I (heart) iProducts

          Staring at the screen of this very laptop, thinking of what to make this blog about, it occurred to me… This MacBook is exactly what I want to write about.     

 

            I find it interesting that a lot of attention is paid and discussion time alloted to the styling of laptop computers. Computer design is either good or bad. There are few companies today taking design as serious as Apple. They may not be the market leader fiscally; in terms of design and quality-control they are, though. Whatever your stance towards them is, one has to acknowledge their expertise in making a seemingly mundane object aesthetically outstanding.

            Steve Jobs stated once that the “design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” While this statement has proven to be crucial over thousands of years, one shouldn’t misinterpret it by emphasizing the functionality despite the design. When it comes to product design, the significance of aesthetics of a given device, the way its design looks and feels, determines the choice of the customer once the functionalities of multiple devices are more or less similar.

            Apple has launched iconic products such as the iPod, iPhone and iMac. These are prominent for their one-button-one-scroll interface, multi-touch technology and all-in-one offering, respectively. Take the iMac, for instance, and look at its evolution from a half-orb to a flat-panel all-in-one powerhouse. It's undeniably one of the most beautiful computers on the market today. At Apple everything's shiny, elegant and sleek. Decidedly so, Apple's design is timeless. Jonathan Ive has created an aesthetic identity, which is unique and captivating. A MacBook Pro is a stunning piece of electronics. From an engineering point-of-view it's also very innovative. Using the so-called unibody-construction, MacBooks have become a paradigm of clear computer design. This has also helped perfect the fusion between aesthetics and foolproof usability.

            It's not the products that are timeless, though; it's the principles by which they are created. To make something markedly simple is an easy task. However, to make it so without compromising its sophistication is not as easy. Few products are timeless. Especially in industrial design it's hard to stand out, and stand the test of time. Innovation is the only way to advance a mundane product to something which is indispensable. If a computer's design is organic it will blend in with its environment, making it an intuitive part of our home or workspace.

One Wish to Change the Wrold

            TED describes itself as "a small nonprofit devoted to ideas worth spreading." Actually, it's anything but small. Five years ago, it started giving a handsome annual prize to "exceptional individuals" devoted to changing the world. The TED genie grants those prize recipients One Wish to Change the World— as well as $100,000. This year, the prize goes to an anonymous street artist, who goes by the diminutive name JR.

            The Paris-based artist, who calls himself a "photograffeur," combines photography and graffiti in a distinct form of public art. Although his work lives in the streets, it has already been recognized by museums like London's Tate Modern— and he's only in his mid-20s. JR's projects vary but have one underlying cause: Provoke change by fostering community. “Portrait of a Generation” showed giant photos of suburban "thugs" outside Paris. “Face 2 Face”, which "some consider the biggest illegal photo exhibition ever," explored Israeli-Palestinian tensions. "Women Are Heroes” was an effort to empower women by showing their faces.

            JR exhibits his photographs --printed on waterproof vinyl, which double as new roofs for ramshackle houses-- in the biggest art gallery on the planet. His work is presented freely in the streets of the world, catching the attention of people who are not museum visitors. The artist makes these enormous installations in towns and cities that have virtually nothing. People come out of the woodwork to help. They start talking. Suddenly there's a sense of community and a cause. At least that's the idea. JR’s work is about social justice and creating connections between different people. His work mixes Art and Action; it talks about commitment, freedom, identity and limit. He creates persuasive art that spreads uninvited on buildings of Parisian slums, on walls in the Middle East, on broken bridges in Africa or in favelas in Brazil. People in the exhibit communities, those who often live with the bare minimum, discover something absolutely unnecessary but utterly wonderful. And they don’t just see it, they make it. Elderly women become models for a day; kids turn into artists for a week. In this art scene, there is no stage to separate the actors from the spectators.

         JR has a thing for eyes and noses and mouths. “Normally,” says JR, “you have to be very famous to have your picture blown up so big. But these are just ordinary people, with everyday stories.”

