1/29/10 Lecture Reflection: From Where Does Danish Design Stem? What are its Roots?

The Story of the Stools reconciled Thyssen’s assertions that “as a rule, the design process is more one of reworking than creating from scratch” (036). Kaare Klint's and then Paul Kjærholm's re-workings of the Bronze Age stool speaks to the way that design does not have to be the creation of something never before. Instead, some of the most interesting design can be the improvement or reconsideration of something previously crafted. Both men acknowledged precedents and traditions but them pushed passed them. The framework and limitations of the past provided inspiration for these men who then designed stools that showcased their craftsmanship and understanding of materials. Although inspired by the same design and consisting of the same basic design, Klint's and Kjærholm's stools have a radically different aesthetic feel, underlining the importance of material and individual perspective in the process of design.

Bronze Age Stool
http://www.gallica.co.uk/bronzeage/guldhoj_stool_s.jpg

Propeller Stool, Kaare Klint
http://cfs4.tistory.com/upload_control/download.blog?fhandle=YmxvZzE3MTQ3MEBmczQudGlzdG9yeS5jb206L2F0dGFjaC8yNi8xODAwMDAwMDI2MDUuanBn

Propeller Stool, PK-41, Paul Kjærholm
http://www.furnituredesign24.com/furniture/poul-kjaerholm/pk41-folding-stool_s.jpg

These designer's respect for precedent reflects the way that Danish designers study under previous masters, passing down techniques, styles, and mindsets, as well as respect for tradition. This linear progression of design genius has given Danish Design a cohesive feeling so that although innovation and modernity are always present, an adherence to craftsmanship, reductionism, and respect for materials is continuous. I appreciate this design legacy and the way it produces designers who are at once aware of the past but still desire to go beyond what came previously, to get ever closer to the perfect design.

Nevertheless, I can't help but think that such a system is exclusionary and overshadows designers who do not fit into the master/student relationship. This becomes particularly problematic when one considers the male dominated nature of the design field. I did a quick google search of "Bauhaus school, women" and came across an interesting article from The Guardian. Women were accepted into the school, in fact, when she school opened, more women applied than men. But why then are the men remembered? According to the article, Gropius believed that "women thought in 'two dimensions,' while men could grapple with three" and so female students were relegated into weaving fabrics and few others were able to work with ceramics. Both textiles and ceramics are thought to be crafts and associated with women. Therefore, they can less respect in the art world. As the Bauhaus school became primarily concerned with architecture, women were given less and less opportunities. I can't help but think that the sexist prejudices held by the Bauhaus school are partially the responsibility of the master/student relationship that has been and still is male gendered.

The Women of Bauhaus
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/11/4/1257348837613/Bauhaus-women-001.jpg

I would like to think that if this male-centeredness of design can be eliminated anywhere, it is Denmark, with it's egalitarian society and relative gender equality. However, it will be the adherence to precedent that will hold it back.

---

Haus proud, The women of Bauhaus: When the Bauhaus art school opened in 1919, more women applied than men - so why have we never heard of them?

1/29/10 Required Reading Reflection: "Design, an Integral Part of the Danish," by Anne Maria Summerhayes

After only spending two weeks in Denmark, I am constantly struck by the prevalence of design, from architecture, furniture and fashion, the level of Danish aesthetic seems very high, especially compared to the United States. To provide some insight into my question as to why this is the case, Ann Maria Summerhayes explains that "the country's geographical location, the landscape and climate, the late diversification of the economy to include industrialization, the high standard of education, and the Democratic government" all influenced Danish Design (3).

