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.
lørdag den 20. februar 2010
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?
onsdag den 3. februar 2010
Seks
1. Is it possible for a designer to keep their artistic integrity while also expanding to the likes of the masses? Do any specific Danish designers come to mind? Are their stores or companies that aim to facilitate good design for the masses?
I think that it is possible for a designer to keep their integrity while expanding to the likes of the masses if you don't jeopardize what made you stand out in the market in the first place. If you strike peoples fancy because of an original idea you should stick by your artistic convictions. I think that often when products or companies chose to go mainstream they either lose the quality of their work or they change the major aesthetics and style of their work to appeal to the times and fads. In the past many successful Danish designs have been submitted to the industrial stream of production while maintaining the quality they were favored for in the first place, such as Arne Jacobson's Danish Chair circa 1957. The sleek modern design of the chair has been impressing and satisfying customer's expectations for half a century.
When I think of a specific Danish company that has branded and marketed to the masses globally I think of Lego. The Lego company has been a part of my life as long as I can remember. Invented by toy maker and master carpenter Ole Kirk and his son in 1933. When adopting the name Lego in 1934 Kirk displayed his marketing motive and intention for the toy. Lego is formed from the Danish word "LEg GOdt" meaning "Play well." Ironically, in Latin the lego meanss "I study" or "I put together." On May 1, 1949 the world LEGO officially became a trademark of Denmark.
Growing up every kid I knew enjoyed playing with Lego's and at a fairly moderate price you have always been able to purchase a wide variety of Lego sets. While Lego's are a simple toy the enhance the imagination of it's user and also help shape little designers. In the world of Lego there are infinite possibilities to what a child can create, or in my case a young adult. When baby sitting my cousins and niece I still play with Lego's and enjoy them thorough. The design of the Lego's is truly that of typical danish genius. While functioning excellently and remaining simple the Lego has touched the heart of many and truly catered the masses cross culturally. The Lego company is a great example of an original artistic designed idea that was able to appeal to the masses while still instill in the customer the original quality of the product. The Lego product has always been well branded and has portrayed to the customer a fun toy that serves as an outlet for creativity and learning for the child whom is so lucky to play with such a toy.
2. Using the Images/text recorded during the branding exercise answer the following question: Why did you chose to draw your image? What does it say about the popularity of a brand? And what messages is being shared by it? How important is good branding?
All of the brands given to us in class have become icons in American society. Disney for many reasons has warmed the hearts of all and for me I immediately thought of Mickey Mouse. Whether it's because I know he is the original Disney character, or because he is my favorite, he is what I sketched in class. It goes without saying Disney is well known and has grown into a massive industry within itself. I prefer the old school cartoons. I think that Disney now stands for such a multitude of things that it is hard to comment on its popularity.
When thinking of Nintendo I naturally thought of Mario Kart N64 Style and my main racing man Toad. My roommate and I had an issue with over playing the game this past semester. While I have never been a video game person and have always preferred alternative sources of entertainment I am familiar with Nintendo brand and logo, as are many globally. I think that Nintendo 64 and the original Nintendo have an authentic, almost vintage image in the realm of digital entertainment. Nintendo was one of the first types of video game entertainment and for those in my generation playing these games brings to back to when computers and digital media were simpler. Today I have the software and ability to make animated movies with similar technology as Pixar. My generation was born into the age of technology, it has always been around us, and funny to think about, but brands like Nintendo almost have sentimental value. Nintendo has had a lasting branding and marketing effect on my generation.
When thinking about Starbucks I actually couldn't think of the Logo. I am a Dunkin' Donut girl for sure. I did however think immediately of generic coffee beans. Whether this reflection speaks to my addiction to caffeine or the quality of Starbucks branding I'm not sure. I suppose this could be on a preferential base or because Starbuck's hasn't been around as long as Nintendo and Walt Disney Pictures. The Starbucks logo itself almost portrays a Statue of Liberty-esk women in the middle. I think the logo simply adopted the idea that it was America's coffee inferring they wanted to appeal to the masses. With a company such as Starbucks there is almost always a market. What the branding or my identity says with the branding does not necessarily reflect the true popularity of such a company, as I am one.
