Is to “Omit the Unimportant” to forgo creative expression?
Article for Design Culture and Theory, BDES 1201–400. Week 4: February 4th, 2021. Total word count: 442
Written by Grace Landolt.
In today’s commercialized society, individuals are bombarded with products and services which serve no functional purpose. The problem of functionality versus aesthetics is explored in Dieter Rams’ article “Omit the Unimportant.”
In Rams’s article, he argues that the current trends in design intend to tempt the consumer’s pathos appeals in order to evoke a feeling but do so in a trivial manner (112). He strongly believes that each product must be well designed, but neutral enough to leave room for self-expression from the consumer.
Rams reflects on his own experiences summarizing his findings into two points. Firstly, he states that “items should be designed in such a way that their function and attributes are directly understood” (112). Secondly, he believes that “the fewer the opportunities used to create informative design, the more the design serves to evoke emotional responses.” (Rams 112).
The current trend of evoking an emotional response through superficial means is diluting the impact that meaningful designs have on their audience. In order to combat this problem, Rams believes that we must rediscover and implement the simple and basic aspects of design into our society.
Rams speculates that another issue confronting designers is the destructive, aggressive tendencies which are gaining momentum in society, stating these principles “…counteract the ideas on which design was founded” (113). As mentioned above, he believes the solution to this problem is creating products that serve a purpose to the consumer. In order to design for the future, Rams believes that design must be reliable and progressive as opposed to the current trend which is defeatist and frivolous.
In order for us, as designers, to uphold the role of the critics of technology, society and human trends, we must continue to strive to serve those who depend upon us to do so. Design must be more than economic success and novelty. In order to secure a prosperous future, we must combat the urge to trivialize design in that manner.
In my opinion, Rams’ article leaves several questions unanswered. The most puzzling aspect of Rams’ conclusion is where the value of the artistic expression from the designer and historic design principles comes into consideration in his proposition. Rams clearly affirms that “I don’t support dull or boring design but I do take a stand against the ruthless exploitation of peoples’ weaknesses for visual haptic signals, which many designers are engaged in” (113).
Despite his position on artistic liberties in product design, do you believe Rams considers the value that designers are able to bring to the world through avant-garde expression? Is it possible to have a bright and innovative future following the proposals which Rams laid out?