MDE 1 Theory Exploration

PHOTOGRAPH OF THE Barcelona Chair (1929) BY Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe. [Online image]. http://furniture.architecture.sk/2007/05/barcelona-chair-volo-leather-by-ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe.php (23 Dec 2008)

Figure 3

Image of ‘big brother 9’ logo by daniel eatock (2008). [Online image]. http://www.danieleatock.com/project/big-brother-9-logo/ (30 Dec 2008).

Figure 4

CHAMBERS, R. 2008. Photograph of Counterbalance Shelves. [Photograph].

MDE1 Theory Exploration

RECOGNIZING AND RE-EVALUATING our preconceptions and associations REGARDING CONTEMPORARY design

Part one

Introduction

It is vital as a designer, indeed as a Human Being, that one is aware that each of us holds certain opinions and beliefs about an almost infinite variety of subjects. More important still, is the ability to re-evaluate and challenge these preconceptions, even if it means changing our minds at the expense of our pride. Often, admitting one is wrong is the biggest challenge facing the designer. Any dissection of ‘design’ risks alienating the audience, whether they be designers or laypeople, further, the mere mention of ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ design can often result in a polarizing of opinion due to the subjective nature of the art and design world, and the associations that one may hold regarding it’s perceived relevance to everyday life.

The often extreme opposition between followers of certain design philosophies and schools of thought, and the disagreements that follow, are more often than not, the result of the individual’s deeply held preconceptions and beliefs, and the associations that are made in relation to any given principle or concept. Often, these beliefs are formed at a young age and heavily influenced by our peer group, or any literature or media that we are exposed to, and obviously this is a natural part of any individual’s intellectual development. From time to time it is useful to re-evaluate these preconceptions, to examine where they came from, to challenge the associations and links that we make, in an attempt to see if they remain intact under intense scrutiny. Here, we shall attempt to discuss the preconceptions and associations that we may have regarding the often-contentious concept of design, both in general, and specifically the work of young British designer, Daniel Eatock.

Design terminology

The first problem one encounters when investigating design is the very word itself. According to the Collins English Dictionary the word ‘design’ is both a noun and a verb, and can refer either to the end product or to the process:

Design vb… to work out the structure of form of (something). By making a sketch or plans… to plan and make (something) artistically… to intend (something) for a specific purpose… n the arrangement or features of an artistic or decorative work… a finished artistic or decorative creation… the art of designing… an intention; purpose… [Latin designare to mark out, describe]. (Butterfield, ed. 2001, p. 202)

A structural engineer might describe the process of calculating the dimensions of a beam in a building as design, although in reality it is more of a mathematical equation. The engineer will apply one or more formulae and insert various load values that act upon the beam to determine the required dimensions. However, a fashion designer would likely be bemused by the engineer’s use of the word ‘design’ to describe their working process. The engineer appears precise and mechanical, while fashion design seems more imaginative, creative and unpredictable. Both these descriptions are exaggerations of the actual processes, for in reality, good engineering requires considerable imagination and can often be unpredictable in its final outcome, and good fashion can rarely be achieved without solid technical knowledge. Therefore, most, if not all forms of design demand precision, focus, systematic thought processes, and imaginative vision. Of course, some purists may disagree, arguing that the true design genius has an ethereal, insubstantial quality that defies the conventions of mundane explanations, and further, that pure design cannot be fully quantified with words, rather that they are an emotional expression from within.

Part two

The Short Twentieth Century and the emergence of ‘The Designer’

Design remains one of the yardsticks by which we can measure the twentieth century, or at least what has been called ‘the short twentieth century’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 10). That is, the period from the First World War to the 1990’s. It is arguably in this period that the designer as an identifiable professional emerged. It is true that earlier prototypes for the role of designer had existed, entrepreneurs such as Josiah Wedgewood (1730-1795) combined manufacturing with a design role, and Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806-1859) combined engineering with design, but the divisions between their respective trades and the design process is so blurred that the dominant role, whether it be manufacturer or engineer take prominence, and hence they are not remembered primarily, if at all as designers.

Form ever follows function

So then, the twentieth century sees the designer emerge as a fully formed professional, thanks mainly to the modernist movement figurehead Walter Gropius (1883-1969) and his creation of the Bauhaus design school at Weimar, Germany in 1919.

Modernism attempted to strip away the excessive decoration and clutter that dominated design up until that period, challenging the preconceived notion that design should be automatically linked with the overly decorative arts and crafts movement (fig.1) as represented by William Morris (1834-1896). William Morris, himself a design pioneer, believed that design should meet the requirements of society, and in the late 19^th century, society desired decorative ‘Victoriana’ and bric-a-brac. As the machine age of the early 20^th century developed, society’s needs changed, favouring the sleek, functional, utilitarian design of the modernists.

