by public transport it can take anywhere from 2 to 4 hours. I would take a school shuttle that ran twice an hour to the Beverly Depot to meet up with the commuter rail. Due to train times I usually sat outside in the cold at Beverly Depot for around 20 minutes and then took a 31 minute ride into North Station that cost me $5.00. Once at North Station I would buy a $1.75 Subway ticket and take the Red and Orange line to South Station...this usually took me about 30 minutes. Once at South Station I would wait anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours for a commuter rail to Worcester. The Worcester commuter rail is beyond slow and would take a minimum of 120 minutes at the cost of $7.00. Once in Worcester the only mode of transport to Holy Cross would be a $10.00 and 5 minute Taxi ride. The cost to fill up my car tank is around $30.00 of which I would only use a quarter tank to get to Worcester. While all this scheduling and expenses are terrible the smell and aesthetics, poor quality of direction and design of Boston's public transit isn't even noted.
You can see that in this one trip, which I took multiple times public transportation was neither the inexpensive, quick or easiest option. I refuse to ever make this trip again. I don't think many Danes understand the beauty of public transit here. Here you can pay once and use the same ticket or transportation pass for all modes of transportation. Here you pay by zone rather then by use. Here you can guarantee that no matter how many modes of transportation you use your trip will be cohesive and rather prompt. One thing that clearly displays this collaboration between companies and modes of transport is Rejseplanan. This tool has proven easy to use and entirely beneficial. When trying to commute in Boston you have to visit 3 or 4 sites to coordinate your travel and even then can't guarantee that schedules and maps are up to date.
While the transportation system here isn't perfect its benefits are much more prevalent then cons. The infrastructure here in Denmark compliments the public transportation system and really does make it a convenient and inexpensive option. Previous to the past month I didn't use the public transportation system on a regular basis. I was pedestrian commuter and have now become a regular 6A Bus commuter. The 6A runs often enough that I never have to wait more then 10 minutes for a bus. It has many stops along my way to and from the center of Copenhagen which gives me the option of never needing other modes of transport. As my time concludes here in Copenhagen I dread the weekly commute I will make into Boston for my semester long internship.
To compare and contrast Copenhagen or rather Denmark's transportation system to another is nearly impossible. Honestly the only comparisons are the modes to transport: Bus, Train, Metro etc. Any other city I've traveled in has been quite confusing and the multiple facets of transportation are so far from integrated, in Boston in-particular.
Boston's transportation system is a mess...road infrastructure included. Many years ago the city attempted to fix their mess by creating a new high way system which resulted in the catastrophe many New Englanders refer to as the "The Big Dig." Since such event, and as long as I can remember the roads and transit systems in and out of the greater Boston area have been unorganized and difficult to use. Anything far from convenient. For example I used to go from my college in Beverly to visit my boy friend at the time in Worcester. By car the drive from North of Boston to West of Boston is around an hour... by public transport it can take anywhere from 2 to 4 hours. I would take a school shuttle that ran twice an hour to the Beverly Depot to meet up with the commuter rail. Due to train times I usually sat outside in the cold at Beverly Depot for around 20 minutes and then took a 31 minute ride into North Station that cost me $5.00. Once at North Station I would buy a $1.75 Subway ticket and take the Red and Orange line to South Station...this usually took me about 30 minutes. Once at South Station I would wait anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours for a commuter rail to Worcester. The Worcester commuter rail is beyond slow and would take a minimum of 120 minutes at the cost of $7.00. Once in Worcester the only mode of transport to Holy Cross would be a $10.00 and 5 minute Taxi ride. The cost to fill up my car tank is around $30.00 of which I would only use a quarter tank to get to Worcester. While all this scheduling and expenses are terrible the smell and aesthetics, poor quality of direction and design of Boston's public transit isn't even noted. 
You can see that in this one trip, which I took multiple times public transportation was neither the inexpensive, quick or easiest option. I refuse to ever make this trip again. I don't think many Danes understand the beauty of public transit here. Here you can pay once and use the same ticket or transportation pass for all modes of transportation. Here you pay by zone rather then by use. Here you can guarantee that no matter how many modes of transportation you use your trip will be cohesive and rather prompt. One thing that clearly displays this collaboration between companies and modes of transport is Rejseplanan. This tool has proven easy to use and entirely beneficial. When trying to commute in Boston you have to visit 3 or 4 sites to coordinate your travel and even then can't guarantee that schedules and maps are up to date. 
fredag den 16. april 2010
Fireogtyve
Lecture Reflection 16.4.2010 Transportation Design
Since arriving in Copenhagen I have been astounded by the fluidity of motion throughout this city. People. Cars. Bikes. Buses. Trains. Metro. Escalators. Doors. Waiting lines. Copenhagen seems to function as a well oiled machine, comparatively to my home city Boston, well there is no real comparison, Copenhagen appears flawless. The infrastructure responsible for such smooth transitions is understated by the Dane's and highly appreciated by the American traveler. While the functionality of the transportation blows my mind I am more so interested in the transparent integration of modern design and that of historical Danish design.
Every bus stop to metro sign have recently been designed in simple, sleek, modern style. The simplicity of such designs is not only aesthetically pleasing but does not distract from the designs of the past. With the use of consistent traditional materiality modern forms do not feel out of place even within the oldest parts of Copenhagen. Contrasting this cohesive style are many European cities that look thrown together. While the aesthetics of Nørreport Station are extremely different from that of the Round Tower the walk from Nørreport St down Strøget seems natural and fluid.
Danish architects and city planners have been taught to respect architectural feats of the past. As an ode to such lessons much of modern Danish architecture and civic designs have consistent materials with designs of the past, such as brick and steel used in traditional Danish design. The modern designs seem to compliment what has been standing for hundreds of years. The materials used, and designs completed are as fluid and translucent from one another as that of the actually inferstructure and physical planning of the transportation here in Denmark. It is hard to decide whether the two are divisble or whether aesthetics and function would not be as successful without the other. This in between bit is what makes the transportation here in Copenhagen so Danish: form and function equally successful and considered.
Since arriving in Copenhagen I have been astounded by the fluidity of motion throughout this city. People. Cars. Bikes. Buses. Trains. Metro. Escalators. Doors. Waiting lines. Copenhagen seems to function as a well oiled machine, comparatively to my home city Boston, well there is no real comparison, Copenhagen appears flawless. The infrastructure responsible for such smooth transitions is understated by the Dane's and highly appreciated by the American traveler. While the functionality of the transportation blows my mind I am more so interested in the transparent integration of modern design and that of historical Danish design.
Every bus stop to metro sign have recently been designed in simple, sleek, modern style. The simplicity of such designs is not only aesthetically pleasing but does not distract from the designs of the past. With the use of consistent traditional materiality modern forms do not feel out of place even within the oldest parts of Copenhagen. Contrasting this cohesive style are many European cities that look thrown together. While the aesthetics of Nørreport Station are extremely different from that of the Round Tower the walk from Nørreport St down Strøget seems natural and fluid.
Danish architects and city planners have been taught to respect architectural feats of the past. As an ode to such lessons much of modern Danish architecture and civic designs have consistent materials with designs of the past, such as brick and steel used in traditional Danish design. The modern designs seem to compliment what has been standing for hundreds of years. The materials used, and designs completed are as fluid and translucent from one another as that of the actually inferstructure and physical planning of the transportation here in Denmark. It is hard to decide whether the two are divisble or whether aesthetics and function would not be as successful without the other. This in between bit is what makes the transportation here in Copenhagen so Danish: form and function equally successful and considered.
torsdag den 15. april 2010
Treogtyve
Field Study Reflection #4 #14.4.2010
A hidden "Civic Design Gem" in Copenhagen: A visit to Ørstedsparken.
I have chosen to send my classmates to my personal favorite place in Copenhagen. Since being a Ahlefeltsgade 29 resident I have walked through Ørstedsparken almost daily. As the winter months are turning into spring I see why local Danes rave about this park. While not the largest of green spaces Ørstedsparken has the quirkiest, friendliest atmosphere. Though a close walk from Norreport St as well as DIS campus not many of my students know of it's existence.
Ørstedsparken is the only park open 24 hours a day and has a slightly negative connotation for things that happen in parks at the wee hours of the night. However during the day it offers much to it's visitors. It has a beautiful cafe whose coffee kicks Baresso's butt. In the winter months it's frozen ponds and hills offer the ice skater and sledder alike entertainment not traditionally found in Copenhagen's flat city. Ørstedsparken has several recreational play grounds for children as well as walking paths for runners, bikers and dog walkers alike. It's many statues, trees and flower offer much aesthetic quality and it's close proximity to the center of Copenhagen makes it a convenient stop.
So much of Copenhagen's civic pride resides in the livability of the city. A very important part of city life is interaction with other people as well as availability of public green spaces. Ørstedsparken is located in the heart of Copenhagen has is often overlooked due it's down-played nature. The park is truly designed for people of all ages and type. As a public space it offers luxury, beauty and relaxation from busy city life and embodies Copenhagen's civic minded attitude.
A hidden "Civic Design Gem" in Copenhagen: A visit to Ørstedsparken.
I have chosen to send my classmates to my personal favorite place in Copenhagen. Since being a Ahlefeltsgade 29 resident I have walked through Ørstedsparken almost daily. As the winter months are turning into spring I see why local Danes rave about this park. While not the largest of green spaces Ørstedsparken has the quirkiest, friendliest atmosphere. Though a close walk from Norreport St as well as DIS campus not many of my students know of it's existence.
Ørstedsparken is the only park open 24 hours a day and has a slightly negative connotation for things that happen in parks at the wee hours of the night. However during the day it offers much to it's visitors. It has a beautiful cafe whose coffee kicks Baresso's butt. In the winter months it's frozen ponds and hills offer the ice skater and sledder alike entertainment not traditionally found in Copenhagen's flat city. Ørstedsparken has several recreational play grounds for children as well as walking paths for runners, bikers and dog walkers alike. It's many statues, trees and flower offer much aesthetic quality and it's close proximity to the center of Copenhagen makes it a convenient stop. 
Toogtyve
Civic Design Lecture Reflection 12.4.2010
When discussing Civic Design in class I can't help but see the parallels between civic thought and the traditional methods of Danish design as a general entity. So much of DD is focused on the people as a whole and what will help benefit the masses. It seems that Danish designer are already quite civic minded. With that being said most Danish designed elements of the city benefit the people as well as the environment due to government enforced taxation, laws and zoning rules. Because of these elements the way in which the Dane's live is highly more sustainable then that of the average American. Furthermore Danish lifestyles and practices are shaped by the designs around them.
Because Copenhagen specifically has such a strong public transport system and sense of strong city life civic design become evermore important. It seems most Dane's truly use the "One-story," city as their living room and large part of life. Copenhagen has done a great job at revitalizing important public space. Because of this Danes take pride in preserving the quality of life within the city creating civic pride. The sustainable city is adopted as part of each individuals dwelling thus impact the way Dane's live within their homes.
I'm not so sure if it's a common European tradition to have design competitions for things such as phone booths and bus stops but we certainly do not take the same care at home. I have been impressed throughout the semester with the little details around Copenhagen...such as the side walks. While my friends and I were convinced the paved areas were for heel wearing pedestrians it makes perfect sense that the stone are easy to pop up and access plumbing lines. Such initiatives and well though out civic design is what makes Copenhagen function as a well oiled machine. Copenhagen has adopted the identity of a happy livable place to life. I think a lot of this can be credited to not only civic pride but quality of civic design. Strong qually in form and function. So Danish.
