发信人: oceann (dany), 信区: English
标 题: www.designaddict.com---Chinese Design and Thought
发信站: 哈工大紫丁香 (Wed Aug 6 12:40:39 2003)
This website is founded by Patrick Everaert, an artist who has exhibited throu
ghout Europe in private galleries as well as in public institutions. His artis
tic work has been illustrated and commented on numerous publications, and acco
rding to Forbes magazine, it is “Top-notch resources related to modern and po
stmodern design, with designer and manufacturer index, virtual exhibitions, in
terviews with designers, collector forums, news and an events calendar. Boasts
extensive links, which include an international array of online design magazi
nes, museums and the most comprehensive list of dealers on the Web.“
What impressed me most is one of the posts I read in its forum about Chine
se design, which gave us a chance to see how westerners think about Chinese mo
dern design. Another interesting passage I read in it is the experience Koen D
e Winter once had in China, the author who was mentioned in the post. the post
and the essay by Koen De Winter are as follows:
chinese design ?
there is really no modern chinese design to be speaking of. (none of those
antique-y looking thing with a dragon please. i mean a true designer with a v
ision that happens to be chinese)
why is that?
what would be done to correct this?
or is that just never gonna happen?
deacon
deacon@Nneuhs.com
22-Jul-03
what‘s chinese design in your mind?
Well , it deponds on what are you thinking as a real chinese design. I am
a chinese designer , And I often provide some graphics of glass table-setting
design by computer aided to manufacturers. Most of my design are glass contain
ers such as candle holder ,wine cup .I never use dragon image in my design. Si
nce I think that means too out. However chinese square words give me lots insp
iration while I am creating sometimes.
lillyan wong
liland88@yahoo.com.cn
22-Jul-03
mainland
i guess i am thinking about modern design coming out from mainland china.
does such thing exist?
is that any website showing the china design forces?
www.Nneuhs.com
deacon yu
decaon@Nneuhs.com
31-Jul-03
i dont know about any original chinese design but i sure know a hell lot o
f ugly copies made in china with awful materials and inviromentally unfriendly
procedures(foam,glass,porcelain,leather,pvc fabrics etc)
31-Jul-03
Have a look at Koens essay (on this site) on originality, his anecdote abo
ut his experience in China is interesting.
01-Aug-03
Chinese design will only be desired when people desire it. The brilliance
with Chinese design is that it is the purest form of design in the world today
, it takes no influences from outside China, thus making it very special. Pop
ularity amongst the west will only happen when it comes into fashion. An unfor
tunate situation but when it does it will be deemed as classic.
Webster
04-Aug-03
east and the west
i don‘t think that "chinese design takes no influences from outside China
". if so, we would not have heard all those "east meet west" theme claim by th
e chinese. besides, the internet virtually made this isolation impossible.
in my opinion, chinese are very proud of the tradition, and that makes cha
nges coming by very slowly. and, china was closed to the outside for awhile. i
n addition, wealth among the puclic is one of the main driving force behind mo
dern design innovation. lacking it in the past couple decades made it difficul
t.
however, with the recent adopting of the open market system. i just wanted
to know of the design environment in china.
or at least get people talking and thinking about it.
Thoughts on originality
by Koen De Winter
Many people, both on the active and on the consuming side of the design co
mmunity, share a restless fascination for "originality". This fascination is m
ore than the usual form of design entertainment provided by design magazines a
nd exhibitions. For nearly a century, originality has been closely linked to c
reativity. It is often seen as the inevitable result of that creative process.
As in other creative activities like writing, composing and sometimes cooking
, it has also become the ultimate criteria for the use of creativity in the de
velopment of products. There is little doubt about the fact that even in Weste
rn culture this longing for originality is a relatively recent phenomena. Trac
ing its origins is a task for social anthropologists and not the purpose of th
is essay. One constructive hypothesis is that the willingness of the modern mo
vement to establish new standards and break with the past "at any cost", has n
ot only generated new standards but also a new vocabulary in which "new", "original" and "innovative" have been redefined. Instead of definin
g the character of an object, they started to define original as a quality. To
some extend art historians have re-written Western European art history in fu
nction of the innovative role different artist played in their times, but ther
e is not much evidence that this was indeed the real motivation at the time.
