RELATED TERMS: Design History; Iconic Designs, Critical Designs
“Kenya Hara is a design icon.” (Design Intaba, 2004)
Design is often spoken of in terms of ‘iconic’ designs[1] and ‘iconic’ designers. ‘Iconic’ designs are discussed frequently in terms of individual entities – ‘things’. ‘Iconic’ designers are individual, named designers – ‘persons’.
‘Iconic’ designs are most often product designs, fashion designs or architectural designs but now also include services and entire business practices or processes (Lees-Maffei, 2014; Bentley, 2020) [2].
‘Iconic’ designers are most often fashion designers, product designers and, more recently, digital interaction-experience designers, as listed, for example, in McDowell (2020), Abbattista (2018), Altrum (2023) and London Daily News (2024)[3].
This is one approach to design, through ‘things’ and ‘persons’, ‘forms’ and ‘figures’ or, indeed, ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’. It is not without merit, as it considers the ‘iconic’ designs in question not simply to be utilitarian commodities, moving appreciation of them towards a recognition of their cultural meanings and their other-than-utilitarian values, for example, in the construction, maintenance and performance of self-hood and social standing. In other words, it draws attention to designs as important socio-cultural phenomena.
However, in as far as it might be argued that it is based on an analogy with an approach to art which emphasises titled ‘works’ and named ‘artists’ (‘creators’ or ‘creative geniuses’), it might also be said to place design practice in a secondary or derivative position to art practice. ‘Iconic’ design-works may be thought of as approaching, but not quite reaching, the value of an ‘art-work’. Rather than being simply representative, the iconic design and the iconic designer may be said to stand out, stand apart and stand above.
By focusing on the ‘individual’ and the ‘out-standing’ or, indeed, the ‘outstanding individual’, this approach might obscure, prevent or simply stand in the way of an understanding, firstly, of the ‘artifactuality’ of designs, the ways in which they are made as products of socio-cultural and socio-economic systems and in which they subsequently become phenomenal actors (through the actions their continued ‘appearances’ make). Secondly, the ‘iconic’ approach may obscure the ‘actuvirtuality’ of designs, the potentiality articulated in their phenomenal actuality that affects their modes of reception and action in those systems. In other words, the ‘iconic’ approach may obscure the ways in which designs can be interpreted and acted upon, conventionally or otherwise, to reinforce or alter socio-cultural and socio-economic systems.
Taking an ‘iconic’ approach to design, then, we may miss or gloss over:
- the ‘institution’ of design, an institution that changes in form and status along with the changing socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts of design practices in terms of what they mean and what they do;
- a recognition of the pervasiveness of design, that is, the fact that the environment is thoroughly pervaded by designed entities but, even so, could not really be described, as a collectivity, as having been coherently ‘designed’ and which in general dis-appear from conscious attention;
- the ways in which designs of different scales and complexity configure (thoroughly ‘designed’) situations, especially in urban environments, as frames for living in which designed artefacts, services and businesses operate;
- the ways in which designs of different scales form networks of interlinked products, services, technologies, systems and environments, that is, they form design ecologies and technological ecologies;
- the iterative stages by means of which ‘finished’ entities emerge and the fact that such entities may continue to be refined and are therefore always ‘unfinished’, in other words they become reified, a thing-like fixity, and ‘iconic’ in the sense of being a fixed image with a determinate sense, thereby ceasing to be open to interpretation, enaction and further elaboration ;
- the fact that the named designer in all likelihood stands for a collective enterprise at the level of pre-conception, conception, production and reception-consumption, that is, that ‘names’, as reputations and brands, are built and dynamically sustained collectively and collaboratively over time.
In short, while the ‘iconic’ approach perceives designs as ‘individual’ phenomena, it may in doing so emphasise appearance in a contemplative aesthetics of form and style over and above the perception of phenomenal appearance as experience in a psychodynamic sense (meaning, interpretation, self-narration), on the one hand, and phenomenal appearance as affordance or opportunity as experience in the psycho-social sense of (inter-)action and practice (ethical, moral, political, conventional, divergent, ‘revolutionary’), on the other hand.
