Design, It’s Not What It Looks Like!

• Authors: Voica Puşcaşiu
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the different ways in which materials are used to deceive, the reasons behind these practices, and what they say about society. Starting off from the premises that by choosing a medium one also implies a message due to the inherit personality of the materials, we will first take a swift look at the history of deceiving through artistic practices. Further on we shall take into consideration the shift in paradigm noticeable in contemporary design as we explain the motivations and the strategies behind creating objects that seem made out of plastic and yet they are not. Touching on subjects such as sustainable design and commodification, we will try to conclude whether the eco-friendly design is indeed working or if it is just another successful marketing strategy.

Keywords

EN

materials; affectionate design; throwaway culture; commodification; Anthora

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: International Review of Social Research
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 113-119

Dates

published

2015-10-01

received

2014-10-01

accepted

2015-02-15

online

2015-10-30

Contributors

author

Voica Puşcaşiu

References

• Asensio, P. (2002) (ed.) Product Design. Düsseldorf, DE: teNeus.
• Ashby, M. and K. Johnson (2003) ‘The Art of Materials Selection’. Materials Today, 6(12): 24-35.
• Barbero, S. and B. Cozzo (2012) Ecodesign. Postdam, DE: H.F. Ullmann.
• Bofinger, K. (2011) (ed.) Wicked! Design on the Edge of Bad Taste. Basel, CH: Birkhäuser Architecture.
• Denker, J. (2007) The World on a Plate: A Tour through the History of America’s Ethnic Cuisine. Lincoln, NE: Bison Books.
• Fisher, T.H. (2004) ‘What We Touch, Touches Us: Materials, Affects, and Affordances’. Design Issues, 20(4): 20-31.[Crossref]
• Flood, R. (2007) (ed.) Unmonumental. The Object in the 21st Century. London, UK: Phaidon Press.
• Fox, M. (2010) ‘Leslie Buck, Designer of Iconic Coffee Cup, Dies at 87’, . (consulted 30, July, 2015).
• Gill, J.F. (2005) ‘Urban History to Go: Black, No Sugar’, . (consulted 30, July, 2015).
• Greenberg, C. (1961) ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ In Greenberg, C. Art and Culture: Critical Essays, pp. 3-21, Boston MA: Beacon Press.
• Henrion, F.H.K (1985) Art and/or Design. Heidelberg, DE: Braus.
• Jones, L. (2008) (ed.) Environmentally Responsible Design: Green and Sustainable Design for Interior Designers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
• Ludden, G.D.S., H.N.J. Schifferstein and P. Hekkert (2008) ‘Surprise as Design Strategy’. Design Issues, 24(2): 28-38.[Crossref]
• McLuhan, M. (1994) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Norman, D.A. (2004) Emotional Design. Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things, New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Polsten, B., C. Neumann, M. Schuler and F. Leven (2006) (eds.) The AZ of Modern Design. London, UK: Merrell.
• Riggins, S.H. (1994) (ed.) The Socialness of Things. Essays on the Socio-Semiotics of Objects. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Riley, N. and P. Bayern (2003) (eds.) The Elements of Design. The Development of Design and Stylistic Elements from the Renaissance to the Postmodern Era. London, UK: Octopus Publishing Group.
• Roberts, S. (2012) ‘A History of New York in 50 Objects’, . (consulted 30, July, 2015).
• Tromp, N., P. Hekkert and P.P. Verbeek (2011) ‘Design for Socially Responsible Behavior: A Classification of Influence Based on Intended User Experience’. Design Issues, 27(3): 3-19.[WoS][Crossref]
• Walker, G. (2013) ‘The Anthora Coffee Cup: A New York Love Story’, . (consulted 30, July, 2015).
• Winner, L. (1980) ‘Do Artifacts Have Politics?’. Daedalus, 109(1): 121-136.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/irsr-2015-0010