Skill and craftsmanship, mastering perspective and depth, conformity to th
e requests of the patron and professional competitiveness were more important
motivations than the search of originality. Even in the early XXth century ori
ginality did not play a role in the relationship between Georges Braque and Pa
blo Picasso when they both were the pillars under the cubist movement. In fact
their collages and paintings of that period are almost identical.
Over the past thirty five years, which coincides with my years of practici
ng industrial design, I have been intrigued with our continuous search for ori
ginality, our fascination and admiration for its results, and with the fact th
at reaching an "original" result has never been questioned against the real ai
m and goal of our profession: user satisfaction. In fact, promotion of design,
originally intended to enlighten the public on the benefits of useful and bea
utiful products, has slowly become a promotion of originality at any cost incl
uding the neglect of one of the pillars of the modern movement: making good an
d beautiful industrial products accessible to all; along with the neglect of i
nforming the users about good, useful and environmentally responsible products
.
The general question of the value of originality to the user was never put
to me as bluntly as during a working visit to a Chinese porcelain factory nea
r Swatow. Twenty or so years ago I had travelled there to produce prototypes o
f white porcelain tableware. Not knowing exactly what to expect at the end of
the journey I had made the prototype moulds before going there. My intention w
as to cast prototypes at the factory, test them and improve the moulds locally
. While working on the teapot the chinese workers kept asking me why I did not
bring them "the model" to work with. It took the diligent interpreter and mys
elf a few days to come to the conclusion that what was ment with "the model" w
as in fact the existing teapot that people were using in north America, i.o.w.
the market of destination. When I explained to them that I was the designer o
f this teapot and that it was different from the teapots that already existed,
they reacted promptly by refusing to work on it. Their reason, as it was translated to me, was that I was doing something ethically wrong. T
heir argument was that, no matter how good a product was designed and made, it
would still require some kind of learning process in order to use it well. On
ce this knowledge was acquired you do not want to spend time learning to use a
nother one, you just want to use the same and thus, buy the same. Making somet
hing different was just wasting people‘s time. The explanation
was illustrated by numerous references to the existing chinese teapots and all
the traditions that were related to them. My demonstration, for example, on h
ow the lid of my teapot would stay on even when you empty it to the last drop,
was dismissed with showing how difficult it was to turn the same lid upside d
own, a universally understood sign in Chinese culture that the teapot is empty
and that you would like more tea. In my own defense I also referred to the la
rge variety of Yixing teapots, but the few workers that knew about this Chines
e marvel explained that these were not made for the purpose of making tea but
to show off skill and craftsmanship. After a lively exchange it was obvious th
at the only thing I could do was to return to my hotel. A name we had given a
building not by its standards, but by consensus and courtesy to our chinese ho
sts. My main problem was not their unwillingness to work on the prototypes but
the fact that I had to agree with them. Reflecting on my situation I came to a compromise that I presented to my co-workers the next day. It
was a basic trade-off.
Although I had to agree with them that a new product requires learning and
that this particular kind of learning is a waste of time, I argued that havin
g ideas on improvements is a universal phenomena, as current in China as anywh
ere else. In order to avoid changing things, you have to ignore these good ide
as. In fact you are wasting the time of the person that has been thinking abou
t that particular improvement. It came down to a difference in culture. One cu
lture wastes one activity the other chooses to waste the other. After some dis
cussion about the merits of my statements the spokesperson for my co-workers a
nnounced that they were willing again to work on these prototypes. The announc
ement came with a warning. He said: "Yes, it might come down to a difference i
n culture, but remember, with your vision you will never be happy, you will ne
ver de satisfied with the products you live with."
