Minimalism is Getting Absurd: Updating Dieter Rams' 10 Principles
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- Download Shapr3D for iPad, macOS, & Windows: www.shapr3d.com/download?utm_... to get 10% off with code "DesignTheory10"
Support me on Patreon: / johnmauriello
Check out the Design theory merch @ designtheory.store/
Sign up to learn more about the design book that we're going to publish: www.studioello.com/mail
Check out my online industrial design course, Form Fundamentals: bit.ly/335vsqO
Join my discord channel: / discord
Follow me on Twitter: / john_mauriello
Follow my Instagram: / mauriellodesign
Follow me on LinkedIn: / mauriellojohn
Dieter Rams is one of the most influential industrial designers to ever live. Even if you don’t know who he is, you probably use products that were inspired by his thinking everyday. He wrote the Ten Principles for Good Design, and they’re basically like the design bible. Designers must never question them. So that’s exactly what we’re going to do now.
Editing by Brad Heath: / brad_heath_
All content directed and written by John Mauriello. John Mauriello has been working professionally as an industrial designer since 2010. He is an Adjunct Professor of industrial design at California College of the Arts.
Time stamps:
0:00 intro
1:00 Good Design is Honest
6:48 Good Design is As Little Design As Possible
14:09 Good Design is Environmentally Friendly
15:51 Good Design is Long Lasting
16:42 Good Design is Thorough Down to the Last Detail
18:08 Good Design is Unobtrusive
19:00 Good Design Makes a Product Understandable
19:40 Good Design Makes a Product Useful
20:35 Good Design is Innovative
20:52 Good Design is Aesthetic & Other Parting Thoughts
21:50 Dieter's REAL Secret Of Good Design
Download Shapr3D for iPad, macOS, & Windows: www.shapr3d.com/download? Get 10% off with code "DesignTheory10" .
EDIT: I'm getting a lot of comments that the Porsche is actually quite minimal compared to other sports cars. I agree to an extent, and even thought about mentioning this as I was making the video. However, the bigger point is that even the most "minimal" sports car (a Porsche) is LOADED with design elements intended to evoke a strong emotional response. In this sense, it is far from the "less but better" ethos.
For Porsches of this era, can you name some of those elements that are there to elicit emotional response rather than for function?
lol got a Porsche ad JUST before the segment where he drives a Porsche. And I was like "omg yes, car are probably the only ones that don't change every two years :P"
... NO!
Not really sure how does be honest fit with the tortoise shell eyeglasses thing. That's an aesthetic, I don't, neither do most people think that he's wearing an actual tortoise on his face. This argument is in bad faith, thus neither it, nor the person making it ought be taken seriously.
yeah man high heels aren't good design they literally hobble women that's evil design
Im so glad you're talking about aesthetic minimalism getting in the way of functional minimalism. I am getting increasingly annoyed with technology increasingly getting rid of buttons in favour of prettier screens and touchpads at the expense of useability. Cars are probably the worst example of this where touchscreen interfaces are making it impossible to adjust entertainment and climate controls without looking away from the road, making them inherently more dangerous.
You can do it on the central dashboard screen while driving? Also do you really need to adjust that stuff while driving?
@@FlymanMS Its a bad designer that says, "why do you need to do that anyways?" to their intended audience.
@@FlymanMS Are you asking if you need to change the temperature or music playing in your car while driving? Do you park every time it gets too hot in your car and you have to cool off?
Agreed. The reduction of tactile imput in favor of visual for a secondary task that takes away visual capacity from the primary task is a no no.
Amen to that. Specifically in cars, it is a safety and health hazard. Bring back some buttons. Luckily my car still has physical buttons for temperature and whatnot, but they got rid of the much usable and easily visible volume knob in favour of wishy washi volume icons on a touch screen and hate them for it.
Function over form leads to minimalism.
But trying to ACHIEVE minimalism for aesthetic alone is just slipping into form over function again.
It's one of the things that drives me crazy about modern design.
Once, I met Harmut Esslinger of Frog design in Singapore. His famous quote, "Form follows Emotion" is applicable as well.
Modern design is horrid.
Man this is a good comment
I sort of agree, but I don't believe you will always get 'minimalism' if you prioritise function. Functionality is form agnostic. It all depends on context.
I do agree that trying to achieve minimalism for aesthetic reasons is prioritising form over function. The 20th century created a certain aesthetic sensibility in buildings, design and products that was marketed as 'functional' and superior to the designs of the past. People now see modern designs and just assume they are more functional (particularly compared to more 'traditional' designs) simply because of the aesthetic, regardless of how well these products perform in real life.
There's also often an impulse to label features as either 'functional' or as 'ornamental' (and therefore useless) when no such dichotomy exists - it's a spectrum (architects are particularly guilty of this, in my experience).
In some cases, minimalism itself can be a poor functional choice depending on the context. For example, if your design is minimalist, any flaws, wear or damage will often be the first thing that stands out. That might not be an issue, but with architecture and the built environment, the 'minimalist' aesthetic often leads to designs which weather and age extremely poorly or have high ongoing maintenance because they must be constantly cleaned, repaired, or replaced to maintain the sleek, minimal look. This is obviously not good for ongoing usability or sustainability.
The irony is that now we’re styling based on items that looked minimal to be functional, but the minimalist aesthetic is applied in such a way that is neither aesthetic nor functional
I’m also tired of design being used as an excuse to prevent repair and upgradability. Too many companies now expect people to just buy something new instead of allowing the usable lifespan of a product to be increased with engineering and design choices that are anti consumer.
Everything behind a subscription is a worrying trend and it’s influencing the design of products and systems negatively.
I disagree with your second statement.
Like everything subscriptions can be used and abused.
Imagine a supscription for your washing mashine. A company offering such a service would be highly interested in making long-lasting, consumer friendly machines, that are easy to service.
@@KalimerakisNow imagine it came with a detergent cartridge because you signed up to their terms and their terms stipulate you can only use their washing products because the others may damage their machine.
Or they can charge a fee when you move house to reactivate your machine. Or if you live in a hardwater area the machine also has filter cartridges and you cannot use it once the filter cartridge expires. Or the machine doesn't work if you don't have a credit card on file to automatically reorder consumables.
@@f.remplakowski as I said, it can be used and abused.
The positive is that they last longer and are repaired and upgraded instead of thrown in a landfill.
@@Kalimerakis The problem with subscriptions is that you don't really own the product, and are more than likely subject to the whims of a board of investors with changing interests. It's more sustainable to offer services to owners of such products through supplying them with an easy way to contact a trusted mechanic, or to incentivize self repair and sell replacement parts. The infrastructure for the former would have to be the same regardless, and it would be impractical for most products. What if you subscribe to your washing machine and there's no company trusted mechanics nearby? A subscription won't help you out there. You also don't need a subscription model to upgrade something, car and PC enthusiasts do it all the time. If anything, the subscription model would incentivize throwing out your old model when the new model comes out - the bonus being that since you're subscribed, you don't have to pay for the new one; the downside, apart from the obvious sustainability concern, would be that your old model would stop receiving support. It's less time investment for the company to replace a washer than it is to perform a repair or upgrade, and those company trusted mechanics would impact their bottom line.
