"SUCCESS is the new FAILURE"
- Started
- Last post
- 45 Responses
- jeneraa0
johndig--true, true.
tomkat--I'd love to possibly explain to you the "logic of anger" and "logic of fear," (yes, people have actually brought logic to those emotions) to show you just how true Yoda's little quote is... it's awesome.
winter--Thanks if the comment was real & not sarcastic. I like the way you phrase things yourself, I must admit. And it's still true even if you were sarcastic. You design with words.
- nick0
why can't designers spell or use proper syntax?
as you were.
ps: jen, you are a certifiable 60x70 asterixed cutie. :p
- jeneraa0
lowimpakt--no worries. I get your drift
I would hope that all designers have the same desire to design simply to make people happy or pose some sort of solution to a problem...
And interesting tidbit on the Nike marketing. But I would think that some people are quite happy with the product, no matter how mediocre--simply for the label.
- Point50
I don't know if I understand exactly what we are talking about here. How does one avoid this affluenza? Is it simply by not buying the top 20 name brands of any specific item? By making sure that this "no name" pair of shoes that I'm wearing are made in the USA to avoid sweatshop support? Yeah, I want the nice things. Right now that nice thing is a house. And thanks to the market out here in Vegas, a nice house is quickly becoming unattainable for a paycheck to paycheck person like myself. That has nothing to do with affluenza does it? My tone might sound sarcastic, but I really am trying to grasp this concept. I think everyone is guilty of it. Even in the sense of "Success is the new Failure" measuring against just "wanting to make people happy". If you succeed in making people happy, then have you truly failed?
- jeneraa0
OK, I'm off... thanks for the brain massagin' y'all. ;^)
And nick, you be lookin' mighty fine yourself. Love the hair. Love the tongue. And, an S-Friskin' to boot! (Native SF'er or not, it's all good. I miss the city... :^( ... )
- tomkat0
i would never doubt a word yoda says.
g'night : ]
- abizzyman0
"it's no different than buying diesel jeans. you are associating yourself with a certain set of ideas that are defined through a label or brand."
johndiggity
(nov 19 04, 16:10)**************
Those words are like a cool spring nite to my eyes, mr. diggity.
Labels are a rough thing to deal with... especially the 'anti' ones.
"Anti" is the new "Pro" if you really want to get technical.
There's no philosophy in that statement - it's just an observation.
I think everyone should call their parents, hug their pet and drink a cold glass of water... (see footnote)
... in the end, everything we do is vanity...
... I don't really see a need to discuss this as it's always going to lead to a subjective personal answer in which some will agree and some will disagree.
(footnote)
Simplify and get back to basics - it makes for an easier way of life.
- jeneraa0
Ooooh... Point 5, I'll try to get back to you on that when I get back online (it truly is an interesting subject beyond the top 20 brand thing), but for now, I'm out.
- Point50
Thanks Jeneraa. I'm always the person chiming in at the death end of threads.
- lowimpakt0
But I would think that some people are quite happy with the product, no matter how mediocre--simply for the label.
jeneraa
(nov 19 04, 16:31)
--------------------------------...yea, they are happy when they by the product but it isn't long before the sense of dissatisfaction rears its head. This changes the emotional experience of the product. The reasons for this shift are manifold and a little much to go into now.
my friend and i are thinking of ways to follow design(product and furniture) without it only being a function of the economy. i.e. working directly with your end-users, maybe placed in a community etc. also it is important to not always see the design as the 'solver of solutions'. Im really interested in this idea of dissolving the role of the designer.
anywayz, i better stop rabbiting on because im tired.
- winter0
i think it is interesting to discuss this.
i'm thinking on a proper reply that thouroughly explains my meaning, miss jenerra ;)
- superbaka0
the entire "no logo" / mcdonalds-is-running-my-life argument boils down to whether you believe in free will or not.
- lowimpakt0
the entire "no logo" / mcdonalds-is-running -my-life argument boils down to whether you believe in free will or not.
superbaka
(nov 19 04, 16:43)
-------------------------------or whether you have the opportunity to circumvent the 'scene' and still live comfortably, clothed and fed.
- winter0
free will?
please explain...
- johndiggity0
hapiness is not what you but, or how something is designed. it is a feeling that only you are in control of. the role of the designer in society, especially today, should not be to make an inanimate object give the user an emotion, rather the end result should be indicative of the function. a clock, however nicely designed and useful it is, cannot create hapiness. it is the choice of the user to either be happy with themselves, and ultimately the world around them or not.
this is especially relevant today, in a culture where hapiness can be taken in pill form or bought from the store in the form of whatever product is trendy or brings the user acceptance. design=purpose, not emotion. if more products were designed under this philosphy, there might be many less emotional cripples in the world.
- abizzyman0
I kind of think you were reaching there, johndiggity...
... not in a bad way though - just in an unrealistic way.
We all have jobs so we can pay for food, water and shelter... but even more so is the clothing, the computer, the car etc. In order to get people to buy your brand of car or clothes... you have to appeal to them emotionally. It's rare that you find someone in their 20's who purchases lifestyle products based on consumer reports. :)
Designing with purpose and practicality exists. But if that were the case... Nike would have one style of shoe that fit all of our needs.
- lowimpakt0
john, emotional response is a function of design, even a function of aesthetics. e.g. you can have a pleasent experience with a product think it is beautiful, happy to use it etc. but that experience can change on the knowledge of the exploitation or environmental degredation that went into producing the product. This is slightly 'off-level' but the experience is linked to the choices of the designer
- johndiggity0
i don't disagree at all. i mean most of us here need advertising to pay the bills. i want someone to feel so insecure that they buy into an ad concept and purchase the product. nike sells tons of different shoes because people don't want to be the same as the next guy. in a way, it's practical; it panders to people's innate sense of wanting to belong, but also allows them to express their individuality via an inanimate object. their r&d is ridiculous as well, which is why they need to sell so much, just to subsidize it.
- winter0
jeneraa, r u here?
guess not.
just mail me if you really want my view on this design thing. it's a rather optimistic one :)
- johndiggity0
low,
yeah to an extent, if i have a plesurable experience interfacing with an object, i might derive some type of joy from it, but it won't make or break my total hapiness. i just think we put too much stock as designers into trying to illicit an emotional response from the end user. and it's fleeting.how much of the pleasure we receive from surrounding ourselves with beautiful products is real anyway? do they truly make us happier people? or do we get off on the fact that we have all this cool shit around us. would it make a difference if there was no one around to enjoy it with us?
there obviously is no answer to all this, but it's fun to discuss anyway.