Design Observer :: Join the Discussion http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/ en-us Design Observer Group 2012-07-09T18:11:25-05:00 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0
Zoos are an outdated metaphor in an era of eco-tourism. If you want to see tigers, you need to visit Suderbans, the tiger preserve straddling the India-Bangaladeshi border.

Historically, mega-fauna are always the first species to become extinct.

]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-07-09T18:11:25-05:00
“Mommy, is that a REAL panda?
“Why, yes, dear, I think it is…yes, I’m SURE it is.”
“Then why does it have a zipper up its back?”
“Well, I don’t—”
“…and why is the side of its head dented in?”
“Well, dear, I really don’t—”
“…and why is it scratching itself like Daddy does—”
“You know, dear, I think it’s time to go visit the water buffalo.”
“Mommy, is that panda showing us the naughty finger?”

* * * * *

In the context of charismatic megafauna, maybe the public needs to be more critical of the design they accept, as well.]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-19T10:02:19-05:00
Besides my earlier reference to the Wassily Chair spawning ugly lawn chairs, another example is Wright’s Usonion House. Instead of it delivering to us a legacy of affordable homes with flowing interiors, it seemed to have given birth to boxy ranch houses that are ubiquitous to suburbia.

We wouldn’t accept a zoo that was stocked with guys running around in tacky panda costumes, but we seem to have no problem with the parallel in design. ]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-19T09:27:57-05:00 ]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-19T08:47:07-05:00 http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-19T08:26:50-05:00
As for the megafauna of design, i'd say that maybe the reason we still look back at Eames and Wright is because their work was extraordinary and new and today's design is so flimsy and superficial (the stuff that gets attention, anyway). Designers are so caught up in trends like "branding" or fake intellectualism or what their work looks like in a magazine that they lose any emotional resonance--in short, they are not that good.

Of course there are popular topics of conversation in every field. Lebron James gets a lot of attention because he's really good at basketball. But if we are still talking about him in 50 years I will assume that the current state of basketball is terrible. ]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-18T22:24:52-05:00 The World's Best Design Magazine?. In it, Heller writes about the German magazine form and includes a few quotes from its editor-in-chief, Gerrit Terstiege. Such as this one: "Speaking of chairs, it doesn't get any better than Eames. Speaking of posters, it doesn't get any better than Glaser. But of course, design doesn't stand still."
I wonder if he would chose, like you did for this post, Wright when speaking of buildings.
I find it troubling that anyone, but especially design magazine editors-in-chief, could say, even in passing, such a thing as "it doesn't get any better than". That's either extremely conservative, short-sighted, naïve, lazy, chummy or opportunistic and design writers, critics, curators and editors should be neither.
Sadly, it's exactly this kind of thinking that has created the notion of the charismatic mega-fauna of design – Is this just a new term for sacred cow?
Yet precisely because design doesn't stand still and that the world is now a more complex place (notice how the three cited specimens are all white, American men all born before the Second World War) we should not be looking for or nominating more people to overrate, deify or render irreproachable. Let's just treat all species and sub-species of the design world – be them tigers, dodos or bees – with the same attention and curiosity they deserve and move on.]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-18T18:06:48-05:00 Brandon http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-16T07:56:16-05:00 Charismatic Megafauna =



I would nominate Sticky Fingers, the 1971 Rolling Stones album designed by Andy Warhol. You can still own an LP for about $16.50 on ebay with a working zipper!
]]> http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-15T23:23:06-05:00 http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-charismatic-megafauna-of-design/34798/#comments 2012-06-15T14:02:19-05:00