Evolution of an Idea: Chapter 2

VETO'd. My brilliant lounge chair idea has been overruled on the grounds that it is too complex and too large. *sigh* Anyway, onwards. I have moved on to use one of my earlier sketches from the brainstorming portion of the project. Its design is based on a philosophy inspired by both my own writings and my research on industrial designer Naoto Fukasawa. Fukasawa holds that human interaction with the physical world should occur "without thought." An object should be designed so that the user interacts with it in an intuitive manner that borders on instinct. It should be exactly as complex as it needs to be and no more. It should afford users opportunities and meet their needs in a fluid and uncompromising manner.

A Fukasawa umbrella has a notched handle for holding a shopping bag strap.
Simple, intuitive, useful. Why didn't this exist already?

I have fused Fukasawa's philosophy with my own, and have decided to experiment with it this term. I do not necessarily think designed objects need always fade into the background of life, but they should exist for the user, not despite the user. My object of nostalgia, my mouthpiece, was special because it afforded me possibilities. It guided my sound, timbre, pitch, but still allowed me to achieve different sounds for different ensembles. The catch was that I achieved the perfect tone for none of the situations. My design philosophy for this term aims to design beyond this catch:

"The beauty of furniture comes from its elegant response and adaptability to human touch."

This statement, at first, seems very broad. But it has very specific and measurable implications for the design of furniture. It is not quite a pattern, a la Christopher Alexander, but it is close. Firstly, the piece must be useful. Beauty comes from the piece's response to human needs, not from a commentary on society or an unusual and sculptural form. Second, the piece must be adaptable. What happens when the user's needs change? What if the layout and organization of the surrounding space changes? What if the piece gets a new owner with a different idea of how it should be used? Architects use the phrase "precisely-general" to describe this changeability. It is a different concept from "nonspecific". A nonspecific object or space could fit anything, has no identity and lends itself to no use in particular. A "precisely-general" object, space, or idea can accommodate a variety of uses in an orderly and thoughtful fashion without restricting its user to any one particular function. The difference is subtle, but important. Finally, the piece must be elegant. Its use must respond to the users needs in a refined, simple way.

I got all of that down into one sentence. Woo!