critical and functional

Here goes my first design-y post in a while. It's good to get back in to the swing of things, especially the mindset.

Just a health warning, it's a bit of a design rant.

I found myself at DoJ's 'PhD Summer School 2009' this week. Now before I start, I must note that it was organised by my second supervisor, Jeanette Paul, and she may very well be reading this... But when first presented with the idea of a Summer School I must confess I was less than excited. As I recall, Summer School was generall for the kids who didn't pass their maths exam or something... not to mention the words 'summer' and 'school' just don't don't feel right together.


But...


I must say that it was a very worth-while experience. Mainly because it never hurts to get a bit of a spur now and then, but moreso because it got be talking about and thinking about my research, and ultimately a bit excited about it!

The main point I'd like to write about is Stuart Walker's presenation, but first I'll need to give credit to Mike. I've heard his presentation a few times, but I must say this time I quite enjoyed a little piece he added - a video clip of John Cleese speaking about how to write. Tortoise enclosure... brilliant. Although it was pointed out that he did go WAY over time, which I do believe was one of his own rules.

Anyway, Stuart Walker spoke about his work that explores the concept of functional clarity through his designs of everyday objects. I just tried googling for some images of his work, but no dice, as I think an image would explain this succinctly. Imagine a flashlight made from two batteries taped together and crudely wired to a light bulb; a telephone which is simply a circuit board, speaker and mic glued to a piece of painted plywood. These artefacts are designed to give emphasis to the function of a product as a way to critise convention design which often seeks to hide the working parts with a facade. Indeed product design is very concerned with enclosures *cough* apple *cough*. Since the early 1900s we have separated form and function and assigned them to different corners of the design world. What I think Walker is suggesting from this is that function aught to be enbodied by form.

(Noise of a car screeching to a halt)

Whilst I agree with the above completely, I find the form-function debate a little tiresome. Nature doesn't have this debate. I found it very revealing that someone later pointed out that it is quite 'right brain-left brain'. I think I must now quote another Mr Walker - Fergus Walker, who once remarked "The Enlightenment has a lot to answer for". That it does, when it comes to the way of thinking it has precipitated. Form and function cannot be viewed like two sides of a river - with the person on the form side saying: "Oh goodness it's awfully pretty over here, but look at the function side, it seems all harsh and edgey, actually there's something cool about that..." Meanwhile, the function side is saying "What's old formy up to again, he never gets anything done". It seems like that's how it might be, but really, an object - artefact - design must be thought of as one. There are no sides... hmm, running out of analogies, it's a SPHERE! Yes, there are no sides, it is all one thing.

But anyway, I liked Stuart Walkers presentation. I agreed with it all, but I guess I'm a hard line holist. It did also gave me some ideas about critical design.

I was thinking that perhaps what I am doing at Belmont is an excercise in critical design. It is design that is meant to inspire though, not neccessarily just critise... But I like the idea that the process or act of designing should be part of research. Maybe the artefact isn't as important as the design. That's a good idea, as we don't seem to have a lot of money for artefacts!

Also, I liked - local manufacture of products with mass produced parts. Lots to talk about there... later.

Right, so there is my completely half, no, quarter-baked ideas about Wednesday. I don't think I even properly expressed them, but I'm glad they are down. I also came up with a brilliant idea for a paper. So brilliant I may have to keep hold of it and not tell anyone, lest someone steals it. Probably won't happen though... I can give you a hint - it involves Mark Newhall. If you know who he is, then your name is probably Roddie Fraser.