Definition of Industrial Design

Looking back at what I’ve researched and written this semester, I realized that this blog was an opportunity for me to study myself in ID. When I had a talk with Nancy, I was able to sum up this semesters’ work with her and she noticed things that I did not notice while writing and posting. Some things that seem obvious to me and unnoticeable can be interesting or questionable to others. What I have discussed on the blog somehow represented things that I was interested in about Industrial design. This class was good to know about other aspects of industrial design. ID can be strictly based on marketability, sustainability, look, or concept.

In the beginning of the semester, I have discussed about designs that reuse obsolete or broken objects. They were not mass-produced and needed more time and effort to make. However those renewed objects gained new means of life and there was an effort of designers to reduce waste and re-think about what objects can do. I also discussed about human interaction with light. I was fascinated by how designs can manipulate the users’ interactions with the objects and how the users can participate in the way of using objects. Industrial designers have been thoughtful of the user interface. There are traditional ways of interaction and there are more unconventional ways of interaction that can grab the user’s attention and interest. However, even though I am interested in more of unique and unconventional designs, I don’t mean that I do not care about manufacturability or marketability. I am also very fascinated by the Danish functionalism that strips all the ornamental elements until the design only represents the function of the object. They are still mass-produced and loved by a big community of people who may be design-oriented and who may not. So in my chair studio, I’m struggling between the function of the chair and the concept of the chair. There are a lot of conceptual chairs in the world that have gained the attention of the media and press because of its concepts and wits. Some designers have taken the chairs to another level and did not consider them just as a piece of furniture. However, conceptual chairs risk being dysfunctional and uncomfortable causing controversies.


Last class, there was a controversial topic about conceptual design versus functionalistic design. Some argue that Campana brothers’ banquete chair and sushi chair and Droog’s rag chair are unproductive and too conceptual. Some people may argue that they are too crafty and too one-of-a-kind to be industrial design. It’s like a trend where they may be fun for a while but they are neither mass producible nor wanted by a lot of users. Also their users are very limiting because they are sometimes too expensive to afford and not comfortable. Some people think the most important aspect of a chair is comfort and manufacturability and others think a concept of a chair. I was struggling in the middle as well, because I think both are important, and it is hard to focus on both and trying to achieve everything is hard and overwhelming. It was good to see people with different opinions in class all standing up for their belief of what ID is.

So while I was looking for the definition of ID, I found an article by Gadi Amit. Gadi Amit from NewDealDesign wrote an article called “Definition of Industrial Design?” and he argues that the perception of Industrial Design is being marginalized by two approaches: Innovation and Art. Innovational design is products that are pro-business and added with new technology. IDSA website sites that “industrial Design is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.” On the other hand, “art” aspect of Industrial design is a kind of design work that we see in the media and in design exhibitions; a personal expression and discovery of new visuals and experiences.

Gadi also asserts that the definition of Industrial Design is vague and controversial and ID is one of the least understood professions in corporate America. He claims that “even within the ID community there exists no strong, crystallized definition.” He also claims that we need a third definition that “moves us away from a polarized innovation-or-gallery message; a third alternative to ensure that the complexity and beauty of our profession doesn’t boil down to just a ‘business-case’ or a ‘visual expression’” I agree with his statement because since ID embraces so many different aspects and fields of design that I easily get confused while I design in this major. So what can we do to prevent this confusion and argument over what ID really is?

Gadi appeals that the formal, visual, aesthetic, and conceptual elements are key tools but not goals of industrial design. Also he says that ID is not always about innovation or the most advanced or progressive ideas. He laments on how many design programs in schools place a lot of emphasis on the creation of a personal voice, which can lead to a catastrophic end-particularly at the start of a career. Thus many have no feasibility, manufacturing process or materials.

ID is so multi-faceted that it is easy to get lost while designing. Industrial designers have lots to consider such as form, function, desirability, manufacturability, affordability, cultural reference, and so on. ID is a synthesis of the visual, emotional, functional and cultural. Or, ID is simply “Design that is Industrial”