Sunday, November 30, 2008

Collaborating & Connecting

Boundaries are blurred and collaboration rules. This applies equally to the global movement of cultural traditions and to recent cross-over projects in the various fields of design, and even art. As local companies start to embrace a sense of place, people, and manufacturing, they also look out into global world of design and designers for collaborations and connections. For example, the Brazilian company, Melissa, (http://www.melissaplasticdreams.com/profile), is a good example of successful collaborations among different fields. The company works with only recycled PVC materials. The project is to reinvent the company’s name by bringing well known designers, such as Campana Brothers, Zaha Hadid, Viviane Westwood, Judy Blame, and Karim Rashid. They are all from different fields, most of them not related to shoe design, asked to translate their uniqueness into a shoe form. The final products often embody the designers’ style, but refreshing because it is in projects unexpected from them.

The design field gains with these collaborations. First, innovations in how a work came to be rather than how it looks. Different fields of design have different approaches to problems. It shows how there is x ways to get to a common product. Second, collaboration’s opportunities are forms of, as designers, reinventing ourselves. While, designers can get comfortable on the area of expertise, there are more to be learned about when stepping outside of the comfort zone. Third, products associated with well known designers can reach a bigger market. In that aspect, it can be a good market strategy for sustainable, or eco friendly products to broaden their niche in society. Lastly, it meets the aspect that so many modern designers miss when they called their pieces functional: it democratizes design.

As discussed in my previous post, industrial design seems to reach further than solving user’s need and being functional. Like the McDonald’s case study, the whole “functional” concept seems not to be used as first intended and user’s need goes beyond solving problem s to means of delivering a intentional “image”. How a product is translated by users? What kind of images does it convey? From the most complex to simple aesthetics, they carry the designer’s statement. It often reflects the creator’s field of experience. From that point, should one’s field of experience be limited to what he/she is good at? By focusing on developing a certain line of problem.-solving products, can we as designer reach innovation?

In the last ID history class, students had different opinions on the boundaries of being an Industrial Designer. When thrown the question: “Can design and art coexist?” while some students lean towards focusing on primarily solving user’s problem, a good amount want to bring fine art into industrial design. They feel limited when trying to fit solely in Industrial Design terms. I think that the whole idea of Industrial Design be based on problem solving and functionality is not the constraining element, but the definition of “problem”. For instance, re-designing a product around its aesthetics could be not for visual please, but intended to bring a new experience to consumers. Humans are not only body, but mind as well. Thus, the “problem” does not have to be always on the physical interaction, but also on the emotional aspect.

I believe that trying to limit design into categories or fields becomes impediment for innovation. As an Industrial Design student merged into Brazilian, Korean, and American traditions, I want to revel in this opportunity and be able to transcend to communicate globally. I am inspired by companies, like Melisa that show me, yes, this is the way forward, today.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home