The aesthetic bikes thread got me thinking. Why do some people think that something can only be a “good” design if it ticks certain boxes – i.e. minimalist, striking, that sort of thing?

There are entire companies founded on things that are not particularly nice to use or well-made, but which satisfy people’s desire to own something that is “well-designed”.

To put it another way, is a Charles Eames chair a “better” design than a La-Z-Boy? Which would you rather have in your house? Which would you rather sit on?

aesthetics or utility.

a rigid fixie with no brakes looks better cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.

to add to that i have a friend who is a big stark fan and has one of the iconic alessi lemon sqeezers however he bought it in the gold coloured finish – which has a lable attached saying “warning not to be used, citric acis will remove finish” it’s not a great lemon squeezer to start with but that takes the biscuit.

a rigid fixie with no brakes looks better cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.

*Awaits the arrival of the evangelic, hair shirt brigade to argue for the former*

Durrrr!

Chair with beer fridge? No brainer surely?

Depends on the purpose of the design though surely? The “design goal” as they say.

The first chair is primarily nice to look at, the second is primarily nice to sit on.

We had a set of the Eames chairs when I was a kid – look great, but very uncomfortable on the back as the wire frame digs in, and the top part comes loose from the lower frame, so not well designed. I am a fan of some of his other chairs though.

Having said that – you can’t compare those two chairs, as they perform different functions…… dining chair and living room chair.

In my opinion neither are good design.

Yeah and in some cases the “design goal” is to provide a talking point at someone’s deeply tedious dinner party.

The fixie thing is a good example actually – I understand that in London at the moment there are as many people pushing them as riding them.

ash500, I bet that for most La-Z-Boy owners the distinction between living room and dining room is distinctly hazy. 🙂

I like this, its called “How High the Moon”, not to uncomfy either…

a rigid fixie with no brakes looks better cleaner than a full sus but what would you rather ride.

Let me decide, I have two bike at the moment

Normally the second one has a standard 26″ wheel on it. I specced the SS to look clean and I think it is beautiful and is absolutely ideal for blasting around the New Forest. The Scott I have had for 10 years and is absolutely perfect for 90% of the riding I do.

I think I would rather ride both.

There was a big discussion about this in landscaping circles – is ‘good design’ restricted to mega budget, high impact schemes in fantastic sites or is it just as applicable to someone who met the brief perfectly with a well thought out solution, but where the brief/budget/site meant it was never going to be a star of their portfolio.

The other extreme is the high impact scheme that has got so many small flaws that mean that it would be a nightmare to live with but which look great on camera and in the glossy mags. Joe public would probably love the look of these but wouldn’t spot the pitfalls until the thing was actually built, and of course after shelling out loads of cash they’re never going to admit to them…

So no, good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

whats that calender where you can tell when it is by the colour of the day? design classic and absolute shite (imo)

graduated in design and moved into engineering because i just cant deal with design types!

So no, good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

they are if the brief is to create the most aesthetic (garden) possible.

designing good products that can be lived with and look good is far more difficult. Ipod? design classic? maybe. influential? certainly look at how white is still infecting everything.

they are if the brief is to create the most aesthetic (garden) possible.

That’s why I said ‘not necessarily’. If a client wants a creative, artistic statement and doesn’t care about where the kids will play, where they’ll hang the washing, where they can sit in the sun/shade, how many hours a week they’ll spend maintaining it etc etc then the gloves are off!

good aesthetics and good design are not necessarily the same thing.

yep, its entirely subjective. Do you think that the spitfire was designed to look cool or be agile/fast/effective? Sometimes looking great and working great combine, other times they don’t.

It’s all personal taste isnt it. Silly question really.

I’d rather have functional machined items that are designed to do their job properly and efficiently than something that looks good. Obviously I’d like both if possible but I weight to the former, but thats hardly surprising when you realise my life revolves around engineering rather than art.

Flipping it around a bit.

Why do some products work fine but look sh1te?