In today's fast pace, technology driven economy and society branding is everything in a company's success or failure. For the past semester I had portfolio class in which the main goal was to develop graphically an entire package of branding that portrayed myself as a designer and person. As displayed in the top image on my blog my logo DLCH is simply my initials. I chose to use my initials as my main identity because not everyone has two middle names. Dani Loryn Christi Hill is written on most of my projects and documents, along with my logo. What sets me apart is more then my name, but to identify with a future employer or internship possibility I felt this one of many ways in which I could set myself apart from others. I don't think that branding for a company is also so much about the significance of the logo and graphic presentation, its success or failure is more dependent on whether or not the logo is recognized. Within the graphic design system there are infinite ways in which one can mature and manipulate their ideas, but that is neither here nor there. Developing a brand for a company is much more then the logo. What sets a company apart from the others, what registers as familiar and trust worthy is what brings consumers back time after time. While my trust factor may be in Dunkin' Donuts the next person's security is in their favorite coffee shop could justifiably be Starbucks or Barrasso, who am I to hate on their identity parade?
Growing up every kid I knew enjoyed playing with Lego's and at a fairly moderate price you have always been able to purchase a wide variety of Lego sets. While Lego's are a simple toy the enhance the imagination of it's user and also help shape little designers. In the world of Lego there are infinite possibilities to what a child can create, or in my case a young adult. When baby sitting my cousins and niece I still play with Lego's and enjoy them thorough. The design of the Lego's is truly that of typical danish genius. While functioning excellently and remaining simple the Lego has touched the heart of many and truly catered the masses cross culturally. The Lego company is a great example of an original artistic designed idea that was able to appeal to the masses while still instill in the customer the original quality of the product. The Lego product has always been well branded and has portrayed to the customer a fun toy that serves as an outlet for creativity and learning for the child whom is so lucky to play with such a toy.
2. Using the Images/text recorded during the branding exercise answer the following question: Why did you chose to draw your image? What does it say about the popularity of a brand? And what messages is being shared by it? How important is good branding?
All of the brands given to us in class have become icons in American society. Disney for many reasons has warmed the hearts of all and for me I immediately thought of Mickey Mouse. Whether it's because I know he is the original Disney character, or because he is my favorite, he is what I sketched in class. It goes without saying Disney is well known and has grown into a massive industry within itself. I prefer the old school cartoons. I think that Disney now stands for such a multitude of things that it is hard to comment on its popularity.
When thinking of Nintendo I naturally thought of Mario Kart N64 Style and my main racing man Toad. My roommate and I had an issue with over playing the game this past semester. While I have never been a video game person and have always preferred alternative sources of entertainment I am familiar with Nintendo brand and logo, as are many globally. I think that Nintendo 64 and the original Nintendo have an authentic, almost vintage image in the realm of digital entertainment. Nintendo was one of the first types of video game entertainment and for those in my generation playing these games brings to back to when computers and digital media were simpler. Today I have the software and ability to make animated movies with similar technology as Pixar. My generation was born into the age of technology, it has always been around us, and funny to think about, but brands like Nintendo almost have sentimental value. Nintendo has had a lasting branding and marketing effect on my generation.
When thinking about Starbucks I actually couldn't think of the Logo. I am a Dunkin' Donut girl for sure. I did however think immediately of generic coffee beans. Whether this reflection speaks to my addiction to caffeine or the quality of Starbucks branding I'm not sure. I suppose this could be on a preferential base or because Starbuck's hasn't been around as long as Nintendo and Walt Disney Pictures. The Starbucks logo itself almost portrays a Statue of Liberty-esk women in the middle. I think the logo simply adopted the idea that it was America's coffee inferring they wanted to appeal to the masses. With a company such as Starbucks there is almost always a market. What the branding or my identity says with the branding does not necessarily reflect the true popularity of such a company, as I am one.
