´Items´ is een nederlands vakblad over design“项目”甚至在荷兰vakblad设计

´Items´ is een nederlands vakblad over design“项目”甚至在荷兰vakblad 设计 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 “Items” is a Dutch journal on design. In November 2003, a reviewer of this journal wrote an unfavourable article on the book Hella Jongerius, by Hella Jongerius. Because his criticism extended itself also to other designs, such as those by Piet Hein Eek, Maarten Baas decided to write a letter to the reviewer concerned. The part of the review to which Maarten responded: „Exercising? by Marc Vlemmings If you always remain exercising, you will never experience what it feels like to win or lose. This is what the work of Hella Jongerius evokes; it never gets beyond exercises. It makes you think: „interesting, but do something with it, develop it, bring it to perfection.? It is exactly this perfection though that Jongerius avoids: she has made imperfection her trademark. Most design critics love this, just like they have canonized Piet Hein Eeks? furniture made of recycled wood. Essentially, however, these designs are insipid products, because they inherently excuse their own existence. This probably has something to do with the fear of lapsing into kitsch. “Typically dutch”, you are inclined to think right now. In the descriptions of many dutch films it is said that it was a “low-budget film”: sorry for the bad acting, the flaws in the script, the inferior sound and picture quality. As if the viewers should take the film?s budget into consideration. Imperfection is not a disgrace, but it should not be deliberate, because that amounts to falsification of the history of a product. Imperfection is inevitable, it is the fate of every product and a designer can only contribute in making the imperfection acceptable for the user. More than that, if a person suggests to make imperfect products, he or she also suggests to know how to make a perfect product. Hella Jongerius? studio is not named „Jongeriuslab? for nothing: she can keep exercising there. Marc Vlemmings The dialogue that was eventually published in the next issue of Items: [Items 1/2004] [Article] [Authors: Marc Vlemmings and Maarten Baas] Imperfection as an excuse In Items 5, Marc Vlemmings wrote in his review on the book „Hella Jongerius? that Jongerius and other designers who declare the imperfection of the product the essence of their work, only do this in order to have a an excuse ready in case they are confronted with criticism. Vlemmings criticises this attitude and used the book as a means of analysing her. In his review, he … than is usually done in articles of this kind, but the editors thought this to be legitimate for the sake of the debate. Designer Maarten Baas felt that the author does not look at it the right way and wrote a response. A debate on imperfection, Dogma-films and coincidence followed. Dear Marc Vlemmings, Designers like Hella Jongerius and Piet Hein Eeks have redefined the idea of beauty. Their choice for imperfection is not an admission of weakness. By admitting imperfection, a whole new area is opened up. An area that stands on its own and therefore should be taken seriously as such. The products of Eek and Jongerius are not ugly perfect products, but rather beautiful imperfect ones (one could even ask oneself if the term „imperfection? is still in place). These designs have a quality of their own and did not arise out of poor conditions. You do however assume that they have and you hold the designers accountable for that. You apply the wrong criteria to the wrong examples. You accuse a good tennisplayer of being a bad footballplayer. I agree that a filmmaker should not bring up a low budget as an excuse for the poor quality of his film. However, what you write about that is not applicable to the imperfection in the designs of for example Jongerius, because the comparison itself is already wrong in the first place. If you would want to compare her designs to examples from the film industry, it would be much more appropriate to use Dogma-films. These are also not expensive, perfect-looking Hollywood productions, but it will never be said in their description that this is because of a low budget. They are good films that coincidentally do not cost very much because they are based on different perceptions on filming techniques. This is also the case in the so-called imperfect designs. They are not excuses but valuable designs. They question the idea that everything should be austere, straight and intact. This concept displays a new kind of beauty. It may therefore be clear that they are not insipid products. This new perception on shape and use of materials is, in my opinion, even very sincere and legitimate. You wrote that imperfection should never be deliberate. That is indeed true, but it should also not be scrupulously avoided. In order to communicate this thought, designs have been made that emphasize the acceptance of “imperfection”. The fact that it is much more accepted now, is in my view a welcome broadening of the range of possibilities in design, something that could perhaps also be continued in – for example- mass products, now that designers like Jongerius and Eek have cleared the way. I can imagine that there are many faults to be found with the “imperfection-trend”, which in fact could be put somewhat in perspective. But this should be done in a relevant way, which is in my opinion not the case with the comparisons and criteria you apply in your review. By dismissing in advance products that are not made according to the traditional standards of perfection, it is impossible to form an objective opinion about them. That is what bothered me when I read your article. I am curious to know how you feel about this. Maarten Baas ---------------------- Dear Maarten Baas The fact that designers have embraced imperfection, is a serious development to me. Initially, I found this development quite sympathetic, because it shows a sense of reality and puts design into perspective in a pleasant way. But the more imperfection became a style or a statement, the more doubts I got about this movement, if we can call it that. That is why I began to search for explanations why