just a thought

Last week in my History of Design class we had a lecture on Scandinavian design.  Our guest lecturer talked about Ellen Key, a famous Swedish writer in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, whose work greatly influenced the mentality of Scandinavian design.  One of the things Key wrote about was the importance of a well-functioning living space and how objects that do what they are meant to do are beautiful, thus equating beauty with function and functionality.

I did not think too much of this until the next day in my Concept Development class.  We had just concluded the infamous "opposite designer" project and even my best efforts at racy, tasteless clothing - for this is the opposite of what I do - were not enough to lift me from the slump of merely acceptable (to me, at least) grades I've been making in that class.  Feeling frustrated and stagnant, I talked to my teacher after class and asked her what areas I needed to improve on.  One of the things she mentioned was that my designs were not innovative enough.  I designed beautiful clothing, but it's simply too safe.

Of course criticism is never easy to take, especially when it speaks to work that one loves to do.  But it was the "i" word that stung me the most.

Last year, Derek Lam and Jenna Lyons, both Parsons graduates, came to speak at school about anything and everything.  During that conversation, the audience received little postcards with tips from both the speakers, as well as the Parsons School of Fashion Manifesto - a list of 13 design-related points to keep in mind.  Number one on the list: DEMAND INNOVATION.  (Fun fact: when you get to the end of the list, there is a small note that reads "LEARN then please disregard points 1-13.")

Since freshman year, "innovation" has been the biggest theme in Parsons education, and part of me has always questioned whether the weight given to it is truly justifiable.  There are moments when it seems that not only does innovation outweigh every other design element/characteristic, it becomes synonymous with good design.  And, by extension, innovative designs are beautiful by virtue of their innovation, just like Ellen Key thought functional objects were beautiful by virtue of their functionality.

I'm certainly keeping an open mind on the matter, although there are many things about these ideas that don't sit well with me.  Obviously I'm in this school to learn a thing or two (or ten thousand), and I would be nowhere without heeding the advice of my teachers.  But it's been a question on my mind more often than I'd like to admit:

When did beauty in and of itself stop being enough for us?

One of my main methods of problem-solving is to do research (my former med student ways come back to haunt me), and the day after that talk with my teacher I went to the library to do some research on innovation.  I came across the following image:

hat by Judit Karpati-Racz, 1999

Karpati-Racz is a Hungarian designer (perhaps a strange coincidence considering I went to med school in Budapest) who uses ancient hand-knotting techniques with modern materials, such as nylon yarn and various kinds of wire to create feminine-shaped skeletons for her accessories.  This hat, a modern take on a veil, requires minimum anchorage to the head.  I almost couldn't recognize that feathers actually make up the "ribs" of this skeleton.  Beautiful and innovative...  So I'll leave you with that.