In today's fast pace, technology driven economy and society branding is everything in a company's success or failure. For the past semester I had portfolio class in which the main goal was to develop graphically an entire package of branding that portrayed myself as a designer and person. As displayed in the top image on my blog my logo DLCH is simply my initials. I chose to use my initials as my main identity because not everyone has two middle names. Dani Loryn Christi Hill is written on most of my projects and documents, along with my logo. What sets me apart is more then my name, but to identify with a future employer or internship possibility I felt this one of many ways in which I could set myself apart from others. I don't think that branding for a company is also so much about the significance of the logo and graphic presentation, its success or failure is more dependent on whether or not the logo is recognized. Within the graphic design system there are infinite ways in which one can mature and manipulate their ideas, but that is neither here nor there. Developing a brand for a company is much more then the logo. What sets a company apart from the others, what registers as familiar and trust worthy is what brings consumers back time after time. While my trust factor may be in Dunkin' Donuts the next person's security is in their favorite coffee shop could justifiably be Starbucks or Barrasso, who am I to hate on their identity parade?
tirsdag den 2. februar 2010
Fem
Upon reading Danish Design- A Structural Analysis by Anders Kretzschmar I made a conclusion that the Danish have branded themselves very well as a unique sector within the design world, as well they have also managed to become and industrialized nation without losing the quality of craftsmanship. It wasn't until the 20th century that Danish Designers started making a mark for themselves. Several that brought attention to the Danish Design included Arne Jacobson, Poul Henningsen and Jorn Utzon. Throughout the 21st century Danish Design becomes and an internationally competitive company. While the Danish do not consider themselves part of a cluster industry in marketing they do see themselves as part of a more internal networking. Different design sectors try and work closely with others to ensure improvement and quality of work among all Danish sectors.
Most Danish Design firms are of the smaller sector. Because it is such a small country there is not need for many employees in one location, it is preferable to spread employees out over the country and continue to network from distances. Throughout the 90's Graphic and Product Design took over the design field and constituted over 50% of design work. This change in business can be paralleled with the need for strong visual communication globally as the internet took over the marketing world. It seems overtime while product production may increase the general satisfaction of the Dane's has stayed upbeat.
Kretzschmar writes about two different types of Danish designers. The first being the minority, Service & Client designers. These are said to be problem solvers and are more concerned with their personal imprint on society. They tend to specify in one expertize and probably won't work with the same client more then once. In this case the clients preference takes priority. On the contrary the majority of designers in Denmark are considered to be Artistic designers. In this case the designer takes more pride in self expression an self-realization. While considering what the client may want or request, the designer in this case is probably selected because of their expertise or unique style. Generally these designers take pride in their individuality and were probably selected by their clients because of this. While some may argue that a clients wish is the first command, I feel many designers are selected because they are good at what they do. In which case I think designers should be given the liberty to express themselves in their projects. After all isn't this why they were chosen in the first place by the client? This seems to be a tricky subject in which case by case studies are probably easier to wage.
In the future Danish Design will continue to improve and grow international bonds with other marketing companies. They Danish invest great sums of money to learning and networking with the other leaders in Design. The Dane's are always looking to improve their quality in their design and also learn from those around them. This practice seems like it should be considered natural because the Danish Design we are studying is after many centuries a melting pot of many historical cultures and backgrounds. Ceasing to avoid cross-culture influence in the future would only hurt the expansion of the Danish Design industry. Furthermore other cultures have much to learn from the Danes. Though such a small country the Danes have formulated a sleek, modern face for themselves that others take interest in. There are many pleasant things about Danish culture and designs alike. Isn't that how all us DIS students ended up here?
