Tuesday, August 19, 2008

More on Historically Innovative Design

The assignment was to pick a firm engaged in design. I pick Pentagram. There are 282 examples of their work on AIGA's website in the design archives. 'Nuff said.

Pentagram

Contemporary Design Innovation

I think product designers and engineers deserve the spotlight. There are multiple pressures from consumers and capitalists for the creation of new goods at an increasingly faster pace. With the current green trend, demand for more environmentally efficient products is also an added expectation.
Textile design is an area utilizing science in innovation. Consider a project by MIT educator and architect Sheila Kennedy. She is developing "soft panels" with solar cells which can absorb sunlight to produce electricity. Since she is an architect, she designs the textiles using 3D modeling software. A great example of how technology and design go hand in hand. Check it out on Wired's gadget blog and MIT's news page.
see solar textiles here
and here

Historic Design Innovation

Historically, El Lissitzsky embodies 20th century innovation in graphic design as demonstrated in work which built on avant garde modernist movements such as Futurism which in turn spawned new movements like PROUN, his unique abstract style derived from Suprematism. He was technically proficient in multiple disciplines including, architecture, photography, and graphic design. This is particularly evident in his book, poster, and advertising art which utilized typography and shapes in ground breaking ways. His art was grounded in a life of continued cultural learning in religion and politics. His influence is clearly seen in work by any contemporary designer who utilizes photo montage. Jan Tschichold could be considered as a designer influenced by El Lissitsky's use of typography.
link to Getty research site

re: AIGA's "Why do you design"

My personal response does not differ much from others'. I'd say it is because I'm obliged to based on some compulsion in the fiber of my being. I agree with the construct of the process, I can't think of anything I would add or substract from it. I'd guess design educators would find this to be a valid and universal summary.
I don't necessarily agree entirely with the quote: “If I’m going to talk about design, that purely arbitrary and immensely human construct, I should say that by design I mean the process both physical and mental by which people give an order to objects, community, environments and behavior.” — Bill Stumpf
How is it arbitrary if its purpose is to create order? Order in this context seems to indicate a very cut and dried scientific like approach to problem solving.
Can disorder be designed? Can there be disorder in a legitimate design process? I'd like to think so.

Source material:
AIGA's why do you design?
More from AIGA