Danish Countryside

http://www.novalynx.ca/NLDenmark/photographs/Himmelbjerget_Mountain_24.jpg

I was first struck by Summerhayes' explanation of the relationship between Danish landscape and Danish design. She references Denmark's "gently rolling landscapes" which present "no dramatic natural contrasts, and similarly the climate has no extremes" (4). This mellow landscape seems to have influenced designers to create design that was not ornamental but as simple and clean as the place they lived. Because of their limited resources, quality of craftsmanship, as opposed to quantity, was of the foremost importance. Such a dedication to craftsmanship, Summerhayes explains, stems from Denmark's late participation in the Industrial Revolution. Understanding Denmark's landscape and their dedication to craftsmanship as a byproduct of a reluctance to become industrialized presents a clear contrast from the United States. Contrary to Denmark, who over time lost wide expanses of territory, the United States encompasses vast areas of land, many of which are highly productive. The United States' notion that they had a never ending array of resources in addition to their highly expansionist mindset and quick entry into the Industrial Revolution as a means of surpassing their European counterparts explains why design is not as integral to Americans as it is to the Danes. Where as Danes are most concerned with function, craftsmanship, and even beauty, Americans are most interested in quantity, rapid production, and quick turnover. Americans are not as concerned with longevity, and as a result design suffers.

Another interesting point Summerhayes makes is in reference to Danish schooling, especially in regard to the Folk High Schools that "emphasized the importance of technical skills in everyday life, so that today creativity is an essential part of Danish living" (8). Unfortunately, the American educational system does not emphasize creativity as an essential part of everyday life, nor does it value it highly, especially in public schools. Here then, I gained an important insight into my design in Denmark is not just in boutique furniture stores or the homes of the very wealthy but is integrated into the everyday life of all Danish people. Referencing the Danish Designer, William Morris, Summerhayes explains that there was "a need for art and the crafted object to no longer be created solely for an elite, but to be available for the enjoyment of everybody" (10). This need is precisely what Danish designers were able to fulfill and reflect their true dedication to Democratic government, much more so than the United States who seems to be increasingly interested with Corporate interests than the needs of its people. Their respect designs reflect these values.

Hans J. Wegner, Shell Chair, 1948
http://www.danish-furniture.com/images/hans-wegner-shell-chair.jpg

Reading Summerhayes' essay gave me the impression that the Danes held a great deal of respect for their design, especially considering that it reflects their values, history and geography. That said, I was surprised to read "A new Danish design strategy," by The Danish Fund. It's focus on China and New York was not what I expected to hear. But as a read further, I understood that the international marketing was less about combining ideas and more about spreading Danish design across the globe. Also, I considered the importance of exporting for a country as small as Denmark. It seems as if the livelihood of Danish design will depend on larger foreign markets in the future. If this means more of the world will gain more of the Danish aesthetic, I fully support the strategy.

'Lunch Box' by Sai Mai, from New York Design Week 2008: Danish Crafts

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/read.php?CATEGORY_PK=&TOPIC_PK=2910

1/26/2010 Symposium: "Form & Distinction," by Ole Thyssen

Now knowing that a design element must serve a function, how is the design of an object informed by the system in which you belong? Chose a design that fits within your system and discuss how it exposes that system.

http://ny-image3.etsy.com/il_430xN.67963471.jpg

The gender binary system is possibly one of the most naturalized in current human society. Although differing over time and across cultures, the assumption that there are two sexes, that there has always been two sexes, and that these two sexes exist to serve different evolutionary purposes runs deep. This gender binary permeates society so thoroughly that it is often difficult to see the system considering that it is a part of daily life. However, with a critical eye, the gender binary system can be spotted everywhere. In particular, the gender binary can be seen through clothing design. Most obviously, clothing is separated into male and female. Shops are either dedicated to one sex or the other, or they are physically spilt, separating and demarcating female clothes from male clothes. The design of shops then, although seemingly natural, is actually a reflection of the gender binary system that demands that men and women be differentiated at all times.