Many people have asked me why I chose to come to Copenhagen, of all cities I could have traveled abroad. To be honest at first I had to no idea what I was getting myself into. Other then the Danish Designs and designers I had studied in architecture classes I really had never heard that much about Denmark. I was familiar to the region, I knew I was close to Amsterdam, that I was practically in Switzerland and that Denmark was a "Hip" city. Further more I had heard how sustainably people lived here, a practice quite neglected in the States. I knew Copenhagen was the happiest city in the world, and so I figured I couldn't go wrong. Why wouldn't I want to be in the happiest city for five months? I think Copenhagen, and Denmark in general is a bit exclusive. Not many people know much about this culture and city which is enticing to the new comer. Perhaps because Danish Designer have prided themselves on originality and preserving the routes of their Design ancestors the society has remained unique enough to keep people questioning the mysterious lives of the Danes.
I know I didn't travel all the way up here to enjoy the winter temperatures, I could have done that in mountainous regions of New England.
Most Danish Design firms are of the smaller sector. Because it is such a small country there is not need for many employees in one location, it is preferable to spread employees out over the country and continue to network from distances. Throughout the 90's Graphic and Product Design took over the design field and constituted over 50% of design work. This change in business can be paralleled with the need for strong visual communication globally as the internet took over the marketing world. It seems overtime while product production may increase the general satisfaction of the Dane's has stayed upbeat.
In the future Danish Design will continue to improve and grow international bonds with other marketing companies. They Danish invest great sums of money to learning and networking with the other leaders in Design. The Dane's are always looking to improve their quality in their design and also learn from those around them. This practice seems like it should be considered natural because the Danish Design we are studying is after many centuries a melting pot of many historical cultures and backgrounds. Ceasing to avoid cross-culture influence in the future would only hurt the expansion of the Danish Design industry. Furthermore other cultures have much to learn from the Danes. Though such a small country the Danes have formulated a sleek, modern face for themselves that others take interest in. There are many pleasant things about Danish culture and designs alike. Isn't that how all us DIS students ended up here?
Many people have asked me why I chose to come to Copenhagen, of all cities I could have traveled abroad. To be honest at first I had to no idea what I was getting myself into. Other then the Danish Designs and designers I had studied in architecture classes I really had never heard that much about Denmark. I was familiar to the region, I knew I was close to Amsterdam, that I was practically in Switzerland and that Denmark was a "Hip" city. Further more I had heard how sustainably people lived here, a practice quite neglected in the States. I knew Copenhagen was the happiest city in the world, and so I figured I couldn't go wrong. Why wouldn't I want to be in the happiest city for five months? I think Copenhagen, and Denmark in general is a bit exclusive. Not many people know much about this culture and city which is enticing to the new comer. Perhaps because Danish Designer have prided themselves on originality and preserving the routes of their Design ancestors the society has remained unique enough to keep people questioning the mysterious lives of the Danes.
I know I didn't travel all the way up here to enjoy the winter temperatures, I could have done that in mountainous regions of New England.
mandag den 1. februar 2010
Fire
Upon investing the roots of Danish Design and trying to conclude what made something uniquely Danish I turned to Anne Marie Summerhayes's article Design, an Integral Part of the Danish. The given title seems to impose the idea on the reader that by merely being a Dane one is also a designer, or perhaps just an integral part in shaping all that is designed within this culture. It seems to me that the Danish people must be what truly have sculpted and molded Danish Design around their needs as a whole and individual smaller needs. Isn't design all about necessity? What do we need to help aid our daily and weekly tasks, or further so what do we need to get through life. Surely good design of the spaces we dwell in effect our well being, and the streets we walk, the buildings we work... So one might wonder what have the Danes needed, or longed for that is different then other cultures? Surely their needs different from that of what I need to live in extreme landscapes of The Mount Washington Valley... I think I'm a bit off topic. Let's see what Summerhayes has to say about Design and the Danish.