The whole incident raised two obvious questions: are we limiting our searc
h and application of original solutions to those characteristics that are real
improvements, real innovations. Second, are the user and the public well serv
ed by original designs and if not, then to what extend has design become a sel
f-serving activity in which creativity has been reduced to a way of achieving
originality. The first one has to be answered with a honest no. We do not limi
t our involvement in the design of products to real or perceived improvements,
we usually try to work well beyond established archetypes and rarely is all t
he acquired knowledge around a particular product used and applied in the next
innovative design. One can simply look at chairs and the amount of uncomforta
ble ones that have been designed and produced in spite of all the valuable sup
port of research done since the first electromiographics of Bengt Åkerbl
om, by A.C.Mandal ("The Seated Man" March 1981) Grandjean, Hüntung and numerous others. One could quote the bible text:"...Man does not live
from bread alone...." and extend it to the argument that: "...We do not make
or use chairs just to sit in them..."
The question then becomes: does one exclude the other. Does the pursuit of
proper function limit the expression, does it curtail the possibility to incl
ude other considerations and does it ultimately destroy the "gestalt" or the p
resence of the object. There are in recent design history numerous examples of
products where this is indeed the case, but excluding the possibility of reco
nciling both seems an insult to the creative process.
Without the use of steel sheet roughly welded into the shape of a traditio
nally very comfortable chair and without an obvious disrespect for function, R
on Arad‘s "size ten" would not be such a significant parody on a chair and th
e comfort that it provides. But, in a world that can only be understood with t
he help of a minimal amount of classification, his parody is part of the same
category as Claes Oldenburg‘s Soft washstand (1965) and not of design. Anothe
r historical example might ad some dimension to the argument. Gerrit Rietveld‘
s red and blue chair is certainly as emblematic as the house he designed for M
rs. Schröder on the Prins Hendriklaan in Utrecht. Both the house and the
chair became the strongest images of the Dutch "De Stijl" movement. But even G
errit Rietveld compromised when he designed the furniture for the house. The c
hairs have curved seats and back rests and the overall coloring is dark brown.
Even people interested in furniture design and it‘s history prefer to ignore them and would not consider them as "emblematic" for the arch
itectural movement "de Stijl" as the "red and blue". One has to draw the concl
usion that the fact that both Ron Arad‘s chair and Gerrit Rietveld‘s "red an
d blue" are chairs is only a distraction. It does not change the fact that one
is part of art history the other of the history of 20th century architecture,
not of design.
No matter what our definition of design is, there are a few undisputable w
ays in which innovative designs serve society generally well. The most promine
nt one is when new insight in function has been given physical form in a produ
ct that is the embodiment of that new knowledge. When the Norwegian Peter Opsv
ik designed the "balans" chair, based on research done by his compatriot Hans
Christian Menghoel and to some extend anticipating the results of Dr A.C. Mand
al‘s research on the seating position, it did result in an original design bu
t it was first and foremost the expression of the new insight, resulting of th
is research. It might not have reached the social acceptance that the designer
anticipated, but it was designed and produced with the intention to serve the
user. Originality in this case was not a goal, it was the result of a new und
erstanding. As it often does, the originality of the product might in fact hav
e harmed the general acceptance of the kneeling/seated position that is better and healthier.
There are many examples of products that are not the result of a search fo
r originality, but of an innovative effort. Technological innovation often gen
erates a similar level of originality. Eero Saarinen‘s fiberglass re-enforced
polyester chair was an obvious example of a radical departure of the establis
hed archetype. A departure that was so emblematic for what could be done with
this new combination of materials that it resulted almost inevitably in an unu
sual shape. The same can be said about Ray and Charles Eames use of laminated
wood. Most of these innovations have been acclaimed by insiders and some have
been very successful with the consumers, but innovation, even carefully though
t out have never been a guarantee for user satisfaction.
