definitely not
designing from zero point is just an illusion.. everything evolves under some kind of evolution.. even the wheel wasn't invented at once, neither are the super extra inventions of nowadays.
However, as I started studying design, nobody really told me about it. I felt a bit guilty while looking into magazines and internet for "inspiration" .. and then, on the end of the term, I was sometimes amazed that everything I thought of as a super original think, already exists (and even in better version).
and it's not just about some design research ...
things influence you even if you do not realize it.
designing from scratch
If you are considering what went before when designing you will be inevitable influenced by what went before.
You can design from scratch.
This design came, not from looking at past designs but from a singular interest in geometric forms and an interest I had in combining glass and silver.
YoDesign, well obviously it is a sentiment stated that I agree with.
And I stated as much in my post of September 21. I think that as designers, artisans, craftsman, that we are the sum total of everything that we have ever experienced. One would have to grow up in a vacuum or on a deserted island for it to be otherwise, and yet I suspect that forms that grew out of such an environment would still evoke shapes and elements found within the natural environment on that deserted island.
Show me a shape, anything that is claimed as being completely non-derivative and it's more then likely a better than even chance that it has appeared either elsewhere or was already found in nature.
Even the plane like surface of a chair seat is derivative of the flat surface of a 20 inch tall or thereabouts rock or stump of a tree that prehistoric man may have sat upon by the campfire 20,000 or 6500 years ago, depending upon how you view the world.
As Robert stated; combining two existing forms into something new still has at its core; the existing forms, thus derivative. Or am I missing something.
Love threads like this and the minimalist thread, where you can really get one's brain around it. 🙂
One other thing.
You combine glass and silver but I still see the shape of a martini glass that obviously came before.
I think there might be two issues here, "pure originality", emphasis on the pure, which I think is extremely difficult to achieve. And "repurposing" or combining two disparate elements to make something new, which happens all of the time. But at the end of the day, that repurposed piece has at its core, previously designed and recognizable elements.
There is however, and this is a very big "maybe", maybe there are completely original "endeavors" like walking on the moon. Walking on the moon had never been done before but it is still the derivative act of exploration, like going to the South Pole, or climbing Everest. But unto itself, (walking on the moon) stands alone.
Has
nobody else got anything to say on this subject?..Koen, Dc..anybody........
On his (rather nice) website, Matthew Hilton cites many disparate influences including; Oscar Niemeyer's Copan, concrete sea defences and photographic works.
I've also noticed this 'pinboard' of inspiration on other artists' and designers' websites, so it is clearly a trend to lay bare one's influences...
http://www.matthewhilton.com/
antecedent
it may have been koen who reminded us not long ago that to truly create "ex nihilo" [out of nothing] is an act attributed to god alone. theists will likely be inclined toward revising this proposition upon the discovery of new atomic realities completely devoid of antecedent.
that's not to say our attempts at originality or a clever use of all that exists are moot as mere illusions of creativity. to the extent that the known world has never seen or experienced a given configuration of elements, we can justifiably claim the popularly defined attribute of creativity or the fruits of innovation.
for the most part, i'm aligned with big tv guy's assumption that we cannot somehow unlearn or even distance ourselves from everything we've experienced, whether cognative or otherwise. therefore our so-called creations will contain breadcrumbs back to something rather than to nothing.
i usually think along these lines when observing the other-worldly space creatures of our sci-fi film makers. as wildly bizarre some of them can be--say, for instance, those of the star wars movies--one can typically see references to components, elements or features in the real world.
again, this is not at all to speak in critical or disparaging terms regarding the efforts or results of the designers; their work is inarguably characterized by amazing insight, wit, intelligence, etc. nonetheless, it does effectively define the parameters of our design activity and contributes toward an appropriate view of ourselves and our accomplishments.
GOD
Robert1960, I am referring to the first part of your question when talking about the glass/silver. The second part is obvious; nobody 'lives in a vacuum'.
I think that originality has to be taken in context. Of course none of us can claim to work in a vacuum. To design is to use acquired skills, learned, most often at college or university but sometimes self-taught. In doing so you cannot be unaware of what has gone before.
BTM, the martini glass may have come before but it was not the inspiration behind the glass. Because I came up with a conical shape is co-incidental and was part of the development stage that inspired me to use this shape. It was one of the geometric shapes I used as it can contain a liquid. In another drinking vessel I used a cylinder as the container plus a square. A cylinder is probably the most common form used in drinking vessels and it is a logical one to use, but that is not why I chose it. It was one of the shapes in the pallet I was using.
People will always be able to find something to compare your design to and will often do so disparagingly.
Original design is not about inventing new things but about creating new shapes for existing things. Plagiarism is the opposite to this, taking existing designs and tweaking them to appear to be your own or using an existing design as a starting point. Many designers will follow trends that are fashionable at the time which is certainly 'looking to others' for inspiration.
But designing can be very hard work unless you are Monsieur Starck who claims it takes him 10 minutes.
Harder yet than comming up with a concept is getting the detailing right. Many contemporary designs, particularly those since the Post Modern movement, lack attention to detail. Superficially they look great. Jorge pensi's Toledo chair - a favourite of mine - never-the-less misses something with its tubular legs that don't flow with the aluminium castings of the seat and back.
On the other hand, Eames's EA105 is perfect in avery way. That is probably why it is so highly regarded and enduring.
I think the word "original" is taken too literally. It should be replaced by "integrity" or "unique".
KDC, I think God, if he exists, would not be concerned with the frivolity of design, fashion and consumerism, but he did give us the ability to appreciate beauty - and to destroy!
It would be interesting to see the work of some of you designers out there. Be brave, open yourself to criticism!
.
I would view the glasses above as being in more of a craft tradition, there is something almost of contemporary jewellery practice about them, beautiful in a Marianne Brandt kind of way. Are they 3d models or prototypes?
Le Corbusier and his 'objet types' is something I've always appreciated, radical departures in the form but not the function of utilitarian goods has often left me uneasy, personally I like to be unstimulated by the objects that serve me, the best servants are silent.
There are some areas, such as Jewellery, fashion and lighting were personal expression seems more appropriate, perhaps furniture falls somewhere in between.
At the moment I am making a stool/side table based on the 3 legged adzed tradition, almost entirely on the lathe, this is a 'recieved type' to use the jargon and its coming along well mostly because the construction is sound, thats that problem out of the way and I'm left with details and materials and any improvements I can make to the function (removable padded leather rotating seat). I'm neither plagiarising nor making something novel for the sake of it.
So no, as everyone seems to agree its impossible to work in a vacuum ( unless yer a cosomnaut) but as sometimes seems to be the call that we have enough design and too much stuff, which is quite obviously true...what do we do? There seems to be a growing ideological divide between consumtpion for the economy and reactive anti-consumption, I think on either side of that fence we lose a little bit of our humanity.
teapot
Heath, the glass/silver vessel is a liqueur glass. I made several, kept one and sold the rest.
The reference to Marianne Brandt is astute! If you saw a teapot I made way back you could be forgiven if you though I had plagiarized her teapot design! Mine uses a hemi-sphere too! But if you looked at the number of drawings I did to get to the final design you would see that it was not derived from her teapot at all. I filled a whole A2 detail paper pad and more to get there. It was a real struggle.
But what do you mean "in the craft tradition"? Yes, it is hand made but does that take it out of the designer field?
I feel differently to you about the "things that serve me". I have a pair of champagne flutes and red wine glasses that I bought in the late 70s, Dartington glass. They are beautiful and absolutely fantastic to drink from. My wife and I use them occasionally.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com