Design Derivative Design

Kyle Hinton — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:46:06 +0000

What’s in a chair? Its design or the design of a human being? You can’t change or redesign the human form. Outside of facial plastic surgery and weight reduction the simple framework and function of what it means to be human cannot be altered by Karim Rashid or Philippe Starck. Designers create objects derived from us and out of those designs, will sometimes create new forms of human function. Design derivative design is nothing new of course, but recently some of the best designs, award-winning, famed designer designs are dependent upon a previously designed object that was also beautifully designed.

Parrot Zikmu by Philippe Starck Wireless Stereo Speakers
The iPhone imagined a whole new way to touch and feel a device and in turn, designers have created an entire new way to experience that object. I can’t help but wonder what the future holds for products. What design will they have inevitably derived from? An extra eye? A third hand? Movement without the wheel?

Block Lamp designed by Harri Koskinen, 1996

Edison’s invention of the lightbulb in the late 1800s was a sight to be seen. Back in those days, pure invention was something to feast your eyes on. The lightbulb has been designed and redesigned over the years and billions and billions of dollars are made out of what used to be a simple thin globe of glass and metal coil. Today, invention is set aside and design and marketing are given the most attention.

Original Thomas Edison 1880 Patent

Thomas Edison’s Light Bulb

Pig Lamp by Ariel Rojo, 2008

The piggy bank wasn’t invented by anyone in particular. Its design was more a realized image in the minds of people using the 15th century word for orange clay, “pygg” which 300 years later sounded a lot like the word “pig” for the 18th century English. Someone had the bright idea to blend the two and make a lil’ piggy. How many came into the picture, no one will ever know.

Sorry, no beige.

William Town — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:06:49 +0000

For the past three decades, Apple has prided itself on being one of the only advertisers to make the justified claim that their product speaks for itself. In much the same way that Irving Penn’s Clinique ads operated, the commercials proudly spoke ‘we don’t need to spin a story here, we’ve already got what we need’. When the need for a little humanity came along, we were given extreme personification with spinning iMacs that expectantly stuck their tongue, rewarding us for making the connection. When an actual human hit the scene, he wasn’t really given a scene, just some more white space. So why now the abundance of beige? With their latest iPad commercials, it’s as if Apple wants us to take a look at their product, then a look at their generic styling, and then come to the conclusion that what we are being sold is, well, pretty generic. Because, after all, what does the product itself have left to say?

shop-arc » Apple

Design Derivative Design

Sorry, no beige.