Category: Objectified

Objectified was an interesting watch and it reinforced a lot of my ideas as a designer. I didn’t know a lot about what professionals in my desired field did and being able to see their processes makes me feel a lot better about my own work ethic. For example, when these designers are brainstorming ideas they do a mind web and write down absolutely every idea on post-it notes and arrange them by category. That’s the method I’ve used for every single project, paper, and speech I’ve worked on. These designers also stress the significance of every little design choice, which I knew was important but didn’t realize just how important it was.

It was interesting to see how all the designers agreed and disagreed on points they were making. One designer said that you needed to remove as much as you can to keep a design simple, whereas another designer wanted to add things to make it more aesthetically pleasing. It’s unclear which is the correct way to do it, as both designers are highly regarded. But it’s interesting to see how they approach it, and I believe I’d rather remove as much as I can to keep it simple, because adding buttons on a couch merely for aesthetic purposes may not please everyone. I need to empathize with my users.

One big thing that changed about my view of design was the purpose of redesigning. Throughout my life, I never really pick up on problems with objects, I just think “well that’s just how it is and it works so it doesn’t need to change.” But that couldn’t be further from the truth, as anything can be redesigned, and probably should be. One example used in the film was hedge shears. An elderly woman was having issues cutting her hedges because her shears were bothering her arthritis. So the designers were able to redesign how the handle was shaped and this gave her a better grip, therefore removing the issue. As dumb as it sounds, I usually just assume things just are the way they are, and it’s pointless to redesign something.

Another thing I never realized was designing around the longevity of a product. One designer made it very clear that because iPhones are updated so often, they should be designed with biodegradable material. iPhones aren’t meant to last forever, there’s a new one nearly every year, so why are they designed to last so long? One might argue that we need them designed this was so they don’t break, but most people buy cases to protect their phones so that argument is out. If we’re going to buy cases to protect our phones anyway, why aren’t designers making them to be environmentally friendly so they aren’t piling up in dumps?

I used to see design as a way for the designer to communicate with the user, and I think that comes from my graphic design background. I thought of 2D posters or digital ads that were meant to persuade or inform. Now I think of design as a way for the designer to empathize with the user/viewer and effectively give them the information or product that they want so well that they don’t even realize it. For example, hedge shears should be designed so well that anyone of any age could use them without an issue, they don’t even realize how well it was designed, they merely use the product. Information should be so readily available and easy to find that the user doesn’t have to think about it. And the designer really has to empathize with users of all ages and backgrounds to make something that good.

Objectified is a documentary about our complex relationship with manufactured objects and with the people who design them. It takes a deeper look into the creativity behind developing everything from household items to tech gadgets. The film documents the creative processes of some very influential product designers and how we can learn from what they do and enhance our lives just through design.

While watching the film, there was one particular quote that stuck in my mind and resonated with me for the rest of the film: “Almost everything that fills our world has been designed.” I had never really thought about how everything I use everyday was designed for a reason. Although the film touched upon items like computers, phones, chairs, vacuums and toothbrushes, every single item we use has been designed for a reason. The objects we use every day “reflect a personal narrative.” From what brands we wear to what color pencils we use, every aspect of design is communicated through how and when we use a product. “Good design is aesthetic, honest, obstructive, long-lived, and consistent.” As our demand for the newest and trendiest items increase, so does the supply. Companies are constantly developing new ways to enhance what has already been made. Watch designers in the documentary find new ways to change old products was truly intriguing and hopefully, some of the film’s ideas will become popular trends in the near future.

There is no telling what the future of design holds for our world, but if Objectified was any indicator, there are endless possibilities waiting to be explored and there is no stopping it.

I agreed with pretty much everything the designers in “Objectified” had to say. They’ve spent their whole lives working in the design field so they are able to speak from experience and give a much better idea of what their lifestyle is actually like.
A few things stood out to me that changed how I thought about design. First of all, I never really thought about how almost everything I interact with on a daily basis went through a design process of some sort. Certain objects go through a more rigorous and thoughtful process, but even the most basic items had to be designed by someone at some point. Another thing that stood out to me was the idea of designing objects for “wearing in over wearing out.” The concept of creating items that improve over time and give the user more of an experience the longer they own it is intriguing. I don’t think this applies to everything though. Smartphones are incredibly difficult to design for “wearing in”. The technology is changing so fast, and unless you can constantly take the phone apart and continuously upgrade it on pace with the advances of technology you’re stuck buying a new device every few years to stay relevant.
Before watching the documentary I defined design as the “creation and construction of objects.” My definition after watching hasn’t changed that much but I think that there is more to it than simply coming up with an idea for something and making it. There is thought, observations, and testing that all factor into the creation of something.

