Selection of Classic Works on Foreign Design and Art - (Volume 1 and 2)

Author: Li Yanzuzhu
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-08-01
Features: What is "good design" and how to present it? Today's design awards and competitions seem to be based on the so-called "good design," using it as the highest standard of quality in industrial aesthetics. However, people have diverse ideas about "good design." As an objective concept, when evaluating whether a design is "good design," people tend to develop certain principles derived from the ideals of the romantic reformers of the Arts and Crafts Movement, which focus more on craftsmanship rather than aesthetic standards. Later, based on utilitarian considerations, the principle of form definition was added to the evaluation criteria of "good design." Thus, industrial standards emerged, and eventually the concept of controllability of form quality was formed. "Good design" expresses principles that determine standards where beauty and utility are combined, based on an objective aesthetic attitude toward industrial product quality. "Good design" is a mixture of various ideals and a magical formula. Although "good design," at least so far, cannot be compared to any well-formed theory, many aspects of this concept originated in the 19th century. For the classic modernist ideas that have developed to this day, "good design" once aligned with image-oriented philosophical concepts, but its meaning has expanded beyond that. Therefore, although the evaluation criteria of "good design" are diverse, its origins can still be very clearly traced. A total of five key figures laid the foundation for this concept. First are John Ruskin and William Morris, who sought beauty through the idea of "nature's nature" starting from the worker organizations of industrial society. Their theories later clashed with Christopher Dresser's "nature adapted to scientific research" (botany), which sought to discard religious, moral, and social considerations and adopt geometric forms in decoration; his theory was based on the analysis of plant morphology. The decisive factor in defining "good design" was expressed by Charles F. A. Voysey's puritanical view: "happiness of poverty," which comprehensively renewed the definition of "good design," pointing out that composition was merely a function of utility, thereby actually foreshadowing a non-decorative, purist modernist ideal. The last figure was Charles R. Ashbee, whose craft schools and guilds combined the two fundamental concepts of the time. On one hand, Ashbee advocated returning to collective and cooperative production forms, continuing the medieval production model; on the other hand, he supported that the teaching of decorative arts should be completed through practical workshop training, similar to the training of craftsmen. In addition to the above five, one person's role cannot be forgotten—Hermann Muthesius, who keenly observed and followed the transformations taking place in Britain. From these pioneers, he ultimately developed a set of regulations suitable for German needs. After spending some time in Britain, he planned to establish the Deutscher Werkbund. Together with others, he and Henry van de Velde advocated the establishment of a union of German creators, manufacturers, and merchants to restart the production of industrial products on a different basis (a practice that had already achieved economic success in Britain at the time). The Deutscher Werkbund has actually remained to this day a staunch supporter of "good form" ("good design" in its German version). The Deutscher Werkbund represents a public institution that promotes the improvement of German design and specialized training levels. In 1914, a historic debate occurred within the union between Muthesius and van de Velde over whether to prioritize type (advocated by Muthesius) or artistic freedom (supported by van de Velde). The Bauhaus, led by Gropius, emphasized van de Velde's experience in its early stages, while in its later stages, it ultimately adopted the principles proposed by Muthesius. Twenty years after the closure of the Bauhaus, its legacy was inherited by the Ulm School of Design. The school focused its research and design on the relationship between scientific progress and production models, as well as on the development of applicable methods, which were very close to the then-popular new positivist trend. "Good design" is therefore first and foremost a product of Anglo-Saxon culture, established at the birth of functionalism, and connected to the Arts and Crafts Movement and industrialization. Although its global popularity—of course with natural differences—should be attributed to the trend of spreading the "International Style" in the 1960s, it remains a product of a specific culture. Within the scope of this teaching method, it spreads along two opposite lines: one line through Ashbee, who took the diversification of taste as a turning point for various social events originating from the labor movement; the other line through Muthesius, who adopted the same method to cultivate a system based on series that reflected the beauty of industrial production, in which professional unions, manufacturers, and retailers would come together. Through his efforts, high-quality industrial manufacturing products boosted the economy (following Britain). Today, this has become the widely recognized goal of "good design." This trend has been supported by many industrialized countries because it encourages a market-based economic system. "Good design," in the name of additional aesthetic value, has become a carrier for gaining benefits in the process of seeking market share. This is actually far from the definition of "good design" envisioned by the reformers of the Arts and Crafts Movement, who combined social development, cultural taste, and criticism of the industrial system. Voysey's formal purism has lost its "spiritual begging" and its influence as an important model, although it has benefited the transformation of the production system. P53-54