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

Author: None
Publisher:
Publish Date: None
Features: What is "good design" and how it is judged in today's design awards and competitions seems to be based on the so-called "good design," which is considered 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 placed more emphasis on craftsmanship rather than aesthetic standards. Later, pragmatic considerations led to the inclusion of formal definition factors in the principles of evaluating "good design." Thus, industrial standards emerged, and eventually, the concept of the controllability of formal quality was formed. "Good design" expresses principles that combine beauty and utility, 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 of its contents originate from 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 principles of evaluating "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" by starting from the worker organizations of industrial society. Their theories later clashed with Christopher Dresser's "adapting nature to scientific research" (botany), which sought to discard religious, moral, and social considerations and adopt geometric forms in decoration; his theory was based on an analysis of plant morphology. The decisive factor in defining "good design" was expressed by Charles F. A. Voysey's puritanical view: "happy poverty," which comprehensively renewed the definition of "good design," pointing out that composition was merely a function of utility, thus actually foreshadowing an undecorated, 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 eventually developed a set of guidelines suitable for German needs. After spending some time in Britain, he planned the establishment of the Deutscher Werkbund. Together with others, he and Henry van de Velde advocated the formation 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 remained a staunch supporter of "good form" ("good design" in its German version) to this day. 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, initially emphasized van de Velde's experience in its early stages, but 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 primarily 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 credited to the trend of spreading the "International Style" in the 1960s of this century, 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 saw the diversification of taste as a turning point for various social events arising from the workers' movement; the other line, through Muthesius, who adopted the same method to cultivate a system based on series, reflecting the beauty of industrial production, in which professional unions, manufacturers, and retailers would unite. Through his efforts, high-quality industrial manufacturing products boosted economic development (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 market-based economic systems. "Good design," in the name of additional aesthetic value, has become a carrier of 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 industrial systems. Voysey's formal purism has lost its "spiritual pleading" and its influence as an important model, despite benefiting the transformation of the production system. P53-54