Something Rams would be against 100%
“Good design communicates what is necessary.” This is perfect. It inherently includes the purpose of refinement rather than forcing refinement beyond the intended purpose. Well played, sir, well played
To play with this comment a little - I also love design that communicates beyond what is ‘necessary’ to what delights, intrigues, makes us laugh, is witty and sometimes challenges the way we see, create and interact with the world- and it can still be beautifully refined
@@Jasper-nk5fo My formal education (visual information specialist) forced me into refinement. Essentially, I have .5 seconds to say everything I want said.
I find this perspective that refinement can detract from the intended purpose refreshing. Delights, intrigues, makes us laugh, challenges our perspective… Rhetoric that’s easy to forget.
I feel the sudden influx of designers speaking on this matter is coming from the opposite end of the spectrum. Designers are feeling our work is becoming cold and illustrators want to be more like us creating work that gets instant attention (pretty girl portraits, atmospheric landscapes).
It feels like the art nouveau period where artists and designers went in opposite directions then met back somewhere in the middle.
Existence requires purpose.
The irony about the environmentally friendly rule is that the most minimalist companies are also the ones that want us to throw away our old products and replace them as fast as possible.
And often make electronic devices that are battery powered despite having a use cycle where they are never moved more than an arm's length from the charger.
@@mpf1947 Or start making really good budget devices only to keep making them worse to make their flagship devices a better option.
@@thesystem6246 I hate paper straws (the old kind that goes muchy) but I do like the cardboard cups/coffee cups. I think food safe natural/nontoxic bio resen could fix any 'wet' problem though. It's not like there's reason treated wood that ~~doesn't break down~~ UNLESS MULTCHED!
Apple is the first thing that comes to mind.
About bonsai, well, that's actually the opposite. Wiring is used to actually bend the tree to your will and you can actually bend each branch as you want. It just takes more time and effort. The size of the leafs also can vary according to the amount of nutrient you give your tree. That being said, I agree with you tho. Some parts of a design can be "random". I think it can make it flow more organically.
The "randomness" of a bonsai is carefully curated much like the "natural" look of a landscaped garden.
It will always be a peach tree.
Well I think what he wanted to say is that you can't make a branch appear out of nothing. Actually you can make the tree grow a lot where you want, for example cut so that the next bud does become a branch, but maybe the tree develops more the second bud which is in the opposite direction you wanted.
And you can't control EACH leaf. You could graft but that only works up to a certain point, having for example exactly a leaf of a green maple then a leaf of a variegated maple alternating would be difficult: if the tree throws off one leaf, it's ruined.
Even for bonsaï, you can't control every detail.
@@xeetzer5478 yes, you can control each leave. It is just more effort and maybe not necessary.
@@oupwo7468 How would you that? For example to have alternating sizes of leaves?
I hate that minimalism has become something that causes people to create beige rooms for babies who need a lot of color and visual stimulation for proper brain development. The overuse of minimalism purely for the look is legitimately going to harm people.
It's not dishonest to design glasses to draw attention in specific ways. The design doesnt misrepresent anything about the sunglasses' functionality. The "honest" design principle is about not using design to mislead the consumer. Extra buttons that do nothing, plastic made to look like more durable metal, and fake pockets are all examples of design features that mislead the consumer in a dishonest way.
The 911 is a great example of what Dieter was arguing for in car design - relative consistency compared to, as he said, "change every two years."
i wanted to make this same point, as that particular porsche he was pictured with was the final evolution of the original 911. it still uses the same windshield
It has also excellent quality and no unnecessary clutter. It's just simple.
Dieter’s 911 is the final evolution of the last aircooled Porsche. This model is known as the 993 which came out in 1995. This model is a refinement of the original 911 from 1963. Many parts of these cars are interchangeable over a period of a decade. The newer Porsches currently produced are known for changing style like fashion.
I only know 911 to mean the emergency number, though everyone else seems to be talking about something else. r/outoftheloop
Though the 993 is the most emotionally designed air-cooled 911s. In order to sell more of them than with the 964, they re-introduced and even enhanced the coke bottle design of the wide bodied G models of the late 70s and 80s.
The 964 is pretty Bauhaus compared to the fashionable 993. And more popular it was.
I know it isn't the main point of the video, but I'm so fascinated by the Gen Z push toward maximalism, because I'm totally in that camp. My current landlord allowed me to paint the house when I moved in, so I painted my bedroom in greens and yellows to match the scheme I saw in a historic 1840s house. It was way more effort than necessary, but it makes me feel so much more comfortable and natural than all-white everything would. Even the idea of an "accent wall" in a solid color feels too clinical now.
I also bought an antique silver-plated utensil set for $30 and polished it all and use it as my everyday utensils. Why? Because it feels sooo good in this sterile modern reality we live in.
The old wooden Colonial-revival coffee table I got at the thrift store is so much more interesting and emotionally comforting to me than an IKEA table... you get the idea.
Hah! You're right, also you remind of my Discord friends. One of them once posted a pic of herself in a goth outfit I described, affectionately, as having "all the subtle touch of a blimp crashing into the Superbowl".
its nice we are pushing for this stuff, although i think we mainly appreciate furniture/interior design/architecture up to the 1990s, some 70s homes are beautiful
As a layman, I can appreciate all sorts of design from modern minimalist to neo gothic, they all have a unique soul.
As a amateur wood worker I personally love art deco and Scandinavian minimalism.
I do love the fact you brought up about the dangers of infinite grow and chasing it.
It’s killing us, people are not prepared to here this.
I love wood but for me there's nothing to love about minimalistic scandinavian designs. Next to Renaissance or Baroque masterworks from Pierre Gole or Andre Charles Boulle, those minimalist wood products look like amateurish works.
"I do love the fact you brought up about the dangers of infinite grow and chasing it. It’s killing us, people are not prepared to here this" Man is the greatest enemy of the Earth, there is no stupider animal.
This video is great. As a designer in the hand and power tools sector, styling is critically important. Minimalist tools are gimmicks that don’t resonate because they don’t emotionally resonate the same way styled tools do. They feel pedantic and erudite, and lack the sense of durability communicated by styling. In this way, I think that Rams’ principles are self-contradictory: design cannot communicate effectively with the customer while simultaneously trying to keep its mouth shut.
As an engineer, I find style that overrides practicality distasteful. Communicate information simply, easily, and accessibly to the accuracy needed, and nothing more. Soviet engineering was the peak of true minimalism. If we adopted most of their design principles, we could easily adapt them to be very hyper eco-friendly, there would be no more planned obsolescence, everything will be easy to maintain. This, however, is a pipe dream. Companies want to exploit the shit out of their customers, they will never go for something clean, sustainable, and lower profit.
