Thursday, October 22, 2009
Stuff up
OK... How much truth can you take?
If you want the really ugly truth about our planet, it's resources, our use and abuse of it and, our seemingly inevitable annihilation Read this Book; A blue print for survival. Penguin books. Published in 1972. Only 144 pages get it, read it.
It really tells you how it is (without the up beat playschool approach that Annie for some reason, seems to think appropriate)
An extract from it is below: REMEBER this was written in 1972!!!!
This document has been drawn up by a small team of people, all of whom, in different capacities, are professionally involved in the study of global environmental problems.
Four considerations have prompted us to do this:
1. An examination of the relevant information available has impressed upon us the extreme gravity of the global situation today. For, if current trends are allowed to persist, the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of the century, certainly within the lifetimes of our children, are inevitable.
2. Governments, and ours is no exception, are either refusing to face the relevant facts, or are briefing their scientists in such a way that their seriousness is played down. Whatever the reasons, no corrective measures of any consequence are being undertaken.
3. This situation has already prompted the formation of the Club of Rome, a group of scientists and industrialists from many countries, which is currently trying to persuade governments, industrial leaders and trade unions throughout the world to face these facts and to take appropriate action while there is yet time. It must now give rise to a national movement to act at a national level, and if need be to assume political status and contest the next general election. It is hoped that such an example will be emulated in other countries, thereby giving rise to an international movement, complementing the invaluable work being done by the Club of Rome.
4. Such a movement cannot hope to succeed unless it has previously formulated a new philosophy of life, whose goals can be achieved without destroying the environment, and a precise and comprehensive programme for bringing about the sort of society in which it can be implemented.
This we have tried to do, and our Blueprint for Survival heralds the formation of the Movement for Survival and, it is hoped, the dawn of a new age in which Man will learn to live with the rest of Nature rather than against it.
The Ecologist
Edward Goldsmith, Robert Allen, Michael Allaby, John Davoll, Sam Lawrence.
If you want to know how governments and big business work the system to their benefit read this book (or any book) by Vance Packard The Waste Makers. Published in 1960 ...and guess what he said way back then "advertising is turning North Americans into emotional infants who expect instant gratification of all their desires" Annie is confirming this sentiment 50 years later. The media is controlling/driving our expectations and desires.
SO what to do about it? Well, make it personal. Take responsibility for your own actions and decisions. ie don't buy from the $2 dollar stores. You know that when you purchase an item for $2 someone somewhere is paying the real price... slave labour, indentured labour, sweats shops, a child some where in the world is going blind making tiny, pretty, delicate thing for you to buy cheaply when actually, you can easily afford the real price. Maybe always ask this question before you buy "WHAT IS THE COST AND WHO PAYS THE PRICE?" No more maybe, to misquote Nike who, by the way, are guilty of worker exploitation in their third world factories. "just don't do it" It's a start.
If you want the really ugly truth about our planet, it's resources, our use and abuse of it and, our seemingly inevitable annihilation Read this Book; A blue print for survival. Penguin books. Published in 1972. Only 144 pages get it, read it.
It really tells you how it is (without the up beat playschool approach that Annie for some reason, seems to think appropriate)
An extract from it is below: REMEBER this was written in 1972!!!!
This document has been drawn up by a small team of people, all of whom, in different capacities, are professionally involved in the study of global environmental problems.
Four considerations have prompted us to do this:1. An examination of the relevant information available has impressed upon us the extreme gravity of the global situation today. For, if current trends are allowed to persist, the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of the century, certainly within the lifetimes of our children, are inevitable.
2. Governments, and ours is no exception, are either refusing to face the relevant facts, or are briefing their scientists in such a way that their seriousness is played down. Whatever the reasons, no corrective measures of any consequence are being undertaken.
