He's a wanker
I know a quite famous Australian designer who used to work with him (they had a shop together) and she reckons he's completely up himself. I interviewed him once for a story i was writing about the death of minimalism and he was quite aloof. Perhaps the fame has gone to his head.
DC...
It takes a whole lot less than that to get me hot honey! a pulse is enough. I dont think i said that Marc Nuisances work was good did i ?, i like some of it just as im not fussy which bottle i open next, but most of his stuff is just background music to me. I do like a man with thinning hair though, but not as moody and self important as Marc.Come to think of it..the pulse is an optional extra....
I'm not easy.
... Btw......
I'm not easy.
... Btw... I think that one may like or dislike a design, but
what I see is that many of you are very aggressive towards
him, that surprises me, and his work, without giving
technical explanation.
About the functional of non-functional aspect... I think that
many classic modern designs are not functional. They are
appreciated mostly for the aesthetic, feel, and what they
communicate.
So, I don't find it so "outrageous" to see a table with holes
where small objects can fall in, because you can be careful or
not put small objects there. And the Lookheed Lounge goes
well in conference rooms, at college, at home, at a party, and
so on.
Marc Newson is a design genius.
Antonella..
My disinterest in most of Newsons designs have nothing at all to do with "functiomality" or the fact that a table might have holes in it, WOW! thats different, not. I have pieces from Arad, Garouste & Bonetti,Campana and others all of which are not really the most practical but i love them for their presence, to me a lot of Marc Nuisance pieces havent got any of this.Like i said earlier, to me his work is just background music which is to say forgettable. By the way, "Pod of Drawers"? check Jon Mills earlier "Dog Bollock"wardrobe or G & Bs much later "St. Petersburg" chest.
Although I am not very interested...
in exclamation marks in design, and although I am allergic to declaring someone a genius, I do not mind commenting on products. That's the reason why I usually jump anything that is as general as "what do you think of...fill in the name of the designer" Desigers are like everybody else they do good and bad things. Becoming "know for being known" often implies that the media and the public build a cage in which the designer is imprissoned and forced to do more of the same...usually more of the same gets reduntant and boring or as Vivienne commented:"..it's a background" Marc Newson's wicker version of "his" Chair had presence. The woven structure gave the large organic shape enough of a spine to show this continious curved surface the way it was created, as "an idea of shape". The aluminum versions and everything else lost that because of blatant lack of craftmanship of the people that did the originals for the casting. The nice curves underlined by the tension of the wicker, became a multitude of small surfaces, badly connected or as I used to say to students: "to much sand paper not enough thought..." The rest of his work is just unfortunate...
Hi Vivienne, yeah, I was...
Hi Vivienne, yeah, I was referring to what dcwilson said, mostly. I like
Arad and Campana (link). I can't find Dog Bollock. Do you have a link?
Which objects do you have from Arad and Campana?
http://www.designmuseum.org/design/fernando-humberto-campana
Antonella,
You asked for comments. I thought about it. I gave them.
My criteria for a great design are:
1. it has to function well; and
2. it has to make me feel a lot better than I did before I experienced it.
If it does these two things, then I think it is worth going to the trouble of understanding the philosophy and aesthetics the designer used to make me feel decisively better. When I dig in, sometimes I find he's an original, sometimes I find he's a borrower, and most times I find he's a combination. But what I look for even more is if this design was a fluke, something he did by accident, or something that he did because he understood how to play his instrument, so to speak. Many can have a fluke, if they stay at it long enough. What I admire and esteem most is someone who can consistently bring excellence to their work.
FWIW, Criteria #2 is a paraphrase of a criteria for successful art in general by one of my favorite authors--Kurt Vonnegut, who, alas, died a day or so ago, after having told us all the awful truth for about 55 years by wrapping it in laughter (note: counterintuitively, often the harsher the truth, the more that humor is required to communicate it into the recesses of the heavily defended human heart).
I made a valid, specific criticism of his work, when I noted that it lacked function. I offered some specific philosophical comment, when I suggested that he might be defunctioning intentionally. I noted specifically that the form, though interesting, seemed an inelegant solution. I noted specifically that the Lockheed chair was impractical in many lounging environments, where its looks might make it appropriate. Finally, I said specifically that I thought he had some talent, but that it required some mentoring to put it to good use.
You, on the other hand, said very little specifically about the merits of his work and nothing at all about the demerits of it. And then you closed with a generalization: the man is a design genius.