So *you* are responsible for these transformer-bionicle-creature-toy-tools.
@@thegrandnil764 Soviet design principles and a circular economy, planned obsolescence and right to repair are all separate concepts that don't always go together.
Vehicles in the 20th century were easy to maintain and repair while incorporating planned obsolescence.
Aluminum cans promote a circular economy while being disposable.
Two of Rams principles are that Good Design makes a product long-lasting and understandable.
If Rams ever designed powertools, they would definitely look durable and be it. And not one of his principles says or implies that design should keep its mouth shut.
Was thinking the same thing, power tools have somehow gone from functional to looking like some weird combo of children toys or something an alien excreted.
The power tools of 20 years ago looks solid and functional, now it's all brightly coloured, lumpy and chunky like children's toys.
As an older person who has thought about many of the things you discuss in this video for decades it’s refreshing and inspiring that a younger person such as yourself has this wisdom to apply.
The folding knife industry is a great showcase for how differently designers can try to balance form and function
My parents had a kitchen kitchen timer with up to 3 independently programmable timers with only 3 buttons?!
It was impossible for anyone but my dad to set up a simple 2 minute timer for tea.
They eventually got rid of it in favour of a old spring loaded mechanically kitchen timer . . .
And I bet they could get 3 cheap wind-up timers for what they paid for the fancy one. :)
I’ve always had issues with the last rule. “Only well-executed objects (the ones following these rules) can be beautiful”. This establishes form follows function and minimalism as the only yardstick for beauty.
I also don’t like the word “aesthetic”, it’s cold and implies a beauty imposed by the designer rather than one found in the eye of the beholder. The explanation of this rule reinforces that, and it is something often reiterated by modern architects: you have to understand the design of the building to see its beauty.
NO! If appreciation requires understanding, it’s small wonder there is so much ugliness around us. I say: “Good design is beautiful”. That word evokes emotion, something thoroughly lacking from modern design. It’s a subjective term of course, and that is fine, you’re not going to please everyone. But it’s fine to embellish your design with flourishes or ornaments that have no function whatsoever… except to appeal to the beholder’s sense of beauty. Let’s bring some joy back in our lives, by creating beauty for its own sake.
". . . a beauty imposed by the designer rather than one found in the eye of the beholder." - this is something I really struggle with. Especially with tech items, I am increasingly feeling like aesthetics are being thrust upon me, rather than beholding any beauty.
As a person getting into design, this is the video i needed. Dieter rams got me intrigued with design, but reading his works, i often wondered if his principles still applied today and if its really the end all be all of design. Im glad you made this, cause it validates and inspires me to really go all in with my own vision even though i am a novice! Thank you!
Have you chosen a path yet?
If there’s one base skill that you will never regret having, it’s an intricate understanding of linear perspective. Once you can create 3D forms on a 2D plane, your creativity will never be inhibited by the inability to represent what you’re thinking. Scott Robertson’s book, How to Draw, is the Bible for this.
Second: don’t hold your designs sacred. Your sketchbook is for you and nobody else. Struggling to make something “good” early in your development will severely hinder your progress. You’ll associate design with frustration which will inherently make you design less. Literally throw sketchbooks in the trash then start a new one. They don’t matter and neither does what anyone thinks of them.
It’s always exciting when someone chooses this path. Remember to have fun! Try different mediums and see what excites you. Best of luck to you!
@@hanzflackshnack1158 thank you for that well worded comment
@@hanzflackshnack1158 Honestly none of that makes sense without qualifications on every point.
"don’t hold your designs sacred. Your sketchbook is for you and nobody else." are quite literally opposites.
I've learned more about certain things from revisiting and reverse engineering my own 15yr old ideas sometimes, than I have from rapidly iterating, which seems to be your only method?
My advice? Think about the problem as though it affects you, but you have as little money as possible over time to re-address it. Do it right, do it once; and that's your motivation for making it beautiful, for making it good to use, because it stays with you.
@@weatheranddarkness A debate as old as time and one I don’t have strong argument against.
Being a professional designer trained by a DC comic book inker made me a perfectionist. I can spend an hour on a font combination. When I got serious about my perspective, anatomy, botanical and animation studies, I found rendering to be a waste of time.
I know where an illustration is going in the first 30 minutes. I “finish” things from time to time but correcting my perceived mistakes is self serving.
I’m highly interested in the idea that 95% of the success of your illustration is in the gesture. Gesture occurs in minutes. This is why I treat a sketchbook like a batting cage where nobody is recording my home runs. What I do inside the cage doesn’t matter. The skill I walk away with does.
I followed everyone’s advice that told me to keep my illustrations and seek feedback (from yourself and others) is part of success. I abandoned that notion three years ago and now I’m vastly better than the people that gave me the advice.
I’m projecting my reality and I’m glad you provided a counter point so people reading it can find their own answer. As someone that seeks a deep understanding of gesture, I have not found being outcome minded to be beneficial. A true love for the process comes when you no longer care what’s on the paper.
@@hanzflackshnack1158 I think it would be more accurate to describe your perspective as being more about not being overly precious about a given render. Which I think IS good advice. But that is also quite different from rejecting a given idea, which is what a sketchbook is best at, cataloguing the evolution of an idea and capturing moments of inspiration. Like don't worry about the level of your execution for presentation until you have the basics right, and don't be shy about dropping a render partway through.
When we're talking about design though, the end result is the purpose of the render. So a bad representation, or an overly laborious perfectionism in a drawing stage do get in the way of getting to the final thing.
As a non-designer, a principle I might suggest is that good design has a sense of purpose. A good design is one that is made with a clear understanding of what the design is seeking to achieve. If the object is meant to be utilitarian, all aspects of the design should support ease of use. If it's meant to be aesthetic, all aspects should contribute to a clear aesthetic vision. If it's some mixture of the two, all aspects should fulfill both. If the design is meant to be eco-friendly, all aspects should be made to work in harmony with nature. Fundamentally, a good design starts with a complete understanding of why the object is being designed.
thanks for always being fair about the points you make, not discrediting companies or even give them a bit of slack when they improved (the slots on macbooks for example)
edit: regarding the Porsche. Of all sport cars the 911 is arguably the most usable one in daily life, with actual luggage space, two backseats and a rather comfortable ride. I'm backing Rams on this one ;)
Thanks for the kind words. The Porsche is also probably the least changed over a period of decades compared to other cars. But it's still definitely an excessive purchase made primarily based in emotion (once again, nothing wrong with that, as I mention in the video)
@@Design.Theoryif you compare the Porsche RS family with cars with similar performance, you may end up paying 10x more to go slightly faster.
