Philippe Starck: Design Is Dead
Perennial provocateur Philip Starck set design bloggers atwitter this week by saying that design “is absolutely void of usefulness” and that he intends to quit within two years.
In an interview last week with the German newspaper Die Zeit, he said, “A useful profession would be to be an astronomer, a biologist, or something of that kind. Design really is nothing. I have tried to install my designs with a sense of meaning and energy, and even when I tried to give my best it was still in vain.”
This from the man who helped bring a design consciousness to Target and designed the original boutique hotels. Of course, many observers will dismiss his remarks as a bid for media attention on the eve of this month’s Milan Furniture Fair.
Bruce Nussbaum of Businessweek had this to say: “Naw. When David Rockwell designs a better experience for kids getting cancer treatments in a hospital, design is absolutely useful. When Cameron Sinclair runs a contest for the best, most inexpensive architecture for housing in poor villages, that's pretty good design.”
Here’s a comeback from Unbeige: “Maybe he was just having a rough day. Or maybe he needs a hug?”
What do you think? Does Starck have a point? Anyone?
In an interview last week with the German newspaper Die Zeit, he said, “A useful profession would be to be an astronomer, a biologist, or something of that kind. Design really is nothing. I have tried to install my designs with a sense of meaning and energy, and even when I tried to give my best it was still in vain.”
This from the man who helped bring a design consciousness to Target and designed the original boutique hotels. Of course, many observers will dismiss his remarks as a bid for media attention on the eve of this month’s Milan Furniture Fair.
Bruce Nussbaum of Businessweek had this to say: “Naw. When David Rockwell designs a better experience for kids getting cancer treatments in a hospital, design is absolutely useful. When Cameron Sinclair runs a contest for the best, most inexpensive architecture for housing in poor villages, that's pretty good design.”
Here’s a comeback from Unbeige: “Maybe he was just having a rough day. Or maybe he needs a hug?”
What do you think? Does Starck have a point? Anyone?
Posted by: Michael Cannell on Apr 3, 08 at 03:00 PM PDT
Design is only as alive and useful as its underlying motivation and purpose.
Posted by Steve Beck on 04/04/08 05:49PM PDT
Design is only as alive and useful as its underlying motivation and purpose.
Posted by Steve Beck on 04/04/08 05:49PM PDT
personally, I believe design is still much alive. however, the pursuit of useful, great and original design is tough to achieve.
Posted by ktweezee on 04/04/08 04:14PM PDT
I second Jack's comment!
Posted by on 04/04/08 08:42AM PDT
He's just mad that some hotels are considering obliterating his work for them for more pleasing, useful design.
Posted by LJ on 04/04/08 06:48AM PDT
If design is dead, quit now and spare us the b.s.
Posted by Jack on 04/03/08 09:01PM PDT
Post a comment