When discussing Civic Design in class I can't help but see the parallels between civic thought and the traditional methods of Danish design as a general entity. So much of DD is focused on the people as a whole and what will help benefit the masses. It seems that Danish designer are already quite civic minded. With that being said most Danish designed elements of the city benefit the people as well as the environment due to government enforced taxation, laws and zoning rules. Because of these elements the way in which the Dane's live is highly more sustainable then that of the average American. Furthermore Danish lifestyles and practices are shaped by the designs around them.
Because Copenhagen specifically has such a strong public transport system and sense of strong city life civic design become evermore important. It seems most Dane's truly use the "One-story," city as their living room and large part of life. Copenhagen has done a great job at revitalizing important public space. Because of this Danes take pride in preserving the quality of life within the city creating civic pride. The sustainable city is adopted as part of each individuals dwelling thus impact the way Dane's live within their homes.
I'm not so sure if it's a common European tradition to have design competitions for things such as phone booths and bus stops but we certainly do not take the same care at home. I have been impressed throughout the semester with the little details around Copenhagen...such as the side walks. While my friends and I were convinced the paved areas were for heel wearing pedestrians it makes perfect sense that the stone are easy to pop up and access plumbing lines. Such initiatives and well though out civic design is what makes Copenhagen function as a well oiled machine. Copenhagen has adopted the identity of a happy livable place to life. I think a lot of this can be credited to not only civic pride but quality of civic design. Strong qually in form and function. So Danish.
Enogtyve
Symposia #6 Reflection
1. Find an object at home that is aesthetically pleasing but turned out not to be very functional. Discuss why it didn't work properly and how this relates to the designer understanding material and craft.
The purchase/item I will focus on was bought here in Kobehavn during Fashion Weeks beautiful sales. While I am well aware that my Aldo wedges are not Danish designed they are the only disappointment I've had thus far. Nothing let's you down like a beautiful pair of shoes that creates monstrous blisters every-time you wear them. I prefer comfort to aesthetic pleasure like a Dane function to form. I don't buy that pain is beauty crap.However I could not pass up the wicked 200 kr sale on my beautiful Aldo Prez leather pair.
Aldo is a mainstream international shoe company that focuses mainly and woman's and men's dress shoes. They are well known and quite successful. I think it is safe to assume that my made in Taiwan shoes were not crafted by the original designer and that the un-comfort-ability of this shoe is an exact result of the major disconnection between crafter and shoe designer. This disconnect is quite common in today's design production market. While the person who designed my shoe probably has studied fashion, he or she probably hasn't had to psychically craft shoes. While a books and classes are able to educate to a certain degree they certainly do not gift the same education that a traditional cobbler apprenticeship may have once offered. Today's modern shoe designer probably knows as much about materiality as and eight year old knows paint after a paint by number kit is completed. Because students aren't educated with practical hands on lessons we miss a very important understanding of the materials we work with. As a result of such mishap I ended up with 6,000 blisters on my little feet post my first Festivahn party. Too much dancing in poorly designed shoes is a catastrophe that perhaps could be avoided by opting to groove barefoot or buying hand crafted heels. I now chose to cut the rug all natural.
2. Looking towards the future: Do you believe there are no recent designs (all old from at least 70's) or do you think there are new eco-friendly and innovative Danish designs that help the world? Give examples
Designers today are faced with the challenge of re-thinking the way we make things. While the need to invent new technology may not being strong main stream design is taking a turn to adapting new material choices. While in the past the quickest and easiest material construction methods were chosen designers must now think of the future of their products. Rather then creating cradle to grave we must now design cradle to cradle. While designers and manufacturers adapt this school of thought we can expect to see huge changes in materialization of products rather then brand new inventions. This will challenge designers to understand the materials of choice much better and also understand the consequences of using such materials. Perhaps eco-heels of the future will also benefit Festivahn dancing queens.
1. Find an object at home that is aesthetically pleasing but turned out not to be very functional. Discuss why it didn't work properly and how this relates to the designer understanding material and craft.
The purchase/item I will focus on was bought here in Kobehavn during Fashion Weeks beautiful sales. While I am well aware that my Aldo wedges are not Danish designed they are the only disappointment I've had thus far. Nothing let's you down like a beautiful pair of shoes that creates monstrous blisters every-time you wear them. I prefer comfort to aesthetic pleasure like a Dane function to form. I don't buy that pain is beauty crap.However I could not pass up the wicked 200 kr sale on my beautiful Aldo Prez leather pair.
2. Looking towards the future: Do you believe there are no recent designs (all old from at least 70's) or do you think there are new eco-friendly and innovative Danish designs that help the world? Give examples
Designers today are faced with the challenge of re-thinking the way we make things. While the need to invent new technology may not being strong main stream design is taking a turn to adapting new material choices. While in the past the quickest and easiest material construction methods were chosen designers must now think of the future of their products. Rather then creating cradle to grave we must now design cradle to cradle. While designers and manufacturers adapt this school of thought we can expect to see huge changes in materialization of products rather then brand new inventions. This will challenge designers to understand the materials of choice much better and also understand the consequences of using such materials. Perhaps eco-heels of the future will also benefit Festivahn dancing queens.
mandag den 15. marts 2010
Tyve
Reflection of Fashion Design Guest Lecture 10.3.2010
Upon hearing the lecture on Danish fashion I am still a bit confused about what is exactly Danish fashion and what sets it apart from other fashion capitals in the world. It seems the government has put in sufficient funds and efforts to boost the Danish fashion industry which haven't changed Denmark's overall status. Perhaps efforts such as Fashion Week have helped Danes buy more Danish clothing. It seems however that the over-all Danish style is a truly complex mix of international styles thrown into a melting pot.
When I first came to Denmark I was shocked by the beauty of the Danish people. I had never seen a 6' tall women wearing heels riding a bike, while covered in beautiful firs, hats and scarves...all the while looking beautiful and making a 20 minute biking commute to work. It seems that almost each Dane has their own style and preference as to how one should dress. It seems climate has a natural effect on what items of clothing people wear on a regular, while each brand of item differs from person to person. Such as boots...everyone here has at least one pair of beautiful boots they wear often. When comparing Danish fashion to Danish Design I think it is an interesting that the climate here in Denmark has great, possibly equal effect, on how people live in homes and how people dress.
Danish homes are small and simple. They are designed to be functional and "Hygge." They do not show off peoples wealth with size or gaudy decor but rather subtle design decisions are made to show case important pieces of furniture or decor. Many Danish homes showcase the same important pieces of Danish designed furniture and style. Danish fashion seems to embody many of these same guidelines. In the US most people take pride in size and this is reflected in the size of our homes, vehicles, property and how we dress. In the US everything is about, in comparison to the Danes, cheap status. People have name-brands plastered all over the wardrobe to showcase what they can afford. There is no guessing or subtlety in American style. I have found it very refreshing to see styles of all shapes and sizes in the Danish culture. It seems the one similarity between all is that there aren't many logos or fashion brands smacked all over Danish clothing. It wasn't until the 1950s that the Danes started putting tags on their clothing to address whom the designer was. While everyone seems properly dresses and well equip with fashion sense, people don't feel and overall need to be loud about it. It's refreshing.
Furthermore because the Danes have been brought up well aware of good design and appreciation for all arts there is an innate sense of good style. While the Danes may not have an obvious style that is coined as Danish, the Danes are for sure very styling. Everyone here seems to have a very good idea about how to best dress their body. It seems that possibly not having a typical Danish style is what perhaps strengthens the Danish fashion industry. Uniqueness and subtlety is encouraged allowing great opportunity for the Danes to celebrate many styles and dress.
Images listed above are designed by Danish fashion designer Mara Høgh Heilmann of label AYMARA. She has been quoted "In this modern, transient world, everything is quickly discarded. i wanted to create a product that endures, not just in time, but also in people’s hearts."
I felt this line was useful to show the connection between Danish ideas of lasting. Danish designers practice making useful, practical tools for every day life that will last and improve quality of life. Heilmann seems to try the same in her line of clothing. There is nothing crazy or loud about her designs but her clothing is well crafted and she is familiar with the material used at hand. The quality of the clothing is what makes it beautiful and appreciated much like that of Danish furniture and architectural designs.
Upon hearing the lecture on Danish fashion I am still a bit confused about what is exactly Danish fashion and what sets it apart from other fashion capitals in the world. It seems the government has put in sufficient funds and efforts to boost the Danish fashion industry which haven't changed Denmark's overall status. Perhaps efforts such as Fashion Week have helped Danes buy more Danish clothing. It seems however that the over-all Danish style is a truly complex mix of international styles thrown into a melting pot.
When I first came to Denmark I was shocked by the beauty of the Danish people. I had never seen a 6' tall women wearing heels riding a bike, while covered in beautiful firs, hats and scarves...all the while looking beautiful and making a 20 minute biking commute to work. It seems that almost each Dane has their own style and preference as to how one should dress. It seems climate has a natural effect on what items of clothing people wear on a regular, while each brand of item differs from person to person. Such as boots...everyone here has at least one pair of beautiful boots they wear often. When comparing Danish fashion to Danish Design I think it is an interesting that the climate here in Denmark has great, possibly equal effect, on how people live in homes and how people dress.
Danish homes are small and simple. They are designed to be functional and "Hygge." They do not show off peoples wealth with size or gaudy decor but rather subtle design decisions are made to show case important pieces of furniture or decor. Many Danish homes showcase the same important pieces of Danish designed furniture and style. Danish fashion seems to embody many of these same guidelines. In the US most people take pride in size and this is reflected in the size of our homes, vehicles, property and how we dress. In the US everything is about, in comparison to the Danes, cheap status. People have name-brands plastered all over the wardrobe to showcase what they can afford. There is no guessing or subtlety in American style. I have found it very refreshing to see styles of all shapes and sizes in the Danish culture. It seems the one similarity between all is that there aren't many logos or fashion brands smacked all over Danish clothing. It wasn't until the 1950s that the Danes started putting tags on their clothing to address whom the designer was. While everyone seems properly dresses and well equip with fashion sense, people don't feel and overall need to be loud about it. It's refreshing.Furthermore because the Danes have been brought up well aware of good design and appreciation for all arts there is an innate sense of good style. While the Danes may not have an obvious style that is coined as Danish, the Danes are for sure very styling. Everyone here seems to have a very good idea about how to best dress their body. It seems that possibly not having a typical Danish style is what perhaps strengthens the Danish fashion industry. Uniqueness and subtlety is encouraged allowing great opportunity for the Danes to celebrate many styles and dress.
Images listed above are designed by Danish fashion designer Mara Høgh Heilmann of label AYMARA. She has been quoted "In this modern, transient world, everything is quickly discarded. i wanted to create a product that endures, not just in time, but also in people’s hearts."
I felt this line was useful to show the connection between Danish ideas of lasting. Danish designers practice making useful, practical tools for every day life that will last and improve quality of life. Heilmann seems to try the same in her line of clothing. There is nothing crazy or loud about her designs but her clothing is well crafted and she is familiar with the material used at hand. The quality of the clothing is what makes it beautiful and appreciated much like that of Danish furniture and architectural designs.
tirsdag den 9. marts 2010
Nitten
Reading Reflections 9.3.2010 "Danish Fashion" by Marie Riegels Melchlor, Ph. D
Danish fashion design can be considered a late bloomer. It wasn't until the 1960s that Danes started to make a name for themselves in the fashion world. Previously to that time Danish fashion was influenced by international styles from larger fashion capitals such as Paris and London. It is important to note that the same foreign influences applied to design, craftsmanship and technology, that at this time had been highly influenced from abroad. Previous to the 1960s Danish fashion was more so related to typical peasant and folk costumes often worn throughout different regions of Denmark, aesthetics and colors varying throughout regions. Traditional costumes were based upon functionality and use. Because of Denmark's climatic conditions it is important that the clothes were properly constructed as to actually keep people warm. Much of the materials used in such costumes reflected the climate such as wools and also minx and fox furs.