Figure 1 William Morris ‘Golden Lily Minor’ wallpaper (1896)

The popular mantra ‘form follows function’ is often associated specifically with the modernist movement due to the increased popularity of industrial design and modernist architecture, and is sometimes attributed, wrongly, to Walter Gropius himself. The idiom ‘form follows function’ is credited to American architect Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) (Lambert, 1993, p. 5); however, Sullivan adopted and popularised a concept that was embraced by American neo-classicist sculptor Horatio Greenough (1805-1852) (Lambert, 1993, p. 12) in a series of essays published in the 1830’s (Michl, 2006, p. 1). Greenough spent most of his life in Italy, and in turn became fascinated by influential Italian Jesuit monk Carlo Lodoli (1690-1761), who, around the mid 1700’s encouraged functionality within architecture (ibid.).

One may explore the origins of the concept that ‘form follows function’ ad infinitum, but this quickly becomes speculative and subjective. To remain within a more recent timeframe, Sullivan used an analogy with nature to justify his view that design, and specifically architecture should be functional and utilitarian:

All things in nature have…a form, an outward semblance that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves, and from each other. Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish…It seems ever as though the life and form were absolutely one and inseparable…whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight or the open apple blossom the toiling work horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies in a twinkling.

It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law. (Sullivan, 1896, p. 4)

Sullivan believed that this apparent law of nature was sacred and not to be violated, this law ‘form ever follows function’ became distilled to the more popular, and quotable ‘form follows function’, which has been endlessly debated by designers, writers and students ever since. As stated earlier regarding the origin of the phrase, one would also be wise to refrain from attempting to prove or disprove the notion of ‘form follows function’, accepting it as an important design philosophy that highlights the importance of functionality in design and a vital contribution to the evolution of ‘design’ as a practicable profession, culture, and lifestyle.

The renowned architect and designer Le Corbusier, real name Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris (1887-1965) held the purist concept of the home as a ‘machine for living’ (McDermott, 1997, p. 49), which at that time did not have the complementary ‘machines for sitting’ (McDermott, 1997, p. 114), that is to say there was no suitable furniture to occupy the new sleek living spaces and offices that were demanded by an increasingly consumerist, pre-depression populace. The role of ‘The Designer’ therefore appears to have originally developed, quite organically, as a branch of architecture, Gropius himself, along with fellow modernist and design pioneer Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe (1886-1969), designer of the modernist icon of functionality and machine for sitting, the ‘Barcelona chair’ in 1929 (fig.2), as well as the controversial Le Corbusier were merely a few of many architects that took to design as a way to complement the living space (ibid.).

Figure 2 The Barcelona Chair by Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe (1929)

Designing the future

The predecessors of these pioneers of design and architecture were mainly concerned with the specific purpose and decoration of individual buildings, whereas in the early twentieth century the architect’s role as ‘urbanist’ was established, so whether or not ‘The Designer’ existed prior to the First World War is arguably irrelevant, as the technological and consumerist requirements of the twentieth century and beyond are altogether of a different order. This was a generation that were actually designing the future itself, designing early 21^st century attitudes, and sculpting subconscious preconceptions that many still hold in today’s professional design world.

Part three

Designing the present

Daniel Eatock is an excellent example of a successful, professional, modern designer. Eatock considers himself primarily an artist and graphic designer, with much of his commercial work being in this field, it is Eatock that is the man responsible for creating the logo and identity of Channel 4’s ‘Big Brother’ reality TV show, surely one of the most recognisable images in recent popular culture and television (fig.3). Born in Bolton in the north of England in 1975 and currently based in London, Eatock graduated from the Royal College Of Art in 1998 and went on to produce work for several high-profile clients, including the New York Times.

Eatock appears to be able to straddle the divide between the commercial and the artistic design worlds with ease. Equally comfortable producing corporate images for mass consumption as well as more challenging, avant-garde art installations, the bulk of Eatock’s work is self-initiated and explorative. As he states:

I am interested in connections between image and language, titles, punch lines, miscommunication, subversions, open systems, contributions from others, seriality, collections, discovery and inventing. I employ reductive logic, and strive for objective and rational solutions to form concluded works. (Eatock, 2008, p. 1.)