"less but better" probably should be replaced with something like "good design does not let aesthetic override function." A minimalist or maximalist approach both can work quite well, but if your blender disguises all the buttons and settings as seamless sides of the device, or inscrutable symbols, then it fundamentally fails at its purpose. You can add flashy or cohesive elements all you like as long as that doesn't actively lead the user away from how something should be used. It doesn't have to be the most effective or powerful thing, but it should invite the user to use it well rather than lead the user down a path of misuse. A good watch may not have intuitive time telling, but it shouldn't have a design that acts to PREVENT you from telling the time if it's trying to do so.
unless you're designing a novelty/joke item, of course. ;)
My condensed rule would be; adapt your design to the purpose in mind
I think this makes some very good points. What comes to mind for me with the design of something like an iPhone is, like you said with the headphones, that aesthetic minimalism has come at the cost of usability-specifically, the ability to keep the device functional. A slightly "less minimalist" design that allowed better access to the internals with consumer tools would massively improve its longevity, resource efficiency, and long-term affordability. And personally, that's what I would prefer.
Ever since I started crocheting, I got a different feeling for how things are made besides making them. And it's so interesting and satisfying. I've also learned to appreciate little decorative details more. Like they used to have; but they were still so well integrated into the function, sturdy. I would like to go there again, where things are not simply sleek, sort of impersonal, but where they are warm and perhaps whimsical, beautiful. I would also like artisan work to be more widespread again. Electrical devices are often very complicated and perhaps better made in a factory, but chairs? Virtually anyone can probably learn how to make one. I want designers to be artisans at the same time and not just making blue prints for a factory. We'd have more variations again too. I realize it will always be a mixture, but what I think is needed is putting more soul, more personality into things again, having them be artifacts rather than products, to value them more and make them as beautiful, long-lasting and sturdy as possible besides functional and pleasant to use.
My grandmother was housebound and crocheted out of waste wool she was given. I lived my young life and teens swaddled in her fantastic patterns. Don't know why I'm telling you this. You just reminded me.
@@binkwillans5138 that's sweet :) thanks for sharing
So many designers simply forget that emotion is a function too, probably the oldest function there is. Every emotion serves a purpose!
I'm a tattoo artist, 3d artist and former graphic designer... I love brushing up my design theory with your content. Every video you release makes me question and research a principal or an element that you helped me find interesting and I try and work out how to help it into my current work flow.
Algorithm! Bring this video back to its former glory!
I grew up with my grandfather's stuff, all ornate, all beautiful. I miss it a lot, because everything is oversimplified. I understand it, "oh this tells time, maximise ease of reading the time". But like, a clock isn't just a functional object, it's a decoration too. I don't see why we can't have both in the world. I want an overly ornate embellished mirror frame at home and a simplistic bland inoffensive frame at work that doesn't distract.
Should be higher up in the comment section. In the context of this video (disregarding Rams, as I feel his principles are not only very much to be seen in context/timeframe, but also a complex of ideas, not a mere list, meaning his view is a holistic one, not a collection of ideas) decoration is often confused with decorative, misleading form. When decoration is done right - when it is honest about being decoration, it doesn’t’t get in the way. A beautiful ornate mirror or plate with an ondulating rim is not more or less confusing than a simple one. There is a parallel to be drawn with architecture, perhaps even technology. And keep in mind, even a ‘minimal building can be confusing, even obfuscating.
Love the way this guy presents ,so easy to watch. 😊
Balance is key when designing. Styling & functionality must come together in unison. As long as it functions reliably, properly, & efficiently then it can be as minimalistic &/or as expressive &/or as stylized as a designer wants it to be. In other words making it look good while also making it as functional as possible. That is what I think anyway.
"As little design as possible" For me means if it doesn't need to be designed/ redesigned, don't redesign it, don't make a new tooling, etc. Use as much of what exists as possible, and make the "weak" parts better.
I studied industrial design in Germany and had a job where I meet Dieter Rams for a day and I was his driver for the airport etc. I was sooo nervous and exited to meet him… It was a horrible experience. It’s true what they say, never meet your heroes.
lol what happened
You cant type this and give no details bro
reminder for you to elaborate
I think what happened is better left to imagination, the truth can only be a letdown from here.
I guess he was a bit rude to you? Probably because your anxiety/excitement frustrated him. Hero or not, never view anyone to be above yourself. That can only cause nervousness and frustration at both parties. Everyone is just a human, and no one of them is god. That means you can admire someone, but still consider him as a normal and fallible person... because he is.
As someone who has worked design and sales I've always felt that honesty in design is showcasing a product in its best light. It's like a girl wearing makeup, the makeup doesn't lie it just showcases beautiful art in its best light. To take attractive beauty and call it a lie is to deny our own pleasure from the implementation of asthetic. Your calculator is the best example people value the $50 calculator because it pleases them more. The design is not lying about its function at all.
The visible minimalism at the expense of functional minimalism is an incredibly valuable point.
As a person who is going to school for graphic design this video is incredibly useful and informative
That Casio vs Braun Calculator brought me smile. Because my father is an Accountant, he has variety of normal arithmetic calculators from pocket sized to big sized from Casio, Citizen, Braun etc,. But me being from Engineering background, I only use Casio Scientific Calculator. It serves my purpose. You know Casio is also a Design Icon(f91 w). A request to make a video on Casio's Design Language. They tend to maintain this retro-futuristic vibe among their watches, calculators, music gears... As usual nice video 👍
I love my old, boxy-looking Sharp calculus calculator with its resolutely squarish rectangular buttons that depress very easily, yet offer a tactile initial resistance that gives you just enough feedback. I'd bet anything that the buttons on the Braun unit featured in this video are uncomfortable to use and tactilely more confusing and thus less functional. Even if they have the same resistance-to-yield feel as the Sharp, their pronouncedly convex shape would almost certainly generate some soreness in the fingertips of anyone who had to use that calculator for several hours a day. And don't get me started on the tendency of printed buttons to have their labels wear off over time... No, I'll pass on that one, thx.
@@MattBellzminion yes, good analysis
@@MattBellzminion Exactly what I saw. That Braun calculator triggers an immediate sense of revulsion in me. I don't want to touch those buttons, I definitely don't want to do any extensive use of it. It might be an interesting looking design (I hate the way it looks, but that's subjective) but no matter what you think about the looks it's functionally cursed.
I'm not a product designer, I didn't know who Dieter Rams was until today. And now I hate him.
I don't know if it's just because I'm Gen Z, but I do really hope maximalism makes a comeback, especially if it's in the form of Art Deco. I never understood the motto of less is more, more is more.
I do love art deco
As a gen Z that currently studying in Graphic Design school i agree. These less is more is getting more and more boring.. It's just too empty so that's why i sticker bombed my laptop lol
i hope we start building postmodern skyscrapers, they are like a combination of art deco/gothic traditional ornamental skyscrapers and simplistic boxy new ones
I'm glad someone as qualified as you is finally talking about minimalism's absurdity.
I like the way that you are bringing back to mind what is design which is intrinsically a deep holistic thinking process not a technical one. I am not a designer because I master this tool or this other one but because I can bring a positive contribution to users of my production.
