I recently had the opportunity to attend Georgia Tech’s IDSA Merit Award Finals, where four senior Industrial Design students presented their work in a competition to determine who will represent Georgia Tech at this year’s regional IDSA conference. A kind of showcase featuring Georgia Tech’s best talent (as chosen by ID faculty), the presentations provided a particularly intriguing insight into the program’s recent progress and direction. My reactions varied from impressed to indifferent.
Georgia Tech has built its reputation as a premier engineering university, and deservedly so. Such an emphasis on engineering and its associated deliberations has undoubtedly pervaded even the College of Industrial Design, where faculty harps on “process” and there has always been a ubiquitous concentration on designing specifically for manufacture using Tech’s decidedly vast technological resources. Such a focus was apparent in many of the projects, and it was refreshing to see these endeavors carried out beyond merely pretty renderings. Almost all of the presentations displayed designs that were carried out through prototype phase (TRUE prototyping mind you… not merely proof of concept mockups or scale study models). Thought and refinement was clearly evident among the work of these students.
A few designs exemplified such a bent, including Grayson Byrd’s “Connect the Blocks” design. Taken through a slew of iterations and prototyped for more feasible, mass manufacture, the “Blocks” are an interesting take on a classic kids’ toy. This particular version lights up when the blocks are aligned in correct order. That is, if the child makes a proper word with them, arranges them alphabetically, etc. Smart. And Cool.
Grayson Byrd's "Connect the Blocks"
Ariel Wu’s “Butter Extruder”, a fun (if not frivolous) solution that purportedly saves money and keeps one’s hands clean during the potentially clumsy and messy “buttering” process, was another design that exhibited a keen focus on truly working out the mechanicals, designing for manufacture, and again, taking the project beyond a shiny computer model or vellum rendering.
Ariel Wu's "Butter Extruder"
With that said, these projects also illustrate a marked flaw that seemed to manifest itself amongst all the work presented this past Friday. As designers, we are tasked with making an emotional connection, and part of that involves designing a form and highlighting details that speak to the particular user, that work in the context of the product’s environment, and develop a connection deeper than that of mere “object” or “tool”. The “Blocks” certainly look like kids’ blocks, but their form (and material) belies the fascinating technology within, does little to separate the product from its ordinary predecessor, and frankly, looks downright banal. Granted, you’re toeing a fine line between old and new with such an established, recognized product as kids’ blocks. Straying too far from the norm would indeed alienate the user. But I kept asking myself, “Where’s the fun!?”
The “Butter Extruder” also had me scratching my head and asking the same question. The concept is neat. It’s fun. It has, dare I say, an element of kitsch. And that’s totally fine. But it shouldn’t look like a glorified crayon on steroids. There was so much opportunity to play with a VAST number of design cues, from the domestic landscape to packaging conventions and formal incumbents that we all associate with food, and I don’t find any of that here. Barely a hint.
Now I’m not harping on these two projects, and certainly not these two talented students, as sole perpetrators. In fact, the reason I bring this up is because I see it as a trend at Georiga Tech. That end of the industrial design spectrum simply gets cast aside far too often. Great concept, functionally shrewd… formally uninspired. Of course, there were a few glimpses of smart, cleverly-addressed aesthetic details that I saw during the presentation.
Ieva Mikolaviciute’s “Tea Infuser” stood out as a particularly striking example. With a very organic form and sweeping profile, the design certainly speaks to “natural” cues in a beautifully sculptural manner. It at once draws on traditional cookware/kitchen aesthetics while tweaking them in an arousing, expressive way. Most striking about this design is the very unmistakable contrast between positive and negative forms. The bulbous, tulip-like infuser “head”, with its colander-esque perforations, beautifully segues into a flowing, distinctly planar handle studded with hemispherical dots that beg to be touched. The punched holes juxtaposed with the gently-raised dots is simple, subtle… and remarkably clever.
Ieva Mikolaviciute's "Tea Infuser"
And that’s what ID at Georgia Tech needs more of. Don’t stray from the process, continue to nurture the mechanically-astute inclinations of the students… but push them to package these wonderful ideas in more thoughtful, beautiful ways. Take them from “like” to “lust”. Highlight these great ideas. Foster a better understanding of how a great concept takes the “next step”. I’m still learning this myself, I don’t think anyone is ever finished learning. It all can’t be taught over the course of eight semesters, and these presentations indeed showed great promise. I just found myself walking away a bit frustrated with how much better these projects could be with the support of a more wholly focused faculty. ID at Georgia Tech has come a long way; it has a long way to go.
Grayson Byrd's "Casper Chair"