In the 1950s Danes started with a bit of amateur design often times copying and or buying patents off of designers from larger fashion capitals. During World War Two there was not enough material to make strong individual designs and too much international competition. Danish designers had to think of a way to attract Danish consumers. At this point the Danes started creating designer brands of clothing and were highly provoked by the youth movement that was a current fad in America as well as England. The movement can be related to the time of when the Beatles swept the globe with fiery passion... the youth movement consisted of this idea that young people wanted to appear young, feel young and in doing so dress young and "hip." The clothes were simple, casual and clean cut. Unlike much of the bohemian styles related to modern Danish design these were simplified articles of clothing. At the time the shopping experience changed in Denmark as young people were able to sift through clothes with more options then before...Danes were given the freedom to individualize their wardrobe a bit more then in the past.
Today the Danish attitude toward fashion is forward. Denmark's governmental system is working hard to try and promote Danish design in hopes that it will become a large industry for export. The current Danish style is much like that of all international style. The Danes have adopted the modern tradition of wearing jeans and t-shirts and supporting designers from around the world. The Danes in general are usually portrayed as happy, relaxed and open-minded people. This is associated both with the Danish appreciation for "hygge" and also the country liberal society. It seems that Danish fashion is a collaboration of Danish ideals and practices and also embodies the strong influence of nearby European and Scandinavian styles. While Danish Design has been highly established and branded since the 1960s it had taken longer for Danish Fashion to hold a strong place amongst other fashion capitals in the world. It wasn't until the late 70s that Denmark established fashion magazines and even later that a Fashion school was adopted. As these things mature and develop Denmark will probably see more emphasis on what is Danish Fashion.
In the 1950s Danes started with a bit of amateur design often times copying and or buying patents off of designers from larger fashion capitals. During World War Two there was not enough material to make strong individual designs and too much international competition. Danish designers had to think of a way to attract Danish consumers. At this point the Danes started creating designer brands of clothing and were highly provoked by the youth movement that was a current fad in America as well as England. The movement can be related to the time of when the Beatles swept the globe with fiery passion... the youth movement consisted of this idea that young people wanted to appear young, feel young and in doing so dress young and "hip." The clothes were simple, casual and clean cut. Unlike much of the bohemian styles related to modern Danish design these were simplified articles of clothing. At the time the shopping experience changed in Denmark as young people were able to sift through clothes with more options then before...Danes were given the freedom to individualize their wardrobe a bit more then in the past. 
Atten
Lecture and Reading Reflections "Furniture for the whole world" Erik Moller
It seems that the typical Danish designer role has been to create for the masses...while all design types cannot abide by this standard most attempt to do so. Throughout time the Danish design market has grown significantly as it has become part of a global market. In the 1950's the Danish furniture design industry was worth 3 million kr and by 1973 it was valued at 725 million kr. The growth in furniture market coincides with the attempt of many designers, such as Kaare Klint, whom decided it was important for everyone to have accessibility to good design. With this idea developing Denmark also was faced with the industrial revolution in which mechanics and technology allowed for faster production of furniture. These two elements can take responsibility for the Danish furniture industries success and growth . Several of the following designers were considered to push the international boundaries with designs that veered away from traditional Danish aesthetics and were appealing to a wide variety of users and types.
Arne Jacabson designed from the 1950s-1970s and his style was thought of as international modern, he being considered the Renaissance man of Danish architecture. He was a practicing architect as well as a professor and focuses on the total design of his architecture projects. Naturally he designed furniture as well. Throughout war periods he was super innovative with use of limited materials and resources. He was constantly looking to simplify his designs, strip away the unnecessary and find the best possible form. In the 50s there was definitely technology that allowed for bending of wood and steel however the production of furniture made of such materials was sped up with newer inventions. As technology improved however Danish production companies still set precedence on quality control and allowed only a certain amount of pieces to be created daily on a daily basis to ensure that the quality of a product did not falter. Though perhaps more modest then contemporary advertisements Jacabon's furniture was sold through sexy advertisement and quickly found it's way into the international market.
From 1929-1980 Pour Klaerholm focused on the placement of furniture within a space...the proper alignment of furniture to the relevant space. He used steel as a main material and focused on the pieces as sculptural elements. He often practiced day lighting studies to understand how a piece would look in a given space. He wanted to push the boundaries of material usage and the possibility of production methods.
In the 1960s and 70s Verner Panton explored retro furniture design as well as designing movie sets and textiles. He was considered to be stubborn in his design decisions as well as material choices. His aesthetic style was fun and he is considered to be "forever young." He pushed the use of new materials and forms...he was self-exiled from the standard Danish design world. His S chair was possibly the first to be made entirely from plastic mold and posed the questions of why not not use other materials then natural leathers, woods and metals.
Nanna Ditzel designed from 1928-2005. She was considered to be the grandmother of Danish design. Her work was sculptural and pushed material boundaries. She started her career with the Cabinet Maker's exhibition. Her pieces could stand alone in a room demanding attention and thought of the viewer and user. She designed pieces that had a sense of lightness and humor like the Toadstool in 1962...a stack-able piece that was playful for children and easy to use.
Each of these designers started to produce furniture at a revolutionary time in Danish design. While all were formally trained under Danish design principles they challenged the standard system in material choice and aesthetic style. Their furniture pieces were secular and offered a new look at furniture design the appealed to many on an international level.
Arne Jacabson designed from the 1950s-1970s and his style was thought of as international modern, he being considered the Renaissance man of Danish architecture. He was a practicing architect as well as a professor and focuses on the total design of his architecture projects. Naturally he designed furniture as well. Throughout war periods he was super innovative with use of limited materials and resources. He was constantly looking to simplify his designs, strip away the unnecessary and find the best possible form. In the 50s there was definitely technology that allowed for bending of wood and steel however the production of furniture made of such materials was sped up with newer inventions. As technology improved however Danish production companies still set precedence on quality control and allowed only a certain amount of pieces to be created daily on a daily basis to ensure that the quality of a product did not falter. Though perhaps more modest then contemporary advertisements Jacabon's furniture was sold through sexy advertisement and quickly found it's way into the international market.
From 1929-1980 Pour Klaerholm focused on the placement of furniture within a space...the proper alignment of furniture to the relevant space. He used steel as a main material and focused on the pieces as sculptural elements. He often practiced day lighting studies to understand how a piece would look in a given space. He wanted to push the boundaries of material usage and the possibility of production methods.
In the 1960s and 70s Verner Panton explored retro furniture design as well as designing movie sets and textiles. He was considered to be stubborn in his design decisions as well as material choices. His aesthetic style was fun and he is considered to be "forever young." He pushed the use of new materials and forms...he was self-exiled from the standard Danish design world. His S chair was possibly the first to be made entirely from plastic mold and posed the questions of why not not use other materials then natural leathers, woods and metals.
Each of these designers started to produce furniture at a revolutionary time in Danish design. While all were formally trained under Danish design principles they challenged the standard system in material choice and aesthetic style. Their furniture pieces were secular and offered a new look at furniture design the appealed to many on an international level.
mandag den 8. marts 2010
Sytten
Field Study Reflection #2 Danish Design Center Exhibit: It's a Small World.
3. Critique the exhibit as a whole in relation to the same goal/thesis that all the works in the exhibit are subjected to. For example: Do you feel the exhibit as a whole is successful in re-defining and/or expanding the role that design plays as a means of solving problems in a world with global challenges? Moreover, ask/answer: Why this topic for an exhibit in DDC at this time in DD history? Is it all just Propaganda + Branding? Or is this truly forward thinking/making? Does the exhibit itself embody the ideas&ideals that it preaches, or does it stay within an older, prevailing model of ‘design’? Is the exhibit itself —and as a whole— to be seen/experienced as ‘Dansk Design’? Is it an open & interdisciplinary platform for a new design debate? Do you feel that the exhibit inspires visitors (you), and influences the definitions of ‘design’ towards a sustainable future? Etc…
The stated goal thesis of It's a Small World is as follows "The exhibition ”it’s a small” explores new perspectives in Danish design, craft, and architecture. With a focus on Sustainability, Human Scale, New Craftmanship and Non-Standardised Praxis, the exhibition challenges the traditional role of the designer. Six interdisciplinary scenarios seek a new relevancy for design - in the world. The exhibit was a great exploration of different facets of contemporary Danish design and where design is perhaps going in the future. The exhibit showed design elements from a documentation of a bike-side exploration through Kobenhavn's streets to that of furniture design and also hybrid plug in cars. Each piece in the exhibit was accompanied by an explanation of the piece and each encouraged viewers to participate. I will come back to the participation factor as my main discussion point in a bit. It was great to see a wide variety of design elements such as the BIG architectural movies as well as the furniture designs by Cecelie Manz and Louise Campbell. I think it is an appropriate time for any design center anywhere to address sustainability as an important factor in contemporary design movements...it is our future and creating a sense of awareness through exhibits is not only thought provoking but allows the common person, unaware of sustainable initiatives a chance to explore design choices they make in their own lives...which cars to buy, which furniture to sit in, which home they make and chose for their family, which mode of transportation they take to work etc.
When we visited in a group of 4 we found ourselves having an extremely enjoyable time in the exhibit. We spent quite a lot of time on swings and running through the car-wash strips like we were children. We sat and watched an anonymous biker travel through the streets of Kobenhavn entirely entranced by the setting and mood of the video...it was almost as though we were on the bike ride and though the streets were familiar we walk them rather then bike them...it made the idea of biking seem welcoming and somehow more intriguing then our daily walks to class. The text placed around the exhibit was put in lame-mans terms so that everyone can understand the meaning of the pieces and design intents.
The title of the exhibit I feel holds a certain meaning that could be over looked very easily. When I think "Small world" that means "Big role" for an individual. While we are all part of this large place...the idea that the world isn't all that big gives each individual the idea that they can play an important part. If as a global society we will ever get on board with sustainable initiatives and life styles everyone needs to feel that they are playing an important role in changing our world. If it is truly a "Small world" that we live in we can each participate in an important global change. The idea that we can all participate in this is intertwined with the greater idea behind the DDC exhibit. I thought it was great that the viewer is encouraged to watch movies, to use cards to start movies, to sit on the furniture, to play on the swings and to use the space as a tool of education. When giving the viewer this option they become an important part of the design exhibit on the smaller scale, and on the large scale their eyes are opened to options in which they may partake in the future. If the designed elements were behind bars in caged in glass the viewer would feel that they designs are not applicable or approachable by themselves. It is important they viewer sees and approaches these designs as accessible amenities and tools to aid their daily lives.
Furthermore the idea that the viewer can access these designs is what traditional Danish design strives to achieve... good design for the masses. So perhaps maybe their will be wide shift in the future as to what is considered good design. Maybe the "Small World" exhibit is laying out the foundations for structure for what we can expect to see in the future. While in the DDC we became an important part of the exhibit just as we will all individually play big roles in transforming the design methods towards sustainability in the future.I felt the exhibit inspired subtly. Rather then smacking one if the face with what should and shouldn't be done in the future it gently allowed the visitor to experience design ideas and take from the exhibit what one wanted. Personally I left with a paper Dansk flag and a bruise on my shin from the swing...but also a feeling of interest. I generally get quite bored in museum exhibits and feel restless in a space for two long. This exhibit captured my attention and held a variety of information that was applicable to many facets of life. I think it was for sure successful in its attempt to see the relevancy of sustainable design for the world, and more importantly the common person.
