Week 7 – Research & Destroy – Daniel Van Der Velden
I agree with the idea that design functions not to solve problems, but to ask the questions instead. It is different compared to other subjects, where its applications doesn’t answer and provide solutions to a concept, but opens doors to further concepts and stems even more ideas.
It was interesting that Daniel asked the question whether our desire for Dior shoes or an Apple product comes from need. It made me think of the basic function of something, such as I phone vs. Android, and how design adds to the value of an object, which Daniel mentions in the 4th paragraph.
It is interesting to look at design as the solution to desired needs. However the designer does not solve all problems, but he does create solutions for them.
I find it unfortunate that the role of designers is being replaced by marketing positions within a company, causing designers to lose the innovative part of their job and to instead resort to working with clients who offer the designer little freedom and who prefer“whatever looks good” rather than“whatever functions best”.
“Something less prestigious than a‘designed’ object can do the same thing for less money” is something that stood out to me. For example if we think about cars, they all have the function to do what they need to, get us to places. Because of a particular name or design, a car can double or triple in price. Its interesting to see how through designs and names, the value of a car can change so drastically.
I found it interesting how the author talked about the difference between want and need when it comes to being a designer. I also found it interesting that Design can have such a heavy influence when it comes to buying objects such as Apple Products which then also falls under that category of want vs. need. I also agree with and found Justin’s comment really interesting on how practical designers that have functional designs are being replaced with something that simply looks good, I feel as if they aren’t aware that a functional design is probably what set apart companies like Apple and Dior.
Many interesting points are made, that touches upon topics I thought about many times such as need vs want. It was interesting seeing it applied to design and branding. I roll my eyes at people who buy stuff for the branding, not understanding why they will pay so much more when inherently it(usually) is not any better, yet I want all buildings to be beautiful, paneled with walls of glass, instead of the drab brutalist style buildings seen on the campuses when they are just as efficient. With design, past the need to get the information across, want starts to verge based on subjectivity and sometimes the want of the client does not align with designer’s own aesthetic. The“design as factory work” chapter got me thinking at what point does it no longer become our work but the client’s work with us just behind the technicality?
I think it is important to consider the purpose of design while we work and make art. There is definitely a certain degree of practicality that goes along with graphic design, although the reading discusses how designed objects are no longer about a necessity for function because any“designed” object can be found in a more mundane cheaper version. When working on a design, the client’s opinion will always matter but there is still room to maintain creative control and artistic integrity for the designer’s own work and stylistic choices.
I think it’s very interesting that Pindell uses the“binary method” and incorporates the comfiness of her own style of aesthetics based on her experiences along with the standard aesthetics of society.
I think it is interesting that pictorial advances art and collage art is not only an advancement in aesthetics but it also utilizes abstraction to maintain culture and identity.
I think it’s interesting that Pindell discusses how collage is useful to overcome the difference between expressive and conceptual art.
I think that it was interesting to see that Kant considered aesthetic judgments and rational and purposeful judgements to be‘discretely different’ but they also have to work together as a system to create an interesting piece of art.
It is striking how Pindell was able to create two works involving a grid structure that interprets the grid in different ways by how she formed the grids, altering the concept behind both works and expressing differing meanings.
How has the term“aesthetic” changed since abstract painting first came around? That word is thrown around so much in context with social media and beauty that the idea of“work functioning discursively and not only aesthetically” seems a bit unclear.
It is interesting that Pindell touches upon what forms ideas of aethetics and how her cultural roots and personal history comes into play.
It is interesting to see how her definition of aesthetic is not classically modernist and does not exclude a second component that is more critically and culturally oriented. It shows the originality of her work.
Week 7 – Research & Destroy – Daniel Van Der Velden
Week 4 – Howardena Pindell: Negotiating Abstraction