"Are there any objects, maybe even gadget, that truly made you want to know how they were inspired?"
Even if you don't have something specific in mind, the documentary Objectified is a great look into the world of Industrial Design. Especially since great design is often something we don't ever notice.
I must admit that while I find her philosophical approach to her designs intriguing, I cannot say the same for the designs themselves.
I see magnificent use of texture and craftsmanship, but what I'm looking at here is art - very pretty art - but nothing functional.
If these pieces were created in order to help communicate or evoke an emotion, feeling, or thought, I think that they can and do that on several levels. However, if the goal of these pieces is to be functional, to aid us in our day-to-day life, I'm afraid that judging them solely on the aesthetic presented they either fail or I simply don't understand (which maybe I don't and need more evidence of the genius I am overlooking, but I can only work with what's available.)
If Oxman is indeed showing us designs for furniture or clothing in this gallery (after reading the source, apparently she is) then my criticism of the pieces is that she may have put her philosophy before the functionality of the item. A chair ultimately still has to work as a chair, still has to be able to be identified as a chair and still has to be commonly accepted as a chair. If it cannot achieve those things, then what you have is something that only represents a chair, and while that something can be beautiful, it isn't the goal of the exercise.
I look at the first photo in the gallery and try to imagine relaxing on it's subject after a long day of work, and simply cannot. The reason that I find this disconcerting is because Oxman tells us that the photo is of a chaise lounge.
Her philosophy is that these pieces will adapt and grow with us over time, but what I see is something that I am forced to adapt to instead, and to be honest, I work hard enough as it is to not be challenged when I want to take a seat.
I find the article itself intriguing though and definitely express interest in seeing more profiles on the minds behind innovation, but I felt that someone had to be Mr. Unpopular and critically examine the work of this beautiful woman. I think she's on the right track and incredibly talented, but creating products that are inaccessible isn't going to change the world. #nerioxman
@Poop Cooper: This is the most well-written, intelligent comment I've seen on Giz in quite a while. It's relevent, and adds true substance to the discussion of the artist and her artwork. (yes, I agree that more than anything else, this is artwork.) Bravo.
@Segador: Thanks! I feel like I'm at the disadvantage here since I'm more accustomed to defending my position than receiving compliments for it, but I'm happy to know that the post was appreciated
You know, some of you guys need to get a grip. Obviously being that she is an artist, they are taking advantage of her looks... and yes, she has glamor shots all over the place, it's part of her trade mark which isn't unusual for the artsy types.
She has probably brought more money to MIT than grants have been given to her due to her many awards and the fact that she caught the eyes of many art observers.
With that, she's at MIT and uses the aid of modern technology to create her work, which I'm guessing is a lot more complex than photoshop and a heck of a lot more relevant to Gizmodo than some of those titty warmer posts everyone flocks to (no offense to the posts, just pointing out that I've noticed).
Do I like the art? No, not at all, but I don't have an artistic bone in my body.
Anyhow, I'm thinking everyone passed up the last sentence in the post, which was really what it was about:
"Are there any objects, maybe even gadgets, that truly made you want to know how they were inspired?"
It's funny that Rosa wrote up this piece, because I'm guessing everybody here clicked on this story because there was a gorgeous woman on the front page, rather than because they wanted to learn about her work. I'm also going to say that most of the brown nosing that goes on for Rosa is because she's a female amongst men, and not because you really thought what she wrote on that mp3 player was "really funny."
Try this out: scroll down this page, find some comment with a hash tag that says "RosaRocks," and click on it. Read a few of the comments, and tell me they're not kissing ass. #nerioxman
Looking to nature for technological inspiration, and drawing design from function is, to me, one of the pinnacles of engineering. The results are so stunningly complex and singularly simple simultaneously.
Numbers 1 and 2 in the gallery are beautiful expressions of human form. The different shapes, imagery and organic symmetry in numbers 5 and 6 are incredible. #nerioxman
11/18/09
if you put anything above a 5 on giz, the commentariat will almost completely ignore the article and gush over omg a picture of an actual woman!
11/18/09
Even if you don't have something specific in mind, the documentary Objectified is a great look into the world of Industrial Design. Especially since great design is often something we don't ever notice.
11/18/09
...
Cylon. #nerioxman
11/18/09
11/18/09
I see magnificent use of texture and craftsmanship, but what I'm looking at here is art - very pretty art - but nothing functional.
If these pieces were created in order to help communicate or evoke an emotion, feeling, or thought, I think that they can and do that on several levels. However, if the goal of these pieces is to be functional, to aid us in our day-to-day life, I'm afraid that judging them solely on the aesthetic presented they either fail or I simply don't understand (which maybe I don't and need more evidence of the genius I am overlooking, but I can only work with what's available.)
If Oxman is indeed showing us designs for furniture or clothing in this gallery (after reading the source, apparently she is) then my criticism of the pieces is that she may have put her philosophy before the functionality of the item. A chair ultimately still has to work as a chair, still has to be able to be identified as a chair and still has to be commonly accepted as a chair. If it cannot achieve those things, then what you have is something that only represents a chair, and while that something can be beautiful, it isn't the goal of the exercise.
I look at the first photo in the gallery and try to imagine relaxing on it's subject after a long day of work, and simply cannot. The reason that I find this disconcerting is because Oxman tells us that the photo is of a chaise lounge.
Her philosophy is that these pieces will adapt and grow with us over time, but what I see is something that I am forced to adapt to instead, and to be honest, I work hard enough as it is to not be challenged when I want to take a seat.
I find the article itself intriguing though and definitely express interest in seeing more profiles on the minds behind innovation, but I felt that someone had to be Mr. Unpopular and critically examine the work of this beautiful woman. I think she's on the right track and incredibly talented, but creating products that are inaccessible isn't going to change the world. #nerioxman
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
She has probably brought more money to MIT than grants have been given to her due to her many awards and the fact that she caught the eyes of many art observers.
With that, she's at MIT and uses the aid of modern technology to create her work, which I'm guessing is a lot more complex than photoshop and a heck of a lot more relevant to Gizmodo than some of those titty warmer posts everyone flocks to (no offense to the posts, just pointing out that I've noticed).
Do I like the art? No, not at all, but I don't have an artistic bone in my body.
Anyhow, I'm thinking everyone passed up the last sentence in the post, which was really what it was about:
"Are there any objects, maybe even gadgets, that truly made you want to know how they were inspired?"
11/18/09
Try this out: scroll down this page, find some comment with a hash tag that says "RosaRocks," and click on it. Read a few of the comments, and tell me they're not kissing ass. #nerioxman
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/17/09
#RosaRocks #nerioxman
11/17/09
As for her looks....classic beauty. #nerioxman
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
11/17/09
Numbers 1 and 2 in the gallery are beautiful expressions of human form. The different shapes, imagery and organic symmetry in numbers 5 and 6 are incredible. #nerioxman
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/18/09
@Rosa Golijan: See what I mean? (special thanks to randomperson001) #nerioxman
11/18/09
seconded