3. This situation has already prompted the formation of the Club of Rome, a group of scientists and industrialists from many countries, which is currently trying to persuade governments, industrial leaders and trade unions throughout the world to face these facts and to take appropriate action while there is yet time. It must now give rise to a national movement to act at a national level, and if need be to assume political status and contest the next general election. It is hoped that such an example will be emulated in other countries, thereby giving rise to an international movement, complementing the invaluable work being done by the Club of Rome.
4. Such a movement cannot hope to succeed unless it has previously formulated a new philosophy of life, whose goals can be achieved without destroying the environment, and a precise and comprehensive programme for bringing about the sort of society in which it can be implemented.
This we have tried to do, and our Blueprint for Survival heralds the formation of the Movement for Survival and, it is hoped, the dawn of a new age in which Man will learn to live with the rest of Nature rather than against it.
The Ecologist
Edward Goldsmith, Robert Allen, Michael Allaby, John Davoll, Sam Lawrence.
If you want to know how governments and big business work the system to their benefit read this book (or any book) by Vance Packard The Waste Makers. Published in 1960 ...and guess what he said way back then "advertising is turning North Americans into emotional infants who expect instant gratification of all their desires" Annie is confirming this sentiment 50 years later. The media is controlling/driving our expectations and desires.
SO what to do about it? Well, make it personal. Take responsibility for your own actions and decisions. ie don't buy from the $2 dollar stores. You know that when you purchase an item for $2 someone somewhere is paying the real price... slave labour, indentured labour, sweats shops, a child some where in the world is going blind making tiny, pretty, delicate thing for you to buy cheaply when actually, you can easily afford the real price. Maybe always ask this question before you buy "WHAT IS THE COST AND WHO PAYS THE PRICE?" No more maybe, to misquote Nike who, by the way, are guilty of worker exploitation in their third world factories. "just don't do it" It's a start.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Silver Screen
The phrase "The silver screen" instantly transports me to the Cinema. My most vivid image is that of the the g
hostly silver/blue glow of the big screen as it casts it's shadows and flickering light across the audience as they enter the auditorium. The screen is at all times the the focus of attention and yet it is only the back drop to the real event.This is how I view my product. It offers the viewer choices, in so far as, it can be viewed in one of two ways. That is; it can be either the main event or the back drop. As a kind of art "installation" piece, which can be viewed in the round and has, I hope, an interesting dynamic from all sides. Catching and reflecting light and images in ways that recall the light from the cinema screen. It can also be used in a purely functional way as an interesting piece of furniture acting as a room divider.
The material is recycled stainless steel. It is, in fact, the tray that remains after laser cutting. The objects have been removed and the metal lattice work is left behind.
Using post industrial waste in this way adds a kind of cool urban aesthetic to the product. To hold onto the feeling of "urban cool' I had to get away from the conventional hinging together of flat room dividers so I created self supporting modules that could be clipped together to form a 3 dimensional screen.The clipping pegs (made of recycled raw plug) allow the screen to be constructed and deconstructed to any number of configurations.
It offers the user flexibility of height, width and control of the overall shape and design. This makes it suitable for many different spaces. Primarily aimed at the funky loft/warehouse-dweller. It would be a suitable accompaniment to their life style.
peer comments
susanna Li
glenaldy janto
maria park
nick walker
jennifer widjaja
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Redefining the future of design?
I foresee the future...
And the future is... a raging, bloody battle between the Bauhaus minimalists and the Lovegrove Organicists.
Ross Lovegrove is adamant that the only direction relevant design will be heading, in the future, is his way. The way of the organic form. Referring and deferring to the superiority of nature over man's imagination and ingenuity, as the sovereign designer. He has postulated a theory / view that good design is spare design, entirely stripped of all unnecessary elements, outside of the organic form. If they do not have an organic expression then, according to his precepts, they are (must be) redundant. Certainly the organic form, for the most part, is spectacular and by definition has a unity and "oneness" that designers seek. However, to maintain this position without leaving any space for other opinions leads, I think, to the de-democratising of design. In the same way as the wholehearted, unremitting embrace of Bauhaus' hard edge minimalism has lead to a kind of minimalist meltdown/overload. Everywhere and everything is minimal. Culminating in, I think, an unspoken but acknowledged presumption in the design world (particularly in Architecture) that, if it's not minimal then some how it's poor design. In my opinion not true of course. However, I have a feeling that there may be a similar result if we allow the singular rise of the "organic only" credo. We must ensure all voices are heard in the future debate about design supremacy.