3. Critique the exhibit as a whole in relation to the same goal/thesis that all the works in the exhibit are subjected to. For example: Do you feel the exhibit as a whole is successful in re-defining and/or expanding the role that design plays as a means of solving problems in a world with global challenges? Moreover, ask/answer: Why this topic for an exhibit in DDC at this time in DD history? Is it all just Propaganda + Branding? Or is this truly forward thinking/making? Does the exhibit itself embody the ideas&ideals that it preaches, or does it stay within an older, prevailing model of ‘design’? Is the exhibit itself —and as a whole— to be seen/experienced as ‘Dansk Design’? Is it an open & interdisciplinary platform for a new design debate? Do you feel that the exhibit inspires visitors (you), and influences the definitions of ‘design’ towards a sustainable future? Etc…
The stated goal thesis of It's a Small World is as follows "The exhibition ”it’s a small” explores new perspectives in Danish design, craft, and architecture. With a focus on Sustainability, Human Scale, New Craftmanship and Non-Standardised Praxis, the exhibition challenges the traditional role of the designer. Six interdisciplinary scenarios seek a new relevancy for design - in the world. The exhibit was a great exploration of different facets of contemporary Danish design and where design is perhaps going in the future. The exhibit showed design elements from a documentation of a bike-side exploration through Kobenhavn's streets to that of furniture design and also hybrid plug in cars. Each piece in the exhibit was accompanied by an explanation of the piece and each encouraged viewers to participate. I will come back to the participation factor as my main discussion point in a bit. It was great to see a wide variety of design elements such as the BIG architectural movies as well as the furniture designs by Cecelie Manz and Louise Campbell. I think it is an appropriate time for any design center anywhere to address sustainability as an important factor in contemporary design movements...it is our future and creating a sense of awareness through exhibits is not only thought provoking but allows the common person, unaware of sustainable initiatives a chance to explore design choices they make in their own lives...which cars to buy, which furniture to sit in, which home they make and chose for their family, which mode of transportation they take to work etc.
When we visited in a group of 4 we found ourselves having an extremely enjoyable time in the exhibit. We spent quite a lot of time on swings and running through the car-wash strips like we were children. We sat and watched an anonymous biker travel through the streets of Kobenhavn entirely entranced by the setting and mood of the video...it was almost as though we were on the bike ride and though the streets were familiar we walk them rather then bike them...it made the idea of biking seem welcoming and somehow more intriguing then our daily walks to class. The text placed around the exhibit was put in lame-mans terms so that everyone can understand the meaning of the pieces and design intents.
Furthermore the idea that the viewer can access these designs is what traditional Danish design strives to achieve... good design for the masses. So perhaps maybe their will be wide shift in the future as to what is considered good design. Maybe the "Small World" exhibit is laying out the foundations for structure for what we can expect to see in the future. While in the DDC we became an important part of the exhibit just as we will all individually play big roles in transforming the design methods towards sustainability in the future.I felt the exhibit inspired subtly. Rather then smacking one if the face with what should and shouldn't be done in the future it gently allowed the visitor to experience design ideas and take from the exhibit what one wanted. Personally I left with a paper Dansk flag and a bruise on my shin from the swing...but also a feeling of interest. I generally get quite bored in museum exhibits and feel restless in a space for two long. This exhibit captured my attention and held a variety of information that was applicable to many facets of life. I think it was for sure successful in its attempt to see the relevancy of sustainable design for the world, and more importantly the common person.
Seksten
Symposia #5 Reflections Tradition & Modernity
1. Find an object at home of Danish design (preferable something that you've used or bought here) that is aesthetically pleasing but turned out to not be very functional. discuss why it didn't work properly and how this relates to the designer understanding material and craft.
I haven't purchased many Danish designs yet as most of my money has been spent on food and beverage. Because I am a bag girl I have chosen to compare two different items I have used since being in Kobenhavn. One being that of a Thai decent and the other a manufactured piece "Made in China." The first is a hand crate bag which was given to me as a gift given to me when I was 15 years old from my best friend Nattapong Tassawong. His neighbor at home in Bangkok hand crafts and sites beautiful bags. It has lasted me nearly 6 year without any fault and holds a certain amount of sentimental value. I have used and abused it and it has continued to stand the test of time. It's aesthetic qualities are beautiful and equally it has functioned. Being more of a satchel it fails as an organizational tool for travel...while it suited me at home perfectly for a purse-like item it wasn't going to do the trick for traveling. After 6 years of use I decided it was time I buy another bag to bring with me on my journey to Kobenhavn. Upon purchasing my off the rack TJMaxx find designed by Franco Sarto I wasn't expecting anything too extravagant. It's synthetic materials and less the perfect design was good enough for me. In the two months that I've been here it has worked as a tool of transporting and organizing my goods, however has lost a zipper and suffered several stains and tears.
I think it safe to assume that the Franco Sarto bag was designed and produced without much thought to the materialization and longevity of the bag. It was designed as a travel item and probably won't last me forever. In comparison to a hand crafted bag from Thailand the material knowledge and thought put into it probably wasn't as significant. It certainly isn't as special as one of my classmates from Virgina has the same exact bag while I know no one has the same exact Thai bag that I do. Both bags are probably worth around the same amount of fiscal value. We've talked about the aura of a hand crafted piece and the sentimental value an original holds. Under those judgments of value my hand crafted Thai bag for sure is more valuable as is the quality and craftsmanship better. If I were to loose the Franco Sarto bag I wouldn't care less, whereas if I lost the other I would be devastated. The person who created my Thai bag understood the material they were working with and created a piece that is irreplaceable, aesthetically pleasing and functions well. I think that the understanding of material directly relates to the quality of the products and my satisfaction of the design.
2. Lookring towarrds the future: What possible changes in industry would lead to a change in the relationship between designers and manufacturers? Are there no new designs as the authors emphasize in the readings, where all new designs are based strictly off of designs pre 1970's, or do you think there is a new eco-friendly and innovative Danish designs that help the world?
I think most importantly in the future will be the understanding of materials from a designers stand point as well as the manufacturer and the communication between both parties in the design process. As we switch our designing and production methods to that of which are more sustainably sound we need to thoroughly understand the nature of the materials we are using. As new products and materials are being developed it is important we understand their last effects on the environment and those whom come in contact with the products. While a designer might chose the right material for a product, like lets say and all natural fabric covering for a piece of furniture, the sustainability of the piece could be completely shot when the manufacturers use machines that pump massive amounts of CO2 and pollutants into the air.
I think that we will continuously look to the past for design ideas. As we've mentioned in class many a times what can be done has been done etc...however I think with the environmental challenges ahead we have an opportunity to redesign and rethink the way we make things. While perhaps the styles and shapes of our furniture may not change, the way we build them, the materials used to construct and adhesive them, the way they are shipped and the way they are treated when we are through with them can all change. In that the design industry has the ability to be reshaped and molded into a new more environmentally sound system. I think as designers it is important to not only think about our designs but how these designs can be produced...how these designs effect the user and how these designs can last and be recycled when we are through with them. While designers once thought of designs for all people we must now think of designing for all...people and equally importantly earth.
1. Find an object at home of Danish design (preferable something that you've used or bought here) that is aesthetically pleasing but turned out to not be very functional. discuss why it didn't work properly and how this relates to the designer understanding material and craft.
I think it safe to assume that the Franco Sarto bag was designed and produced without much thought to the materialization and longevity of the bag. It was designed as a travel item and probably won't last me forever. In comparison to a hand crafted bag from Thailand the material knowledge and thought put into it probably wasn't as significant. It certainly isn't as special as one of my classmates from Virgina has the same exact bag while I know no one has the same exact Thai bag that I do. Both bags are probably worth around the same amount of fiscal value. We've talked about the aura of a hand crafted piece and the sentimental value an original holds. Under those judgments of value my hand crafted Thai bag for sure is more valuable as is the quality and craftsmanship better. If I were to loose the Franco Sarto bag I wouldn't care less, whereas if I lost the other I would be devastated. The person who created my Thai bag understood the material they were working with and created a piece that is irreplaceable, aesthetically pleasing and functions well. I think that the understanding of material directly relates to the quality of the products and my satisfaction of the design.
2. Lookring towarrds the future: What possible changes in industry would lead to a change in the relationship between designers and manufacturers? Are there no new designs as the authors emphasize in the readings, where all new designs are based strictly off of designs pre 1970's, or do you think there is a new eco-friendly and innovative Danish designs that help the world?
I think most importantly in the future will be the understanding of materials from a designers stand point as well as the manufacturer and the communication between both parties in the design process. As we switch our designing and production methods to that of which are more sustainably sound we need to thoroughly understand the nature of the materials we are using. As new products and materials are being developed it is important we understand their last effects on the environment and those whom come in contact with the products. While a designer might chose the right material for a product, like lets say and all natural fabric covering for a piece of furniture, the sustainability of the piece could be completely shot when the manufacturers use machines that pump massive amounts of CO2 and pollutants into the air.
Femten
ExPPermenter, Handvaerk og Experimenter fra PP by Hanne Kjaerholm Danish Design Center
This article mainly focused on the major craftsman in Danish Design and elaborate on each of their specialties and roles as designers. The article highlights the importance of traditional craftsmanship and it's influential place in Danish society today. Hans Sten Moller is quoted best in the article "The magic of the workshop- Where hand and mind unite." It seems the general appreciation for hand craft is the intimacy between craftsman and material that is lost with mass production and industrialization and that given craftsman and designers embody best. Some of these characteristics include focus on quality, identity, creating community and working cohesively with each other and those they are creating for. Often times with craftsman there is a very cohesive work environment between the designer, the craftsman and the producers. If there is not the designers original intent and design initiatives are lost in translation and the intimacy that should be transferred from designer to consumer is entirely lost. The article speaks of several important designers...
Hans J. Wegner speaks animatedly about the importance of the workshop and enjoys paying visit to PP Mobler in Allerod...a workshop he has followed for nearly 50 years. Wegner grew up in a workshop watching his father make shoes in Tonder. Here Wegner learned how to handle tools and understand the nature of wood. Surrounded by other workshops Wegner learned much through a close knit group of craftsman.
PP Mobler, established in 1953 by brothers Lards Poder and Ejnar Pode, is one of the few joinery firms left anywhere in Denmark. Both were trained as cabinet makers. Their workshop was based on the principles of hand craftsmanship with extreme attention to material, function and form. While remaining true to their intent the brothers were open to experimentation and enjoyed working closely with other designers and craftsman to come up with new designs and ideas.
Nanna Ditzel is considered the grandmother of Danish craftsmanship and furniture design. She collaborated closely with Ejnar Pederson of PP Mobler. Nanna focused on creating sensible functional designs while also contributing a renewed sense of space and form. Her pieces were quite sculptural and could stand alone in a room, able to make a beautiful statement.
Kaare Klint was one of the first designers to change the focus from production for the individual to production for the masses. He studied the way people live and what is truly necessary within the home. Some could say that with this transition from individual designs to designs for the masses there is a loss of culture expressed in design. However it was his ideals to design for the masses that made it affordable and practical for all to have accessibility to good design.
Today's modern design industry focuses mostly on money and efficient production. With this focus much of the intimacy of latter years is lost. In today's design society there is less knowledge of construction, materials and production. Whereas in the past students like Wegner learned by watching and handling materials, today students are not challenged with practical learning. While we may read from textbooks and create models of our studio projects we are not truly familiar with the materials by the time we're finished with our education. We are placed in the market place without much of an idea as to how we should really be designing. While modern industry allows for the masses to have accessibility to design it may not be quality. Where a design society once set precedence on quality not quantity we are beginning to see a transition to a society that is focused and dependent on quantity not quality. The entire idea that all could have accessibility to good design is lost if the quality of design is faltering.
This article mainly focused on the major craftsman in Danish Design and elaborate on each of their specialties and roles as designers. The article highlights the importance of traditional craftsmanship and it's influential place in Danish society today. Hans Sten Moller is quoted best in the article "The magic of the workshop- Where hand and mind unite." It seems the general appreciation for hand craft is the intimacy between craftsman and material that is lost with mass production and industrialization and that given craftsman and designers embody best. Some of these characteristics include focus on quality, identity, creating community and working cohesively with each other and those they are creating for. Often times with craftsman there is a very cohesive work environment between the designer, the craftsman and the producers. If there is not the designers original intent and design initiatives are lost in translation and the intimacy that should be transferred from designer to consumer is entirely lost. The article speaks of several important designers...
