Week 13

Research Assignment: Design biography

Jonathan Ive

Jonathan Ive is a product designer and currently the senior vice-president of design at Apple. Also known as Jony, Ive was born on February 1967 in Chingford London. Ive studied Industrial Design at the Newcastle Polytechnic (now known as Northumbria University) starting in 1985. At school, he was already very well recognized, and won two awards for design from the Royal Society of Arts. Another designer, Clive Grinyer, remembers Ive's "sheer focus to get it perfect," when visiting his flat and found "it filled to the rafters with hundreds of foam models of Ive's final project."  After graduating, Jonathan Ives joined Grinyer in a London design consultancy called Tangerine. Ive states that while he learned he wasn't good at building a business, he learned much by designing a wide range of products "from hair combs and ceramics, to power tools and televisions" and by finding out that he was really only interested in design. From there Ive received an offer to join Apple in California. Apple's values and history appealed to Ive and he assumed he would be working independently, so Ive decided to accept a full-time position there.

Ive is most known for his work at Apple. However, Ive's first few years of Apple were frustrating (before Steve Jobs came back to Apple). Apple was in a state of decline and Ive felt that Apple "seemed to have lost what had once been a very clear sense of identity and purpose." While Ive had a bit more control over the design process, he felt he was "only marginally more effective or influential than" when he was a consultant. This also applies to designers everywhere. Many times designers end up being used only as a tool, especially at companies that are in competing industries and have lost a sense of identity. If a company only thinks about costs, than the company is already losing their target market. Design is no longer important.  However this changed for Ive when Steve Jobs returned to Apple. Jobs was able to steer Apple on its own path different from other companies. This can be seen in Ive and the Apple design team's work.

First is the 2008 iMac. This was a revolutionary change to the computer industry, because computers never before had been so brightly colored, let alone transparent. There is also the G4 Cube. Because the computer core is held up in between plastic, air will naturally cool the computer through the bottom without any fans. Ive however is most known for designing the iPod and the iPhone. The iPod redefined the digital music player and is now a standard other companies compare themselves to, design-wise and quality-wise.

Ive and his design team have also embraced new technology in order to produce products like the iPod. The iPod is completely sealed by twin-shot plastic, a technology almost only exclusive seen with iPod and iPhone products. However, not much of the iPod or iPhone is really applicable to sustainable design. In order to create such a densely packed piece of technology, there really is no thought to how it would affect the environment or how it can be recycled. However again, the iPod is something that is easily thrown away either.

Jonathan Ive has won many awards for his designs, including receiving a Commander of the order of the British Empire (CBE), winning Design Museum's inaugural Designer of the Year award in 2002 and 2003, awarded the MDA Personal Achievement Award for the iPhone, and other awards.

sources:
http://designmuseum.org/design/jonathan-ive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002414.htm

Week 11?

note: I have no idea what week it is now.


Modernism and Movies
This week we will be examining the films Monterey Pop (1967) directed by DA Pennebaker and Playtime (1967) directed by Jacques Tati.


Compare and Contrast Monterey Pop and Playtime
At a first look, these two movies are completely different and seem unrelated. For most part, this is true. Monterey Pop is a documentary about the Monterey Pop concert while Playtime is clearly a commentary on the failings of modernism. This modernism is in the sense of the international style, mostly propagated by the Germany Bauhaus School. A crucial aspect of modernism was universalism, the way of designing something so that it is timeless and not as attached to culture, because it appeals to everyone. However despite differences in content, these movies both offer reasons why the concept of modernism fails on a personal and human level. Monterey Pop is filmed in the midst of counterculture, a determined movement against corporate and sameness, while Playtime exhibits what it would be like in a (almost) completely modernist society, where everything is universal and blends together in a world of gray.

Playtime doesn't have so much as a plot and is more of an exploration of a modernist world. This is made up of situations that occur within this world, and is made to point out how far modernism is removed from humanity.  Monterey Pop doesn't have a plot either, and is just a series of shots documenting people in the event and some of the bands that played during the event. However, the scene in each movie is very different.  Playtime features tall gray buildings with many glass panels. There is a scene in the movie where Monsieur Hulot, a character in the film, gets confused as to how to get in the building because there are so many glass panels. This shows how modernist design is not meant for human interaction and the design only ends up confusing. In Monterey Pop, everything is mostly open and outdoors. People are lying on the grass, sitting in chairs listening, or eating at their leisure. Everything seems relaxed and happy; it is a nice sunny day, whereas the sky is hardly seen at all in Playtime. All the scenes in Playtime seem to show why modernism fails, whether it's a character confused as to why something was designed this way, or the design is unintuitive and unnatural. This never appears in Monterey Pop; there are even times when people enjoy the sort of messiness and disorganization within the show.  People are able to spread themselves out, while in Playtime people seems to be stuck in boxes or running into things.  The way things are in Playtime seem efficient and fast, but are cold and unsympathetic; another example is when Monsieur Hulot is looking for the man with the folder, and is lost among the cubicles, while the man gives files to another person in another cubicle after calling him from another cubicle.  It feels all very extraneous but tight, and very impersonal.  This is completely the opposite in Monterey Pop when a band is playing. Here music is broadcast directly to a large crowd, and no matter what someone is doing, whether sitting or getting food or talking to someone else, the music can always be heard.