Summerhayes agrees with my previous conclusion that the Danish approach to design has been influenced by the country's geographical location. She elaborates and adds that the diversification of the industrialized economy, the high standard of education here in Denmark and the Democratic government all effect how the Danish approach design. She notes that over the centuries Denmark has been influenced by many foreign influences. She quotes "Our design is as Danish as our flowers. When the last Ice Age ended there was no vegetation in Denmark. The flowers which we call Danish were blown in over the border as seeds" (111). I found this quite amusing because when I first thought about Danish Design and or incorporated even images, of what I presumed to be typical in Danish style, in my blog, I first immediately thought of the Danish flower motif. Anyone who knows me might say this comment is void because I am a flower child and always think flowers first, but I really can't help it! I am obsessed. Off topic again...
Summerhayes notes that previously to 1960 Denmark had yet to industrialize, however as a nation prided themselves on skilled craftsmanship and technique. While other European countries and the United States were going through the industrial revolution Denmark primary economic dependence was on agriculture and fish. When industrialization came to Denmark they made sure that though mass productions were happening, the aesthetic and craftsmanship quality did not falter, as with this the country became increasingly wealthy. This society seems to pride itself on making quality for all. From livable conditions to functional furniture...most people are able to access these things here with great ease. Perhaps that part of the freedom Gundtvig once envisioned for all Danish people.
Summerhayes gives significant credit to N.F.S. Gundtvig, a clergy man, politician and poet who opened Denmark's first Folk High School. He built his school on the philosophy based on the concept that freedom was the essence of any learning. Summerhayes claims that Gruntvig's philosophy has played a significant role in forming twentieth century Danish culture. Gruntvig emphasised the importance of technical and artistic skills in everyday life, so that today creativity is the essential part of Danish living.
At this point I could throw my previous blog about the spirit of the Vikings out the window and give sole credit to Gruntvig's vision and lasting impression on the Danes. If what Summerhayes agrees is true then the Danes owe their shared excitement for innovation and learning to Gruntvig's. While their had previously been education in Denmark it changed drastically with the installment of the Folk High Schools across the country.The opportunity became readily available for Dane's of all ages to engage in creative problem solving; the essence of Danish Design. I'm pleased to find that creativity is an important part of the culture here. I believe the conclusion is subjectively beautiful.
In the American culture I feel that most movements are driven by the left brain. It's nice to see a society that perhaps favors the right. Maybe I feel so consumed by Danish Design because it is truly instilled in all her residence. While that assumption seems broad I'd like to believe there is great success in a society that values creativity and creating valuable experiences for all though innovation and continuous improvements in designed elements. If we can shape the way we live, and improve happiness and quality of well-being why would we miss this opportunity? I feel think that Gruntvig said "We won't let this opportunity pass us by."
Summerhayes notes that previously to 1960 Denmark had yet to industrialize, however as a nation prided themselves on skilled craftsmanship and technique. While other European countries and the United States were going through the industrial revolution Denmark primary economic dependence was on agriculture and fish. When industrialization came to Denmark they made sure that though mass productions were happening, the aesthetic and craftsmanship quality did not falter, as with this the country became increasingly wealthy. This society seems to pride itself on making quality for all. From livable conditions to functional furniture...most people are able to access these things here with great ease. Perhaps that part of the freedom Gundtvig once envisioned for all Danish people.
Summerhayes gives significant credit to N.F.S. Gundtvig, a clergy man, politician and poet who opened Denmark's first Folk High School. He built his school on the philosophy based on the concept that freedom was the essence of any learning. Summerhayes claims that Gruntvig's philosophy has played a significant role in forming twentieth century Danish culture. Gruntvig emphasised the importance of technical and artistic skills in everyday life, so that today creativity is the essential part of Danish living.
In the American culture I feel that most movements are driven by the left brain. It's nice to see a society that perhaps favors the right. Maybe I feel so consumed by Danish Design because it is truly instilled in all her residence. While that assumption seems broad I'd like to believe there is great success in a society that values creativity and creating valuable experiences for all though innovation and continuous improvements in designed elements. If we can shape the way we live, and improve happiness and quality of well-being why would we miss this opportunity? I feel think that Gruntvig said "We won't let this opportunity pass us by."
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)