Hans J. Wegner speaks animatedly about the importance of the workshop and enjoys paying visit to PP Mobler in Allerod...a workshop he has followed for nearly 50 years. Wegner grew up in a workshop watching his father make shoes in Tonder. Here Wegner learned how to handle tools and understand the nature of wood. Surrounded by other workshops Wegner learned much through a close knit group of craftsman.
PP Mobler, established in 1953 by brothers Lards Poder and Ejnar Pode, is one of the few joinery firms left anywhere in Denmark. Both were trained as cabinet makers. Their workshop was based on the principles of hand craftsmanship with extreme attention to material, function and form. While remaining true to their intent the brothers were open to experimentation and enjoyed working closely with other designers and craftsman to come up with new designs and ideas.
Nanna Ditzel is considered the grandmother of Danish craftsmanship and furniture design. She collaborated closely with Ejnar Pederson of PP Mobler. Nanna focused on creating sensible functional designs while also contributing a renewed sense of space and form. Her pieces were quite sculptural and could stand alone in a room, able to make a beautiful statement.
Kaare Klint was one of the first designers to change the focus from production for the individual to production for the masses. He studied the way people live and what is truly necessary within the home. Some could say that with this transition from individual designs to designs for the masses there is a loss of culture expressed in design. However it was his ideals to design for the masses that made it affordable and practical for all to have accessibility to good design.
Today's modern design industry focuses mostly on money and efficient production. With this focus much of the intimacy of latter years is lost. In today's design society there is less knowledge of construction, materials and production. Whereas in the past students like Wegner learned by watching and handling materials, today students are not challenged with practical learning. While we may read from textbooks and create models of our studio projects we are not truly familiar with the materials by the time we're finished with our education. We are placed in the market place without much of an idea as to how we should really be designing. While modern industry allows for the masses to have accessibility to design it may not be quality. Where a design society once set precedence on quality not quantity we are beginning to see a transition to a society that is focused and dependent on quantity not quality. The entire idea that all could have accessibility to good design is lost if the quality of design is faltering.
lørdag den 20. februar 2010
Fjorten
Symposia in reflection of given text: Applied Art Between Nostalgia and Innovation By Kristian Berg Nielsen.
Notebook Assignment: 1. Explain the debate between John Ruskin and futurist Marinetti.Which one can you related to and why? 2. Do Danish designers employ futurism in their design for solving everyday problems?
1. John Ruskin and Marinetti represent to extreme points of view one either end of the craftsmanship vs mass production debate. As the father of the Arts and Crafts Movement Ruskin takes a firm stand against technology and mass production. During the arts and crafts movement technology wasn't as extremely adverse so the movement as it seems today. While technology has always been present since innovations such as the first wheel, technology today is a different ball game. Our every surface is touched by technology...the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the way we lecture in classrooms and the way we communicate. This blog for example is a graphic digital submission to replace the traditional journal.
Marinetti states that future is more interesting then past...that with technology we can change the way we live in this world, for the better. He sees technology as resource to surpass what those have done before us. Today's technology allows for the speed of change to be rapid and often. While this can be a progressive important part of the way our society functions, some feel that we're going too fast. Marinetti would argue that any sentimental value given to craftsmanship is a romanticist idea and a load of jargon. Marinetti is more of the power type, that sees technology as a way from man to dominate. The operatically for a new renaissance.
Ruskin would side with those who think that technology has enabled us to move too fast into the future, often causing us to forget the past. We've stated in class many times that history repeats itself, generally and also in design and innovation. Thussen suggested that nothing new can be done, that what can be created has already been created, and anything to be done in the future is only a throwback to past innovations. Ruskin argues that if we neglect craftsmanship as an art form we will lose an important connection with what we create. He would support the idea that a craft or piece of art made by hand holds within it a special aura that not only draws the person to it, but touches the person soul. A connection between the creator and the beholder. This connection of creator to beholder is similar to the biblical reference of people being made it God's image...the idea that when you have a piece of craft you somehow see yourself in it...or have the opportunity to connect with the creator. Through the work they have done you've connected at some emotional level. With mass production and use of technology all intimacy is lost. Ruskin sees this as a shame, while Marinetti an opportunity.
I suppose I could consider myself a romanticist. I think that there's a lot of beauty in hand crafted work. While a machine can punch out 300 chairs an hour I am more impressed by the capabilities of my fellow humankind. I am astounded by the talents of many craftsman... I adore things that are made specifically for me. As I stated in class my best friends dad is a glass blower. He has crafted me several pieces of jewelry that are one of a kind and irreplaceable. I think that machinery and technology take the special out of anything. If everyone else has it, what does it say about me? Not very much. Though I understand that technology is a very important part of our society and how we live today, and more so how we will continue to live in the future I am on team Ruskin. I am more so impressed by the creativity of the human hand and eye then that of the computer. It could be interesting to debate that the creator of the computer is a craftsman as well...however that argument is neither here nor there. Why we feel the need to decide one one team or the other I'm not sure. Perhaps because technology strips craftsman of their pride and replaces their talents with a computer, the two cannot meet in the middle. I think both will continue to survive in the future and hopefully some day we will be able to reach a harmonious compromise.
I have greater longing to possess what can't be replaced. What does that say about me?
2. Most Danish designers employ futurism in their design when working on solving everyday problems while also paying a large amount of respect to the founders of Danish design. The Danish value their past as much as they value their future. Danish designers often try to improve upon the past while paying homage to past designers. As mentioned in an earlier blog Phillipe Stark paid obviously homage to the classic Louis XV armchair for Kartell with his creation the Louis Ghost Armchair (2002), said to be a "Postmodern triumph of technical innovation and historical style." While re-creating a classic piece of furniture he reinvented it using technology and modern materials. Most Danish designers design under this school of thought.
The part of Marinetti's futurism that Danish designers employ is the idea that with innovation we can push the envelope and discover human potential in the future. This idea that we're not finished accomplishing as the human race. At the same time Danish designers would agree with Ruskin's dedication to craftsmanship and art, as most Danish designers are themselves trained craftsman. I mentioned earlier that perhaps someday we will find a compromise between Ruskin's field of thought and that of Marinetti. I think of all people Danish designers are on their way to finding a happy medium.
Notebook Assignment: 1. Explain the debate between John Ruskin and futurist Marinetti.Which one can you related to and why? 2. Do Danish designers employ futurism in their design for solving everyday problems?
1. John Ruskin and Marinetti represent to extreme points of view one either end of the craftsmanship vs mass production debate. As the father of the Arts and Crafts Movement Ruskin takes a firm stand against technology and mass production. During the arts and crafts movement technology wasn't as extremely adverse so the movement as it seems today. While technology has always been present since innovations such as the first wheel, technology today is a different ball game. Our every surface is touched by technology...the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the way we lecture in classrooms and the way we communicate. This blog for example is a graphic digital submission to replace the traditional journal.
Marinetti states that future is more interesting then past...that with technology we can change the way we live in this world, for the better. He sees technology as resource to surpass what those have done before us. Today's technology allows for the speed of change to be rapid and often. While this can be a progressive important part of the way our society functions, some feel that we're going too fast. Marinetti would argue that any sentimental value given to craftsmanship is a romanticist idea and a load of jargon. Marinetti is more of the power type, that sees technology as a way from man to dominate. The operatically for a new renaissance.
Ruskin would side with those who think that technology has enabled us to move too fast into the future, often causing us to forget the past. We've stated in class many times that history repeats itself, generally and also in design and innovation. Thussen suggested that nothing new can be done, that what can be created has already been created, and anything to be done in the future is only a throwback to past innovations. Ruskin argues that if we neglect craftsmanship as an art form we will lose an important connection with what we create. He would support the idea that a craft or piece of art made by hand holds within it a special aura that not only draws the person to it, but touches the person soul. A connection between the creator and the beholder. This connection of creator to beholder is similar to the biblical reference of people being made it God's image...the idea that when you have a piece of craft you somehow see yourself in it...or have the opportunity to connect with the creator. Through the work they have done you've connected at some emotional level. With mass production and use of technology all intimacy is lost. Ruskin sees this as a shame, while Marinetti an opportunity.
I suppose I could consider myself a romanticist. I think that there's a lot of beauty in hand crafted work. While a machine can punch out 300 chairs an hour I am more impressed by the capabilities of my fellow humankind. I am astounded by the talents of many craftsman... I adore things that are made specifically for me. As I stated in class my best friends dad is a glass blower. He has crafted me several pieces of jewelry that are one of a kind and irreplaceable. I think that machinery and technology take the special out of anything. If everyone else has it, what does it say about me? Not very much. Though I understand that technology is a very important part of our society and how we live today, and more so how we will continue to live in the future I am on team Ruskin. I am more so impressed by the creativity of the human hand and eye then that of the computer. It could be interesting to debate that the creator of the computer is a craftsman as well...however that argument is neither here nor there. Why we feel the need to decide one one team or the other I'm not sure. Perhaps because technology strips craftsman of their pride and replaces their talents with a computer, the two cannot meet in the middle. I think both will continue to survive in the future and hopefully some day we will be able to reach a harmonious compromise.
I have greater longing to possess what can't be replaced. What does that say about me?
2. Most Danish designers employ futurism in their design when working on solving everyday problems while also paying a large amount of respect to the founders of Danish design. The Danish value their past as much as they value their future. Danish designers often try to improve upon the past while paying homage to past designers. As mentioned in an earlier blog Phillipe Stark paid obviously homage to the classic Louis XV armchair for Kartell with his creation the Louis Ghost Armchair (2002), said to be a "Postmodern triumph of technical innovation and historical style." While re-creating a classic piece of furniture he reinvented it using technology and modern materials. Most Danish designers design under this school of thought.
The part of Marinetti's futurism that Danish designers employ is the idea that with innovation we can push the envelope and discover human potential in the future. This idea that we're not finished accomplishing as the human race. At the same time Danish designers would agree with Ruskin's dedication to craftsmanship and art, as most Danish designers are themselves trained craftsman. I mentioned earlier that perhaps someday we will find a compromise between Ruskin's field of thought and that of Marinetti. I think of all people Danish designers are on their way to finding a happy medium.
torsdag den 18. februar 2010
Tretten
Part-1: Carefully select any singular piece of DK design (specifically from the Post-war period) as seen/experienced in Kunstindustrimuseet’s exhibits today. Select a piece which you feel strongly embodies and typifies DK design as discussed in class and elucidated in the required readings.
Part-2 .Respond to given Thematic: The roles and re-presentations of personal identity and collective/cultural identity in Danish design in the Post-war period (and optionally: also discuss how this relates -or not- to DD today).
I have chosen to select Cecilie Manz's Ladder (1999) as a piece of discussion. While technically the post-war period ended in 1990 however Manz was very much influenced strongest by the Post War Period designers and her work represents what most Danish Designer's sought to express. Manz has been actively and professionally designing from the Manzlab, here in Kobenhavn, since graduating from Danmark Designskole in 1997.
Manz One said "I like to emphasize spontaneity and simplicity. My way of working is firstly to keep a completely open mind about the concept, for example 'table.' I go to great lengths to uncover what functions a table has to fulfill. I let my ideas run wild in the beginning but then as the begin to take shape, I begin to minimize as much as possible."