In my own attempt to improve on the well established form of Bjørn
and Bernadotte‘s "Margarethe" mixing bowls produced for decades by Rosti A/S,
we looked at hours of video-taped use of mixing bowls. The knowledge acquired
from this patience-challenging exercise was that, except for short interrupti
ons, most users would hold the bowls under different angles. We used this obse
rvation to develop for Rosti A/S a new melamine mixing bowl that rested on a s
eparate slightly flexible ring that served as a steady, anti-slip base under a
ny angle for the slanted bowl. The result was innovative enough to be chosen "
Product of the year" in Frankfurt, "Best of category" by ID magazine in New Yo
rk and be acquired by several museum collections. Contrary to other examples,
the users it was intended to serve rejected the concept and preferred the fami
liar "Margarethe" bowl or any "reasonable facsimile". It is a well known fact
in design circles that innovation or originality is not necessarily reciprocated by the consumer.
Prof. Dr. Serges Gagnon of the Université du Québec à Montréal‘s defi
nition of design is most likely the shortest one: he defines design as "the cu
ltural appropriation of technology." Implicit in this concise definition is th
at the evolution of any object is first and foremost conditioned by changes in
technology. But equally important is the fact that design is defined as an ap
propriation process. In other words it is a way of adopting technology in our
culture by accepting it‘s influence as well as by influencing it. The same ca
n be said about two other factors in the equation: culture and function. Phili
ppe Starck‘s lemon squeezer is not the result of the use of an innovative tec
hnological process, nor does it show an innovative thought on the function of
squeezing juice out of citrus fruit. It derives it‘s originality from a new p
erception of the place a product has in our late twentieth century culture, an
d it‘s strong sculptural presence witnesses of that newly gained importance. It is difficult to deny the importance that these three catalys
ts of change: technology, function and culture have for design and for society
in general. Originality derived from innovation in one or more of these three
factors seems important and therefor justified. The level of acceptance reach
ed within a society that has based it‘s sense of security on familiar things
and known environments is in these cases not very relevant.
Evolution on the other hand has a very successful record. There are numero
us well documented cases of products that have evolved sometimes slowly, somet
imes rapidly, but never abruptly. These products seem to have in common that t
hey serve the user better and are more generally accepted. Some of these produ
cts were born in controversy around disputed paternity. Mutual improvements on
each other‘s designs has made it difficult to attribute de design of the can
tilever chair (1926) to Mart Stam, Marcel Breuer, Gerhard Stüttgen, Anton Lor
enz or even M.Baugniet. The now popular Vitra version of Verner Panton‘s chai
r (1960) started several years earlier as a news paper and chicken wire model
designed by Panton‘s compatriot, Gunnar Aagard Andersen (1953). A very simila
r prototype in wire and newspaper was produced by Poul Kjærholm in that
same year. That Andersen‘s sketches started 1952 seem to indicate that he was
indeed the first one to formulate this innovative shape. In re-designing it for industrial production, Panton raised the backrest to a more
comfortable height. As mush as eight years later Steen Østergaard‘s st
acking chair of 1968 showed similar roots, although he made the base lighter b
y cutting a large part of the central curved surface.
The very successful polypropylene briefcase designed by Canadian designer
Michel Dallaire is not only very close in shape to the more than ten years old
er briefcase by Peter Raacke, but it includes a number of improvements on the
closing mechanism that made the re-design worthwhile. In fact most industrial
products, from electrical razors to cars, from sailboats to computers, are the
result of small step evolution. In most cases the users have been given a bet
ter chance to understand and follow the different steps of this evolution. Not
surprisingly, they are also accepting the results, no matter how advanced the
y are compared to comparable products. One could just compare the instrument b
oard of a common car with that of a kitchen range. Or the comfort of a car sea
t with the chairs the same consumer is using at home. In light of that success
the question about the practical and ethical consequences of overrating origi
nality seems to be more than justified.
One more aspect of originality deserves consideration. In spite of the unq
uestionable efforts of most designers to develop their original idea into a ma
ture,well proportioned and fully developed product, many of them could easily
be improved both in function, in the use of proper materials and technology or
in aesthetics. Perfect balanced form and attention to detail, as shown in 
222;the chair‰ (JH 510) of Hans J. Wegner is unusual in any area of industria
l products. If the purpose of our professional activity is to make products th
at serve the user better, why is it that we can not improve existing products.