The ‘iconic’ approach, in other words, may miss the different ways and different scales at which design structures, ‘constitutes’ and ‘institutes’ the world, while guiding, informing and providing the ‘intention’ of ‘experience’. Designing has become, to a large extent and in various ways, ‘experience design’, ‘interaction design’ and ‘interface design, into which digital platforms are integrated and operate, weaving themselves into the fabric of everyday life. The problem comes for an ‘iconic’ approach to accept ‘participative’ design with an explicitly acknowledged collaborative character that operates at the level of the design and the technological ecologies.
One central issue at stake here is whether the ‘iconic’ ‘appearance-as-image’ renders static, becoming a ‘reified thing’, fixed in substance, interpretation and meaning (sense, reference and deixis) – oriented towards self-conscious contemplative removal; or whether the image as ‘appearance-as-phenomenon’, can open to the imaginary as a flow of imagination (sense, the psycho-dynamic and the constitution of the self) – oriented towards symbolic-practical ‘immersion’ and effective action in the world.
In part, starting from the notion of ‘appearance’ – ‘that which appears’, ‘that which shows itself’, ‘that which reveals itself’, ‘that which is revealed’ or ‘that which is uncovered’ (the perceiver perceiving the perception being perceived), what is at stake are the differences among those practising as:
- visual artists, focusing on form, style and genre, in relation to meaning and ‘truth’;
- philosophical phenomenologists, focusing on form and meaning, or in-forming and meaning; and
- praxeologists [4], focusing on form, meaning, in-formation and ‘force’ – the act, the event, the situation, the context.
- environmentalists, who seek to overcome the overwhelming amount of research has been carried out in the context of object perception, rather than environment perception (Radman, 2012)
From ‘Iconic’ Status to ‘Institutional’ Heritage
Llisa Demetrios is the granddaughter of Charles and Ray Eames. Giovanna Castiglioni is daughter of Italian lighting designer Achille Castiglioni. With Ines Cross (2024), they discuss what is required to maintain a design legacy. Interestingly, both women refuse the word ‘iconic’ when talking about their respective heritages. Castiglioni is quoted as saying, “To me, ‘iconic’ means something you put in a cage, on a pedestal, or in a museum just to look at. My father and Llisa’s grandparents designed objects to be used” (Cross, 2024).
Both Demetrios and Castiglioni have roles within their respective heritage institutions, the Eames Institute of Infinite Curiosity in Richmond, California and the Achille Castiglioni Foundation in Milan, Italy.
In a sense, so-called ‘iconic’ design ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’ remain, rest or persist – or, rather, are made and persistently re-made and re-told – in material cultural discourse in several distinct ways, for example: as accoutrements in ‘everyday’ living, although only in the life styles of particular elite social groups; as part of ‘everyday’ living of a more ‘massified’ group through their images being reproduced and consumed in media artefacts of various kinds; and through their existence in design museums, where the curation of everyday ‘objects’ establishes and confirms their status as ‘iconic’ design ‘objects’, again for a limited socio-cultural grouping. In short, for some, they are perceived and used; for others, they are perceived as images; for yet others they are perceived and ‘appreciated’.
Notes
[1] What is an ‘iconic’ design? The World Association of Technology Teachers (Ryan, 2010) suggests the following criteria for assessing designs. A design may be said to be ‘iconic’ if it:
- sets a bench mark for others to follow
- is ground-breaking in terms of its technical-technological operation or techniques of production
- improves on the past (in some definable way or ways)
- sets new standards in terms of quality, functions, features or style.
- remains popular for a significant period of time
- is memorable for those who see it or use it
- is immediately recognisable by consumers
- provides inspiration for other designers
- Is trend-setting
- is innovative
- is aesthetically pleasing
- is frequently emulated or copied by other designers
- has a place in history or, better, takes part in effecting historical change
[2] Among the 50 designs examined by Lees-Maffei (2014), divided into the categories of urban interventions, print-based and digital-screen inventions, workplace innovations, domestic designs and personal accoutrements, are the Eiffel Tower, France, by Gustave Eiffel (1889); Isotype, Austria, a system of picture-based education, by Otto Neurath, Marie Reidemeister and Gerd Arntz (1925–1934); the paper clip, USA, by Samuel B. Fay (1867); the Portland Vase, UK, by Josiah Wedgwood (1789); and Levi Jeans, USA, by Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss & Co. (1873).
