The many different perspectives on design are enlightening. I typically used to think of design as coinciding with architecture. However, I have learned that design is encorporated into almost everything.
Discussing the first article about the Hummer and the Prius, I feel that the author believes people are interested in cars because of the unique designs. Both cars are unusual models. I strongly disagree with the statement "New money is very Hummer." "Old money" has also shown to be very Hummer, especially in Hollywood. This statement implies that the younger generation is blindsighted by advertising into buying a not necessarily great car because of the design. The article also implies that many people like the idea and preach about the idea of saving the environment. However, it is ironic that Prius driving individuals also own gas guzzling jets and use a lot of energy to run their large homes. On the other side, any way to save the environment is a good way to live.
Regarding the Hysteria article, design is clearly used for much more than simply the visual aspect of advertising, Design creates the entire message and idea that is being portrayed. I agree with the authors statement that it is not better to be more obnoxious than the enemy. Most designers do not realize this and will create ideas that stand out even more. It seems that the author has a particular anger towards designers, made obvious by the comment, "And stop pretending you're an artist, because you're not." Design could easily be considered art, especially with all of the visual processes it entails. That there is truth in advertising is an oxymoron is a very true statement. Advertising exists to sway a consumer to buy the product, not to inform the consumer about its details.
In the Christmas light article, the main idea seems to be that advertising feeds off of the "keeping up with the Jones" idea. People continue to want bigger and better things. "Exposure creates demand." I agree with this statement completely. This also strongly influences advertising in that it is bolder and easily remembered.
In the Black Spot Sneaker article, I felt that the creators of the sneaker are more concerned with taking away from Nike's market share than how well their own product is doing. The product and the positive image comes in second in importance to the idea that the corporate "tools" should not have as much of the market share. I am still puzzled as to why the creators decided to attack corporations by focusing on the shoe market. Would it not have been easier to focus on a different market, such as simple shirts or jeans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like the comments you had on these articles. I think your comments are right on track with the meaning of the articles. I had some of the same comments on the articles that you have had. I thought the second part of the reading focused on the way design hides the real value of the product.
I lkie the comments you had on the Hummer vs. prius argument. It is interesting that you pointed out how the celebs that drove the prius were just putting on show because in all actuality, the do own private jets, gass guzzling cars, and high energy homes.
Post a Comment