Andy Warhol Museum by Olive

My first impression of this piece was that it is enormous. It nearly takes up the whole wall. The scale really makes a difference. I don’t think it would’ve made quite an impact on me if the piece was of average size. Warhol did quite a few variations of this image, but this one was my favorites. I’m really drawn the the color scheme he used. The intense lighting works to this piece’s advantage because they give it a dark, ominous mood, even though Warhol used bright, happy colors. The piece is very asymmetrical and I think it works, because of the simplicity of the image. If it was perfectly symmetrical it would be as interesting. The fact that this piece was the only thing hung on this wall is nice because it is such a large piece and it needs as much space as it can get with nothing else fighting for the viewer’s attention.

AVAM response from Molly

I was drawn to Debbie and Mike Shramer’s fairy house immediately, despite its Thomas Kincaid-esqu appearance. There were two scale models of “fairy mansions” made from natural materials and made to look vibrant and whimsical. I really appreciated the attention to detail paid to each room in the houses, especially since each room had an obvious purpose, like a “mud room” or a child’s bedroom, and even a tiny artist’s studio. I think what drew me in for these pieces were how much they reminded me of the Winterthur Museum(/Garden/Library), a beautiful mansion in Delaware where my Grammy used to take me around Christmas time when they display and sell tiny crafts made from nature. At Winterthur, the garden is made to look like a fairy garden, where ordinarily small objects are made to look huge compared to the guests to give the illusion that you are tiny; What appealed most to me about Debbie and Mike’s work was that it had that same feel of wonder and whimsy and childhood, and I can tell a lot of love was put into making everything perfect. It may not seem all that “fine art” but sometimes you just need a little break from the gritty realness of foundation year at art school, and to just look at something saccharine and smile.

Objectified, Abagail Bleakney

Objectified, Abagail Bleakney

Applewood Figure by Anonymous

When visiting the American Visionary Art Museum I found the permanent collection they had on show to be the most fascinating to view and read. In particular, the bizarre and looming applewood figure in the back of the room caught my eye immediately. I thought it very strange and it was only when I read the heart breaking description that I really connected with it. It was carved by an English mental patient who had never been interested in making art before. He, in fact, died with this figure as the only work of art to his name (which was omitted or lost). The carving’s most obvious feature is the concave and oddly shaped chest. This was apparently meant to make the piece a self portrait because the patient had been afflicted with a nasty and lengthly case of tuberculosis which left his actual chest concave and mangled looking. Two years after leaving the hospital where he had carved this slightly morose self portrait, the artist committed suicide. I found the art work interesting, but not half as interesting as its back story. 

Essentially, Im a big fan of objectified, its a great film that glares into the robust process of product design. What most design calls for, and this is now different in industrial design, is redesign. The fundamental issue with design is that it has no cap height and no limit, the perfect object does not exist, therefore designers exist in order to create it. My favorite issue with industrial design is the chair, objectified starts out with a machine milling a chair, woo, chairs can be beautiful, they can charge the viewer with a feeling of that chair, yet when they sit down in said chair, it can basically just be shit. Industrial design is a lot of pretty shit. In 2D design the same disconnection between aesthetic and concept is often present, in Industrial Design however, this issue is far more availably present. So basically im off to make some chairs. until my butt and my eyes are happy.

Essentially, Im a big fan of objectified, its a great film that glares into the robust process of product design. What most design calls for, and this is now different in industrial design, is redesign. The fundamental issue with design is that it has no cap height and no limit, the perfect object does not exist, therefore designers exist in order to create it. My favorite issue with industrial design is the chair, objectified starts out with a machine milling a chair, woo, chairs can be beautiful, they can charge the viewer with a feeling of that chair, yet when they sit down in said chair, it can basically just be shit. Industrial design is a lot of pretty shit. In 2D design the same disconnection between aesthetic and concept is often present, in Industrial Design however, this issue is far more availably present. So basically im off to make some chairs. until my butt and my eyes are happy.

     I think one of the very first lines in the movie really sums up the film’s main idea. The Design Curator for the Walker Art center quotes Henry Ford and explains that “Every object tells a story”. The documentary really illustrates how a single product has this lifespan that it shares with the consumers, whether it’s a story about process, emotion, concept, or the future of the object. For example, the hedge clippers show the hours that the creative team put in to create a smart and efficient tool.  On the other hand, Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO, still has the first computer he built and it’s purpose now is really only as a memento. However, even if he wanted to get rid of it, the machine was created when the idea of sustainability was less emphasized as opposed to today when designers must be totally aware of how the object will decompose or be recycled after death.
     Personally, I found a lot of the anecdotes really interesting. For example, the story about the first “mass-produced” object was pretty funny. I thought it was kind of remarkable how the woman told the story about the first Emperor of China and how he thought of the ground-breaking idea of giving all of his soldiers the same arrow so everyone could use the arrows on each of their different bows. Also, another woman explained how because of the micro-chip we’ve evolved from analog products and a tension between use and design formed in certain objects, like the iPhone. And that pretty simple idea blew my mind. Another kind of mind-blowing idea was brought up by Karim Rashid when he rationalized that we can’t keep going back to the forms and designs of the past. According to him, a traditional rectangular camera isn’t so necessary anymore. He made the point to question the design of everything and to overturn conventional designs.

