simplifying, but why?

-

Simplicity reduces things to the essence, but this is not its priority in design. The foundation of simplification in design is based on Vitruvius’ principles and Industrial Revolution is its milestone.

Centuries before Europe, division of labor - as a primitive mass production - was practiced in China. The Venetian Arsenal (1104) also operated similarly to a production line, but it is industrial manufacturing that is associated with simplification. After Industrial Revolution (1760), mass manufacturing supplanted craftsmanship, and Ford's methods (1913) were quickly adopted by other industries. Assembly lines necessitated the standardization of affordable goods to the average person. Therefore, simplicity occurred. Peter Behrens, Raymond Loewy, Louise Sullivan are the pioneers who address it as a functional way of design and production.

Form (ever) follows function. (Sullivan, 1896)

The major use of tall buildings was office work, as a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution. Sullivan argued that the exterior form should reflect this new function. Frank Lloyd Wright followed him and stated: “Simplicity and repose are the qualities that measure the true value of any work of art.”

Simplicity was redefined as ‘ornament being a crime’ (Loos, 1908) and later ‘the house being a machine for living’ (Le Corbusier, 1927). Adding ornaments is considered a waste of time since they eventually become obsolete. In addition to art movements like De Stijl (1917), The Deutscher Werkbund (1907) was a design association embracing this approach. Influenced by both this association and Peter Behrens, Walter Gropius founded Bauhaus (1919). The school adopted the idea of ​​designing clean, simple, functional.

In retrospect, simplicity reduces design to a single optimal form, but it also inhibits product differentiation. Signifiers are perceptible cues to easily discover how to interact and simplification causes the absence of these signifiers. The designs which are only made to function, do not function in this sense.

Comments

  1. GoncaNovember 24, 2021 at 5:10 AM

    Louis Sullivan's “The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered”, a 6-page contribution to the March 1896 issue of Lippincott's Monthly Magazine

    "Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form (ever) follows function, and this is the law."

    "...an indefinite number of stories of offices piled tier upon tier, one tier just like another tier, one office just like all the other offices, an office being similar to a cell in a honey-comb, merely a compartment, nothing more."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Flash vs Apple

-
Simplicity and complexity in design have been following each other for ages. Oversimplification to be functional lose its function in the end. Similarly, making something overly complex to personalize leads to lack of characterization. The reason behind sameness in design is to implement a mainstream approach overly or gratuitously. But does it cause from the misperception of designers or the boundaries that design tools set? *** In 1996, Macromedia acquired a vector-based web animation tool called FutureSplash, originally released in 1993. By 2009, Adobe announced that this tool -Flash - was installed on 99% of internet-connected desktop PCs. It grew because it filled a gap. Animations, video, sound, and interactivity were launched to web by dint of Adobe. But it is said that Adobe failed to capture the world of mobile devices, even with its efforts like Flash Lite. When the iPhone came out, Flash wasn't quite ready. But also, I think Apple wanted to create an Apple-only ecosy
Read more

seeking the outside |a new perspective

-
It's nothing new that day by day contemporary design outputs look more alike . There is a considerable amount of sameness , but the problematic part is so little questioning of why. The designer is offered countless possibilities thanks to the developing technology and is expected to produce experimental works. On the contrary, we are in a period full of designs that will soon be impossible to distinguish one from the other. Besides the visual exhaustion, this absence of an experimental design process causes less expressive creation but more blindly copying. It seems like the limits of technology expand, the limits of our imagination shrink. One of the main reasons behind this monopoly is the aesthetic monoculture launched by the trendsetters like Apple, Facebook, and Google. In one of her interviews, Amy Standen states “There are consequences, both social and aesthetic, of a web that’s increasingly dominated by big corporations trying to sell us stuff. Aesthetically, it means le
Read more