3 ms·

i just don't understand it. the idolization of ive as a designer is truly confusing to me. i feel a sense of stubbornness and tunnel vision in his approach, whi

i just don't understand it. the idolization of ive as a designer is truly confusing to me. i feel a sense of stubbornness and tunnel vision in his approach, which seems rather amateurish, for all of his designs. for example, the article suggests ive wants movement to be at the core of the workplace. how does endless seas of rectangles promote movement?! just look at those pictures! there is not a single design element that isn't founded upon a rectangle other than the overall building shape, which has little effect on the internal use. every single picture screams monolith, which is the last word i would associate with movement. the pictures and environment tell me a story of grids, crowded with clusters of people. the design says "this will be a very noisy place, both audibly and visually". nothing in the design promotes movement or separation or any concept really. and ive always seems to childishly defend his designs, where he basically responds with "you just don't understand". and i like how the article states mastermind in the title yet gives very concrete examples to the contrary in the form of employee complaints and concerns. what was masterminded, exactly? ive's design aesthetic is based upon gray, white, glass, rectangles. and nothing else. what an artistic snooze fest, even ignoring the actual usefulness of his designs.

theoh 9y ago
Ive has some kind of charisma that makes his designs convincing. It's notable that everyone mentioned in that WSJ article (Bono, Foster, Serota) is a charismatic, persuasive leader. Ive's work is competent, in the tradition of Dieter Rams, not a snoozefest but part of a long tradition of rejecting shallow styling (the major culprit in the eyes of those designers, eg at HfG Ulm, was the exaggerated forms of auto design of 50s America) Apple design makes sense if you see it as a cultural practice embedded in competing traditions of design (analogous to punk vs prog rock vs ...). Jobs himself placed great importance on developing his own charisma, a compelling personal vision. The fact that it's largely a functional vision conceals the seductive ideology behind it. If you look at Swiss graphic design, like Josef Muller-Brockmann's work, it's often just sans-serif type in a grid layout on a white background. That can be interesting once you tune in to it. This probably sounds patronizing but I mean to say minimalism can be just as interesting and subtle as maximalism. Splashy, garish expression is not a long-term solution to the "snoozefest" problem. Having said all that, sometimes minimalism is just a way of being chic (like an art gallery) rather than vulgar (like a muscle car). I'm definitely not saying it's better, but the superficially dull ingredients (straight lines, gray, rectangles) are not the deciding factor. Apple HQ may be a meretricious display of precision and expensive design independently of the superficial appearance.

theoh 9y ago

Ive has some kind of charisma that makes his designs convincing. It's notable that everyone mentioned in that WSJ article (Bono, Foster, Serota) is a charismatic, persuasive leader. Ive's work is competent, in the tradition of Dieter Rams, not a snoozefest but part of a long tradition of rejecting shallow styling (the major culprit in the eyes of those designers, eg at HfG Ulm, was the exaggerated forms of auto design of 50s America) Apple design makes sense if you see it as a cultural practice embedded in competing traditions of design (analogous to punk vs prog rock vs ...). Jobs himself placed great importance on developing his own charisma, a compelling personal vision. The fact that it's largely a functional vision conceals the seductive ideology behind it. If you look at Swiss graphic design, like Josef Muller-Brockmann's work, it's often just sans-serif type in a grid layout on a white background. That can be interesting once you tune in to it. This probably sounds patronizing but I mean to say minimalism can be just as interesting and subtle as maximalism. Splashy, garish expression is not a long-term solution to the "snoozefest" problem. Having said all that, sometimes minimalism is just a way of being chic (like an art gallery) rather than vulgar (like a muscle car). I'm definitely not saying it's better, but the superficially dull ingredients (straight lines, gray, rectangles) are not the deciding factor. Apple HQ may be a meretricious display of precision and expensive design independently of the superficial appearance.