     I think one of the very first lines in the movie really sums up the film’s main idea. The Design Curator for the Walker Art center quotes Henry Ford and explains that “Every object tells a story”. The documentary really illustrates how a single product has this lifespan that it shares with the consumers, whether it’s a story about process, emotion, concept, or the future of the object. For example, the hedge clippers show the hours that the creative team put in to create a smart and efficient tool.  On the other hand, Bill Moggridge, co-founder of IDEO, still has the first computer he built and it’s purpose now is really only as a memento. However, even if he wanted to get rid of it, the machine was created when the idea of sustainability was less emphasized as opposed to today when designers must be totally aware of how the object will decompose or be recycled after death.

     Personally, I found a lot of the anecdotes really interesting. For example, the story about the first “mass-produced” object was pretty funny. I thought it was kind of remarkable how the woman told the story about the first Emperor of China and how he thought of the ground-breaking idea of giving all of his soldiers the same arrow so everyone could use the arrows on each of their different bows. Also, another woman explained how because of the micro-chip we’ve evolved from analog products and a tension between use and design formed in certain objects, like the iPhone. And that pretty simple idea blew my mind. Another kind of mind-blowing idea was brought up by Karim Rashid when he rationalized that we can’t keep going back to the forms and designs of the past. According to him, a traditional rectangular camera isn’t so necessary anymore. He made the point to question the design of everything and to overturn conventional designs.

I became filled with a sense of joy after watching the film Objectified. It’s exciting to think that the future lies on the shoulders of designers. 

There were a few major ideas demonstrated in the film that helped me open my mind.

1. Think outside the box; dismantle the archetype. Why do we need to keep revisiting the archetype? Why do digital cameras still resemble cameras originally designed to use film?

2. Design with the environment in mind. Become aware that your product will eventually be discarded. 

3. Design products with the idea that they will get better with use. Products should be worn-in not worn-out Create something where the emotional relationship is more satisfying over time.

4. Cater to the majority rather than the minority.

5. Become aware of the way we interact with a product and relate it to how the product should look.

6. Apple is King.

7. Think of ways to integrate many services into one. Give the user the benefit of skipping a step. 

This is what I got from the film, and it made me very excited to know that I will be doing something like this one day. 

Objectified: Abagail Bleakney

I really enjoyed this film and found it very interesting. I was interested in hearing peoples opinions on what good design is, what it means to be a designer, and the thoughts that go into a design. I also found the portion of the video on the potato peeler interesting since it showed all the steps it took to design the handle, as well as the simple inspiration for the handle came from an everyday object. It is as if good design can be taking two common but different objects and bringing them together to serve one function. Finally, I learned about the big design companies and was surprised to find apple was receiving such high praise, but I never realized besides their products simplified interactions they also have simplified parts.

Hi guys, this is ivan.
2 points stood out to me in this documentary: the fuller meaning of Sustainability and considerations in Redesigning 
We all know that sustainability is kinda a buzz word nowadays and the video aptly pointed out that it is more than recycling and designing something that is green. It involves the consideration of the life span of the object and how that influences the required composition materials. One designer interviewed pointed out that not everything has to be made to be permanent, depending on its projected life span. Permanence is a concept that had been unconsciously assumed and accepted by designers until recently. The video talked about the usage of biopolymers etc, which i find really intriguing. 
Another assumption designers usually have is the physical form of the object. The example of the digital camera was used to illustrate this point in the documentary. Although digital cameras dont require to be shaped as a rectangular box unlike the film camera, it is shaped in that fashion. I think the documentary calls for us to look at objects and their functions, and question their exterior form. 

Hi guys, this is ivan.

2 points stood out to me in this documentary: the fuller meaning of Sustainability and considerations in Redesigning 

We all know that sustainability is kinda a buzz word nowadays and the video aptly pointed out that it is more than recycling and designing something that is green. It involves the consideration of the life span of the object and how that influences the required composition materials. One designer interviewed pointed out that not everything has to be made to be permanent, depending on its projected life span. Permanence is a concept that had been unconsciously assumed and accepted by designers until recently. The video talked about the usage of biopolymers etc, which i find really intriguing. 

Another assumption designers usually have is the physical form of the object. The example of the digital camera was used to illustrate this point in the documentary. Although digital cameras dont require to be shaped as a rectangular box unlike the film camera, it is shaped in that fashion. I think the documentary calls for us to look at objects and their functions, and question their exterior form.