In general I think we have...
In general I think we have been doing quite well with this project. But I have some concerns. The first one is one of these problems that designers face all the time. Simply stated it is the inability to surprise yourself when you are the one that generates new ideas. The result is often that one expects a kind of surprise and satisfaction that comes with "discovering" a product on a store shelf or magazine. As a designer you never experience that about your own products because the idea develops from an initial start to the final stage through small, intentional and visible steps, which can not be the same as being confronted with the final thing. One of the advantages is that it is never good enough and so one continues. It can also turn into a disadvantage in the sense that it seems a discouraging process. The only way to overcome this is to believe in the process and to try to make that special effort to see the thing as if it was the first time. To compare with existing things, design icons or not also helps. The important thing is that a product should not be made without having a good reason to do it. The good reason can be different things but it has always a link to "improving"...function, cost, shape, etc.
I would also like to inject some more professional considerations. The first one is one of professional efficiency. The small diagram shows how a projet starts with generating a large number of possibilities and along evolution in time, different ideas are selected, others dropped in order to reach the end result which is the final product. As shown in the diagram, the earlier a selection is made the less costly the process is. So in design we have developped a large number of criteria to elliminate possibilities that should not be further developped, as early in the process as possible. In this case, we do not have these criteria or very few (technology is of course one). The result is that we continue to go back and forward on the same ideas. If this was a real project, I would try to convince those involved to, either generate more ideas and evaluate them against the core ideas that are in place (holding flowers in position, having flowers at different levels etc.) or develop one, two or three different choices in parallel and see how far we can go untill one or two stand out.
cont.
As I have pointed out before, i also think that the time has come to discuss size. There is this nice story about Peter Voulkos, the acclaimed potter who in his early career relied mostly on magazine pictures to see what other potters were doing. He himself had learned the trade at an early age and so his technical abilities allowed him to do a lot of things. Not knowing the size of the shown products he would make them quite large. Size is of course a way of showing how good you were on the potters wheel. The end result was that he participated in exhibitions with pots that were far too large for any functional purpose but that attracted the attention of jurys all over the U.S. craft scene....the rest is history.
The vase above...
is a attempt ammend Patrick's earlier proposal with some of the ideas that i thought were too good to throw away: the openings on the side, the combination of two materials, etc. The proportions are not quite right, but if you imagint the porcelain top compressed to half this height and the lower part enlarged it would be already a lot better....but we are not there yet.
Well put.
If three parallel tracks were to be identified, they might be a) Patrick's original concept of roughly vertical rods (now tubes) at the top; b) the second idea of having some stems held to the outside of the vase, possibly standing in a "moat" of water; and c) the idea of perforations through the vase.
Koen has manfully attempted to combine most if not all of these ideas in his most recent sketch, resulting perhaps in the "camel-is-a-horse-designed-by-a-committee" syndrome. Thus his suggestion to pursue the several concepts independently, and let the "best man win". . .?
(As to Patrick's "auto distributor cap" design above. . .perhaps now that cars are made without these, DA can appropriate that imagery without fear of being sued by General Motors or whoever ?) (smiley face here)
I'm sure something good will come of all this -- ideally, without putting too many obstacles in front of the technical department. After all, while anything is feasible, and craftsman love a challenge, the best designs are ones that work *with* the chosen tools and materials, rather than against them -- aren't they ?
Even with our inevitably somewhat unusual and untidy design process, this is still a highly rewarding pursuit. Carry on !
A conic variation...
Has anyone suggested or considered a constellation of parallel white (what ever might make sense) tubes cut to varying heights--taller ones in the center, decreasing heights as one moves to the outside? The tubes could insert as a cluster into a stoneware stand that would be a slightly conical shape that would rise high enough to collar the tubes in a roundish cluster. The varying length tubes might carry the conic shape upward to a logical conclusion. The tops of the tubes might even be at angles to carry the eye smoothly upward.
I don't like this last...
I don't like this last suggestion. I miss the "ZAP!" effect. You know, where you look at the item and think "How clever! ... and perfect. I wouldn't change a thing".
I think the vase is too messy regarding its apperance and function. Like it's trying too hard to be 3 different vases at the same time (which it is more or less). I miss the simple yet precise, clean lines and obvious functionality of many of our previous vases. This is just too much.
But I love your drawings, Koen. From the drawing it's actually easy for me to see which solution I prefer. The tubes at the top do no spread out the flowers as Patrick would like, they're merely serving as small extentions for the main body/hole of the vase. What was so great about Patrick's first idea, was that the sterms could pertrude out from the many slim spaces between the tubes and thereby help keeping the flower arrangment evenly.
The two lower types of holes on the vase (damn, what's the word for those?) do a much better job in keeping the flowers in place. They do what they were invented to do. Though I would only go with one of them and since I think the row of holes in the middle looks to much like those on the ceramic vases my mother uses in her garden for small clusters of herbs, I would certainly prefer the lower type of holes. These protuberances look like they grew out of the vase itself whereas the other looks they've been added later on. Also, they're more pleasing to they eye and they allow your view to move effortless from the bottom of the vase up to the flowers and back down again (their cone-shape works both ways regarding the moving, visual direction of our sight).
By keeping only these protuberances, perhaps in two rows (each with a slightly different angle), we sort of return to Patrick's earlier Photoshop illustration in this thread (which I liked).
Hmmm, perhaps we should make a top 3 over the many suggestions so far?
I found a nice picture of the inside of a tube. It might be a source of inspiration for someone.
I had been
daydreaming along the lines of Mr Wilson's note; perhaps the cluster of tubes (which might grow from a half-sphere like the base of a recent Apple computer ?) could be sinuous rather than straight, so that stems would stay were they were placed height-wise by virtue of friction. I don't know what would be involved in making ceramic tubes that were wiggly. . .
i must say that i do like...
i must say that i do like simplicity and the vase posted bij james on may9th is for my a nice design. that last one that koen posted was a bit wooah! but his idea also on 9th may was quite nice.
problem is; it should be something 'design' but not to overdesigned and not too simple neither
I know those plastic over...
I know those plastic over wire Italian virus lampshades and the Savoy vase and thought of this, I think it would look better in glass though perhaps in ceramic it wouldn't be too hard to remove some material from the fins so that they taper upwards or downwards?
my drawing skills arent what...
my drawing skills arent what they used to be, but if you can imagine a spiral running perhaps 1/3 of the way down a cylinder, maybe spiralling the vase 5 or 6 times? The spiral could start about 10mm, below the lip of the vase. It would be a delicate thing though.
yet another
Something like this in two pieces, the top lifts out for filling and acts as the "frog".
Slight flare ouyt at the bottom (fo stability). Vase in stoneware or porcelain. frog in black basalt or dark stoneware to vanish into the flowers. Top made like this piece but more divisions/rings?
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com