Yesterday, I turned the page to February, and before that it was January. It has been three weeks since February arrived, and very often I look at my calendar. How could I forgot to turn the page?
The reason is simple, on the page of January, it's got pictures of a Ferrari 458 Italia, it's a beauty. I always remembered that there are some pictures of a Ferrari 458 Italia in my room, but I have almost forgot that it actually is a calender.
So that got me wondering, do people ignore the real function of a product if it is very beautiful?
They do.
I was reading a book this afternoon, on one of the pages there was the Philippe Starck's lemon squeezer, the Juicy Salif. I have never used this product in real life, however on the book it says it's 'more of an iconographic style statement than a functional object', which means it's a bit useless for squeezing a lemon. Nevertheless this is one of Philippe Starck's most famous products and one of the best-selling Alessi products. Apparently people don't really buy it as a lemon squeezer because it's very easy to squeeze a lemon by hand. They buy it because it makes their homes look stylish. Look at it, it's like a component from a UFO!
Now I realise I am talking about function-follows-form products.
Many other Philippe Starck's designs follow the same route, especially his watches. When I was in India, one of my mates bought a Philippe Starck watch, I liked that watch but it took me half a day to figure out how you read the time on it; and for two weeks, Leslie has been moaning about he can't read his new stylish Philippe Starck watch in class.
I don't know what the conclusion of this article is. Function-follows-form designs are not as useless as it sounds? Or aesthetic is far more valuable than practicality?
One thing I know, is that my calender might stay in February a bit longer, because it's got the Koenigsegg Agera in February's page.
No comments:
Post a Comment