Why is it that we respect the original form even when improvements are obvious
. If in one or more details it could serve the user better, or be safer or eas
ier to make. Why is it that some kind of respect for its original form prevent
s us designers from making these improvements. The purpose is not to deny the
first designer any of the benefits derived from having made the original, but to open the possibility for others to make a contribution in th
e areas of their expertise. In music it is quite common to compose variations
on a theme of either some other composer or on a popular song. Modest P. Mouss
orgski composed the original „Pictures of an exhibition" as a piano conc
erto, but it became popular in Maurice Ravel‘s well known orchestration. Ther
e are a few interesting examples in design. Although the first one is made in
wood, the second in stainless steel blade and the last one in stainless steel
wire, there is an un-mistakenly relationship between Kaare Klint‘s "propeller
stool" #8783 (1927), Poul Kjærholm‘s folding stool PK-91(1961) and J&o
slash;rgen Gammelgaard‘s folding stool (1970) The relationship is not just th
at they are all Danish, or that they are all masterpieces. They are variations
on a same theme. In this particular example, the benefit to the user is margi
nal, but there are numerous products that would benefit more from improvements than from re-thinking them completely.
Finally, the pursuit of originality raises the question about which part i
n any of our creations is the result of our own effort and which part is direc
tly related to being "children of our time". Even an exuberant, original and r
ecognizable architecture like Antonio Gaudi‘s is according to his own testimo
ny, the result of his Catalan roots, of his search for Catalan tradition and c
ultural specificity. In other words, we would not create the things we create
without standing on someone‘s shoulders, wether that someone is one person or
a group of people or a complete society. To some extent this too should be ac
knowledged when claim is laid on an idea or a concept. There are numerous exam
ples of almost identical products designed by different people in different ar
eas, without any knowledge of each other‘s contributions. The only difference
between a stoneware paper bag made by Harvey or the white porcelain one made
by Tapio Wirkalla for Rosenthal is the material and the precision of the cast. One is not a copy of the other, they are the result of a simil
ar creative reaction to the same source of inspiration. When Marcel Wanders di
ps a natural sponge in porcelain slip and fires it, he repeats a playful gestu
re that most ceramic students have done before him. The difference is that the
se playful products are kept until too much dust or lack of space at the next
move encourages the owner to throw it away, and that the other receives the me
dia support and attention of Droog Design and Rosenthal. But in both cases it
belongs to all of us and can not be claimed by anybody.
In a period in which abuse of patent laws is rampant, in a time were the i
gnorance of patent examiners is used to lay claim and patent plants that have
been known and used for centuries, one should be reminded about the fact that
Elizabeth I (1533-1603) issued the first patent, not as an acknowledgement of
an original idea, but as a way of bringing to the public domain the exclusive
knowledge and craft secrets of the"glass-in-lead" window makers that received
her patent protection. In the same spirit, the unwritten law of trade and craf
ts companionship was that you would be initiated in all aspects of the art or
craft on condition that you would pass it on in the same way that it was recei
ved. Intellectual property‘s moral justification is only as credible as the r
ecognition that we are part of a society that is the result of a long process
of cultural and technological development. This society has the right to be se
rved well and, at best, it means that we can serve by making small, but innovative step in the right direction.
Koen De Winter 2002
Well, this long essay by Koen is worth reading.
Now I am sitting in front of my computer thinking hard for something that
is Chinese, original and modern. My mind is blank.
I can think of many mass produced products coming out of China each other,
but nothing bears any originality or underpins modernism. Chinese creativity
has been subdued by its rigid teaching methods and the influx of foreign ideas
and products.
Originality is a by-product of individuality. Without the latter, the form
er is merely a castle in the air.
--
好想振作一点点，真的好想
<img src=http://album3.chinaren.com/album/13/93/17409313/555736.gif border=0>
※ 来源:．哈工大紫丁香 bbs.hit.edu.cn [FROM: 210.46.71.3]