4 ms·
The point is—and perhaps I'm astronauting a bit—beauty is functional in it's own right. That's different from what Eames said, at least in this quote. He said
by dkarl 14y ago
The point is—and perhaps I'm astronauting a bit—beauty is functional in it's own right.
That's different from what Eames said, at least in this quote. He said, "Who would say that pleasure is not useful?" Pleasure and beauty are not the same thing. If he limited himself to beauty, he could have designed beautiful, uncomfortable chairs, but that would have resulted in a great deal of resentment from (most) people who had to sit on them. When an object's functionality falls far short of its beauty, the user feels that his or her needs are taken to be superfluous given the beauty of the object. These "narcissistic" objects are nice to have around at first, thanks to the enjoyment of their beauty, but eventually you hate them as much as you would hate a person who felt entitled to be a jerk because of their physical beauty.
In any product, a web site as much as a chair, discomfort combined with beauty is a stick in the eye, because you can tell from the beauty that considerable work went into the design. An ugly, uncomfortable chair is just a bad chair. A beautiful, uncomfortable chair is the result of someone very, very good investing a lot of time, which could have resulted in a comfortable chair, except they didn't give a damn about you or your comfort; they just wanted "their" chair to be beautiful.
- duopixel 14y agoYes, many uncomfortable objects are designed as statements of form (the Reitveild Chair or the Juicy Salif).But I consider these examples of art, not design. The main use of a chair is sitting down, and thus a well designed chair will always be comfortable. This, of course, doesn't preclude it from being beautiful, as in Eames own work: http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3218172/.jpg http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3218172/.jpg
- dkarl 14y agoIn this context, I can't help hating the story of the Rietveld chair. As I understand it, Rietveld intended to design furniture that would be widely popular and enjoyed, and the simple design of his chair was influenced by his anticipation of mass production. If you look at the chair and see a reflection of his delusion about or indifference to the experience of the masses of ordinary people he hoped would sit in it, it doesn't look so good. Yet it became famous because it had value when viewed as art. The story of a designer who created an uncomfortable chair that none of his intended users wanted, yet it (and he) ended up being famous design icons... that isn't the story I want designers to think about as they work on a product I will end up using ;-)