How hard is it to make something look a little bit nice without degrading its performance?

How hard is it to make something look a little bit nice without degrading its performance?

££££££££££

Actually if you’re talking about Spitfire, the Hurricane was a more effective warplane as it could be repaired quickly and simply and put back in the air within hours.

aP, I’d like an entire room of that furniture so i could feel like I was in a 3D ZX Spectrum game.

Good design is easy. What is difficult is getting the engineering right and within a sensible budget. Quality costs a lot of money, but you can’t always tell when looking at a product.

It is all subjective. Its a bit like saying “Define Quality”. It depends on what you require from the product, what your specifications are. If a designer meets the brief fully even exceeding it, it could be argued that he has designed a Quality product. Whether it goes on to be a ‘design classic’ depends on its uptake in the market place, which is where the marketing men come in making you think that you want/need the product. The Stark Juicer is classic form over function and thus to me is not a quality product, It does look nice though!

Hi all by the way, I’ve just joined after avidly reading the forums (fora for the pedantic)! for a couple of months. 🙂

Good way to make an entrance, Jackson Pollock!

Aesthetics is always gonna be a very subjective thing. The ‘rules’ are tied up with culture, and expectation of the viewer. What appears aesthetically pleasing to Westerners, may not be, to those in the East. Etc.

I remember having this argument with a mate of mine, many years ago. He really liked the Rietveld house, whereas I said it was a glorified Portakabin.

My best summing up, of what is ‘good’ design, is something that ‘its’ the purpose. Not necessarily the best engineering solution, but something that works well, and is a pleasure to behold.

Take the London bus. I think there can be no argument; the Routemaster was simply a better aesthetic solution, than the more modern alternatives.

Maybe it’s the curves, the ‘cuteness’ of the ‘face’ at the front. Certainly, they always felt more luxurious, than the far more stark and functional modern versions.

I think it’s also something we, as Humans, find instinctively ‘comfortable’ with. We are praps more predisposed towards curved lines, soft edges, something that evokes nature, maybe. And then there’s the deep, subconsciously sexual nature of some objects; people seem to prefer things that might feel more pleasurable to hold, or run your fingers over.

On a purely visual level, I think simpler, bold shapes can often work better than intricate designs, in many applications. Again, rounded shapes are more popular than hard, straight edges. Think of company logos; how many are comprised using only straight-sided geometrical shapes? Nike, McDonalds, Apple, Shell, etc. Even companies like BMW, VW and Mercedes involve a circle.

And then there’s the relationship between the logo/design, and the product/service/sensation offered.

Remember the old BT logo? Far, far better at signifying the service, than the new one.

Much better, I think, than the new one. The whole logo+text+colour scheme thing was a winner; instantly recognisable, and something you could feel comfortable with.

I mean, wtf is this about?

Nice, but does it really sa ‘telecom’, to you?

And don’t get me started on this piece of shit:

So, a very subjective and emotive topic. But a very exciting one. I’m always arguing about form v function with my web coding mate. I argue that it has to look good; it’s a form of visual media. He is inertested only in how it works. I say that it’s aesthetic appeal is integral to it’s function…

Which chair would you rather sit in?

(One will cost significantly more than the other)

pmsl at rudeboys description of the 2012 olymic logo

RB, yea the second one will cost more as they collapse and the screws pull out the joints far too easily, horrendous design if you ask me. Thus by the time you’ve replaced it with something more substantial………..

buy cheep, buy twice.

Rudeboy, there seems to be a heavy element of nostalgia in your choices. I think the new BT logo is great, why restrict yourself to a clunky two-colour one in this day and age? And what does the old one actually evoke, shorn of all other context?

Agree with OP – people mix up design and looks.

Best designed car I’ve ever driven is my Ford Mondeo – everything is just right (apart from stupid clock).