I have chosen Ladder because it is a very functional piece of design, that is a chair essentially simplified to the point in which is it unrecognizable as a chair. Manz is known for incorporating humor in her designs, as see in Ladder and her well known piece Clothes Tree. While Manz is a newby in the design world she has created a strong design identity among other Danish designers. Among all characteristics of Manz's designs she finds function the most essential element "If I cannot formulate a good reason for a new product, it is better to refrain from making it."
A key aspect of Manz's work has always been simplicity- the process of working towards a pure, aesthetic and narrative object. Her work is sensual, as a designer she opens up her senses for everyday things we usually never reflect on. Such as why can't we hang clothes on a tree? Or why can't we use a ladder as a tool and a comfortable place to rest?
In creating Ladder Manz thinks creatively with respect for the materials and functionality of the piece. Its smooth pieces are fashioned together with traditional wooden joints. Rather then using nail, where unnecessary the piece is kept to a single material. Manz's work is a prime example of her Scandinavian influences and her praises to the fathers of Danish Design. Manz's personal identity is in her unique humorous approach to problem solving. Many of her designs, Ladder included make the viewer question our everyday decisions and tools. Her insight in approach to design is what sets her apart. Rather then creating another chair she creates a tool for sitting, while also creating a tool for reaching. This duality of use is a major characteristic valued in Danish design. Manz's work represents new-school Danish design, that embodies many traces of Danish design past, but challenges restrictions of the past. Manz pushes the envelope while still staying true to form and functionality, which take precedence as the most important parts of her work. Cecilie Manz's inquisitive mind shapes her identity, as an important part of bringing the heart of traditional Danish design boldy into the future.
Part-2 .Respond to given Thematic: The roles and re-presentations of personal identity and collective/cultural identity in Danish design in the Post-war period (and optionally: also discuss how this relates -or not- to DD today).
Manz One said "I like to emphasize spontaneity and simplicity. My way of working is firstly to keep a completely open mind about the concept, for example 'table.' I go to great lengths to uncover what functions a table has to fulfill. I let my ideas run wild in the beginning but then as the begin to take shape, I begin to minimize as much as possible."
I have chosen Ladder because it is a very functional piece of design, that is a chair essentially simplified to the point in which is it unrecognizable as a chair. Manz is known for incorporating humor in her designs, as see in Ladder and her well known piece Clothes Tree. While Manz is a newby in the design world she has created a strong design identity among other Danish designers. Among all characteristics of Manz's designs she finds function the most essential element "If I cannot formulate a good reason for a new product, it is better to refrain from making it."A key aspect of Manz's work has always been simplicity- the process of working towards a pure, aesthetic and narrative object. Her work is sensual, as a designer she opens up her senses for everyday things we usually never reflect on. Such as why can't we hang clothes on a tree? Or why can't we use a ladder as a tool and a comfortable place to rest?
In creating Ladder Manz thinks creatively with respect for the materials and functionality of the piece. Its smooth pieces are fashioned together with traditional wooden joints. Rather then using nail, where unnecessary the piece is kept to a single material. Manz's work is a prime example of her Scandinavian influences and her praises to the fathers of Danish Design. Manz's personal identity is in her unique humorous approach to problem solving. Many of her designs, Ladder included make the viewer question our everyday decisions and tools. Her insight in approach to design is what sets her apart. Rather then creating another chair she creates a tool for sitting, while also creating a tool for reaching. This duality of use is a major characteristic valued in Danish design. Manz's work represents new-school Danish design, that embodies many traces of Danish design past, but challenges restrictions of the past. Manz pushes the envelope while still staying true to form and functionality, which take precedence as the most important parts of her work. Cecilie Manz's inquisitive mind shapes her identity, as an important part of bringing the heart of traditional Danish design boldy into the future.
søndag den 14. februar 2010
Tolv
When reflecting of Kristian Berg Nielsen's "Applied Art between nostalgia and innovation" I can't help but feel that applied art, as its own entity within the art system, is essentially design. His article, while aimed to discuss the differences between fine arts and applied arts, encompasses the debate over whether designed objects can considerably art on their own. Form separately considered from that of function.
Nielsen suggests it paradoxical that "applied art" still exists within our industrial society and further notes that applied art has taken the position between art and industry. By taking this place applied art is thought to lose the beauty and quality of craftsman created pieces of "fine art." If a design is massed produced and accessible to the multitudes it disconnects with the intention and beauty of the materialization and form of the artist or designers original intent. To possess something original and hand-crafted creates a feeling of connectivity with the designer and the intimacy of craft. When possessing something bound by machinery and industrialization one loses the intimacy of the latter. Nielsen suggests that applied arts have fallen to industrialization and therefore no longer posses the quality established through fine arts.
Nielsen further suggests that the ideals of perfectionism, often obtained by those acting in the arts and crafts movements, is lost when products are mass produced. He always notes that much of the beauty in hand-crafted work is that while it may function perfectly, nothing created by the hands of man is perfect. And in that there's a profound beauty, it is essential to all we know in life "The sign of life in a moral body" (36). When we lose this disconnect much of what makes art important to the human sole, is lost. Neilsen notes that this disconnect came in timely fashion with the twentieth centuries Futuristic ideas "The dizzying gospel of speed" (38). As we have moved further and further into the technological age, we are closer and closer to not needing the creativity and craftsmanship of the human hand. As a result the industrial products we now chose to use are things chosen solely for function, not for soul.
Writer Octavio Paz once claimed "We have a functional relationship with the industrial object and a religious one with the art object" (41) denying the industrial product any concrete sensual beauty. While industrial objects are objectively right or wrong, like that of mathematics the express"The truth of formula. It is designed for a function. It works or it does not work" (41). The most clear disparity between applied arts and fine arts is the connection between the viewer and the original idea of the creator, all interpretative areas are lost with industrial production. Applied arts are meaningless.
Nielsen argues that applied arts have detached from the demands of utility and applicability, and the less direct competition from industrial design, therefore giving the applied arts freedom to to rethink the relationship among materials and form. As previously discussed in class there is a space between what is art and what is design. From what Nielsen writes, one could almost say that space has been taken by the applied arts. Pieces neither considered fine arts and or design, that however serve a critical role in fulfilling the mass demand for things in our society. At the pace in which our society is increasingly demanding more and developing in size we need more things. As this continues into the future we will certainly have to rethink the way we make things and perhaps start reshaping material choice and selection towards more ecologically friendly production processes. Nielsen suggests that this process could be a very welcoming opportunity for the applied arts to reestablish themselves as not only important but as a creative member of the arts family.
Nielsen suggests it paradoxical that "applied art" still exists within our industrial society and further notes that applied art has taken the position between art and industry. By taking this place applied art is thought to lose the beauty and quality of craftsman created pieces of "fine art." If a design is massed produced and accessible to the multitudes it disconnects with the intention and beauty of the materialization and form of the artist or designers original intent. To possess something original and hand-crafted creates a feeling of connectivity with the designer and the intimacy of craft. When possessing something bound by machinery and industrialization one loses the intimacy of the latter. Nielsen suggests that applied arts have fallen to industrialization and therefore no longer posses the quality established through fine arts.
Nielsen further suggests that the ideals of perfectionism, often obtained by those acting in the arts and crafts movements, is lost when products are mass produced. He always notes that much of the beauty in hand-crafted work is that while it may function perfectly, nothing created by the hands of man is perfect. And in that there's a profound beauty, it is essential to all we know in life "The sign of life in a moral body" (36). When we lose this disconnect much of what makes art important to the human sole, is lost. Neilsen notes that this disconnect came in timely fashion with the twentieth centuries Futuristic ideas "The dizzying gospel of speed" (38). As we have moved further and further into the technological age, we are closer and closer to not needing the creativity and craftsmanship of the human hand. As a result the industrial products we now chose to use are things chosen solely for function, not for soul.
Writer Octavio Paz once claimed "We have a functional relationship with the industrial object and a religious one with the art object" (41) denying the industrial product any concrete sensual beauty. While industrial objects are objectively right or wrong, like that of mathematics the express"The truth of formula. It is designed for a function. It works or it does not work" (41). The most clear disparity between applied arts and fine arts is the connection between the viewer and the original idea of the creator, all interpretative areas are lost with industrial production. Applied arts are meaningless.Nielsen argues that applied arts have detached from the demands of utility and applicability, and the less direct competition from industrial design, therefore giving the applied arts freedom to to rethink the relationship among materials and form. As previously discussed in class there is a space between what is art and what is design. From what Nielsen writes, one could almost say that space has been taken by the applied arts. Pieces neither considered fine arts and or design, that however serve a critical role in fulfilling the mass demand for things in our society. At the pace in which our society is increasingly demanding more and developing in size we need more things. As this continues into the future we will certainly have to rethink the way we make things and perhaps start reshaping material choice and selection towards more ecologically friendly production processes. Nielsen suggests that this process could be a very welcoming opportunity for the applied arts to reestablish themselves as not only important but as a creative member of the arts family.
Elleve
What is democratic design? Is designs that are accessible to all? Is it design that benefits everyone, like a public library? Is it a design that everyone can use like a band-aid? Is a design democratic merely because it is within most peoples financial capabilities? Is it something that is mass produced so many people can own one, like an Arne Jacobson chair? When considering all questions it is important that a very large part of democracy is the given right of choice. Who is responsible for designing democratically? The designer, the producer, the consumer? Many danish designers have adopted the ideals of "Social Art" or "Designs for the people," in which they create and produce with a wide variety of consumers in mind. Many Danish designers feel it is an integral part of what they do, to facilitate as many people as they can with their designs, so that all, the poor or the elite have accessibility to good designs. Betterment of life for all through design. This is a democratic choice made by many designers. To understand Democratic Design within in the Danish realm of thought we look to the past as a tool of understand how democratic design developed.
Back in the day the number of the elite who had accessibility to fine arts and beautiful designer were only 10%, while the remaining 90% consisted mainly of peasants. Peasants mainly had primitive crafts available to them. As with many things throughout history, one way to measure wealth was by what people could surround themselves with, leaving most people artless. During the middle 1700s Danish design was influenced by the french flamboyant Rococo style, in which asymmetry , elaborate carvings and natural motifs were of choice. Rococo's over the top, excessive quality is something we rarely see in Danish design today because during the Classicism Period people were encouraged to celebrate freedom and equality. When design took a turn to look back on classic architecture designers took note that there was beauty in simplicity and that design was an important part of all peoples lives. The turn to classical architecture and order was a result of the new democracy of the time...again design influences change in society. In the late 1700s the Danes returned to craftsmanship and started to develop an industry in producing designs. It was around this time that Gruntvig established the importance of education for the masses. It was his approach to education, whereas art and design were the most integral part in enriching ones mind, that the Danish people started to fully adopt a respect for the importance of accessible design, for all people Thus democratic design is born.
Simultaneous people started fusing many types of style within one space. Where during the Rococo time everything was ornate and over the top, now a single piece of elaborate furniture would be placed within a room. Eclectic style became a way of showcasing ones wealth and status. So there after the Dane's started setting precedence on the functionality of design, based on the use of natural resources and efficient materials. During the beginning of the Functionalism period when designers considered the use and functionality of the product rather then the person they were creating in mind. When designs became less personal they certainly became more democratic...Everyone will use a knife the same way...if it he knife is created with the intention of function in mind, all users are considered equally or democratically rather. Around the time of the Bauhaus and De Stijl movement there was a large emergence of artists and craftsman in which minimalism and simplicity were favored. Essential items were being produced for people of all social classes while the quality of the work remained up to Danish par. Nothing was to be designed that wasn't necessary, as unusable objects were thought to be a distraction and clutter.
It took a few centuries for the Dane's to put a mark on their design. The Danes seem to pride themselves on quality, craftsmanship, functionality and designs that can be used by the masses. Comparatively to the American society, the Dane's practice within a very socialist society, in which the people are considered first. All for one, one for all... Or in this case one design, designed for all. Is that democracy?
