data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1257e/1257e45e37bcf2b4c87d8b32d48c72e0d567b660" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2a73/f2a73d386f643efac4c17e16997ffee56e89f985" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84aba/84abac6f2c105c46cb447f14c42ac5a3771eaedf" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/78f2a/78f2a5d1ce362e4dbc62eb4d24708e3b390d212c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23341/233412e4b1bc0efbe341509be35d9fbb02575b36" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/90a5f/90a5f26a3bc53bb303f590829fef9d5cbbd063e7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e9c8f/e9c8fc8992edd8cec50f576b2de76ebfae6c8505" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9eac/f9eac49bce5e56161ae6ecf018326b4a8ce7ab83" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5d93f/5d93ff5cb34aa50ee7a31b2cc41c70b2d5a0450d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c9909/c9909c49bf3454d730c638037c65c5038bb442c4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bcaaf/bcaaf887132926d03c4673ccac0b4a87ac6e4f4e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/881ea/881eafe75cfa7fb63724a168aee5cf01f728b6f7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e863b/e863b2f9d123bd0179b487d0c5c64ad9b32ebe8e" alt=""
Expanding our notion of space
We all discovered quite quickly that each of our projects questioned perceptions of space in different contexts. Curro looks at how our notion of “home space” is changing and the impact of technology on central spaces in our lives.
Lee’s project aims to bring the outdoor world indoors in a sensual way. Marie too explores how our senses and tactility play a key role in how we interpret space.
Miriam’s project attempts to make air tangible and explores how it connects us in space through the physical act of breathing. Amy looks at how expandable space can be employed to aid the future wellbeing of the urban honeybee. Anne reinvents the act of sitting and aims to design furniture that allows us to expand our body in space. Bharat questions boundaries more literally by integrating his project with “non-places” such as communal fences. Through this shared theme we realize how each of our proposals hopes to develop the common idea of ‘expanding’ what a space can be.
Making it physical
Engaging with the familiar
Marie, Anne and Bharat are all working on the idea of creating a new way to Experience our familiar environment, .
--> They are using the familiar to make the user realize a completely different experience can be achieved !
(Marie : You touch everyday objects that now have new tactile properties : It allows you to develop your sense of touch and makes you aware of what you were touching before.
Anne : You discover your body as a tool as you now use it to engage with your environment
Bharat : amalgamation of various familiar elements that are taken in another environment in order to attract you, and encourage you to use them.)
Curro, on the other hand, is working on putting the familiar (the laptop) outside of its original context. Likewise, Minhyung Lee is working with rice, a very familiar ingredient which is connected to culture,imagination and memories, and taking it to fusion asian restaurants.
Amy is changing the concept of beehives. What already exists for bees and is familiar to us and to them, is probably not what's best for them. What we considered as familiar needs to be changed, to get better.
Miriam is exploring the most familiar element of our environment : AIR, making it visible and tangible, highlighting it.
Temporary Experience
Amy: temporary in moving space, nomadism, for the bees, renewal
like Curro: not belonging in one place in society, we can create this through technology, so that we can belong to a place temporarily and without boundaries to distance and matter, but only the choice of which sum of different spaces provided trough technology
Miriam is creating s temporary space which appaers and disappears with air, allowing a temporality and notion of transience in the space which often impose on us how we are connected with our natural surroundings.
As Elena, Bharat is concerned with temporary place-making in a physical space, which in Bharat's sense is a fence where there is a static movement happening, electricity stores the things taking place temporarily for giving back light at night. Elena is connecting children and their parents on one level, for a playful interaction that takes place seamlessly in the different time schedules and which are made easier through her designs.
Marie and Anne create the temporary experience through the body and the sense of touch: For Marie changing the experience of touch develops our senses and creates an acute moment in how we connect to things, while Anne subtly shifts the experience we have we our whole body, the designs should trigger the exploration of how we “sit” so the furniture encourages a sense of temporality. Minhyung Lee triggers physical and visual experience through two types of tiles which can be arranged in different ways to allow a moment of different perceptions.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other theories of human developmental psychology, all of which focus on describing the stages of growth in humans.
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."Maslow studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.
via wikipediaDieter Rams' Principles of Good Design from Cool Hunting on Vimeo.
1_ Good design is innovative
The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.
2_ Good design makes a product useful
A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasises the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.
3_ Good design is aesthetic
The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products we use every day affect our person and our well-being. But only well-executed objects can be beautiful.
4_ Good design makes a product understandable
It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product talk. At best, it is self-explanatory.
5_ Good design is unobtrusive
Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.
6_ Good design is honest
It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
7_ Good design is long-lasting
It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today’s throwaway society.
8_ Good design is thorough, to the last detail
Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consume.
9_ Good design is environmentally-friendly
Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimises physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
10_ Good design is as little design as possible
Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials.
Back to purity, back to simplicity.
Heidegger's philosophy is founded on the attempt to conjoin what he considers two fundamental insights:
The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially concerned with time. That Dasein is thrown into an already existing world and thus into its mortal possibilities does not only mean that Dasein is an essentially temporal being; it also implies that the description of Dasein can only be carried out in terms inherited from the Western tradition itself.(...)
That Heidegger did not write this second part of Being and Time, and that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger's subsequent writings on the history of being, might be interpreted as a failure to conjugate his account of individualcollective experience with his account of the vicissitudes of the human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this failure is due to a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to oppose vulgar and authentic time.
text from (of course) wikipedia