Dieter Rams' design principles are really useful as a good base rule for design, but a good designer is familiar with the rules and knows when to break them with purpose.
As someone who went to school more for editing and story telling, I find the parallels between physical design and story telling fascinating.
When making a story, you are trying to express something. Be it through music, or video, or words we are taught design principles like "show, don't tell" or "write to your audience" and perhaps harder "know your audience". Sometimes you are trying to express an emotion. Sometimes expose a truth. Sometimes put forward a lie. But the ideal is that everything is crafted towards that purpose. Cut out the fluff, remove the distractions (unless they accentuate the point), and focus on your goal. Art is hard. If you are going to put effort Iinto something that doesn't achieve your goal then it is a lot of effort of teams of people gone to waste, which is a bit of a tragedy and frustration.
Ive started to recently get into 3D printing and woodworking, and physical design is so incredibly hard. Often times it is a static object, but because it is in 3D space you have limited control over the the viewers context of the object being designed. I think that is why I am drawn to cabinets and shelving so far, because you can put it on a wall and only have to consider the view of 1-3 sides. But making something small and portable... It is like trying to write a story with a limited number of pages, and people are going to view it shuffled in with 100 other random pages all slapped together to form their own story. 😅 Truly an impossible task! A fun challenge as a hobby, but if it was my job I think the lack of contextual control would drive me insane. Even though I'm not much of an apple user, I have respect for their design, even if just at a superficial level. Simple and generic enough to not look too out of place in almost any setting, but still iconic enough to stand out as being something specific. Granted their physical and user interfaces make them frustrating to use for me personally, but mad respect for the balance of simple yet iconic physical look and layout.
Always fun to learn about the roots and influence of design though. Fun video!
I’m not a designer but I love hearing young people talk about deep and dynamic topics with an open mind. I’m getting older now and I’ve always struggled with just accepting “expert” opinion because it always felt like it was delivered with arrogance or pride. Sharing of knowledge should be done with a sense of humility and admiration for the recipient and the source alike and this guy nails it. I’m glad that this generation has a platform like CZcams to create and share new perspectives. Despite its flaws, CZcams is a weapon for good, and this man wields it masterfully.
i would also add that good design communicates what is subjective for the user. I feel like this addresses cultural,communial and invidiual perspectives and allows for diffreing experiences that wont get swept up in one experience and called "good design" becase art is subjective
Very thought provoking! I am venturing from a medical/science field to an “encore career” that incorporates more design concepts. I am getting tired of the graying out of color in products today without reactively going to the other extreme of color maelstrom.
Driving a porsche here in Germany is way more normal than in the us. Culture is important in design.
recently i came across your vvideos andwanted to say well done! very well planned and informative and analysing on great topic choices !
As always, another brilliant episode! Well researched, coherent and critical. You touched on a lovely eg of architecture/interiors, do they satisfy our needs or egoistic insecurity. Beautifully ended with Engels quote. Keep up the good work. Cheers!
_" Good design efficiently conveys the message of the product behind it. "_
Around all design is noise that pollutes the product's ability to communicate directly. The more of the noise we can filter, the better the design gets. Doesn't necessarily mean minimalism, it just means directness, and confidence. This applies to any style, fashion, or technological application's needs. It's why design is not art, but art is a key part of design. It is always about communication.
Yes, exactly
Minimalism can greatly help communicate function clearer, but too much minimalism and the object feels like it’s lost its function
@@floris2872 Very much so, and minimalism in of itself is also often more tied to an aesthetic philosophy, rather than a principle for design as a whole. You can have very complex works of art and design, that still perfectly communicate their purpose and the intention of the designer/artist.
Minimalism can be a great tool to help designers focus in on what is most essential, but it, too, can be overdone where potential emotional expression is lost in the process. I personally see it as a great refining tool to understand the basics of what design is, as a foundation. Then when that basis is well understood, we can expand and add our personal flavor to our work.
I just love the facility designers have with speaking about things. I remember working with a graphics artist and learning about how people will scan a page. He used asymmetry intentionally to create eye movement. It’s stuck with me that its not just about forms and color, but the movement. Designs maybe flat, two-dimensional representations of ideas down on page, but it’s the movement associated with those designs, how interact with those things and see them in the real world, that is what captivates me about design. When I hear designers speaking with integrity, not just blustering bs language, it’s such an intimate experience, being privy to anyone who has that facility and can communicate about, just yum!
im a real fan of this channel. It is evident that you are a college professor (and a good one at that) because you communication is clear, informative and engaging. really glad I found your channel.
For me, the perfect explaination of this philosophy is Mazda Miata.
It's functional.
It's simple.
And it's a beatiful object.
It's marginally functional. Sure, it's a car and it moves. But it's slow, it's missing a lot of nice features, and it's useless for anything but moving no more than 2 people.
It's too simple. Excessively simple.
And it's actually boring looking. Dull. The initial reaction is 'cute' but that wears out. And the interior is awful.
A 1958 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz is a beautiful car. A Miata... isn't.
On the tortoise shell frames you're sort of being obtuse. It is simply a look made with the acetate that it attractive. I like this kind of frame myself because clear is too transparent, and black too dark for my face. It's a great middle ground even if we call the colour "tortoise shell" due to its original inspiration. However, it's not really pretending to be that; this isn't really skeuomorphism how for example, a hub cab is.
I think the greatest dishonesty found in design is weight. Using denser materials or literally putting metal weights in something is an amazing technique to make something feel "premium" and "durable". Of course there are legitimate reasons for making something heavier, such as balance, stability and actual durability, but it can still be used to trick people into thinking something is better than it really is. I try to intentionally remember that density doesn't always equal quality, but it's still hard to go against the lizard part of my brain that says "more heavy = more better"
Stumbled across this channel and it feels like one of my greatest finds for the year
I think you're taking these points a little too literally, but I take your point. And to your point at the end...the Rams principles are broad expressions of Deters approach to design and engineering and not a paint by numbers rule book to product design. If they were, we would all be out of a job by now. My thoughts below on the points.
Honest Design: is simply understanding/empathising with your user. We call it UX these days. I think that's the point Rams is making.
As little design as possible: I think this also ties back to understanding the user. Give the user what they need, not what they think they want. And don't let your own personal influences as a designer, distract or complicate the core of the problem. Again, watching interviews with Rams, this is how he explains it. Still stands up.
Eco-efficiency: The electric car analogy is floored/just flat out wrong actually. For example, familiarise yourself with Toyota's electric car/battery/infrastructure program. Design is fundamental to our green future and doesn't need to be the silver bullet to be successful. Rams is just saying (at a high-level) designers need to understand the environmental impact of their designs and make conscious choices.
Long lasting: This doesn't just concern the environment. Rams says it has as much to do with providing the user with a positive experience and brand value/reputation. Apple has built an empire using this approach, as have brands such as Leica Camera's and Barbour clothing.
