There are the pictures of my foamies and the final product. It's more of a technical package formed into the form of a photo frame, and although people may argue that the form needed to be more developed let me put this to you. Over the countless eras we've been through, the traditional photo frame form has not changed dramatically, in fact, if you look at today's digital photo frames, they use more modern materials but retain the universally accepted *rectangle*. And whilst you may say, why don't you change it, if you look at the products out there, there has to be a reason why they've made it, that they're actually selling products. The rectangular form works.
If you choose to give it a lovely organic shape, in my view, it detracts from the core purpose of the photo frames, and that is do enhance the display of the photo, not compete for attention.
To the boards, my camera was having a little trouble with the lighting is what I'll say but those are placed on the back of my Piranesi board (that brings back memories) and so that's A1. There's 3 of those boards. That's not including the research and word smithing, mind mapping, feature analysis, personal Q&A about the product that I did. So to all those who think there's not much going on in this little head of mine, there probably isn't, it just happens to be on the paper.
/end Rant
3 comments:
same shit, different sketch book. Look at all that wasted pen time when you didnt communicate something else?
foamies = sketches = product = waste of time doing all three.
push yourself and your designs to be DIFFERENT each communication.
As much as that could be done, foamies were to conceptualise the form and it's purpose was to test size and and early concept about slotting rigid picture frames. If you read my later post about the design form, it'll describe my argument that organic forms for the golden backpacker just doesn't cut it. The traditional form of the picture frame has stood the time, and there has to be a reason why it is still used in digital photo frames. Was it Adam Laws who said that there has to be a reason why other products are on the shelves, that they're actual products and being above the bar, past the stages of conceptualisations? I'm not trying to say that pushing myself and my designs to be different in each communication is wrong, certainly I find it hard to do cause I suck, but my point is that it's not been a waste of time (entirely anyways haha).
"If you read my later post about the design form, it'll describe my argument that organic forms for the golden backpacker just doesn't cut it."
Dont polarise designs into either blobjects (what youve called 'organic forms') and geometric objects....
I hate to fall back on the old Apple analogy, but they did something like 120 different mockups of the iphone before chosing one. Although the final version is seemingly predictable, they explored 99 other options before deciding one one, not drawing something similar (blobjects, linear or whatever) 100times over).
Post a Comment