Objectified

            From telephones to toothpicks, nearly everything that fills our world is designed. Objects look and work the way they do because someone made them that way. Director Gary Hustwit examines industrial design’s sweeping cultural impact in his documentary, Objectified. Many of the movie's subjects are well known in the design world -- they include Dieter Rams, formerly one of the chief designers for Braun, and Jonathan Ive, of Apple. Those people may not exactly be household names among us mere mortals, but as "Objectified" makes clear, they've made their presence, if not their names, known in our households. Hearing them talk about what they do puts everyday objects into fresh perspective and one can’t help but wonder, in an age where forms cannot possibly resemble the myriad of functions they now perform, what will our world look like? How does design’s drive for “new and improved” reconcile with environmental sustainability? And how do individuals express themselves through mass-produced “stuff”? Objectified is a fascinating look at our relationship with objects and the people who design them. 

 

            Thinking too hard about the power, mystery and beauty of everyday things can give you a headache. That headache can blossom into a migraine if you consider that everything around you was, at some point, designed by someone, badly or well or possibly just indifferently. Have you ever wondered why the handle of your potato peeler is shaped the way it is? Well after watching Gary Hustwit’s documentary Objectified you won’t be able to stop thinking about it. You’ll also start looking at all the everyday things that surround us in our lives, questioning whether or not they are useful, and asking how we got so attached to them in the first place.

            "Objectified" helps takes design out of the conceptual realm and into the practical world. One of its best moments is an interview with Parisian designers Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec, who speak with great eloquence and sophistication (in French, no less) about design and then start fluttering around a certain chair, pointing out its attributes. They look at it this way and that, pointing out the curve of its arm and the shape of its back. Then they come around to what may be its finest attribute, its sturdiness: "So Australians who have drunk a lot of beer can plunk themselves down in it." The language of design, at its best, is just that plainspoken.

            Objectified is a movie that will open your mind to the hidden world of design that influences virtually every aspect of our lives. It’s a look at the creativity at work behind everything from toothbrushes to tech gadgets. It’s about the designers who re-examine, re-evaluate and re-invent our manufactured environment on a daily basis. It’s about personal expression, identity, consumerism, and sustainability. Gary Hustwit has taken a mundane concept and made something both compelling and artistic out of it. If you’re at all interested in design, this is a must-see film.

Life Is Art

      Nonprofit arts groups tend to spend much of their time scrounging for grants and praying for corporate largesse. But one art foundation taking shape on 120 acres in the high oak chaparral of Sonoma County has different kinds of worries these days: spider mites, bud rot and the occasional low-flying surveillance visit from the local Sheriff’s Office.

      This is because the foundation, based out of Santa Rosa, CA, called Life Is Art, recently began to reap a new kind of financing, in the form of tall, happy-looking marijuana plants. Late this month, with some help from the sale of its first small crop, grown under California’s liberal medical marijuana laws, the group plans to present an inaugural exhibition on its land, of sculpture and installation work by more than 20 visiting artists — some of whom will have helped bring in the harvest. The foundation’s hope is that income from succeeding crops will fully support such projects, in perpetuity, creating a kind of Marfa-meets-ganja art retreat north of San Francisco and a new economic engine for art philanthropy.

“Comparison and Contrast”

            Every year Interbrand releases its annual list, rating the most successful organizations and valuable brands from all over the world. Over the past several years, the brand at the top of the list has been Coca-Cola. Given the amount of money and effort they have put in creating the brand, it’s not surprising.

Surprising is the fact that Pepsi also spend just about as much money on branding as the Coke and sell almost same amount of products but still Coca-Cola is more valuable brand then Pepsi.

            Over the years Pepsi has displayed signs of chronic logo redesign vs Coca Cola, who has stuck to preserving its brands’ integrity. Now, I am not against updating corporate logos every once in a while, as long as the change brings value to the equation – maybe the old logo was too flat or austere, maybe it needed to have some life or positive energy injected into it – but all too often, companies fall prey to some creative agencies’ claims that in order to refresh their brand, they need to refresh their logos as well. 