Detail vs chance: I think Rams is staying that detail matters...which it 100% does of course. Especially if you're a product engineer or any type of design engineer for that matter. I don't think Rams is talking about the front-end creative process here really, more the latter stages of design where detail can mean the difference between success and failure.
Obtrusive design: I think this translates as "fit for purpose" rather than "design must always blend into the background". What Rams is saying is don't design a pair of high-heels for use on a construction site. I think that's obtrusive design in the thinking of Rams i.e. heels have no place on a construction site and would be obtrusive to the environment and user.
Understandable design: I agree with you in part here. However, id say that the watch examples provided in this video are actually examples of bad design (all be it fun). The fishing rod is a perfect example of pure/simple design that is not obtrusive to its environment and green. The guitar is probably one of the best pieces of design in the history of the world :) and I'd argue that the guitar is simple/intuitive to use, but difficult to master. And re the chronographs, there are good examples of legible chronographs, perpetual calendars etc. and very bad ones :). Herology at that level also starts to stray into art and out of purely design I think. I'm not sure what Rams has to say about art?
Usefulness: I would argue that the Phillip Stark juicer is art. So I'm not sure the Ram's principles apply here. Take a look at Starks sketches of the juicer...its much more of an avant-garde art piece and all about him, than it is about a practical solution to juicing lemons. It also sold and marketed like an ornament/art piece.
Can you tell me more about the car thing being flat out wrong? Always looking to learn more.
In regards to the other ones, I think it depends on how you interpret the principles. I tried to look at the principles through the lens of Rams, but I may have missed the mark.
I love how our Art History teacher explained the minimalism principle of Bauhaus. He said the idea was more like higher-quality IKEA (i.e. affordable and functional) than crazy expensive "minimalist aesthetic" that puts form over function.
Great insight! The point about creating detailed sketches to sell an idea definitely reminded me of a similar lesson I learned from the first Creative Director I worked with.
Very nicely put together - loved all the explanations similar i when talking to my fellow designers 2 years back said - ( i dont know why i sensing a rebel in the design industry due to how monotonous things have become and some people feel sick of it , it also include the struggle that physical product design is facing ). I still believe there going to be a huge push Back by a group of designers who question the conventional ways and we will be witnessing that soon.
im calling the police
Fascinating to see that the Porsche in my mind does fulfill his principles pretty well among all the cars that are out there in the market. Ferdinand Porsche had one great design in the 50s and the company just absolutely kept faith with it - the rear engine mount just like a Volkswagen Beetle, also in this same family of cars. You can truly say of Porsche that it is oblivious to automotive fashion. I'm very interested in these advanced ideas to do industry that's better for the "average human" to be the OOAK distinctive human that they are. My other big gripe with Dieter Rams is the design capability of engineers, and the decorative styles which his movement put out of fashion, such as Art Deco, and I revere the era of human craft, for instance that a structure like the Royal Albert Hall could be created by an engineering department rather than an architect. In the late 19th century they had big industrial machines but most of their things you see are done by hand. Vernacular styles converge on sustainable and functional design solutions.
Great segment talking about the shortcomings of modern apple design. As for the honesty principle, I think that as long as the consumer can recognize and see what they are getting, what it will do, and how well it performs those functions it has the level of honesty needed.
What a great video! Love your writing and editing (vague, but true). Nothing much to add, just wanted to comment to increase engagement. Keep it up!
I was recently thinking about doing a critique of these principles. You've done a stellar job! Love the effort and thinking you put into this. Thank you
You should still do it George, I'd love to read it
The entire concept of eco-friendliness is increasingly crucial in the design of products, and it's also intricately woven into the realm of architecture. However, the most significant environmental impact of design, particularly in architecture, occurs during the construction and production phases. Consequently, the most sustainable approach to designing a product or a building involves creating something that not only endures for an extended period but is also cherished by its users, leading to prolonged usage.
Some buildings constructed not even four decades ago are already facing demolition due to being deemed "outdated." In stark contrast, historical Renaissance-era structures still stand as captivating marvels. In my perspective, the design must align with the intended purpose of the product. For instance, products like phones, meant to be used for a limited span due to rapidly advancing technology, can accommodate more experimental ideas. However, particularly in architecture, where the focus is on eco-friendliness, designs should be chosen with the user's enjoyment in mind for the long term - spanning 50 or even 100 years.
The most environmentally conscious building is one that requires no reconstruction but is diligently maintained. The cornerstone of achieving such a feat lies in creating a structure that can be consistently cherished and upheld by the users over time.
11:49 He drives a Porsche 993 in that picture. Porsche in essence didn’t change the core design of the 911 for 34 years, from 1963 until the introduction of the water cooled 996 in 1997. Sure, the body grew wider, the fenders became a little rounded, they fiddled around a little with the bumpers, but apart from that the greenhouse stayed exactly the same, so did the doors and the overall appearance. Much like the VW Beetle or the Citroën 2CV. Maybe he chose it for that very reason?
thank you so much for this video - as someone just beginning to dip my toes into design, your channel is incredibly informative and beginner friendly. thank you
Your videos are simply amazing! They always open my eyes to new ideas and concepts. Thank you so much for creating such fantastic content!☺
Just one thing, please do not take social media as proof of how current generations indulge in maximalism. Thats just something the rich people do yes, but overall most young people just buy the most affordable products. I hate the idea of someone thinking that young people dress in every migraine-inducing colour possible just because they saw some weirdo on tiktok or something. Often for most people conscious design choice comes after affordability.
didn't know about u before clicking on this and for knowing nothing i'm pleasantly surprised great video! glad to see this perspective represented! i think for the form is function stuff i'd say that great design communicates not only it's immediate function but also the broader implications of it's history and functions. form needs to be in conversation with function but not limited to it. i feel like a lot of design is boring to be appealing to the broadest audience possible but good design can fit into the lives of niece groups perfectly rather than being kinda fine for everyone. i feel like minimalism also communicates a kind of living that is unrealistic and undesirable for many people. not everyone has or wants to have everything in perfect order and louder design can much better fit into the actual lives of people rather than catalogues.
Having working as interaction designer for appliances, the amount of discussion I have been with industrial designers explaining minimalism is about removing useless (usually marketing) functions and reaching out for the bittersweet spot of needed input and feedback resources to the core functions so user can have control and sense of clarity
Amazing content as always. Im doing my masters in design and i made a paper about the 10 principles updated to sustainable design principles. Following dieters idea, i would love to see your thoughts on it.
Thabk you again for the amazing work you have put here, is a true beacon of light to the community of design.
Would love to read. Post it in my discord or email it to me.
I just realise how deep those German design philosophies, Bauhaus and Rams, impact our world to this day. And how superior they were. It's a shame their core values seem to got lost on the way. So thanks for this video!
very well put! i bought a nixie tube watch which is absurdly impractical to read, but it showcased cold war era tech into a minimalist watch case, sorta like a soviet steampunk. your explanation was able to word my feelings for my weird watch in a succint way! kudos!
