Showing posts with label product design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label product design. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The engineering of modification

I apologise again for not having posted yesterday - class is leaving little time to write.

I want to add on to previous posts on objects and materials (here, here, here, here, here). In my last post, I wrote about the modification of engineering. One thing that current design, engineering and building education don't really address is what can be called modularity. We think of objects as single use, and they are built for single purposes. Vast amounts of energy and materials are invested in such objects, and significant ecological harm comes from the manufacturing. When one thing becomes "obsolete," (here, too) there is very little chance that the same components will be reused to make another object. Now, I have written many times that the most significant steps towards decreased ecological harm will come through behavioural and ethical changes, not newer objects. Yet, I understand that we have created objects and structures that surround our lives, and become part of them; I can appreciate that. Modularity, or adaptability is a better word, may help us design objects to be taken apart easily, put back together in a different manner, and still provide the change that is needed. Several issues arise from this, that I will address.

If we do create objects and spaces, how might they be modular? One interesting idea I came across the other day was at the art opening of Andy Kem (who we found out about on a random trip to Russell Industrial - a space for artists and craftspeople). His designs feature interlocking pieces, not pieces that are solidly put together. This means that you can take them apart easily, and put them back together, without tools. Here's an example of a rocking chair.


Now, of course, many things we have, like furniture, are built in this way. But many things are not, including the spaces we inhabit. Laura Smith mentioned how interior design is additive. In design, most time designs are not meant to be taken apart to conform to changing wants/needs. Therefore, we need to make things from virgin materials. But I wonder if we built simple, basic things in a modular way, whether we would be happy with what those objects can provide. For example, if we have an object that is placed one way, would we be able to change our perspective and bring some freshness to it by placing it another way? Maybe just tipped over? I know I might be sounding like some artist here, which I am not, and I am not compelled to always be surrounded by new objects, but many people are.

One issue that may arise in this is that it is difficult to design something for a purpose if we can't envision what that purpose may be. This I have addressed in some posts about limits of the human mind. But I do think that given all the physical things we have, we must conform our wants to fit the limitations and capabilities of these objects.

Ecological degradation stems from the way in which we physically modify the environment, violently extracting materials and killing trees, driven by ideologies and ethics that dictate such behaviour. But in the end, we are making the choices to physically modify the environment in destructive ways. If we just thought of such destruction, and didn't act on the thoughts, much of nature would still be intact.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Objects and materials: Shape and design

Glass bottles have been something that have constantly made me think, of course, not because I drink our of them (although I do at times enjoy those very liquids...draught), but because others do, a lot. Bottles have a lot of value in many ways. They hold liquids very well, and the fact that they have a small place from which to drink from means that they reduce potential opportunities for spilling. They are thick and feel heavy, and therefore, make you feel like you are actually holding something. In fact, they feel very much like pint glasses. But I think it is very interesting how two almost identical objects in function can result in two very different responses after use. (I guess I am talking primarily about Western countries in this post.) After using a pint glass, the natural thing one may do is put the glass in the sink, or in the dishwasher. After using a glass bottle, on the other hand, the tendency for one is to put it in the trash can or recycling bin. We think it okay to reuse one of the objects, but find it odd to reuse the other, in general. The only difference between the objects is that one of them has a curved, narrowing top, while the other opens or is the same area as the base. But if you can pour a liquid into a pint glass, you can pour into a bottle, just gingerly.

On the left is a picture of a big bottle. We can absolutely imagine popping the top and drinking the beer in the bottle, but very few would wash the bottle out and use it as a glass. But what if the top of the bottle didn't exist, as in the picture on the right? In that case, once we would have had a beer from the "bottle," we would probably think that we could reuse it, and then keep it as a glass, just like many people do with Ball jars. But again, we can easily use the bottle to fill water from a tap, and just use it as a glass. (You may know that in many countries, the tops of bottles are cut off; the bottoms then serve as glasses.)