 

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs5/i/2004/333/6/4/Pepsi_vs_Coca_cola_by_Attarzi.jpg

 

            I am not saying that Pepsi’s choice to change its logo on a regular basis is a bad thing. I am simply using Pepsi’s M.O. as a conversation catalyst. In a way, there’s something kind of cool about a company that changes its logo every decade or so: Each new logo is like a cultural milestone – a snapshot if you will, of that decade’s graphic flavor, and how tastes change over time. But I guess once you get past the cool time capsule thing, you kind of have to wonder: Has each change in logo actually resulted in some kind of benefit for the Pepsi Cola company? Has the Pepsi brand been strengthened by every new logo design? Has each new logo helped boost sales of Pepsi Cola over time? Has the company’s chronic change of emblem and packaging art had a measurable impact on the company’s bottom-line? Perhaps it has. I don’t know. It’s an open question, and one which probably cannot be answered without also looking at

  Consumers like familiariity. So one can’t help but wonder, is Coca Cola more successful maybe because they keep their logo and packaging more consistant?? Something to think about.

“Design as Conversation”

     Design is everywhere. And now, more than ever, it is taking on new forms all around us. For example, we saw a great rise in campaigns using design to speak to the public- design as conversation. 

     It all began with the LIVESTRONG bracelet. A yellow silicone gel bracelet launched in May 2004 as a fund-raising item for the Lance Armstrong Foundation. The bracelet is part of the "Wear Yellow Live Strong" educational program. The program is intended to raise money for cancer research, raise cancer awareness, and encourage people to live life to the fullest. The band became a popular fashion item in the United States by the end of the summer of 2004, and soon after gained popularity worldwide. Other charities were inspired by the success of the LIVESTRONG band, and many developed their own bracelets for raising money and awareness.

     Then there was (PRODUCT)RED, which was founded in 2006 by U2 frontman and activist, Bono. It is a brand licensed to partner companies such as Nike, American Express, Apple, Starbucks, Converse, GAP, etc. to engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa. Each partner company creates a product with the Product Red logo. In return for the opportunity to increase its own revenue through the Product Red products that it sells, a percentage of the profit is given to the Global Fund.

     Fast forwarding through numerous other wonderful foundations and  campaigns, we come to the NOH8 Campaign.

     On November 4, 2008 Proposition 8 passed in California, amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The defeat provoked a groundswell of initiative within the GLBT community at a grassroots level, with many new political and protest organizations being formed in response. The NOH8 Campaign is a silent protest photo project against California Proposition 8. The campaign features photographs portraying people in front of a white backdrop wearing white t-shirts, their mouths duct taped shut and "NOH8" painted on their cheek. The campaign was created on February 1, 2009 by photographer Adam Bouska and Jeff Parshley. Nearly two years since its inception, the NOH8 Campaign has grown to over 5,500 faces and continues to grow at an exponential rate. The campaign began with portraits of everyday Californians from all walks of life and soon rose to include politicians, military personnel, newlyweds, law enforcement, artists, celebrities, and many more. The photo are also available for purchase, with proceeds going towards the organization for awareness.

The Petronas Twin Towers

Recently my Uncle announced his engagement to his soon to be Malaysian wife. The wedding is in April, in Kuala Lampur, and the entire family will be attending. The entire family, besides me that is. Unfortunately, due to my academic demands, school will not allow for a week long absence. But this got me thinking about the my first visit to Kuala Lampur and my first associating thought with it: The Petronas Twin Towers. In my opinion, true architectural wonders.

Petronas Twin Towers, pair of skyscraper office buildings in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, are among the world’s tallest buildings. The Towers, built to house the headquarters of Petronas, the national petroleum company of Malaysia, were designed by the Argentine-born American architect Cesar Pelli. The 88 story structures, linked by a bridge at the 41st floor, are identical and were completed in 1998. 

To express the 'culture and heritage of Malaysia', classic Islamic motifs such as,  arabesques and repetitive geometries, characteristic of Muslim architecture, have been evoked in the overall construction of The Towers. An 8-point star- reflecting unity within unity, rationality, stability and harmony- formed by intersecting squares is an obvious reference to Islamic design; curved and pointed bays create a scalloped facade that suggests temple towers. Radiating structures, rhythmic patterns, and organized columns have also been a significant feature in the towers. Influences arrived from old Hindu and Buddhist temples have also been incorporated in the construction.

In both engineering and design, the Petronas Towers succeed at acknowledging Malaysia's past and future, embracing the country's culture while proclaiming its modernization.

These Towers are an indescribable site definitely worth seeing!