Bentley (2020) begins his list of the greatest designs of modern times with the iPhone, designed by Apple (2007), the Macintosh computer, designed by Apple (1984), the Google Search Engine, designed by Google (1997), the Eames Fiberglass Armchair, designed by Ray + Charles Eames (1950) and the Sony Walkman TPS-L2, designed by Norio Ohga (1979).
[3] Iconic (fashion) designers listed by McDowell (2020) include Coco Chanel, Salvatore Ferragamo, Christian Dior, Cristóbal Balenciaga and Hubert de Givenchy. The Altrum (2023) post considers the five most influential industrial designers to be Jonathan Ive, James Dyson, Dieter Rams, Marc Newson and Karim Rashid. The London Daily News post (2024) lists automotive designer Christian von Koenigsegg, Victor Papanek, who championed a socially conscious design ethos, German industrial designer Luigi Colani, Dieter Rams, the main designer at Braun and a critical force at Vitsoe, Giorgetto Giugiaro who designed cars for Ferrari and Lamborghini, the Catalan engineer and designer Antoni Gaudí and the American architect, designer, and creator Buckminster Fuller, who developed an interdisciplinary methodology which he called a “comprehensive anticipatory design science.” In addition to those listed by the above sources, Abbattista (2018) includes Charles and Ray Eames, Achille Castiglioni, Arne Jacobsen, Marcel Breuer, Philippe Starck, Ettore Sottsass, Naoto Fukasawa, Frank Gehry, Raymond Loewy, Gae Aulenti, Richard Sapper, Otl Aicher, Norman Foster and Yves Behar.
[4] Bohman (2005) points to different possible uses of the term ‘praxeology’. He states that Linklater (2001: 38), for example, uses praxeology to mean a practical theory of praxis. He continues that, although the use of the term ‘praxeology’ can be traced back to the work of Ludwig von Mises and the earlier work of Alfred Espinas, Linklater’s use derives from the way the term is employed by Raymond Aron. The purpose of praxeology, in this sense, is inquiry into the ‘knowing how’ of practical normative knowledge, that is, how it is that norms are interpreted, realised, and enacted in an ongoing fashion under particular social and historical circumstances.
References
Abbattista, P. (2018) Meet 20 of the most famous product designers of all time (so far), DesignWanted. Available at: https://designwanted.com/10-most-influential-product-designers/ (Accessed: 11 April 2024).
Altrum (2023) The Top 5 most famous industrial designers, Altrum. Available at: https://www.altrum.com/resources/the-top-5-most-famous-industrial-designers/ (Accessed: 12 April 2024).
Bentley, D. (2020) The greatest designs of modern times, Fortune, (16 March). Available at: https://fortune.com/longform/100-best-designs/ (Accessed: 11 April 2024).
Bohman, J. (2005) Critical theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ (Accessed: 24 February 2016).
Cross, I. (2014) In the name of the fathers, Financial Times, HTSI magazine, 13 April, 49-50.
Design Intaba (2004) Africa welcomes Kenya. Design Intaba. Available at: https://www.designindaba.com/articles/point-view/africa-welcomes-kenya (Accessed 1 January 2025)
Fiell, C. and Fiell, P. (2001) Design of the 20th century. Koln, DE: Taschen.
Lees-Maffei, G. (ed.) (2014) Iconic designs: 50 stories about 50 things. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Linklater, A. (2001) The Changing contours of critical international relations theory, in Critical Theory and World Politics, edited by R. W. Jones, London: Lynne Reinner, 23–44.
London Daily News (2024) Influential product designers: how they shaped the design landscape?, London Daily News, (2 February). Available at: https://www.londondaily.news/5-influential-product-designers-how-they-shaped-the-design-landscape (Accessed: 12 April 2024).
McDowell, E. (2020) The most iconic fashion designers of the last 100 years, Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/most-iconic-fashion-designers-of-the-last-century (Accessed: 11 April 2024).
Radman, A. (2012) Gibsonism: ecologies of architecture [PhD thesis]. Delft University of Technology. Available at: http://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:4035de29-3b68-4dfa-b0fb-668bf69d54b5?collection=research (Accessed: 9 June 2016).
Ryan, V. (2010) What is an iconic design?, Technology Student. Available at: https://technologystudent.com/prddes1/icon1.html (Accessed: 11 April 2024).
Incomplete ... 