Ricky Petticord

Designing for New Media

2/27/16

Objectified Response

 

I found Hustwit’s film to be very compelling, as many of the statements and stories from designers across the globe resonated with my thoughts on design and how designers think. Dieter Rams’ points that “good design is innovative design, good design should make a product useful, good design is aesthetic design, good design is unobtrusive, good design is consistent, and good design is as little design as possible” echo my own thoughts on design in how I observe and purchase products, and how I conceive my own ideas.

The points towards the end of the film about designing sustainably piqued my interest because that is not something I typically think about when I think about design. This film brought a lot of things full circle in regards to assessing product the life cycle and sustainable practices in the business world, and how impeccable design can impact the consumer’s longevity assessment of a product.

I would define design as the art of assessing what people want to see, want to use, and the process of creating it. To me, design is materializing something that does not exist by harnessing creative energy and turning it into something functional that serves a purpose. I feel as though these thoughts fall in line with those of Marc Newson’s in the film; designers should always be designing for the future. I do not think that my definition of design has changed since watching the film; I feel that Objectified solidified my ideas and gave me a perspective of how to grow and implement them into my work as I move forward in my career.

Tori Flick

Designing For New Media

Objectified

 

It is astonishing to think that from the moment you wake up, almost everything you interact with within your day has been designed, and has been designed specifically for a purpose. Even things you wouldn’t think to have any sort of relevance or significance such as a post-it note, someone designed a post-it note with a specific function in mind.

One thing one of the designers said that I did not 100% agree with was that no concerns for an individual person are to be taken. Details surrounded who they are were not to be accounted for, but instead the “extremes” must be taken into consideration and those extremes, whether it be something like slow and fast, those are the details that matter; everything in the middle are not as significant.

One of the designers spoke of the goal to redesign tools and objects to better fit the needs and functions of everyone, looking at things such as garden shears or even pliers and measuring how they feel and if there are any small details to improve upon. The goal is to redesign things, with people not always realizing that it has been redesigned for a specific reason. This surprised me in a good way, because out of all of the things I interact with daily I never stop to think about how it was intentionally crafted to meet a certain need or purpose.

A key point I was highly in agreeance with emphasized the importance of recognizing and noticing a product for its attributes and form, so that the inevitable design of the product makes sense, and is not just shapes and things, but instead, in a way seems undesigned because of how natural the form seems.

Another thing to consider in design is that not everything lasts forever, so what will become of your designed object once it has served its purpose and no longer functions to standard? Some products may be made with environmentally-friendly and biodegradable materials, whereas some products may have been built to last and will not be capable of doing the same. This must also be considered by the designer.

Design is comprehensibly just a search for form. The form of how something should look to still achieve the same effect and functionality needs to be understood fully and processed. Design cannot exist without a form of some sort being taken, so the priority then becomes what is the most sensible and constructive form to take? It depends object to object what form is necessary, and what form will work for everyone, not just the medium margin. If a handle of something is designed too thin and someone suffering from arthritis can’t use the handle, then a redesign must take place to include that “group” as well. Design is all inclusive, and specifically a practice to make the lives of everyone a little easier, even if the users themselves are unaware.

I agree with the designers in that design can be improved upon, and that it must possess certain attributes. Certain attributes that one of the designer’s specificed that I agree with is that good design must be utilitarian, unobstructive, honest, and easy to understand. Some other statements that I agreed with is that graphic design is not fine arts. I myself wasn’t able to discern that until after one of the designers made that distinguishment on camera. Other statements that I agreed with is that design must be created in an appropriate environment where everything works well, is organized well, that elicits us to want to interact with the design, and should also elicit nostalgia in the user/viewer (one of the examples used in the film was “That’s the chair that dad always sat in”).