Amazing video. So many thanks! Very ellucidating on what's what in con/temporary design
I think you're sometimes bending reality a little too much to fit your points. Ram's Porche really is one of the most minimal cars at any point in time, (it's hard to find a more minimal one even today) it also fits aerodynamics well which is rational.
read the pinned comment
@@Design.Theory huh? But that Porche is none of those things. It is minimal and aerodynamic on the outside with only required bits. But on the inside it has all the buttons people need to control it well. I fail to see how it plays against Ram's principles.
Nah, the Porsche is still very heavily driven by aesthetic styling. It's not 'as little design as possible'. Not even close. If you want a truly functional sports car with as little design as possible, go look up the 2008 Radical Supersport SR8. There are a bunch of other examples that I can't think of right now off the top of my head also.
@@Design.Theory That design would have zero space tho, it's also not a more aerodynamic design. It's designed to be driven at ludicrous speeds and generate an insane amount of down force. The perfect aerodynamic shape is a raindrop which the porche is closer to.
@@theni3762 The guy doesn't even know the difference between a sports car and a race car with a 1inch ground clearance - I think any argument with them is a waste of time. For the record, I completely agree with your point.
On the example of the new Pringles logo, it actually pushed me away from the brand completely. I have no real idea about or experience with designing anything, but even I can tell that it is definitely impactful.
Another reason to hate them, they supported russia and didn't leave their market, so they are sponsoring terrorist country.
I never even noticed the logo had changed!
I'm not sure but I believe you misunderstood what he meant about cars and fashion. He wasn't criticizing just designers but the state of the industry. He was criticizing the lack of real innovation and focus on the superficial. The fact that car companies were often ("every 2 years") purposely changing what they thought was fashionable - or "trendy" and then doubling down on marketing to try and sell more, without actually offering more in terms of innovation or quality. Porche leans towards classic, is functional but still embraces all modern functionality and innovation without trying to push the market towards a new fashion or trend when it comes to visuals. It fits him, honestly.
In the meantime car companies have learned how to keep their profits going by using planned obsolescence and charging for spare parts and maintenance instead of charging more for the whole car which would be built to be more robust from the get go. That and the fact that now we can choose a over-the-top package with every function under the sun. They didn't have parking sensors back then, for example. Kind of like pick your subscription model....
We also went from being a more "collective-driven" society to more individualistic so making and marketing products nowadays is no longer about doing market research to see what moms and dads would get hooked on, then pushing that product ad on a TV screen that would get views from the whole family during quality family TV time. Or putting the same thing on a billboard for everyone to see so to maximise profits you'd have to target emotions and dreams that are the lowest common denoninator in the population. Nowadays, niche marketing is the way to go! Both a minimalist and a maximalist product will find their audience, as for example FB ads will push the product only towards a specific audience you select during the process of crafting the ad campaigns. So, today you can walk the street and in 1 minutes see 50 completely different looking people with completely different belief systems, dreams, and aesthetic choices, all enjoying their own niche experience, thinking they look cool and trendy.
Doing research to see what the general market wants is still essential, but many are succeeding today by creating first and foremost a useful quality product that they wish to have for themselves, and then after making their ideal product, they discover that there are thousands upon thousands of people who also yearned for that same functionality and experience. There was an undiscovered niche that only crawled out of the woodworks after the product was concieved. The best example of this is the pebble watch on kickstarter but other kickstarter projects were exemplary as well.
I'd keep both "good design is long lasting" and "good design is regenerative" because no matter how cyclical you production cycle is, producing short lived products over and over again, still expends energy that would not be wasted with long lasting products.
Thorough does not necessarily equal intentional or fully planned/unimprovised. It means attention to detail. You can be 100% thorough with a bonsai tree, even though you don't plan it's every move as as you rightly said. You react thoruoghly by removing/changing all the details that are undesireable.
+ I think a good part of this video is written upon misinterpretation of the rules, possibly intentional as it seems you mainly agreed with most of the rules but wanted to have something to say as a counterpoint to every single one.
Perhaps I misinterpreted the rules, where do you think I got it wrong? The whole point of this video was to invite discussion.
Seriously agree, the whole video was just me shouting at the screen "that's not what that means!" at regular intervals. A point that is made earlier as a "flaw" within the rules is then followed up with a rule that covers that thing, which explains why it wasn't mentioned earlier. I comment on videos maybe twice a year, but this made me very annoyed.
Minimalistic design also serves the purpose of creating a product that doesn’t overwhelm users. I think design is the art of balancing aspects of reality in order to create a product, thereby adding to reality. I mean, generally, societies evolve and thereby their idea of what is useful and aesthetically pleasing changes continuously. Just looking at web design trends, or how people choose to present themselves in public with their language, clothes, tattoos and all sorts of things able to be experienced.
I see this video as more of an essay about ideas rather than an attempt to debunk anything. I love seeing videos like this, creating a platform for discourse and incentive, especially for people getting into design, to contemplate the meaning of ideas shared by people in this field.
About rule 5: good design is thorough to the last detail
I think Dieter meant that what you CHOOSE to present should always be intentional.
The process isn't always intentional. Some mistakes lead down an interesting path.
But ultimately, it's up to you to decide if that is your final design or not. You are the one that should decide if you leave that accidental line or not
I'm a graphic designer and I think this specific rule is hard to refute
Because for us, there cannot be any element on the page that doesn't have a clear motive to be there and a clearly defined relation with the other elements on the page
So yeah, good design, at least for me, is indeed intentional. Even if you discovered it by accident, its your judgement and knowledge that helps you decide it is worth keeping it
A large part of the problem is the way people use lists of principles like this (or the list I seen more often, good flag design) currently. That is, if a principle is broken, the design is bad. And that is not the case because most designs will break a principle in some way.
The fact he was using these design principles to teach design, makes me think their purpose was to else learning good design in general. Allow people to start creating fairly good ideas as they learn the reasoning behind each principle in detail, and why it is more often than not considered a good approach
Those principles are aesthetic-specific and translate progressively more poorly the farther outside of the design universe they were created within. They are slightly rounded square pegs from the 50s.
You equate self-expression through fashion falsely with disposable fashion. Buying an outfit, wearing it for a season & throwing it away is not necessary. You can change your look incrementally, buying one item at a time, with each item lasting for years. And if you must change your look frequently because something new is popular, then are you indeed expressing yourself, or are you really expressing others?
YOU MIGHT GET THIS A LOT I DONT KNOW BUT I HONESTLY THINK YOU ARE ONE OF THE BEST PEOPLE I KNOW AT MAKING VIDEO ESSAYS EVER, everything flows very well with each other, if i never knew about fashion watching this video as made me someone that understands fashion design to a very deep level that i never new i could you could be a very good teacher because u teach how to be unbiased and not to see a point or opinions can be opinions without having to hurt someone's feelings. i would say more but bro just keep doing what you are doing .