Figure 3 Daniel Eatock’s iconoc Big Brother logo

Counterbalance shelves

One of Eatock’s recent pieces is ‘counterbalance shelves’ (fig.4) exhibited as part of the ‘On Purpose: Design Concepts’ exhibition at the Arnolfini arts centre in Bristol. This exhibition directly challenges the preconceived notion that design should have a specific function, and further questions the associations and emotional responses to objects that we, as human beings possess in relation to the concept of functionality within design. Although sparse, the exhibition throws up some interesting questions regarding our immediate emotional, intellectual, and physical reactions when confronted with something challenging. It is all too easy to respond negatively to a conceptual piece of art or design. One may quickly resort to cynicism or suspicion, not wanting to risk being duped or taken in by what may appear to be a practical joke. Particularly in the UK, the mainstream media and general public alike, have a tendency to eye the apparently self-indulgent art world with something bordering on outright hostility.

Figure 4 Counterbalance shelves

Located in the busy Gallery 1 at Arnolfini, ‘Counterbalance shelves’ is an interesting, thought provoking piece, which upon initial viewing can be difficult to comprehend. Sharing space with several other exhibits, and due to the nature of the piece, it is, at first, almost entirely unnoticed by a great majority of visitors. ‘Counterbalance shelves’ is presented as a neat vertical row of shelves attached to the gallery wall with brackets, as one would expect. The difference being that each shelf has only one bracket, meaning that the objects placed upon it must be counterbalanced as if set on a see-saw. According to Arnolfini publicity literature ‘they work as storage and display, but have a sense of precariousness highlighting a psychological relationship between an understanding of gravity and composition’ (2008, p. 2). Let us look again at the above statement; they do indeed work as storage and display as one would expect, but what does that actually mean in relation to Eacock’s concept as opposed to an everyday ordinary shelf? In order to place an object on the shelves, one must place it directly over the bracket, or counterbalance it with one or more objects of equal weight, or alternately create greater or lesser distance between objects. A simple enough task that most people are capable of, but obviously this would be time consuming and tiresome, therefore ‘counterbalance shelves’ cannot be used practically for ‘storage and display’, therefore, one could argue that it has little or no function in the traditional sense. Aesthetically unobtrusive, the piece offers nothing in the way of decoration, other than that which is placed upon it, and again one could argue that the actual piece has no form. How can this be? A piece of work by a renowned and successful artist, on display at a design exhibition, that seemingly has neither form nor function? Surely this would be a source of dismay for the modernists and purists, such as Sullivan and Le Corbusier, but if one is able to recognise and challenge our preconceptions and reassess our deep-seated beliefs regarding a piece of apparently contradictory design, we should be able to progress intellectually, both as a designer and as an individual.

A subjective first hand case study of ‘counterbalance shelves’

Preconceptions or assumptions are deep rooted and often, the individual must strive to overcome the associations that one may have in relation to new or challenging material, media, and design.

Upon first viewing, I personally experienced the aforementioned reaction of near apoplectic outrage at the apparently nonsensical ‘counterbalance shelves’. Actually, it is true that the first several times I saw and walked past the piece, I did not even realise that it was an exhibit at all, merely assuming it to be ordinary shelves, that is, if I even registered consciously their existence at all. Only after witnessing Arnolfini staff admonishing members of the public ‘not to touch the shelves, as they are not, in fact, shelves, but a part of the exhibition’, did I realise the true context of these troublesome shelves.

Still I was irrationally hostile towards the exhibit, ‘These shelves are mocking me, contradicting all that we, as designers have been taught’! I lamented, albeit internally. The shelves were indeed mocking me, ‘it is our job to make you question your core beliefs about design, to confuse and obfuscate your preconceptions and ideas’, they seemed to say, and I hated them for it. Thankfully the shelves were correct.

‘Counterbalance shelves’ is conceptual, challenging and, arguably, extremely valid, forcing one to re-think attitudes to design. The mere fact that the shelves often go un-noticed is important in itself – does good, practical design need to become invisible? That is to say that it is so well designed that it’s use becomes second nature to us and we cease to register its existence at all.

Conclusion

As discussed earlier, ‘counterbalance shelves’ may initially appear to have neither form nor function. This is of course, not the case. While one could argue endlessly the merits of aesthetics and usability, the piece certainly has a function, albeit unconventional. Not a function in the traditional sense and certainly not as a practical piece of furniture, which is clearly not the intention, the functionality of Daniel Eatock’s challenging exhibit is to encourage a re-evaluation of one’s attitudes to the mundane objects that surround us, and our relationships with them. For it must be remembered that all manufactured objects, from televisions to pens, light switches to cutlery have been designed. Whether or not they have been designed for form, function, or both, they do not materialise out of thin air, they have been created on purpose. The function of ‘counterbalance shelves’ is clearly to make us think.

One feels that with ‘counterbalance shelves’, Daniel Eatock is striving to explore and challenge the concepts of form, function and usability, and also to question the preconceptions and associations regarding design that exist both within the design community and the general public.

