This is about design in general. The last years I've been to many seminars and courses about interface design, industrial design, etc. and every single one of them tought me that the Dieter Rams/Braun design as well as Apple design is probably the only good way of design. White, minimalistic, clean and edged.
What do you think about it? If everything is designed in that way, wouldn't it be pretty boring, cold and without any connection to a culture (depending on the location).
The more I look at all those Dieter Ram's style products, the more tired I get of it. I can't see it anymore. For me it is not beautiful but somehow depressing. There is no uniqueness, no art left.
I get your point but I think you may be taking the courses a bit too literal. You shouldn't just do the same thing that Rams did, but you should take his design philosophies in account, I think they are saying.
I agree that saying everything should be designed according to any specific philosophy is detrimental to the industry as a whole though.
Pic unrelated. It does show that within the same philosophy you can have a lot of variation.
>>272275
that's because he's german....go look at minimalism in other cultures.
>>272292
u wot
It's important to bear these things in mind OP but if you follow them slavishly then it's most likely that boring design will ensue. Use your instincts to determine how much of a specific influence is appropriate for each job and remember that, at the ens of the day, your end goal is probably going to be to sell something to a certain demographic and not a bunch of designers who only wanna see clean helvetica on white backgrounds.
>>272275
High design/art culture is global culture, it is the zeitgeist. If you don't understand that you are going to have a hard time breaking away from your peers that think like you do.
An industrial designer doesn't make art, he's a problem solver foremost, a polymath kind of engineer. He's restricted by the nature of the product, the user, materials, cultural norms and maneuovoring aroun those restrictions gives you a form, otherwise you would "style" a product and not design it.
Rahms has his approach, but it's not the only possible one, different solutions make for different products.
If you can break down your product into it's fundamenal elements, and proove that each of those elements serve a purpose - they can be functional, semantic, or aesthetic - then it's a good design that has a right to exist.
Half a century has passed since post modern design took over in favour of functionalism - look at Memphis, look at Neues Deutsches Design, or a contemporary product, if you break them down and look past the idiosyncrasies, then you'll see how they're all user oriented, very functionable and readable.
>>272275
Because this item arent suppose to be shown on grey background but somewhere in your house between all colours etc.
I understand your point but I wouldnt worry about everything looking boring, theres only handful companies in the world following this trend
>>272275
I think the philosophy/rhetoric is solid with rams but there's tonnes of variation in how things are made based on your personal values/context. Something that incorporates rams rules of design doesn't nessesary look or feel like one of his products. Think of a Bluetooth speaker. It can be glass, soft plastic, fabric textile, rubberised, metallic plastic, raw metal, even wood. What is the feeling of the object that attracts you or a particular demographic? What form would create harmony in its context, and respects it's method of creation/use? The answer to this question will vary from person, to place, to time. There is no singular answer and no singular problem either. If the lectures say that Braun aesthetic is the end of design, they have failed you. Rams was far more humble and wise than that.
>>273614
Even in the history of Braun, you can see massive differences and shifts in aesthetic based on technology, changing tastes, designer insights, and consumer demands. People like to cherry-pick the most iconic works of designers and pretend the other iterations and variations did not exist. Many of the most iconic Braun products are from the first third of his career and he made many improvements afterwards. The early work reflects an easily fetishized mid-century aesthetic that simply photographs well. The picture is not the product.