And then consider the clothing itself. Men’s clothing often comes in darker colors, is made from sturdier material, and is more tailored. Women’s clothing, conversely, is often lighter, both in material and color, and more focused on leisure as opposed to men’s clothes that either has a professional or active focus. Men do not inherently desire somber colors. It is not natural for women prefer to wear flowy cotton as opposed to wool sweaters. But the gender binary system demanded that men work outside the home (whether in professional or manual work) where as women remained inside the domestic. Therefore, men required clothing that was appropriate for their work, where as women could wear less practical and less serious clothing because of the sphere in which they existed. The design of clothing, from the fit to the material to the color all reveals how this binary considers to dominate every day life, even in an age where separate spheres has been greatly diminished. Also, consider the skirt. Granted, through history, men have worn garments similar to skirts, but for the purpose of this argument, I will focus on the last few centuries in the Western world. The skirt is not only impractical for traditionally male activities (e.g. construction, exploration, sports), but also reflects society’s consideration of sexuality. In the Western world, the female body has traditionally been the domain of men. Therefore, the skirt reflects men’s sense of entitlement to a woman’s body by providing easy access (in comparison to pants) to sex. Thus, the design of the skirt reveals a female vulnerability that was (and still is) the product of the gender binary system.


Thyssen's cynical point of view regarding art and design system suggests that we are all "Cogs in the machine" and that everything to be done has been done before and everything that will be created will be made obsolete immediately. So why continue pursuing design?

Although design cannot escape the system, although design is more of a process or reworking as opposed to creation, people continue to design because of the desire to express a personal point of view. Because the system provides the backdrop for every idea, history and culture cannot be escaped, regardless of the level of nonconformity present in a particular design. Nevertheless artists and designers can produce art and designs that offer different perspectives on the world around them, on the system, even on art and design itself.

Sol LeWitt, Wall Drawing 56

Sol LeWitt, Wall Drawing 415D

I cannot help but think of the artist, Sol LeWitt. Although he was neither a designer nor Danish, I believe his wall drawing project that includes hundreds of wall drawings completed over decades, illustrates Thyssen’s second suggestion of how designers can work within the current system. LeWitt was able to delve into a particular location within the art system so that he pushed the definition of what drawing was through repetition, experiment, and creativity. Although he did not break out of the system, he was able to change the system in the sense that his drawings questioned where drawings were supposed to belong, how they should look, what materials should be used, and who should be making them. Many of his drawings consist of nothing more than straight lines, squiggles, or geometrical shapes, none of which are a new idea. Nevertheless, he made his art not to draw pictures that had never been drawn before but to play with line, color, light, location, to push the art system, and to offer the world his perspective. Just because his art builds upon countless past artistic traditions does not lessen the value of his wall drawings at all.

Being unique is not a requirement of art or design. It is an impossible standard. Artists and designers study those who came before them not to learn what not to design, but to be inspired. There is inherent value in a system that fuels itself with a never ending source of inspiration.

1/26/2010 Required Reading Reflection: “Form and Distinction,” by Ole Thyssen

Guggenheim Bilbao, deigned by Frank Gehry

I was struck by Thyssen’s assertions that “as a rule, the design process is more one of reworking than creating from scratch” (036). I agree that something cannot be created out of nothing, that every idea has inspiration behind it, and that every designer comes with her own set of cultural preconceptions about the world that invariably affect her work. It is this social construction of design that interests me; the idea that social forces both in a designer’s past and future are unavoidable in the process of creation. All designers, regardless of whether they are imitating a past style or rejecting all previous conventions, are working within a system that contains them and cannot be avoided. Likewise, it does not matter whether a designer is appealing to the masses or abandoning aesthetics altogether in an effort to be nonconformist, both actions can only exist if the framework of previous design existed. There can be nothing new without everything old.