Good design – performs its function with economy and elegance. good design is almost always elegant

TJ, that sounds pretty much spot on. Maybe that’s the reason that the iPod is still considered the benchmark in MP3 players, despite potentially better, cheaper solutions being available.

For me at least, the iPod is subtle, understated and easy to use. Using it is intuitive and quick. It just works.

Designers give you something that looks nice
Engineers give you something that works well
Design Engineers give you both 8)

the GF is currently completing her diploma in Product Design. another house mate is in the same position too, and two of our neighbours, and most of their friends.

some of them seem unable to pick things up without commenting on some detail or improvement that could be made.

gets a little tedious at times. “we’re ‘dsigners’, it’s our job” i get told.

there is another Eames chair that you could compare to the Lay-Z-boy

now that i would gladly have in my living room. just need ~£3000.

What about the humble paperclip- fantastically designed. Its form is completely dictated by its function. Its beautiful in its simplicity. Very difficult to improve upon, yet is not often thought of as a ‘Design Classic’ and is used by a vast number of end users.

I’m not an arty farty type by the way, just a newly redundant Quality Manager. Usually having to reconcile what designers have ‘conceptualized’ with what the production engineers say is possible, to meet the expectations and specifications of the customer. Anyone got a job for me!? 😆

Thanks for stopping me from googling for that Eames chair, alpin. Perfect example of ticking all the boxes.

I think the new BT logo is great.

Really? You’re just trolling I hope.

you’d be supprised how much ‘improvement’ work goes on with paperclips. Usualy trying to design them to use less and less metal or speed up production. Which brings me to my next point…………..

No one’s mentioned cost and time (have they)? If someone made that ikea chair RB posted comfortable and druable for the same price, then it would be a great design. As it is it gave me pins and needles in my legs and fell to pices.

I did Product Design Alpin, yep it drives people mad 🙂 They gave us a project to do on weather vanes once, amazing how many there are once you start looking 😳

The flipside though is people always saying to you “I know something you could design!!! How about a widget that does…..” can I just stop you there, what is your budget, what tooling do you have….oh…you don’t actually have any money do you!

… the iPod is still considered the benchmark in MP3 players, despite potentially better, cheaper solutions being available

I gave mine to my wife:
* the wheel thing is far too sensitive – poor engineering
* the product tie-in to a non-standard USB cable is a triumph of marketing over design

Good design – performs its function with economy and elegance. good design is almost always elegant

I’m not sure about the elegant bit – I’ve got a great carrot grater at home, it’s perfectly designed for the job, but could hardly be called elegant. Spot on about the economy, though.

When I visited the FIAT factory I had a chat with the designers about the sort of car they liked working on best. They all said that from a design point of view, coming up with a car that had an RRP of under 7k, and huge service intervals was a much more satifying challenge than something exotic that would sell for the price of an average house.

Yeah, I’m aware that Charles Eames designed some much more comfy and normal looking chairs than the one I posted. The “wire” chair is a case in point though – they must have been very cheap to manufacture (all of our uni halls of residence came supplied with one) but now fetch big money second hand in poncey boutiques.

You’re just trolling I hope.

No, I like it. It’s distinctive and evocative (reminds me of stuff like globes and satellite dishes) without actually looking like anything in particular. The fact that it’s usually found at the top of bills for rip-off connection charges is hardly the designer’s fault.

The designer of the Ford Ka said that he wanted every part of it to be distinctly identifiable even when it was broken up in a scrap yard. That sounds like the wrong way of going about things to me.

Good design depends(just as has been said already) on answering the brief in hand.

No design for any item could ever meet all possible criteria so to argue whether one item is a better example of design compared to another would depend on, primarily, whether they were both designed with the same brief in mind.

Using the OP example, if that was a university project to design, say, the world’s most comfortable chair irrespective of cost, example one would quite clearly have failed the brief quite spectacularly.

If, however, the brief was to design a piece of modern furniture as art to rival the best Art Nouveau Furniture, then example two would fail equally as badly as example one in the former scenario.