Back in the day the number of the elite who had accessibility to fine arts and beautiful designer were only 10%, while the remaining 90% consisted mainly of peasants. Peasants mainly had primitive crafts available to them. As with many things throughout history, one way to measure wealth was by what people could surround themselves with, leaving most people artless. During the middle 1700s Danish design was influenced by the french flamboyant Rococo style, in which asymmetry , elaborate carvings and natural motifs were of choice. Rococo's over the top, excessive quality is something we rarely see in Danish design today because during the Classicism Period people were encouraged to celebrate freedom and equality. When design took a turn to look back on classic architecture designers took note that there was beauty in simplicity and that design was an important part of all peoples lives. The turn to classical architecture and order was a result of the new democracy of the time...again design influences change in society. In the late 1700s the Danes returned to craftsmanship and started to develop an industry in producing designs. It was around this time that Gruntvig established the importance of education for the masses. It was his approach to education, whereas art and design were the most integral part in enriching ones mind, that the Danish people started to fully adopt a respect for the importance of accessible design, for all people Thus democratic design is born.
Simultaneous people started fusing many types of style within one space. Where during the Rococo time everything was ornate and over the top, now a single piece of elaborate furniture would be placed within a room. Eclectic style became a way of showcasing ones wealth and status. So there after the Dane's started setting precedence on the functionality of design, based on the use of natural resources and efficient materials. During the beginning of the Functionalism period when designers considered the use and functionality of the product rather then the person they were creating in mind. When designs became less personal they certainly became more democratic...Everyone will use a knife the same way...if it he knife is created with the intention of function in mind, all users are considered equally or democratically rather. Around the time of the Bauhaus and De Stijl movement there was a large emergence of artists and craftsman in which minimalism and simplicity were favored. Essential items were being produced for people of all social classes while the quality of the work remained up to Danish par. Nothing was to be designed that wasn't necessary, as unusable objects were thought to be a distraction and clutter.
It took a few centuries for the Dane's to put a mark on their design. The Danes seem to pride themselves on quality, craftsmanship, functionality and designs that can be used by the masses. Comparatively to the American society, the Dane's practice within a very socialist society, in which the people are considered first. All for one, one for all... Or in this case one design, designed for all. Is that democracy?
fredag den 12. februar 2010
Ti
1. Do you see a merge between politics and design? In Denmark? If so, why is it successful?
I think that Anne Marie Summerhayes summed it up best within the title of her article "Design, is an integral part of the Danish," inferring that Danish society is so integrated with Danish design that the two are incomplete without each other. Overtime many Danish designers have prided themselves on being "Social Artists," in that they design with the people of a large demographic in mind. A society, while shaped by design, cannot stand alone without a well functioning political system. It would be interesting to debate, with a culture that has so cohesively integrated design into her people, whether it is the design that has shaped the political system, or whether the political system constituted the significance of good design within a society.
It seems that politically here in Denmark the idea is to consume less, to help the people, what is better for the people is also better and more respectful for the land. The liberalism of this political system has given the people many choices on a personal level while intricately lacing the political system with enforced energy and environmentally friendly intensives. While in the United States people may not care about running a lot of water, it's because it is taken for granted how inexpensive it is, thus seems dispensable. Conservative water usage is just one example of how the Danish society has been shaped by governmental intensive. Give the option, one can waste as much hot water as they want in their flat, but why would they if they know they'll be charged up the ying-yang for doing so...Still however they are liberated by being given that choice.
Due to governmental and political incentives designers have also had to succumb to this decision making process. No architecture firm, or furniture producer is going to waste water within their design, if they will also be charged for it. These obstacles have not only encouraged creative innovative thinking within in the Danish economy but within the Danish people. I think it is a very successful way of constituting the amount of waste a society can eliminate. To me it seems foolish every country doesn't run under this sort of political system. When given the freedom of choice, most often then not, people are going to do what benefits them, whether because of money incentive or healthy, usually the option that is best for me, is also you and more importantly the world and society in which we live. It's a very smart way of forcing cooperation without strict in your face enforcement.
2. Choose something that you have bought here in Denmark. Is it well designed? Why did you buy it? Is it a product of democratic design? (Consider topics from the lecture such as functionalism, style confusion, availability, minimalism, name brands, tradition and renewal).
This week I bought tape at Tiger. I needed scotch tape to put things on my walls. Thus far my Tiger brand tape has been holding up just as well as any Scotch tape would do. I mention Scotch Tape because it is the name brand version of all scotch tapes. While one might feel more assured that Scotch tape will work better then scotch tape it is important to remember that the function of this Scotch tape verse scotch tape will not differ greatly. My Tiger scotch tape was 3 rolls for 10kr. For the USD I think a roll of Scotch tape is at least 3 dollars, so I double my money by buying Tiger's scotch instead.
We determined in class that money will always be an issue of debate when discussing Democratic Design. In my mind tape should be something that is very inexpensive to purchase. I know that tape is very inexpensive to create, so therefore it shouldn't be expensive in stores. A company such as target sets their price point more accurately to that of the production cost, whereas name brand companies jack up the prices because given their title or name, people will chose to spend more status. So when buying Scotch tape over Tiger scotch tape, maybe it's not an appropriate example, someone might choose Scotch tape because it is reliable and well known. The money we spend is for the name and status. They extra dollar or two, or two thousand is because people feel a need to establish themselves within their given society. We all, without recognizing so, have fallen to this social system in which the status we achieve is indirectly who we are. In the manner of Tiger scotch tape over Scotch tape I feel the democratic decision to make is personal. Isn't that what democracy is about? Choice? I think in a society with products and designs ranging from low price points to high, in all varieties of style and aesthetic we are given many choices as to what we want and need. If there weren't differences in designed items, and there was only one choice of scotch tape purchasing it wouldn't be democratic at all.
I think that Anne Marie Summerhayes summed it up best within the title of her article "Design, is an integral part of the Danish," inferring that Danish society is so integrated with Danish design that the two are incomplete without each other. Overtime many Danish designers have prided themselves on being "Social Artists," in that they design with the people of a large demographic in mind. A society, while shaped by design, cannot stand alone without a well functioning political system. It would be interesting to debate, with a culture that has so cohesively integrated design into her people, whether it is the design that has shaped the political system, or whether the political system constituted the significance of good design within a society.
It seems that politically here in Denmark the idea is to consume less, to help the people, what is better for the people is also better and more respectful for the land. The liberalism of this political system has given the people many choices on a personal level while intricately lacing the political system with enforced energy and environmentally friendly intensives. While in the United States people may not care about running a lot of water, it's because it is taken for granted how inexpensive it is, thus seems dispensable. Conservative water usage is just one example of how the Danish society has been shaped by governmental intensive. Give the option, one can waste as much hot water as they want in their flat, but why would they if they know they'll be charged up the ying-yang for doing so...Still however they are liberated by being given that choice.
Due to governmental and political incentives designers have also had to succumb to this decision making process. No architecture firm, or furniture producer is going to waste water within their design, if they will also be charged for it. These obstacles have not only encouraged creative innovative thinking within in the Danish economy but within the Danish people. I think it is a very successful way of constituting the amount of waste a society can eliminate. To me it seems foolish every country doesn't run under this sort of political system. When given the freedom of choice, most often then not, people are going to do what benefits them, whether because of money incentive or healthy, usually the option that is best for me, is also you and more importantly the world and society in which we live. It's a very smart way of forcing cooperation without strict in your face enforcement.
2. Choose something that you have bought here in Denmark. Is it well designed? Why did you buy it? Is it a product of democratic design? (Consider topics from the lecture such as functionalism, style confusion, availability, minimalism, name brands, tradition and renewal).
We determined in class that money will always be an issue of debate when discussing Democratic Design. In my mind tape should be something that is very inexpensive to purchase. I know that tape is very inexpensive to create, so therefore it shouldn't be expensive in stores. A company such as target sets their price point more accurately to that of the production cost, whereas name brand companies jack up the prices because given their title or name, people will chose to spend more status. So when buying Scotch tape over Tiger scotch tape, maybe it's not an appropriate example, someone might choose Scotch tape because it is reliable and well known. The money we spend is for the name and status. They extra dollar or two, or two thousand is because people feel a need to establish themselves within their given society. We all, without recognizing so, have fallen to this social system in which the status we achieve is indirectly who we are. In the manner of Tiger scotch tape over Scotch tape I feel the democratic decision to make is personal. Isn't that what democracy is about? Choice? I think in a society with products and designs ranging from low price points to high, in all varieties of style and aesthetic we are given many choices as to what we want and need. If there weren't differences in designed items, and there was only one choice of scotch tape purchasing it wouldn't be democratic at all.
onsdag den 10. februar 2010
Ni
When contemplating what the major differences are between contemporary Danish design and that of classic or rather historical Danish design it is easy to become confused. (Or for me at least). Most of the modern, and or typical pieces seen in Danish homes, restaurants and hotels are designed by the front runners in Danish Design, like Arne Jacabson and Verner Panton so on and so forth. These who have created the typical Danish Designs still have their designs in production today, thus they are still appreciated and used as contemporary pieces on a regular basis.
I chose to pick two pieces that while both modern in style represent two very different time periods in Danish Design. The first by Phillip Stark is the Louis Ghost Armchair (2002), a reinvention and ode to the classic Louis XV armchair for Kartell. The Louis Ghost Armchair is said to be a "Postmodern triumph of technical innovation and historical style." Stark translates the formal geometry of its predecessor into a single form of translucent or opaque black molded polycarbonate. It is a robust, generously proportioned chair, without a weak point offering the owner a leisurely seat. Due to the materialality of the chair it is suited for indoor or outdoor spaces.
On the flip side I chose Erik Magnussen's Chairik 101. Erik Magnussen was born in 1940 in Copenhagen. Educated as a ceramist at The School of Applied Arts and Design - graduated with a silver medal in 1960. He has worked for several companies designed a wide range of furniture and accessories.Chairik is a stackable comfort. It is simple and a reassuring seat for the many that chose it. It is designed as a meeting chair for the laid-back, a bar stool for the elevated and a shell chair for those shopping on a budget. It can be made on lets or runners, with or without arm rests, with or without writing tablets for students and is offered Leather-clad, upholstered or in Melamine of many colors. It has been produced to be offered as a flexible piece of furniture that appeals, and is affordable for the masses.
Both chairs are produced with the Danish theory in mind that all should have accessibility to good design, as so both are flexible in aesthetic options and are moderately priced. Ghost Armchair certainly has a more modern feel to it, but is a clear throw back to an original chair design. It has been modernized and redesigned to be a bit more luxurious is shape and size, but it however using a fairly inexpensive looking material. While the polycarbonate material is a sturdy option, it doesn't have the same elegance of the natural woods and steel that many designers limit themselves to as a challenge and also an ode to their predecessors. As well the quality and purpose of the chair seems to malfunction. While being marketed as an indoor/ outdoor stack-able piece, it fails to stack properly in the store. Importantly enough, the Dane's design full functioning, beautiful designed pieces, each phase complete, such as stacking.
On the contrary Magnussen's Chairik 101 is designed to be a stack-able chair as well, and does so with ease. Also Magnussen's approach to material usage was originally wood and steel...overtime the chair has been marketed for a broad range of users at several different price points and materials. Magnussen's chair is simple and beautiful and embodies that of a typical Danish design. While Ghost Armchair is designed by a Danish taught student it does not indirectly pay homage to original Danish designers with the same finesse as Chairik 101. With title and form Ghost Armchair pays direct homage to Louis XV Armchair, however the translation seems lost with the chairs material usage and the functionality of the chair.