One other thing that I did not discern too well about design that I learned on the film is that design is something that will be mass-produced, and that new design doesn’t last. Even though I did have a basic understanding of such, I did not think about it as deeply as the film went into both subjects.

Because of this film, my definition of design has actually changed. Originally, I was still thinking about design as in the fine arts sense; design is a composition of harmonizing or disharmonizing elements that represent an idea. Though it does technically hold true even in the graphic design sense, it was still only a sliver of the definition as a whole, and my understanding of design has expanded greatly because of Objectify and the designer’s interviewed. After seeing the film, my new definition for design is the harmonization of elements that allow the user to easy access of the product functions and the ability to have the user learn about the product in a thoughtless manner.

Most of the designers were of the opinion that design should always have a purpose, regardless of what type of design it is. I agree with this to an extent. I think that some kinds of design should always have a purpose. But I think there are times that it’s okay for design to simply be pretty. Things that are nice to look at but do not otherwise have a purpose are not necessarily pointless. It’s important to people to be exposed to visually appealing things. Sometimes just looking nice is a design’s purpose. Others may disagree with me about this, but whether we all admit it or not, we all enjoy things that look good. Many of the things we do in our everyday lives revolve around this desire for things to look nice. Everything from brushing our hair to cleaning our houses reflects this need for our lives to be visually pleasing.

The way the people in the video talk about design didn’t change the way I think about it too much. To me, design is something that either makes you think or makes you feel something. My opinion hasn’t changed since watching the video, but I do think it has made me aware of more types of design to include in that definition. I am so used to thinking of design as something that happens on screens and on paper, and the video was a nice reminder that design extends to things such as furniture and tools. Purpose is definitely more important in those types of design.

I think design’s level of purpose varies among different types of design.

It was very interesting watching real interaction designers at work in “Objectified.” Prior to the movie, I never would have thought of furniture as a means of interaction, let alone something that takes intense design work. However, there was one comment made about a man who does not make uncomfortable seating, but very clearly made uncomfortable looking plastic chairs. Other than that main comment, I did not particularly disagree with any of the designers. They were extremely insightful on how everything needs to be functional, yet personal. Without a personal touch, the design becomes meaningless. I also found it intriguing how one of the designers had branded his own appearance. Usually when thinking of design work, a person will think of a designer’s personal style. This man made something totally different of that; once seeing him, the image of him will always remain in memory. The movie definitely opened my eyes to more of the possibilities of design. Design becomes a brand, a statement, a part of every day life, and eventually trash. As a beginning designer, I never once thought of my work one day ending up in a landfill, or crumpled up in a trash can to never be looked at again. It was mentioned that design should get better with age, and be able to handle wear, and I couldn’t agree more. I don’t want to see somebody just throw away something I worked my hardest on. Moving forward, that is something I plan to keep in mind and work on achieving. “Objectified” opened my eyes a bit more to the endless possibilities of design.

Objectified, to give expression to (as an abstract notion, feeling, or ideal) in a form that can be experienced by others.  Giving expression to a form or product is exactly what interaction designers do, so it really intrigued me that this was the title of the film. As a designer, I was guilty of viewing design as “making things pretty.” But after watching this film, I realized that design is in every aspect of a persons’ life and daily interactions. For instance, I am typing on my computer right now, someone designed this computer and every aspect of this computer to make my experience enjoyable from touch to visuals to usability. I, also, did not realize how quickly I judge something, whether it be a product or someone’s clothing choices that day, I judge it immediately on if it looks simple to use or if I would purchase it. During the movie, they said that sometimes the more simple designs are better because they promote easy usability. I completely agree with that, but I also believe that the simpler designs in this culture promote a sleeker image and often times make people look like they are higher end, which is something people strive for today. For example, Jane Harrington, who’s a color styling manager in PPG Industries’ auto-paint unit, stated that the most popular car color for the last five years has been the color white. Why? Because it is simple, understated, and looks more expensive than other colors; a look that most people strive for in today’s society. Which brings us to a point in the movie where there was a statement about creating an environment that will make people FEEL good about themselves and their life. Here’s where it gets tricky, the film emphasizes “wearing in not wearing out,” which means you want people to feel good for just a short time while using your product, but you want them to feel better and better overtime while using your product. You want them to have emotional experiences, which relates to the psychological aspect of design. In essence, you do not even want your customers or users to think about the design at all. As Objectified put it, “design dissolving in behavior.” If users are truly enjoying their experiences, they will not be focusing on the design or what is wrong because they will be so focused on the task that they are completing with your design.  You need to create something that is easy to use and timeless so that your product doesn’t end up in a landfill, and if you know that it is just a temporary product you really have to think about what will happen when its time is done. I never really thought about the after, and this movie really made me think about the after. You can not just keep making and making and making with out thinking about the lasting effects of your product. The “what’s going to happen not the what’s happening.” So, as a whole, I learned a lot about the numerous aspects of design, the emphasis on experiences and sustainability, and the after effects of your product.

