Sottsass – Rams
Sottsass - Rams
Ettore Sottsass (operational method, reflexive principle): Italian designer who was part of the Memphis Design Movement in the early 80′s. All about the perspective of the designer and people in their circumstances. In this view, products won’t sell w/o an emotional component. He was concerned with tribalism and factions in an audience.
Dieter Rams (logistic method, reflexive or simple principle): German industrial designer who worked for Braun (a lot of Apple’s products are in this vein). In this view, products are all about performance; form and function have to communicate clearly. Good design needs no manuals. His principle could be reflexive b/c he believed that self-expression/awareness should come from a product’s user. His principle could be simple because he believes that emotions satisfice just the basic human needs. Basically, expression comes from users, therefore, a designer’s own perspective damages design. Rams’ view is the “calm in state of pain” view that Buddhists have – it is a cool, neutral emotion, but an emotion, nonetheless.
Now, if the Design Police accuse Sottsass of excessive emotion (frenzy & dionysian) and if Sottsass gets Rams to be his lawyer, how would Rams plead his case?*
Rams would say that it is wrong to kill emotions and to force emotions or the lack of emotions onto an audience. People should be free to choose emotional/expressive products and Sottsass is just one part of that spectrum.
Now, if the Design Police charge Rams with boredom and Rams gets Sottsass as a lawyer, on what grounds can Sottsass defend Rams?
Sottsass could say that Rams is just one, other tribal leader. Sottsass & Co. (i.e. Branzi) regret the loss of Modernism and aren’t happy with factions. Rams is a modern stoic, Sottsass would say. And although Rams might not recognize emotions, Sottsass would say that it’s still there and that Rams understands emotions in his own way.
*challenge proposed by Dick during the first class of Emotion and Reason in Design
Democrats – Republicans
Democrats - Republicans
Now, if the Political Police charge the GOP with “x” and the Republicans get the Democrats as a lawyer, on what grounds can the Democrats defend the Republicans? And vice versa?