This idea of the artists was interestingly described by Thyssen when he explains that although many “designers have attempted to break out of the glass bubble, their breakaway from art occurs within the art system and is perceived as art” (045). Although this art system cultivates creativity and nonconformity, it nevertheless is limiting in the sense that it defines the artist’s identity, permits her to be one on thing and create only art, regardless or her desires. Here, we must not only question what it means to be an artist and how one is able to claim the title, but also the importance of the spectator. If being an artists means creating art even if that is against their intention that it is a non-artist, a spectator that ultimately must determine art and design from everything else. Therefore, the art system, as it stands depends as much on spectators as it does on artists.

This dependence on the spectator, or the consumer, seems especially true in regard to design where the design product is not form alone but function. Beauty (or at least visual creativity) cannot stand on its own to create a truly successful design. Frank Gehry design for the Guggenheim Bilbao would not have been implemented if his design had been structurally unsound. Arne Jacobsen's Egg Chair would not have been put into production if it broke as soon as someone sat in it. Therefore, designers must appeal to both peoples’ aesthetic tastes and their demand for functionality and efficiency, even when these two expectations are not necessarily compatible. Here then, it is quite clear how restricted designers are, how dependent they are upon society even when their designs are efforts to change or even reject the society they live in.

Design may, at its most basic, be the human effort to change the environment, a desire that has always existed. Nevertheless, as natural as it may feel, it is still just as socially constructed as any other aspect of human life and experience.

1/22/2010 Lecture Reflection: What is Design?

http://news.moleskiners.com/files/2009/11/moleskine-notebooks.jpg

List of Manufactured Items Touched in the Morning Before Class:

• Clothing including Levis jeans, a sweater from The Gap, socks and underwear, a jacket from The North Face, Adidas sneakers, Brooks Brothers glasses, hat, and gloves
• Toiletries including Nutrogena face wash, Rembrant toothpaste, a toothbrush, Acuvu contact lenses, Dove shampoo and conditioner, Clinique moisturizer
• Furniture including a bed, a desk, a nightstand, a dresser, a kitchen table, kitchen cabinets, and chairs
• Electronics and appliances including a MacBook, an iPod, a cellphone, a hairdryer, multiple sinks and toilets, a refrigerator, an espresso machine and a dishwasher
• School supplies including Moleskine notebooks and a planner, Bic Pens, a backpack from The North Face
• Food including a box of corn flakes, a packet of instant espresso, and a milk carton

Reflection:
Many of the manufactured items that I touch in the morning I did not choose. Living with a host family means the space I am living in is not my own and does not necessarily reflect my personal tastes or preferences. Luckily, I live in a home that has a high sense of style, one that is modern and clean, simple yet elegant. Such a beautiful environment helped me feel comfortable in this new space. In this sense, I see design as something that both creates and is environment. It is something so central that often, you don’t think of it, don’t consider it unless it is especially beautiful, especially creative, or, on the other hand, especially unsuccessful.

Many of the manufactured goods I touch, especially my clothing, convey my own style and how I would like to be viewed in the world. Things that others can see, such as my jacket, are brand names that I like and trust, where as I cannot even remember the type of underwear I wore considered that it is out of sight and so out of mind. To me, this demonstrates the importance of the visual element of design. Of course, as was discussed in class, form should follow function. As beautiful as a bottle of face wash may be, I would not buy it if it did not clean my face properly. Nevertheless, a product’s design is an essential part of its success. I bought my sneakers not because they are better than another pair but because I appreciate how they look and what they say about me. Because of the interconnectedness of form and function, as well as design’s ability to convey ideas, to me design is a physical manifestation of creative processes that successfully balance aesthetics and usefulness and it is capable of sending messages, expressing ideas, being persuasive, and is in dialogue with society such that it either reflects or contests its values and beliefs.

It is ironic that design is at once so visual and tactile and yet so illusive precisely because it is everywhere. It dictates our choices, makes life easier, creates a more beautiful environment, and still many go through life rarely noticing the design of their pen cap or the layout of the supermarket. These little and big elements of daily life are all designed and so integral to life that we see them not as design but simply as the world is. Design then is something integral to the human experience.