Embracing Design Ideologies

Design Culture and Theory

Designers Dieter Rams and Eva Zeisel appealed to a unique dsign approach that broke from mainstream theories and instead theorized simplicity and functionality. In the articles “Omit the Unimportant” by Rams and “Designer For Industry” by Zeisel , design is a means for embracing two different ideologies that serve as manifestos.

Exploring the manifestos, Rams implies a social responsibility to “work together more seriously and thoughtfully” (111), the intention is to apply design principles that focus on tools. Similar to perceiving the computer as a tool that forms its own character or credibility. Ram’s theory of omitting the unimportant suggests good design satisfies both idea and form. Without purpose, you are deceiving consumers.

Although both these articles appeal to credibility as designers, Zeisel further conveys an emotional appeal. By using adjectives such as “beautiful”, “aesthetic”, and “attractive”, the reader visualizes the context of craft. As a design profession, Zeisel applies a method primarily in things that look good and work for whomever, however they want. The design is not for the greater good as Ram’s would declare, but dependent on one single person (2).

Zeisel considers the thought of function and states, “more important, the designer must understand that form does not follow function, nor does form follow a production process” (2). Whereas Rams insists “the latest design trends are intended to evoke emotions by trivial superficial means” (112) and disagrees with the approach, implying it as a sign of “weakness”.

The contrasting arguments compel ideas that value simplicity. Ram’s functional product designs are simplistic to emphasize importance and Zeisel’s craft simply proposes the body of an object as a design.

As constructive criticism against these articles, the arguments are well theorized and focus on the process of becoming a designer. As a designer, holding identities, beliefs and social practices push culture and opinion. The function and desirable hand craft is what allows the ongoing development of the service system. What the service is connected to and does is more important than anything else. For instance, a phone does not matter if it has no applications to serve the larger purpose of society. Furthermore, organized chaos that contradicts Ram’s, considers a constantly evolving system. If a set of values or way of thinking was applied to design, it suggests design tied to manufacturing. It convinces a fundamental change or underlying assumption to rival the industrial revolution (transition to new manufacturing processes, small shops and home’s to large factories) (Hara). When in contrast, design is a means for invention and experiment to design with, not for, as a Human.

Discussion:

Where does culture fit in this?

Is Ram’s implying there is no room for revolutionary products, there is just a product?

Works Cited:

Zeisel, Eva. “On Being a Designer.” Eva Zeisel: Designer for Industry. Montreal: Le Château Dufresne, Inc., Musée des Arts Décoratifs, 1984. 73–82.

Rams, Dieter. “Omit the Unimportant.” Design Issues 1 (Spring 1984): 24–26.