 |
Tue 07.09.10
Plebs 2952 |
|
|
Software cracks its whip, and the designer gets busy designing. 09/02/2008 12:36 Software is still a new tool in the process of design, although now it's very difficult to imagine life before CAD, Photoshop, In-Design etc. Technologies inform the way in which we use raw materials; bending steel tube to make legs for chairs and tables, forming wooden laminates for seats and surfaces, processing glass into fibres to create fibreglass and the subsequent plethora of design variations that that brings. The creation of innovative, beautifully crafted furniture, books and products is certainly not new. There are specific periods in the evolution of the design industry as we know it today that captured the essence of materials like GRP, steel tube, laminated woods, and plastics. Understanding materials and their production processes is vital for the execution of high quality designs; this necessity one could argue, has been reduced by software.. Contact with materials during the process of construction is no longer essential; we send an email, sit back, and a sample is delivered direct to the studio. There's a disconnect apparent in this process, although its' efficiency and usefulness is undeniable. What we have lost is the potential to discover; the discovery of new ideas caught within the production environment, the connection with the machine operator, the materials, and the process, are all missing. The random element, the mistake on the machine that holds the potential for a whole new style, the ability to mix materials not usually connected together, again, missed. Yes, we do visit our suppliers' facilities on occasion, when necessary to see what they're up to. We will see some level of activity whilst checking on a job before it goes into production, but this is still, like our software, a streamlining of the process for maximum output with for the minimum input. Have we lost a vital connection to the 'making of' process because of our super slick, email-able, CS3, software mentalities? Software is here to stay. Where it's going is a lot less certain, as is the impact on our lives. Does our palette of possibilities originate in the engineers laboratory? Architects, graphic designers, product designers; all very much being now 'under the influence'! Should we storm the engineers' lab, and understand the roots level inspiration of the man in the machine? The man, creating software that millions of designers will lap up to produce the next wave of cars, buildings and posters surrounding us during the coming years. Are designers, masters' of our own destiny or is it the latest 'Filter' or 'Nurbs' tool that will be silently cracking the whip? Comments Luigi Sanna - 26/02/2008 09:45 Softwares are tools. Computers are tools. Anything we may want to use, to make our ideas real, are tools. I agree with most of what you say, but i think the big difference is made by the way you use your tools. A detailed 3d model could save your time and money during the building process, a rendering could help you choose the finishes and studying the lighting. An image tweaked on photoshop could convince a client to pay for your ideas. Sounds amazing, right? The reality, as you pointed out, is that architecture has turned up into product design on a larger scale, that there are Cad drafters doing design (shapes without substance), that there are designers fluent on a software but unable to sketch on the paper. That's call laziness and the big mistake comes from believing that a computer is able to think for you. I think that if we have the possibility to go faster, we should use the saved time to improve things, with our brain. Races are for horses, not for designers. Sean Fox - 29/03/2008 12:18 I have to agree to some extent with what Lee is saying there, because to some extent the software is dictating what us, the designers are able to do, and when a few designers start using those pieces of software to produce the new crazes in design, that is what the client feels they need to be part of in order to compete, then we have to work to their needs to produce what they might be looking for. Some of the designers using the software may have no skills whatsoever apart from being able to think up ideas, so the software allows them to gain some sort of ground on the more able designers perhaps, which is surely a good thing? ...allowing those with ideas to be able to show them to the world in a professional and acceptable manner? ...But then does that take some sort of glory away from that designer that might be able to produce a piece by hand as well as working on the software? Its a moral dilemma, on one hand its great allowing everyone to express their ideas, but then its making the 'real' designers have to work harder to try and prove themselves and win the contracts. ...But then with the software, you are right in saying that it speeds up our production times and quality, so we are constantly fighting whilst it is around, but would be lessened to some extent without it! So surely, the perfect outcome will only ever come when the perfect idea is matched with the perfect production, and without both being present, the brief simply hasn't been completed to its fullest possibility, even if the finished article seems to do the trick? Luigi Sanna - 01/04/2008 09:11 well... what really matters in the end is the result, isn't it? A dull idea is still a dull idea, no matter how a software could make it look better. Design, I think, is about solving troubles, and sometimes inventing troubles just for the sake of solving them. Who cares how someone gets to the result? By the way, the usual designers argument about technology reminds me of a famous ancient greek tale "the fox and the grape". Innovation comes from technology, design gives a shape and a soul to that. Sean Fox - 02/04/2008 08:19 But then I guess you have to look deeper into the meaning of 'bad' design. A lot of bad design often creates a media hype and hightens publicitiy, and although being in a bad way, would you not argue that it perhaps got noticed more? Take the London 2012 logo, I don't know what Wolf Ollins was smoking at the time, he created a monstrosity, but let me ask you this, can you remember the logo for the last Olympics? This one for sure will leave a lasting impression, and has probably 'worked' although everyone hates it. I think sometimes, design can be purely aesthetic, without having any great idea behind it, some of the time a great idea isnt necessarily required, and sometimes as you put it Luigi, the 'inventing troubles' is half of the way to solving it, as with the 2012 logo. Lee McCormack - 10/04/2008 10:11 Luigi, tell me more about "the fox and the grape", I'm curious ! Also, to expand on what I was saying or to say the same thing in another way maybe? It's not that software as a tool is bad or good, it's about how much the software tools themselves actually influence the outcome, not whether it should be used or whether a bad idea becomes good or remains bad etc. Your idea was 'THIS THING HERE', you produced something close but was influenced, affected and changed (by the software parameters to "THIS THING HERE" ?? It's all good and its all bad, whatever you decide is what it then is. Yes, no ? Add Comment You have to be logged in to comment on blogs. |