Danish designers work very hard to improve on the past and to pay homage to the designers who perfected form before them, while intending to improve function. These two chairs are certainly marketed for different audiences and embody different facets of Danish design. I chose the two pieces because it struck me as odd that the Louis Ghost Armchair was being marketed as a stack-able and was a piled up mess in the store. Whether the chairs size or material does not lend itself to a tidy stack, I'm not sure. I am sure that most Danish designers make sure the shape and size of their chair is perfect before selling it to a certain market. I feel that out of the two the classic/historical piece Chairik 101 pays better homage to typical Danish Design and style.
I chose to pick two pieces that while both modern in style represent two very different time periods in Danish Design. The first by Phillip Stark is the Louis Ghost Armchair (2002), a reinvention and ode to the classic Louis XV armchair for Kartell. The Louis Ghost Armchair is said to be a "Postmodern triumph of technical innovation and historical style." Stark translates the formal geometry of its predecessor into a single form of translucent or opaque black molded polycarbonate. It is a robust, generously proportioned chair, without a weak point offering the owner a leisurely seat. Due to the materialality of the chair it is suited for indoor or outdoor spaces.
On the flip side I chose Erik Magnussen's Chairik 101. Erik Magnussen was born in 1940 in Copenhagen. Educated as a ceramist at The School of Applied Arts and Design - graduated with a silver medal in 1960. He has worked for several companies designed a wide range of furniture and accessories.Chairik is a stackable comfort. It is simple and a reassuring seat for the many that chose it. It is designed as a meeting chair for the laid-back, a bar stool for the elevated and a shell chair for those shopping on a budget. It can be made on lets or runners, with or without arm rests, with or without writing tablets for students and is offered Leather-clad, upholstered or in Melamine of many colors. It has been produced to be offered as a flexible piece of furniture that appeals, and is affordable for the masses.
Both chairs are produced with the Danish theory in mind that all should have accessibility to good design, as so both are flexible in aesthetic options and are moderately priced. Ghost Armchair certainly has a more modern feel to it, but is a clear throw back to an original chair design. It has been modernized and redesigned to be a bit more luxurious is shape and size, but it however using a fairly inexpensive looking material. While the polycarbonate material is a sturdy option, it doesn't have the same elegance of the natural woods and steel that many designers limit themselves to as a challenge and also an ode to their predecessors. As well the quality and purpose of the chair seems to malfunction. While being marketed as an indoor/ outdoor stack-able piece, it fails to stack properly in the store. Importantly enough, the Dane's design full functioning, beautiful designed pieces, each phase complete, such as stacking.
On the contrary Magnussen's Chairik 101 is designed to be a stack-able chair as well, and does so with ease. Also Magnussen's approach to material usage was originally wood and steel...overtime the chair has been marketed for a broad range of users at several different price points and materials. Magnussen's chair is simple and beautiful and embodies that of a typical Danish design. While Ghost Armchair is designed by a Danish taught student it does not indirectly pay homage to original Danish designers with the same finesse as Chairik 101. With title and form Ghost Armchair pays direct homage to Louis XV Armchair, however the translation seems lost with the chairs material usage and the functionality of the chair.
Danish designers work very hard to improve on the past and to pay homage to the designers who perfected form before them, while intending to improve function. These two chairs are certainly marketed for different audiences and embody different facets of Danish design. I chose the two pieces because it struck me as odd that the Louis Ghost Armchair was being marketed as a stack-able and was a piled up mess in the store. Whether the chairs size or material does not lend itself to a tidy stack, I'm not sure. I am sure that most Danish designers make sure the shape and size of their chair is perfect before selling it to a certain market. I feel that out of the two the classic/historical piece Chairik 101 pays better homage to typical Danish Design and style.
tirsdag den 9. februar 2010
Otte
There has thus far been much debate and discussion in class about what constitutes something as art and further classifies an item as design. The notion that only thing the art system can create is challenged by design within the art system. Though subjective one could say that to be classified as design an item must act as a tool for use that serves a specific function.
The given example in class was LEGO. LEGO can be seen as art, as a tool, as a design element, as fashion and in its most intentional form a tool for children to "Play well." And while the LEGO can fit into all these categories the line between art and design quickly fades into the abyss, the space between these two well defined areas. What is the space between?
I immediately thought of the BIG exhibition at the Aros Museum. There was a model made out of LEGO. The LEGO served its original purpose of building blocks and was used as a tool of experiment with shape. It was further photographed and made into a photoshopped comic strip. This comic strip was a story as well as a piece of art. It didn't take long for the LEGO to be turned into something else. Further more the picture below is an image I took, so now this LEGO structure has been full circle and my own photograph could be considered a form of documentation and art.Why is it important to draw a line between art and design? Why do we get so stuck on the idea that the two should be considered separate entities. Is it because we can give a value to a designed object but we can't art, as it remains subjective. Is it this notion of good or bad, subjective and objective that draws the parimaters for what is considered Art and what is considered Design?
Who decides the value of the in between? And again, what is this in between. Is it a piece of art that is so worked it becomes design and eventually art again? Is it such a cohesion between the two entities that they aren't different at all? Is the space between that need we feel as humans to connect...that maybe when we push the envelope of what's been done, and try to replicate or reshape designs until we reach a point of neither art or design.
I would like to think of the space between art and design as the piece that keeps up coming back. The place that gives designers a reason to design. Though said that we all may be cogs in the machine there is still a space left between art and design, between function and aesthetic, room for growth and change. Room for inspiration only found between the two entities of art and design. Is this when we create something so intangible that it links the best of both realms under the larger umbrella art system?
Dave Matthews once sang "The Space Between / What's wrong and right / Is where you'll find me hiding, waiting for you / The Space Between / Your heart and mine / Is the space we'll fill with time / The Space Between..."
There is a relevant similarity between the emotional connection we feel as designers with the work that we create, to the connection of two peoples hearts. Many times people cannot figure out what draws them to another human being, or what makes two peoples hearts connect as is this driving force that acts as almost a stimulus to the designer and or the onlooker of a piece of art. Time and time again people feel the need to fill this impalpable void by surrounding ourselves with art and beautiful design. It is almost as the space between art and design is the the part that keeps people coming back for more.
The given example in class was LEGO. LEGO can be seen as art, as a tool, as a design element, as fashion and in its most intentional form a tool for children to "Play well." And while the LEGO can fit into all these categories the line between art and design quickly fades into the abyss, the space between these two well defined areas. What is the space between?
Who decides the value of the in between? And again, what is this in between. Is it a piece of art that is so worked it becomes design and eventually art again? Is it such a cohesion between the two entities that they aren't different at all? Is the space between that need we feel as humans to connect...that maybe when we push the envelope of what's been done, and try to replicate or reshape designs until we reach a point of neither art or design.
I would like to think of the space between art and design as the piece that keeps up coming back. The place that gives designers a reason to design. Though said that we all may be cogs in the machine there is still a space left between art and design, between function and aesthetic, room for growth and change. Room for inspiration only found between the two entities of art and design. Is this when we create something so intangible that it links the best of both realms under the larger umbrella art system?
Dave Matthews once sang "The Space Between / What's wrong and right / Is where you'll find me hiding, waiting for you / The Space Between / Your heart and mine / Is the space we'll fill with time / The Space Between..."
There is a relevant similarity between the emotional connection we feel as designers with the work that we create, to the connection of two peoples hearts. Many times people cannot figure out what draws them to another human being, or what makes two peoples hearts connect as is this driving force that acts as almost a stimulus to the designer and or the onlooker of a piece of art. Time and time again people feel the need to fill this impalpable void by surrounding ourselves with art and beautiful design. It is almost as the space between art and design is the the part that keeps people coming back for more.
mandag den 8. februar 2010
Svy
Jacabson is known for his strict control of quality of design. While practicing as an architect furniture design became a natural part of his building development and total design style. Jacabson had an exceptional talent of understand the conception of the spaces he was designing. He strove to solve structural problems while simultaneous creating valuable aesthetic possibilities.Because of his strong convictions and temperament his designs were sensible, well thought through and beautiful, molded to the exact environment he foresaw.
As a silversmith Henning Koppel studied at the Danish Academy of Fine Arts and after WWII he began working in Georg Jensen's Solvsmedie. His work ranged from glass, stainless steel, fabric to stamps, furniture and items molded from plastic and porcelain. He was said to "Renew possibilities within silver." His original works, designed with attention drawing strength and shape have been up to much interpretation while inspiring imagination in the viewer. He was a believer that excess was suitable when surrounding oneself with beautiful art. In this strange paradox a silversmith cannot be a "social artist" due to the exclusivity of the material. This attitude is generally avoided by most Danish designers, as formally mentioned Arne Jacabson was eager to explore materials that all could afford. One might argue Jacabson a designer, Koppel an artist. 
Borge Mogensen's idea was the simpler the better. He prided himself on finding constructive solutions to design problems and challenged himself by using natural materials, most specifically and more often then not, wood. While dedicating himself to quality he was a pioneer in developing better everyday products for the larger public. He saw furniture as everyday tools and specified in using pinewood to create light pieces of furniture. While the term not yet coined he focused on using products that were cradle to cradle, he thought it a waste to use synthetic materials like plastic, regarding such items as useless rubbish. He sought to improve quality of life while also improving how designs were being developed and produced.
Moller compares the problem solving attitude of Mogensen's to that of Palle Nielson. Palle Neilson graduated from the School of Arts, Crafts and Design, Copenhagen and also the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. His primary design work drawing spaces that opened doors for the viewer to first recognize problems in society, and also to imagine distant places. He saw his work as a way to "Exist in space formed by innumerable intersections in my way of expressing existence" (104). He has the ability to see in a form of expression and experience. He thought the "Artist exists on experience. Not theories" (107). While Mogensen created for function he shared the same school of thought as Nielson. If one cannot see the problems, they cannot fix them. And if they do not exist and experience the problems, they will never know how to fix them. Mogensen lived quite modestly and when encountering a problem for himself, he was design a solution first for himself, and then he would make it available to all. Nielson shared his knowledge of experience with the masses through his drawings. Moller continues to discuss the designs of Lars Ulrik Thomsen, a goldsmith. His work remained exclusive throughout time of production, comparable to that of Hanning Koppel, the material did not offer itself to the general population. Thomsen went to the School of Applied Art Copenhagen. He was a surrealist and his work was mystical, fantastically covered in jewels and rubies. More often then not they were uneven surfaces and did not compare to the aesthetics of typical sleek, simple, subtle Danish design. Thomsen created art over the purpose of design...while his works were beautiful and crafted with quality of Danish standards, they were not made with the masses in mind, or much thought of functionality. In a sense one could say, though while a cabinet maker designer Finn Juhl shared Thomsen's favoring of the unique and precious. Juhl rendered himself to the materials in which he worked and designed by the sculptural effects of the Nuevo Period. His works were dandy and sensitive to many art forms. He was strong in creating spacial compositions that embodied the soft forms of music. While his fellow cabinet makers were strict in practice and perfecting he allowed spaces to develop and come into themselves. Jacabson wanted to know exactly how his design would function and precisely what it would look like when complete while Thomsen explored materials less aggressively.
Moller explores the styles and careers of several Danish design front runners. It seems most designers shared the passion of exploring ones own potential within their given field. Each seeking to improve upon the perfected. Though some created for mere aesthetic luxurious pleasure and others improving the functions of daily tools, all were attempting to push the boundary of what had been done before. When thinking of typical Danish design I think of these architects and designers as one class of elites. It is important to remember that while they all shared common grounds, they differ from each other on many levels, each with his or her own motivation. It goes back to the designers place in society within the art system. Why do we chose to design? It is because we're drawn to certain materials, because we know not what else to do with our imagination or is it truly because human nature propels us to explore the possibilities of man's mind. By pushing this boundary a designer enhances the quality of life for the masses and for the selective elite who can afford ruby covered gold. Is that not a key role in shaping a functioning society?
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)
