I agree with Meyer's position of design being a result of function x economy. The economy is a huge thing when it comes to anything nowadays as well as the days of Meyer's time as director of the Bauhaus. Although I don't feel that design should be placed solely in the service of the working class needs(1), in the time of Meyer, that most likely was the case. As in his time, people were looking for a need for design. Rather than letting design be just what it is. It had to serve some sort of purpose as well as being economical. Without those features Meyer wouldn't have achieved in making the Bauhaus more financially independent(1).
In respect to whether design is an art form or whether it be science. I believe that it would be both. As I feel that without science we wouldn't have the ability to create half the designs that are known around the world. For example the 'Zephyrometer'(fig 1) which is located by Evan's Bay in Wellington. It is a kinetic sculpture (a sculpture that moves), 26m tall which sways to show wind direction and speed(2). This sculpture shows the design as art in respect to the look of the work, the colour choices as well as the materials used. Science is also taken into this design as the use of the sculpture as well as the form used to show others the wind speed and direction. So, without science we as designers would then be very limited to what we could produce as well as the uses behind the designs. Which is where science comes in. I do not think that we could not produce as amazing design without science and science could not look as appealing as it does now without design.
(1) - "The First Machine Age in Europe" by David Raizman
(2) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyrometer
(fig 1) : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/183515
No comments:
Post a Comment