A few years I went to visit a building in São Paulo: Altino Arantes Building (renamed horribly now to Santander Lighthouse).
Before this descaracterization of the place. Well the thing that impressed me most was a safe (it was a bank originally) in the hall. A safe, the most utilitarian thing possible: it was adorned with leaves outside AND inside, a beautiful discrete and delicate pattern. A complete unnecessary thing that nobody would be looking at, probably just once a few days when the medium size safe would be used. It was so touching and beautiful transforming that souless thing in a beautiful thing integrated with the environment, it would only work in that specific building.
It was unnecessary and even excessive, and just because of that it was gorgeously beautiful. It was not done to sell it, nor probably because someone asked for it, it was done just...because who did it wanted to do that way. and in any other way it would diminish the whole place.
I remember little about the building, the nun functionality of the last floors that were made to by smaller and because of that they didn't have an elevator, and could have no rooms, just to complete the aesthetic of the building, I found it a waste. But that safe on the hall in exposition I never forgot, a tiny simple detail that didn't spoiled the working of the safe, that was not a waste, it made it seem that the safe was born there.
Rams was born in 1932 in Germany. His formative years as a teenager, student, and young designer were all in the backdrop of an unimaginable national shame. A nation coming to terms with its unprecedented shame of losing WWII and coming to grips with their collective guilt for the worst crimes of the century. It is a time of economic depression as well so I'm sure Dieter's entire generation had to always do more with less. Try to imagine minimalism in this context and it makes perfect sense; blend in, be quiet, do your job well, don't call attention to yourself and certainly NOT to your heritage in any way. We can understand and respect it in the historical context, and be grateful it started the modern industrial design movement... but in an age of completely different dynamics, where every person is a globally connected digital citizen that has no one fixed identity or style in all areas of their life, I'd posit minimalism is one of many stories in design just as valid as the others.
Hello, I am a French designer,
I generally never comment on CZcams videos, but as a designer, I feel it's important to share my perspective.
It seems to me that you are confusing Art, Design, and Fashion. The principles you are challenging need to be understood within their context and philosophy. You are applying these principles to the world of fashion, using examples of sneakers, high heels for women, dresses, and even sacred architectures belonging to the realms of art and religion. These comparisons don't make sense; you're trying to compare the incomparable and using them to criticize Rams principles apply to functional design and nothing else.
For instance, when you attempt to refute the principle:
"A good design is thorough down to the last detail"
You contradict it by suggesting that randomness, chance, can play a role in the creative process. However, Dieter Rams doesn't argue that chance cannot play a part; he simply emphasizes that design should be meticulously worked out. You are trying to refute this principle by juxtaposing it with something unrelated, employing a fallacy.
I get the feeling that you're attempting to "debunk" all the principles for the sheer sake of doing it in this video. There are still many other things to discuss and challenge about this video, both from a historical and theoretical standpoint.I won't address each principle individually, but this video is filled with fallacies and contradictions like this one. To truly understand and criticize the philosophy of an artist, philosopher, or designer, one must study it in its context. Merely attempting to debunk the principles using fallacies and making comparisons with art and fashion doesn't suffice.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. It's clear you value the integrity of design, as do I. You've pointed out that I've used examples from fashion and art, which you believe aren't comparable to functional design. I respect that viewpoint but disagree. Design, be it fashion, product, or architecture, shares the fundamental aim of serving human needs and experiences. These examples are used not to compare directly with Rams' work, but to illustrate the diverse contexts and perspectives that exist in design, contexts Rams' principles may not fully encompass.
As for the randomness critique, my argument isn't against thoroughness but the flexibility of design methods. Rams' principle might be interpreted as design needing a deterministic path, which isn't always the case. If Rams really did just mean as you say that "design should be meticulously worked out", then that feels so obvious that it's not even worth mentioning. How do you achieve excellence in anything without meticulously working something out?
Debating Rams' principles isn't a matter of debunking for debunking's sake, but rather encouraging a critical discussion in our design community. We can respect Rams' contribution while exploring its limitations. Thanks again for engaging; let's keep this conversation going. I'd actually really like to hear your other arguments if you have the time or interest.
This was great. I am an any occasion gift designer and I can definitely use these principles. Thanks for sharing!
Delightful to watch you. Deep, honest, clear, and interesting. Yes I did subscribe. Thanks!
I feel like you haven’t actually read what he means by any of the principles
11:00 “This computer mouse is beautiful” No it’s fucking not. It looks ugly and tacky
The fact that you've mentioned Porsche and The MusicMan Stingray to drive the message of visceral connection through aesthetics was spot on! Great video!
Love your channel. Very clean and BS-less explanation and ideas sharing. Thank you!
Sorry, but that is a horrible video. Not because you try to suggest changes to the rules, but because of a wrong understanding of design itself. You use very bad examples to prof your points. You start with "the iPhone is based on the principle of less is more" - that is just straight up nonsense. It has a quadrillion functions and gets a new camera lens every 6 months. At least explain that statement and not use your authority as designer to sell whatever you say as truth. Next you use glasses as an example for the design Dieter Rams is talking about, makes it hard to believe that you get what he is talking about. They have their appearance almost entirely for aesthetic reasons. I highly doubt, that Rams would call glasses or similar accessories 'designed'.
The phrase "less but better" doesn't strictly imply fewer features or functionalities. In the context of iPhone, it refers to the intuitive, user-friendly interface that hides the complexity of the device's underlying technology. Glasses aren't just about aesthetics; as an eyewear designer of 15 years, I can say comfort and fit are crucial. Even if glasses were only aesthetically-driven (which they are not), the example was made to show that design serves various human needs in different contexts, including ones related to aesthetics or fashion, which Rams ignores.
I just understood what Lis Engel said there 22:50 - it just made so much sense. I'm gonna remember this
Sir your research and efforts for making these type of videos, i salute you for that. Thank you so much for making these types of videos. It's very very helpful for people like me whose intrested in design in general.
So nice of you to say! Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad you liked the vid
One element of design that makes me feel good about using a product is when I can tell the designer was anticipating what the user's needs. For example, at 3:15, the calculator's function buttons are differently colored than the numeral buttons. This visual cue helps the eye and mind to separate them so you can finish your task more quickly.
When I hear "minimalist design" in software, it usually means that functions are buried under deep menus, OR function has been cut back.
Amazing video. I actually have a lecture I do about this around how less is more but sometimes more is more. Great video really. Gil Schoenberg
I feel strong aesthetics can be a key function in and of itself - satisfying / solving a perceived need - such as enabling greater confidence, presenting a message, creating visual energy, rest, harmony or focus in cities, interiors, products, advertising and documents - there are functions directly impacted by aesthetics.
Yes, you can control exact way branches go. That is what they do with wire. They control the shape of the tree so that it is "designed" in a manner that is pleasing and there are rules on how to trim and shape each and every branch and even the trunk.