I look forward to the forthcoming battle between, what I imagine will be seen as the "old school, fuddy-duddy" Minimalists vs New kids on the block Organicists. It will be interesting to see who sides with who in the future debate.
And the future is... a raging, bloody battle between the Bauhaus minimalists and the Lovegrove Organicists.
Ross Lovegrove is adamant that the only direction relevant design will be heading, in the future, is his way. The way of the organic form. Referring and deferring to the superiority of nature over man's imagination and ingenuity, as the sovereign designer. He has postulated a theory / view that good design is spare design, entirely stripped of all unnecessary elements, outside of the organic form. If they do not have an organic expression then, according to his precepts, they are (must be) redundant. Certainly the organic form, for the most part, is spectacular and by definition has a unity and "oneness" that designers seek. However, to maintain this position without leaving any space for other opinions leads, I think, to the de-democratising of design. In the same way as the wholehearted, unremitting embrace of Bauhaus' hard edge minimalism has lead to a kind of minimalist meltdown/overload. Everywhere and everything is minimal. Culminating in, I think, an unspoken but acknowledged presumption in the design world (particularly in Architecture) that, if it's not minimal then some how it's poor design. In my opinion not true of course. However, I have a feeling that there may be a similar result if we allow the singular rise of the "organic only" credo. We must ensure all voices are heard in the future debate about design supremacy.
I look forward to the forthcoming battle between, what I imagine will be seen as the "old school, fuddy-duddy" Minimalists vs New kids on the block Organicists. It will be interesting to see who sides with who in the future debate.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
More than skins deep
You know, finally, I like Yves... more and more.
On first acquaintance I didn't understand what he was about. However, the more frequently I listened, the more I came to appreciate what I think he's saying. It's not necessarily about individual objects telling stories or about bringing one's own values to each design, per se. It seems to me to be more about understanding the nature and effect of design in it's entirety. Products and therefore design have consequences. Producing an end product is not the final and only objective. I think he's suggesting that "the sum of the whole is greater than its individual parts" so to speak. When each individual value/ideal coalesce they MAY reach critical mass and ultimately have a global or holistic effect. They may create a chain reaction effecting everything; from the very act of designing through to receiving and using the finished product. Everything might take on a new aesthetic... what we create, how we create, how we use and how we dispose... creating the desired ”new relationship with the world”, (which lets face it, is an absolute necessity if we wish to continue as a species.)
It's a nice idea (it could become a reality) and maybe we can change the world... one design(er) at a time.
Perhaps not with the worlds fastest electric motor bike though... On the other hand, why not, who knows?!?!?
On first acquaintance I didn't understand what he was about. However, the more frequently I listened, the more I came to appreciate what I think he's saying. It's not necessarily about individual objects telling stories or about bringing one's own values to each design, per se. It seems to me to be more about understanding the nature and effect of design in it's entirety. Products and therefore design have consequences. Producing an end product is not the final and only objective. I think he's suggesting that "the sum of the whole is greater than its individual parts" so to speak. When each individual value/ideal coalesce they MAY reach critical mass and ultimately have a global or holistic effect. They may create a chain reaction effecting everything; from the very act of designing through to receiving and using the finished product. Everything might take on a new aesthetic... what we create, how we create, how we use and how we dispose... creating the desired ”new relationship with the world”, (which lets face it, is an absolute necessity if we wish to continue as a species.)
It's a nice idea (it could become a reality) and maybe we can change the world... one design(er) at a time.
Perhaps not with the worlds fastest electric motor bike though... On the other hand, why not, who knows?!?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)