In class we watched a documentary that focused on interaction design through it’s progress and evolution and influence with the user. The documentary featured several well-known and respected designers who used interaction design in various different forms. There were a few different points made throughout the film that I either agreed or disagreed or made me think a little harder. One point which was very strongly projected was that design is the search for form; and that form follows function. I suppose that in its simplest, most easy to understand terms, that yes, design is the search for form. Whether it be digital, traditional, interaction; design is a consistent search for a an answer, or a solution to a problem. I thought that the statement that form follows function was interesting, mostly just in the wording. I’ve never thought of it before, but it makes complete sense now, that any object, item or idea has a function and a purpose. If the form can’t fit the function or doesn’t allow for the function to occur anymore, then it’s overall design is purposeless.
One aspect of the documentary that really opened my eyes was the recreation/redesign of common household items. For example, in the beginning, there was a focus on a set of hand trimmers. I didn’t realize how many steps needed to be taken. It starts with finding a problem or finding a task that could be made easier. Once this is established there is a long experimentation process where the team finds the best solution. From here it is executed with 3d modeling and prototypes to make sure every aspect is covered before the product is ready for production. I have so much more appreciation for this area and how much brain power it takes to not just create, but recreate in a more positive way. I found it kind of sad that this type of design and thinking isn’t as common. Because of the level of intensity and hours spent, this is very financially taxing and a lot of businesses and companies cannot afford to hire people in these fields. Because money is an issue, we as a society choose to settle with the cheapest alternative even if the design and function suffer.

“Objectified” is a feature length documentary about the role that objects play in our everyday lives while also examining the creative people who design them. Each designer interviewed talked about the importance of the design process and how it effects ones everyday life. At first I thought it was a little ridiculous of the designer’s to stress how important the design process is until I thought about it. It wasn’t until I realized that every object I use everyday had to have been designed by someone with the intent to satisfy the user that I started to agreed with the designers. The designers definitely helped me change the way I think about design as well as gain more respect for the people designing today. First off I had no idea how important subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, and Philosophy were in the design field. “Objectified” taught me that design is so much more than creating objects, but understanding people and how they interact with the world around them. Before watching “Objectified” I would have defined design as the process it takes to turn a idea into a physical object. Now I would define design as the overall process of studying how people interact to create an object that meets the aesthetic, functional, economic, and sociopolitical needs of the consumer. Overall “Objectified” helped me to understand the real need for designers in todays society.

 

After watching “Objectified”, my views on the interactive world changed a lot. I learned that the key to designing is that the goal of creating is to design something that is different than what’s common. When designers are brainstorming ideas, they can’t just think about the average person that it would be using it, they should consider the extremes. They used an example of not making a product the average person, say 22 years old, would be able to use—they want to create something that somebody even with arthritis could use. It taught me that even though as designers we put a ton of thought into our product, we shouldn’t over-design it. The product should be fairly easy to use and make sense to the user—it should feel natural. We as designers should look at a design in a formal way. Although we want the product to look appealing, we have to also look at what it does—function vs form. Sometimes a product might look appealing, but it will do what it is supposed to. Also, designers need to take the future into consideration. You want to create a product that lasts, but only an amount of time until the designer feels it should be replaced. The product should be able to be used in a year or two years after the purchase without being outdated.  “Objectified” taught me a lot about being a designer and entering the field I am going into.