I am not saying you are wrong. Everyone here including you is a better judge of these things than me by virtue of formal training alone. But...
If you are going to call a man, or woman, a genius of design, I, for one, would like a rather more rigorous argument in support of what makes you think this. I promise that if you make the case here, you will get a fair hearing from many skilled persons, not just from wannabe me.
I look forward to reading your analysis of his work. I get my mind changed and expanded here all the time. Certainly, if I am wrong about this designer's work, I want to know it and understand why.
Thank you for bringing his work to my attention and thank you for sticking to your guns and trying to make an old man see the virtue in his work. I promise, I will read and think about whatever you write and not just look at the words, as an old English professor of mine used to say, when he was trying to teach me to read and appreciate novels.
Antonella
Please don't put quotes around words attributed to me that I did not say. I was the one that brought up the black hole table and I did not use the word "outrageous".
Quite the opposite. I do not find Newsons' work at all outrageous. I would be more inclined to call it "silly" or "goofy" (or any one of the seven drawfs for that matter). Outrageous is a good thing. Newson's stuff is a page-fluppers. Let me explain.
I'm sitting in the dentist's waiting room flipping through the pile of magazines to kill a little time. I always go for the design mags and my dentist also being gay has plenty of them. If I flip to a page with a Newson piece on it there is nothing that would catch my eye (either in a good or bad way) to cause me to stop and investigate that page. I flip to the next one... his stuff just isn't really that interesting hon.
Hi dcwilson, yes I'm...
Hi dcwilson, yes I'm thankful for the comments you have made
about Marc Newson's designs.
I like functionality also, but I think sometime non-functionality is
also nice because it makes us act more creatively. Some of Marc
Newson's design are functional though. Not all, but some are I think.
You're right I didn't give many explanations about what I think
are his merits. Ok, I'll do it now:
The first thing is that spontaneously I like his style. For example I
like Talby (the mobile phone), and I think he is the one who has
launched the fashion of very slim mobiles. But, again, it's because
I Like them. Maybe somebody may like the thick ones.
I think of him like a designer, an artist and an innovator at the
same time. For example the 021C car for Ford Motor Company
reflects his ingeniousness, I think, because it doesn't make me
think of a car to go fast risking everybody's safety, but of a car
designed to go slowly...
He designs aeroplanes, bicycles, interiors... and so many
other things.
He's a professor also. He deserves a bit of trust I think.
One of the things that really amazes me is the Voronoi Shelf,
because it is made of the safest material ever: Carrara Marble.
You can eat on it for how safe it is!! ... It's like a sculpture...
it reflects his sculpturing skills... I think it's wonderful...
Is it not easy to design a shelf like that...
So, I just like his designs and the more I look into them the more
I discover things I like.
Hmmm, I certainly prefer Tom ...
Hmmm, I certainly prefer Tom Dixon over Marc Newson. Marc Newson is more "eye candy" to me. Fun to instantly look at but then quickly forgotten. Newson's chairs, tables and other stuff might be complicated to take from sketch to actual production, but it all just looks too quickly and easily made from my point of view. I miss that simple yet brilliant idea that makes me go "ahaaa!" and takes my own sense of shape, colour and function a step further. And inspires me. Instead I'm stuck with just some pretty lines and the simple use (and sometimes quite superficial shock value) of bold colours. "Jesus! - a pink sofa! - and I thought I'd seen it all". Please, how old. If something doesn't look great in plain white, it won't look better in any other colour.
But when that's said, I would sort of miss him if Newson was suddenly gone ... though that's not the case with Karim Rashid.
Man, as a future furniture designer myself, I hope my work, personality and looks won't get beaten up so brutally as Newson's here among you fellow design addicts 🙂
Personally, I have high hopes for Louise Campbell. I sense a true passion, curiosity and joy in her work that I don't see in Newson's. Campbell is a bit too artistic and esthetically all-over-the-place for my taste but her Casual Cupboard and Collage lamp are great, I think. We can expect some very interesting things from her hand and mind in the furture:
http://www.louisecampbell.com/
Dog Bollock Wardrobe...
Antonella, heres the link for Jons work. Hes an artist as opposed to a designer so to find any of his work for sale is lucky, hes a really nice chap. I dont like to tell everyone which pieces i have,( i had part of my collection stolen once from one of my homes), i was just saying i am not averse to impractical pieces.
http://jonmillsdoesmetalwork.com
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com