4 ms·
I want to respectfully disagree with “Good design is unobtrusive.” I happen to be a fan of unobtrusiveness but I think it’s not the only good way of doing thing
by ugh 16y ago
I want to respectfully disagree with “Good design is unobtrusive.” I happen to be a fan of unobtrusiveness but I think it’s not the only good way of doing things.
Old cathedrals are seldom unobtrusive. I don’t think that they must be badly designed because of that. We can and should allow design and art to occasionally mingle, even at the price of increased obtrusiveness.
The nod to unobtrusiveness doesn’t seem timeless to me. It seems like a too narrow endorsement of a particular style.
- pistoriusp 16y agoI think you might be confusing long-lived with timeless. The cathedrals are old... Almost no one builds "cathedral styled buildings," therefore the style is not timeless. You're thinking too close to the object. That's precisely what makes Dieter Rams products so good. The design and the objects are seamless.
- ugh 16y agoCathedrals are not built anymore but neither are Rams’ calculators. I don’t think anything humans made was ever truly timeless – there is always context. I would absolutely consider some cathedrals examples of good design, or some chairs made 200 years ago.
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoThis article seems more about industrial design of objects designed to be used than about the architecture of buildings designed primarily to impress. That said, there's indeed a use for the second kind of design.
- lsb 16y agoGood design is as obtrusive as it needs to be --- a fruit juicer shouldn't call attention to itself as much as the center of religious and political life in a town.
- kingsidharth 16y ago>ld cathedrals are seldom unobtrusive. I don’t think that they must be badly designed because of that. You are confusing design with art and architecture. Science of Art is design, and design of structures (usually overlaid with art