Therefore, it seems that the difference is the social learning that one shape is acceptable to use only in certain ways, when in fact, there is very little difference between many of the objects we think are different. This raises several interesting questions about design and learning and behaviour. There are probably very small things we can do physically to common objects such that we might think they are multi-purpose. These changes can have huge consequences - reduced quantities of things going to landfills, reduced need for recycling, increased reusing, increased sentimentality, increased pass-me-downs, decreased natural resource extraction, etc. etc. etc. 

The other night, Marco raised the very interesting case of the bee in the urinals (here, here). Here's a picture of the bee.
What this simple little change has done (you can read why by clicking the above links), particularly in high-volume places such as airports and malls, has been to reduce the amount of cleaning required, the chemicals required for cleaning, the water used for cleaning, and on and on. Maybe it is worthwhile to think about how we can make just small changes to what surrounds us to change our perceptions of use. It would be interesting to see how the learning is passed between people with these changes.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Guest Blogger #12: Amazing Alyssa's (Green) Artifacts

Consumers' changing behaviors and demands for “green” products have created an interesting challenge for today's designers. The challenge: how to make all the products we could possibly want, green.  Well, here are just a few solutions:

Packaging- Lee never wasted



Lee wanted more than a shopping bag made from recycled paper. Instead of looking backwards into the materials they would use for the bags, they looked into the future. What will the consumer do with this bag once he or she returns home? Designed by Happy Creative Services, Lee's new shopping bag literally takes on all different forms. It becomes a calander, a board game, bookmarks, a door hanger, shoe laces, a ruler, a black book, a book shelf, dice, a pencil holder, paper glasses, and a first aid chart-to name a few.

This bag was such a hit that in order to keep up with demand, the company had to produce 100 times more bags than they had initially planned for. This is great for Lee and Happy Creative Services, but seems counter productive when thinking about the actual environmental impact.

Clothing-Seeded shoes


OAT, a Dutch brand of footware, recently released their new line of shoes called the “Virgin Collection”. This line of shoes is meant to appeal to the individual who is both environmentally responsible as well as fashion conscious. Why have to pick between style and ethics? These shoes are made from materials that are easily broken down, and that contain seeds in hopes of one day growing plants where the shoes are disposed of.



Highly efficient, these bulbs last longer and act much more efficiently than normal Christmas lights.
This is just one product featured on Treehugger.com, a green blog with an entire buying green guide.

Now, some designers have taken a slightly different route in terms of "green" products. This can include  DIY projects, and other times, cleverly recycled novelty objects.

Take this Do-it-yourself Tiffin box made from tuna cans.
(Don't underestimate these lunch boxes, they were the inspiration for my entire senior thesis, and represent an incredible lunch delivery system in India!)


Sites like Instructables and Wonder How To provide a wide variety of projects.
Another Inhabitat favorite: Oven transformed into lounge chair


Creative.



Refreshingly clever "green"designs do exist, don't get me wrong, and I am constantly amazed and intrigued by my internet discoveries and those shared with me by friends. It's just that the challenge to please the eco-conscious consumer by providing him or her with sustainable options might be the wrong challenge to address. We are still producing more stuff whether or not its "sustainable", whether or not it's made from organic materials, its more stuff, and a lot of this stuff, still ends up in the landfills. 

By turning all the products consumers could want or need into "sustainable" products, we allow ourselves to continue living the same lifestyles that have brought us the environmental issues we face today. Instead of rethinking the system and questioning why we need these products in the first place, we just buy the greener version, and are content.

I am completely guilty of this! I buy organic, and I pick biodegradable or recycled materials over others. I admit, I feel better doing it, but I know it's not enough. People know it's not enough, and are changing their lifestyles and landscapes to minimize their impact. 

For consistant inspiration check out: Treehugger.com, Inhabitat.com, Design for Good, and World Changing

~Alyssa