Although, this philosophy initially encourages resistance, and raises questions regarding functionality, the answers to which are not immediately apparent, it is undoubtedly a most important lesson to learn for any designer.

Whether or not we agree with the assertion that ‘form follows function’, we must attempt to open up the debate, as well as our own minds, to the possibility that the sole function of a piece of design may well be conceptual, rather than actual. The encouraging of analysis and contextualisation within one’s own work and the application of these techniques and processes is a highly desirable function of any piece of design, and, once accepted, this understanding is a considerable gift from one designer to another.

References.

ARNOLFINI. 2008. On Purpose: Design Concepts. [Exhibition Catalogue]. Bristol: Arnolfini.

CHAMBERS, R. 2008. Photograph of Counterbalance Shelves. [Photograph].

Butterfield, j. 2001. Collins English Dictionary. UK: HarperCollins Publishers.

Eatock, D. 2008. Artist’s Biography. [WWW] http://www.danieleatock.com/project/daniel-eatock/html. (23 Nov 2008).

HOBSBAWM, E. 1995. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. UK: Abacus.

Image of ‘big brother 9’ logo by daniel eatock (2008). [Online image]. http://www.danieleatock.com/project/big-brother-9-logo/ (30 Dec 2008).

IMAGE OF Golden Lily Minor wallpaper (1896) BY WILLIAM MORRIS. [Online image]. http://www.victoriana.com/directory/histwal.html

(1 Nov 2008).

LAMBERT, S. 1993. Form Follows Function? Design In The Twentieth Century. UK: Victoria And Albert Museum.

MCDERMOTT, C. 1997. 20^th Century Design. UK: Carlton Books Limited.

MICHL, J. 2006. Form Follows WHAT? The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche. [WWW] http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2360/jm-eng.fff-hai.html (23 Dec 2008).

PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ‘Barcelona Chair’ (1929) BY Ludwig Mies-Van-Der Rohe. [Online image]. http://furniture.architecture.sk/2007/05/barcelona-chair-volo-leather-by-ludwig-mies-van-der-rohe.php (23 Dec 2008).

SULLIVAN, L. H. 1896. The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered. Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine. p. 4.

Bibliography.

BAGGERMAN, L. 2000. Design For Interaction. USA: Rocport Publishers, Inc.

BERGER, J. 1972. Ways Of Seeing. UK: Penguin Books.

BYARS, M. 2001. On/Off: New Electronic Products. UK: Laurence King Publishing.

CARTER, D. 2005. The Big Book Of New Design Ideas. UK: Harper Collins.

DROSTE, M. 1990. Bauhaus-Bauhaus Archive. Germany: Bauhaus-Archive Museum fur Gestaltung.

DUNNE, A. 1999. Hertzian Tales. UK: The Royal College of Art.

DUNNE, A. and RABY, F. 2001. Design Noir: the secret life of electronic objects. UK: August/Burkhauser.

GRINGER, C. 2001. Smart Design-Products that change our lives. Switzerland: Rotovision.

GUY, J. 2000. The Culture Of Design. UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

HEMMINGWAY, W. 2003. The home - A celebration of everyday design. Switzerland: Rotovision.

HILLER, S. 2000. Dream Machines. UK: Hayward Gallery London.

HOBSBAWM, E. 1995. The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991. UK: Abacus.

HOLLIS, R. 1994. Graphic Design – A Concise History. UK: Thames Hudson.

LAMBERT, S. 1993. Form Follows Function? Design In The Twentieth Century. UK: Victoria And Albert Museum.

LAUREL, B. 2003. Design Research Methods And Perspectives. USA: The MIT Press.

LAWSON, B. 2006. How designers think. 4^th edn. UK: Architectural Press.

LINE, M. 2000. Book of Design - A complete resource for interior style. UK: Cassell & Co.

LIPPARD, L. 1996. Pop Art. UK: Thames Hudson.

MCCORMACK, L. 2005. Designers Are Wankers. UK: About Face Publishing.

MCDERMOTT, C. 1997. 20^th Century Design. UK: Carlton Books Limited.

NAYLOR , C. 1990. Contemporary Designers. USA: St. James Press.

NORMAN, D.A. 1988. The Design Of Everyday Things. 2^nd edn. USA: Basic Books.

RHEINGOLD, H. 1991. Virtual Reality. UK: Quality Paperbacks Direct.

ROMANIELLO, S. 2003. The Perfect Digital Portfolio. Switzerland: AVA Publishing SA.

WEIDMANN, J. 2005. Web Design Portfolios. Germany: Taschen Gmbh.

WESTPHAL, U. 1991. The Bauhaus. USA: Gallery Books.

Russell Chambers 2008. www.fancycowfool.co.uk