Recently, while browsing Design Observer, I came across a response from Philippe Stark, which sparked a curious debate. Here is Philippe Stark’s latest thoughts on Design, published in March 2008 :
Renowned French designer Philippe Starck says he is fed up with his job and plans to retire in two years, in an interview published in a German weekly on Thursday.
“I was a producer of materiality and I am ashamed of this fact,” Starck told Die Zeit weekly newspaper.”
“Everything I designed was unnecessary.”
“I will definitely give up in two years’ time. I want to do something else, but I don’t know what yet. I want to find a new way of expressing myself ...design is a dreadful form of expression.”
Starck, who is known for his interior design of hotels and Eurostar trains and mass consumption objects ranging from chairs to tooth brushes and lemon juice squeezers, went on to say that he believed that design on the whole was dead.
“In future there will be no more designers. The designers of the future will be the personal coach, the gym trainer, the diet consultant,” he said.
Starck said the only objects that he still felt attached to were “a pillow perhaps and a good mattress.” But the thing one needs most, he added, was the “ability to love”.
Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium
My Thoughts on Design after reading this Stark statement...
In response to “Function in Modern Design”
Immediately, I chose to site Gyorgy Kepes’s article, ‘Function in Modern Design.’ First of all, the class agreed on the following summarization of the article, that is, “The true function of design is to address ALL the parts of the man – emotional, sensual, and intellectual.” Okay, I agree. How can this statement be any more convincing ? Well, in fact, I appreciate how relevant its content is to today’s design realm, more specifically, just how closely ‘function’ is now meeting and fulfilling our design expectations. And when it isn’t, it’s quite funny to think of this condition. To what degree and point is design considered “acceptable” by design standards of function, and by what “high design” is considered to be now ? And, if the design is embraced, must this form contain an emotional or sensual condition ? My thoughts thoroughly support Kepes’s argument. I find that a quality of sensuality, intellectual interest + pursuit, and an emotional connection must be present in the design form. Sociologically, it’s fascinating to observe how the advertising industry is packaging and glamorizing materiality, and serving it up for us on a ‘Philippe Stark silver platter.’ To feed our modern needs, ( some would argue, our almost “gluttonous needs” ) materiality equates for this absurd, “supreme happiness” of a “fashion-forward nature,” just as it had in 1949 when Kepes addresses his perspective of ‘Function in Modern Design.’ Philippe Stark has provocatively redefined what is quintessentially ‘hip’ in the New Design style through his range of immaculate hotel interiors, furniture design and domestic products. Reading this March ‘08 press interview with Philippe Stark was utterly shocking. How is can say that design is a dreadful form of expression, and how so ? This is such b.s. What types of design problems did he have in the past to result in such haste and rejection now ? And, how could his work not be of expressive nature ( comprised of the qualities that Kepes addresses ? ) The fact that Stark isn’t meeting his ‘“expressive design needs” is a personal problem. This brought me to Gyorgy Kepes argument stating, “Designs which have their root in the heart of man, and not in his pocket, are alive. Designs which grow organically with the calm dignity of honesty, not with the haste of a bad conscience, can only and do only provide the values needed for human growth. They are functional in the truest meaning of the word.” So, why would Philippe Stark admit his shame ? What about his work was not expressive enough for him; and what about for others ? Is his work superficial, bleak, vain, and only temporarily in fashion ? Will his work continue to possess a state of integrity and be loved over the course of time ? Right now, “Philippe Starck may be the most famous and prolific designer alive. His desire for transgression and challenge, of aesthetic and cultural provocation made him change our lamps, door handles, cutlery, kettles, vases, clocks, scooters, motorcycles, desks, beds, taps, toothbrushes, baths, toilets… in short, our whole life. In agreement, I am in awe of his work. His design functions. It functions in its ability to possess levels of sensuality, sleek rhythm, intellectual value, and emotional experience. I am truly enraptured by his design sensibility. In ‘Function in Modern Design’, I admire how Kepes addresses the importance for consumer experience in “the contemporary scene’, as I would consider one of Philippe Stark’s hotel lobbies, or 2 x 4’s Prada store for example, to be reflective of this kind of modern design experience ( fulfilling emotional expectations. ) In conclusion, concerning this article and the French designer Philippe Stark, I am now more invested in this “what is the function in design” question, and understand that the answer is highly personal and endlessly interpretive. While I am offended by Stark, at the same time, perhaps he is only being critical because he isn’t fulfilling design areas, and, therefore fearful / regretful that his design is not functioning past solemn “materiality”. It is interesting that Stark is conscious and vocal regarding his expressive need, and fear of design failure. I question his final message, “but the thing one needs most was the ‘ability to love’”. He seems to have a fixation. I don’t understand what he is alluding to. It seems remarkably clear that this message is only about him I conclude.