imperfection has such attraction for some designers. I understand that the quest for the essence of productdesigning touches upon the imperfection of the design, but I feel that a lot of designers get stuck at this point. This has led to imperfection becoming a style and sometimes even the trademark of certain designers. By using imperfection as a style they seem to want to safeguard themselves beforehand from any criticism. I do not claim that their designs have arisen from poverty, nor do I deny them a quality of their own. What I am doubtful of is whether imperfection can be a movement in itself within design. I do not think so, just as perfection cannot either. In the review, I compare the “imperfect” products to lowbudget films, because of the, in my opinion, inherent excuse. Many filmmakers arm themselves beforehand against any criticism on their productions by saying they had such a low budget at their disposal. Certain designers seem to do the same when they emphasize the imperfection in their products. Your comparison to the Dogma-films is interesting. I am familiar with the manifesto of the Dogma-directors and have seen some of their films. Their view that artificial means, such as special lighting, setting and properties should be avoided as much as possible in the making of a film, passes over the fact that every film is artificial. What the viewer sees is a thought-up story that is being told by the director and brought into vision from the perspective of the cameraman. I explicitly do not want to impose on anyone what perfection in design is or what the perfect product should look like; that is something everyone needs to decide for themselves. I do feel, however, that designers should strife for perfection, with the immediate addition that this is actually an impossible pursuit. But it is exactly the awareness of the unattainable that leads to the best results. This goes not only for design, but rather for all forms of art and applied art. The amount of films that director Stanley Kubrick has made is limited, because he tried to achieve perfection in almost all his films. However, you cannot pin Kubrik down on a specific style; „A Clockwork Orange? is a completely different film from „2001: A Space Oddysey?. Nothing is coincidental in Kubrick?s films and that should apply for design as well. At least, as far as the final results are concerned, because in the production process coincidence and serendipity should have free range. Designer Erik Jan Kwakkel has shown a few years ago how coincidence can be directed. In the producing of the service he has designed for the Central Museum, there has deliberately been put too little clay in the moulds, which has made every product unique. The result is not imperfection, but a deliberate unicity gained with limited means. Whether Kwakkel has strifed for perfection is for him to say; in any case, he has arrived via deliberate imperfection – because that is how the production process can be seen in my opinion – at a product that transcends that imperfection. Marc Vlemmings ------------------------- Dear Marc Vlemmings, Initially I responded mainly because of the rigorous way in which you criticised an important development. Although you are much more nuanced in your response, I still feel that there is a fallacy in your argument. In common speech the designs are called „imperfect?. It is however a misinterpretation to take this as literally as you have done. The term is understandable, because the designs indeed do not live up to certain common standards (such as smooth/polished, symmetrical, uniform et cetera), but it is unjust to therefore assume that these designs are less perfect than others, or that this has actually been aimed for. You wrote that you do not want to impose on anyone what perfection is. Still you mark it somewhat off by assuming that the designs you discuss are definitely imperfect. In claiming that there has not been striven for perfection, you pass by the option that maybe this is a new form of or a new addition to the strife for perfection. You see it as a pleasant detour at best. That way it indeed stays a nice excercise before quickly returning to the „real? stuff. It is as if you feel that the minorchords in music are interesting, but that the majorchords are actually what it is all about. To me the one is not inferior to the other; they can rather reinforce each other. As far as the comparison to dogma-films is concerned, I was not after your opinion concerning the content of these films, but rather the fact that things that could be used as an excuse (in this case the low budget) not necesserily are one. Of course there are examples of designs that have got miserably stuck in a simple routine (indeed comparable to the excuse of the lowbudget film) but this cannot be said about the original designs of Eek and Jongerius. In addition, it seems highly unlikely to me that imperfection was aimed for – as neither it was in Erik Jan Kwakkels design. First of all, the acceptance of certain – deviating- qualities can have productiontechnical, economical or ecological advantages. Secondly, I think that also in this way there can be a strife for aesthetic perfection. For example in the beauty of the material, coincidence, transcience or fragility. The relevance of the question where to look for perfection, is proven for example by the beauty of nature, which is often called perfect despite the fact that it is usually incongruent with the common standard of perfection. A beautiful mass of rocks is not polished or symmetrical, but I would not call it imperfect. It is interesting to include this in new designs in succession to the changing perceptions of perfection. That is why I see the designs we are discussing, in which coincidence and natural qualities of material play a large role, not as an excuse. I do not even see it as „just? a relativising movement. It has brought about a development in which progress can be made. The spontaneous and individual character that fits the innovated ideal, to me seems more than a fleeting fad and definitely not imperfect. Maarten Baas www.maartenbaas.com tel: +31 (0)6 2450 2082 Maarten Baas Eindhovenseweg 104 5582HW Waalre Hollland