Contemporary designers and artists are taking advantage of new materials and production processes to create a whole range of innovative furniture, lighting and objects. So who are the next great designers and who will people be talking about in 50 years?
For me, its hard to go past Arik Levy, Karim Rashid, Patricia Urquiola, Zaha Hadid and Campana Brothers or the cool style of Established & Sons and Droog Design.
Who are your favorite contemporary designers and what are the modern designs that you make you swoon?
Cheers,
Tick.
To pass judgement on a centur...
To pass judgement on a century which just started is quite idiotic.
If a certain contemporary design become classic or not is to decide by people in the future.
In the past there were many examples of designers who were seen as very fashionable in their productive period, but today they are playing only a minor part in design history.
Look out Pats, entering a no-fun zone!
Siaz, you are right to think it idiotic to ask who were the great designers of the 21st Century in 2013, which is exactly why I ask WHO ARE, meaning present tense and not past tense.
As much as it might pain some to consider contemporary design, the thread simply asks who do you consider ARE the great contemporary designers (emerging or established) currently working and who do you think will be remembered in the future. A playful thread to refocus on design and take our minds off the trolling that has recently dogged this site.
Btw' thank for your contribution Robert1960.
Below is a photograph of a sleeping system by Karim Rashid. I think it very swoon worthy!
That bed looks thin and cold.
But I guess the same is still said about many mid century designs!
I lean strongly towards minimalist sensibilities but I don't want to sleep in a lime green iPod. The color alone does not strike me as restful.
Speaking of iPods, it would seem that Apple iPhone/iPad/iPod being the main design game changers so far in the 21st century.
All the new designers seem to borrow so heavily from the mid century, that time could simply make them look like followers rather than leaders.
Still early though!
I think this century is gonna be a pretty wild ride! The landscape seems to be getting smaller, more personal. Google glass etc. It seems technology is washing over all disciplines. Cars that drive themselves could make for some fairly weird looking changes...
Apple's designs
are in line with the mid-century designs of Dieter Rams and are in fact also borrowed.
edit:
I found an article on that with some comparisons:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2200660/Did-Apple-inspira...
I agree...
Here is another Rams interview in which Rams discusses apple design, etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-Rams-Apple-ha...
.
A prophetic vision about design is impossible, you have to learn history of art to understand that art and design is always a part of socio-historical developments, socio-cultural and socio-political.
You can't see art and design as separated field in development of human kind, the "whole thing" is too complex as to be able to pass judgement on future developments, it depends on poor or rich, free or corrupted, war or peace and so on, you always have to see it in a comprehensive social context.
One of Rams' principles for example is: Good design is as little design as possible, and Mies van der Rohe said: less is more.
These principles are still valid since more than half a century, so one day it will definitely change and we will say: "no, we can't stand it no more this post-modern minimalism."
Every artist and designer is a child of his time, he is just reacting first to the status quo he experiences and second to that he has learned about history of art.
Art and design have different functions.
I dosagree that design has such a strong link to art, but saying that, there is much called art that I would consider merely decorative. I would argue that the key differences between art and design is that design is intended to improve function or solve problems whereas art poses questions or creates a disturbance on some level. According to Michael Brady ?The differences between art and design lie not so much in how they look as in what they do?.
If you would like to read more of Brady's article see the link below.
http://www.unc.edu/~jbrady/Essays/Art_Design.html
I have to agree with onno on...
I have to agree with onno on this one but all a matter of opinion or interpretation.
Hey isn't Established and Sons and brand with individual designers for their pieces.
Not to change the subject but this brand has to be up there as one of the most overpriced so I am not overly impressed with them.
This tiny little desk which looked like painted mdf was $18k in Australia which is ludicrous.
I agree with Campagna Brothers but I find Karim Rashid's pieces a bit too toy store style for me.I cannot see them being timeless at all.All irrelevant and based on individual tastes so no one need to be offended if you disagree.
http://www.michael-young.com/furniture-writing-desk.html
Beyond mid century modern
It's interesting that the Design Addict forum is populated with threads
about MCM rather than contemporary design and I wonder if this is driven by the international trend towards post-war design, notions of quality and materials, or are people looking to engage more with the past.
As someone who owns mostly post-war furniture by Australian and British designers, I often wonder myself why I don't engage more in contemporary design. Starline, I think you hit the nail on the head with the cost and cheap materials often being a deterent. I would have a B&B Italia Tufty-time sofa in a second if I had a spare $18,000, but even then II would just be rehashing the 1970's style, and if I was going to do that why not buy the original Camaleonda sofa.
Is this all about nostalgia, value for money or authenticity? This is why I am curious about the apparent lack of interest in contemporary design on this forum.
Why do most of us prefer mid century design to contemporary design?
I assume that
our definition of "contemporary" is "design being produced in the present" ?
The mid-century period is probably the most recent in which the stars have sorted themselves out (although, for some reason, blah modern like M Boughman seem indistinguishable from inventors like Eames, Nelson, Aalto, etc, for some collectors). Design today is a) often derivative of this period, or is b) not yet sorted out as to what will be deemed "permanent" or classic in the eyes of many.
Clearly there are pathfinders; K Grcic comes to mind, and there are others. But new stuff comes and goes all the time -- take your pick. Buy what appeals to you, and what you need. That's what it's designed and made for.
Furniture collecting is an aberrant activity, in my view.
authenticity
When something shines like a supernova, as the mid century designers did, it is simply harder to see the lesser lights that follow.
The contemporary designers appear derivative because they ARE derivative. There is precious little territory not already mined by the mid century designers. Plastic is still plastic. Wire is still wire. Wood is still wood. Seemingly forced "variations on a theme" that was thoroughly defined 60 years ago are sadly all that is left.
None of today's designers seem capable of making us forget about the much more powerful first generation when we behold their work. They are still borrowing more than they are adding, in my opinion.
It is far more than nostalgia for me though. Time has been a true friend to mid century designers. Seen against the contemporary offerings, their authenticity is even more amplified, more self evident and powerful. The old stuff simply has more EDGE than the new stuff.
The new stuff all too often looks like the designer was desperately and awkwardly groping for that one little move that was not already blown out of the water by the mid century supernova.
And as they continue to try, the best of the mid century just shines brighter.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com