Overall, countless examples and difference can be drawn between both of the movies, and some more differences at listed below in the bullet points.

• Monterey Pop
• Space
• Open park, Crowded with all kind of people watching the concert, picnic setting
• Events
• Concert, Sleeping in tents, food, partying
• Clothes
• "hippie clothes," one piece gown/dresses, jeans, casual suits
• Objects
• guitars, drum set, plastic chairs, tents, blankets
• Colors
• browns, greens, oranges, blues, reds, very colorful in general
• Materials
• plastic, cloth, fur, fabric, metal, denim, nature
• Playtime
• Space
• organized, empty or crowded, same
• Events
• meetings, tours, waiting, attempt at dinner/party
• Clothes
• grey or black suits, grayish clothes
• Objects
• chairs, glass doors, garbage/ashtrays, machines, umbrella
• Colors
• greyish colors, limited other colors
• Materials
• metal, neon lights, glass, plastic, vinyl

Week 8

Design and Technology

This week's reading includes Museum Piece, an article focusing on April Greiman by Todd Hays and Pixel Perfect, an article focusing on Pascal Dangin by Lauren Collins.

Museum Piece
In this article, Todd Hays talks about two posters that April Greiman has done for The Modern Poster exhibit at the MoMA.  What is so innovative about Greiman's work is that she has used the computer to make both of her posters. A program she uses, called Graphic Paintbox, can draw, paint and photocollage on the computer. Greiman mentions how you can see the pixels when you zoom in to retouch details in the poster, and how it is unfortunate that there is no way to get pixel patterns out of the computer systems.  The article also talks about how the programs layering function allows elements to fade in to another, a technique only possible on the computer. The article concludes with Greiman looking at the new possibilities of technology and how it is well received by people willing to accept new technology. Overall I was pretty baffled when I read this article from 1988 since now most graphic design is made using the computer. Techniques described to achieve certain effects can now be easily done.  Many fonts have been created that are only on the computer.  Reading the article makes me realize how much graphic design as a profession has changed.  The computer did more than anyone probably thought it would. Everything now has been simplified.  It is now easier to create something on the computer and to print it.  Perhaps since now computers can do so much, maybe it is better to limit ourselves when creating design.

• Exhibit at MoMA called The Modern Poster featuring around 300 posters 
• April Greiman has two posters in the exhibit
• Greiman was influenced by Swiss design
• April Greiman, Inc has four Apple computers, both posters and type created using the computers
• Program called the Graphic Paintbox used to draw, paint, and photocollage
• print process using various colors and in a certain order

Pixel Perfection

Lauren Collins examines Pascal Dangin and his work as a fashion photograph retoucher. Many people rely on him for retouching, like photographers, magazines, and celebrities. Dangin can also be seen as more of a re-interpretor of the photograph.  He can draw out possibilities that may not have been obvious, and makes sure each photograph is perfect. Collins goes over Dangin's process in one of his meeting to retouch a model. All the corrections are marked with a grease pencil.  However, the actual retouching is done afterwards by Dangin himself. There is also a lot knowledge that goes behind retouching photographs. Dangin require that his artists take in house classes on anatomy.  Prospective hires need to take a fifty-six question quiz ranging from computer science to art history. Overall, this article revealed that it takes much more than knowing how to use Photoshop to become a retoucher for fashion photographs.  The computer is just a tool, it is still up to the individual to use the tool effectively and efficiently. Without prior knowledge, the touch-up could just end up looking fake or mediocre. However this technology has also given viewers an unrealistic sense of beauty.  The retouches output a perfect model, but not a "realistic" one.

• Pascal Dangin is the goto guy for photograph retouching
• many people call him for help to retouch their photographs, including photographers, magazines, and celebrities
• Pascal Dangin is more for just removing blemishes, he can re-image an entire photograph
• started as a hairdresser
• worked long enough until he was sure his retouching skills were up to par
• admits retouching may give an unrealistic expectation of beauty, but doesn't distort the skeleton or disfigure the body
• today's computer programs have reduced quality of photography because the photography can be fixed
• Dangin attends photoshoot and is there for every step of the process to make sure the image is realized