"Dieter Rams designs were absolutely based on trends" - based on what observation? The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement.
"He was one of the best because he used an approach which was exploratory, multi-disciplined and human focused. (Tellingly, he was educated in interior design and architecture.)" - I agree, and that is my take as well.
"To suggest that graphic design is solved, is like saying a radio is solved. Technological changes coincide with changes in human understanding, taste, response and feedback." - I think I regret using the word "solved" (hence the quote marks), I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. Vignelli, Paul Rand, Unimark International, Eliot Noyes, and countless others - they all explored the contours of design but only to realize that principles of International style serve almost every purpose and will continue to do so in future - with new technology, the principles don't change. Its application changes. Even today, design houses such as C&G&H continues to excel whist Pentagram is flopping around in New York trends. Paula Sher is an absolute disaster (See LOC redesign by Pentagram).
I don't mind good, well thought out constructive criticism, I would appreciate some more insight into your claims. "I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert." is not the tone I'd like to see on HN. I shall also add that my initial comment was rather tongue-in-cheek rant, I should have been more objective and sound. :-)
Fair cop, though my comment was in direct response to yours. To be honest, the bile against design is an opinion I see voiced quite a lot here and elsewhere and it riles me a bit, so I did not take your comment as tongue in cheek.
>The trend at the time Mid-Century design with some influence from 30 year old Bauhaus movement.
Absolutely! You don't think this was a trend? Art Deco was a trend for 30 or 40 years, Art Nouveau maybe a hundred. The Bauhaus was an expression of renewal against the old world of decorative arts, and for a functional, scientific aesthetic. But maybe only true to this until Mies took over.. and he was more an aesthete than functionalist, and perhaps the one responsible for its dissemination across the world as the international style - at least in architecture. Anyway, point was the Rams trend was a revival of the Bauhaus style, clean, modern, healthy, wealthy, and white, against the skeumorphic timberwork of his contemporary's electronic product design. All at the height of the popular dissemination of modernism to the world.
>I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style.
I took your use of "solved" to mean precisely this. I just disagree. Perhaps I am a little biased by my field (international style was less successful for architecture than graphic design, though far more widespread).
The thing is, sure, design is partially about the possibilities for composition afforded by the medium and the physical, ergonomic and responsive characteristics of the user, but it is mostly about humanity. A chaotic mess of social feedback effects, a constantly shifting base of understanding and recognition, a wide variety of sizes, shapes, outlooks and interaction patterns. Most of design is manipulating an unseen virtual world of the senses, experiences, social interactions and virtuality in the minds of the users. Small wonder when faced with the scale of the actual problem (not to mention the leanness of economic incentives), lesser designers occasionally lose track of some of the harder rules of design. Even excluding the issue of taste, or as I like to think of it, prejudice ;)
For someone who claims to not be a designer, you sure are well versed in design. You are a great design critic, what is your background in that gave you all this knowledge? I'd love to level up my understanding of design...
"He was one of the best because he used an approach which was exploratory, multi-disciplined and human focused. (Tellingly, he was educated in interior design and architecture.)" - I agree, and that is my take as well.
"To suggest that graphic design is solved, is like saying a radio is solved. Technological changes coincide with changes in human understanding, taste, response and feedback." - I think I regret using the word "solved" (hence the quote marks), I think the correct take on this is that there are no major gaps to fill in International style. Vignelli, Paul Rand, Unimark International, Eliot Noyes, and countless others - they all explored the contours of design but only to realize that principles of International style serve almost every purpose and will continue to do so in future - with new technology, the principles don't change. Its application changes. Even today, design houses such as C&G&H continues to excel whist Pentagram is flopping around in New York trends. Paula Sher is an absolute disaster (See LOC redesign by Pentagram).
I don't mind good, well thought out constructive criticism, I would appreciate some more insight into your claims. "I love it when people make authoritative statements about design. Because everyone has an opinion about design, it must mean everyone is expert." is not the tone I'd like to see on HN. I shall also add that my initial comment was rather tongue-in-cheek rant, I should have been more objective and sound. :-)