Projects
Writing
Information
- Introduction
- The Capacity of Form
- Designed Form as Furniture
- The Relational Field of Form
- The Reconciliation of Form and Function
- Complex Form in Harmonization
- Restraint and Richness
Complex Form in Harmonization: Continued - Discerning Proportion
- Reflection on Contemporary Design
2023-2025
- What is Design?
- Problematic Design of Contemporary Era
- The Timeless Good Design
- Reflection on the Role of Design in our Historic Moment
-2023
The state of the field of contemporary design has become too fragmented, blurring the boundary between art and design.
Because design is not clearly defined and has become excessively diversified, new-generation design often fails to meet traditional criteria such as control over form, fulfillment of needs, and execution of design intent. Take, for example, the Dutch design scene, particularly critical design and companies like Droog and Moooi. While they identify as designers, much of their work does not provide tangible service to mankind. Instead, their creations primarily exist in museums. This approach to design leaves me perplexed.
One could argue that it represents an extreme form of design thinking, existing purely for the sake of an idea, but it is also not negligible that such type of thinking fails to be strong enough on its other criteria, criteria that is often associated with design. For example, The Tree-Trunk Bench by Jurgen Bey executes its design thinking to a possible maximum but this design thinking operates at the expense of usability and efficiency. This is perhaps not what its focus is, but there is also almost the most important part of the design criteria that it must face, hence becoming a design that lacks tremendously in various aspects of design criteria. The more such design strays from its fundamental function—in this case, seating—the more it is pulled away from the conventional interpretation of design, and hence into something else entirely. The further it moves away from its conventional design function, the more I perceive it as art. Unlike art, which does not have to serve a particular function, good design must always serve a human need.
I’ve listed on the right a spectrum of seating to clarify my point of view of the interpretation from artistic seating to designed seating. The spectrum shows from the art side to the design side, introducing the Tree-Trunk Bench by Jurgen Bey, Lockheed Lounge by Marc Newson, Diamond Chair by Harry Bertoia, Eames Lounge Chair by The Eameses, and Aeron Chair by Bill Stumpf and Don Chadwick.
From my analytical interpretation, the Tree-Trunk Bench does not adhere to the traditional design criteria of material efficiency, consideration of spatial relationships, logical production processes, or rigorous utilitarian and psychological functions, as well as design affordances. Instead, it raises questions rather than offering solutions, which can be considered a characteristic of an art piece. Moving forward, we have the Lockheed Lounge and the Diamond Chair. These two designs serve as an interpretation of adding seating functionality to sculpture, where the designer aims to make them functional for sitting while investing significant thought and effort into the form, resulting in an interpretation of sculptural quality. This category of design can reasonably be adapted into a logical production process, and there is a discernible spatial relationship, whether within their immediate or extended spaces. However, sculptural designs often use materials in a relatively loose way, so they may not always prioritize efficiency. Likewise, the function of a sculpture might not serve a universal need. Next is the Eames Lounge Chair, which most closely aligns with traditional design criteria, relating more to mass production and industrial design, while also maintaining its sculptural (formal) beauty without compromise. Finally, the Aeron Chair demonstrates the dominance of an engineering perspective, as it merges design thinking—considering form, context, and material—with engineering concerns such as production, function, and material selection.
In conclusion, a significant part of design is characterized by the overall execution of usable resources and insights. When it emphasizes only one or two criteria, it is likely to be categorized as another known type or term, such as sculpture or an engineered object. The most vague term in this discussion is “art,” which is challenging to define and not necessarily meant to be defined. The Tree-Trunk Bench, failing to provide valuable insights into traditional design, is more likely to be considered an art piece than the other designs. The boundaries of design continue to expand, reflecting the evolution of human history. However, there should be a distinction between what constitutes a design piece and what qualifies as an art piece. The openness of contemporary design should encourage creations that may be referred to as sculptural or artistic designs, but not as art pieces in their own right.
Designs like those from Droog, in my view, has a significant value in its nationally backed marketing effort by the Netherlands.
There is a value of heavy critical thinking being presented by the design from them, but with indifferent amount of consideration of the forementioned traditional design criteria. Such work ends up only as either an image product that goes viral online or an expensive one-off piece that is presented in certain showroom or mansion as a symbol of visual attraction and social status. The two contexts it situates already critique its identity of a design. One is about image product than an actual physical product (almost an extreme form of visual designer), and two is about its accessibility and physical impact only serving a very little amount of the people which often have a higher social status. At its core, Droog’s work is just image product—designed to grab attention rather than serve a meaningful function. The result? A fleeting reaction, nothing more than a passing “interesting.”
The increasing boundaryless diversity within the Dutch design scene and similar movements is only overly pushing design further toward a state of boundarylessness. The more this trend of irresponsible diversity develops, the more design loses its categorization that has been developed in countless years of its history, and hence losing criteria under a similar standard.
Today, the trendiest topics in design are material innovation and sustainability. Yet, what I often see is a growing number of designers diving headfirst into material exploration while neglecting the fundamental function that design is meant to serve. In other words, the design itself becomes secondary, while material application and expression take center stage.
For example, there are designs that use aluminum to create a chair by simply employing industrially formed aluminum tubing, cutting it directly to serve as the seat, without considering the sharpness of the cut edges, both visually and tactically. Such design of using raw industrial material directly without further refinement of its form neglects the care for its user and exposes the user to the rawness and sharpness of the material in both visual and tactile ways. Similarly, when designers use recyclable materials or plastics to create lighting fixtures or furniture, they focus solely on material research while neglecting essential aspects like lighting design for lamps or usability for furniture.
The common shortcoming in these designs is their single-minded focus on materiality at the expense of actual design needs. At that point, the work becomes material research rather than comprehensive design—and if that is the goal, one might as well be a materials scientist, instead of a holistic designer.
At its core, design is neither engineering nor sculpture; it is the ability to integrate and address one or more specific needs. Poor design tends to focus obsessively on one aspect, pushing it to an extreme while neglecting the overall coherence of the design.
The problem with contemporary design is that many designers simply go with the flow, blindly following the trends of the moment. When material design becomes popular, designers focus on exploring new ways to use materials, which often veers into material innovation and engineering. In my view, this is almost entirely disconnected from design itself and belongs to a different discipline. Take Eames, for example—they conducted material research on bent plywood, but by the time they used it, bent plywood had already been used by engineers for fighter aircraft during World War I and II. The comprehensive research on the material had already been perfected. Designers, on their own, are unlikely to create truly groundbreaking material innovations.
Another trend dominating today is AI. The popularity of AI tools has caused designers to adopt these technologies without thoroughly considering the cause-and-effect relationships or the thoughtful reasoning that design heavily relies on. This kind of blind design will only have a short lifespan.
Even though I express strong dissatisfaction with these types of designs, I must acknowledge that the global environment today is challenging. It is because of economic difficulties that fast-moving consumer products dominate the mainstream market. In order to attract capital, products must be quick and cheap to develop and produce, and visually attention-grabbing. Ultimately, for many designers today, survival has become the primary driving force, rather than a pursuit of design excellence itself.