With this post, I send many apologies for the time between this and the last post. I hope you won’t hold a grudge. A great friend of mine sent me this video a couple of days ago thinking that it would be good for a discussion, and I agree. What I find most interesting about this concept is:
- Biomimicry – In this case humans. Not only can designing by imitating nature help to solve very complex problems, it can also create a very non-traditional emotional response to the artifact. Artifacts that blur the lines between nature and machine are often more interesting than machines that are obvious.
- A Shift in Paradigm – “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” – Alvin Toffler This is not saying that all previous information is bad, building upon existing knowledge is what allows us to grow. But we need to also continue to re-evaluate the knowledge that we are building upon to make sure that it is relevant in the present and in the future. I think that this is a great example, to me it seems that car manufacturing is very rarely creative. This could be a great shift into a new form of creativity.
- Viral Marketing – Added on June 9th, this video has already been viewed by well over 3 million people. It amazes me how good of a job viral internet can spread the word about something.
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 26th, 2008 at 2:10 pm and is filed under design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You bring up 3 good points. I have some concerns about the durability of the stretchable fabric material – how well can it resist dust, dirt and grime? What happens when it rips? Do you just stitch it together leaving a “scar”? An expensive replacement? The human-looking eyes are scary…
You bring up 3 good points. I have some concerns about the durability of the stretchable fabric material – how well can it resist dust, dirt and grime? What happens when it rips? Do you just stitch it together leaving a “scar”? An expensive replacement? The human-looking eyes are scary…
June 30th, 2008
1:09 pm
Those are good points, though, I think that if these were in mass production they could be seen as disposable skins. They most certainly should be less expensive than metals that have to be custom molded and painted.
One of the biggest problems preventing cars from being able to have cradle to cradle lives(http://www.mbdc.com/c2c/) is that the paints that we use to colour them doesn’t separate from the metals that are painted on. Therefore, every time that we try to recycle a car, the quality of the aluminum for the exterior degrades. If the skin of this car was able to be recycled at 100% quality then cars would be much more able to exist within closed loops of production, and cost of the skin would go way down.
Those are good points, though, I think that if these were in mass production they could be seen as disposable skins. They most certainly should be less expensive than metals that have to be custom molded and painted.
One of the biggest problems preventing cars from being able to have cradle to cradle lives(http://www.mbdc.com/c2c/) is that the paints that we use to colour them doesn’t separate from the metals that are painted on. Therefore, every time that we try to recycle a car, the quality of the aluminum for the exterior degrades. If the skin of this car was able to be recycled at 100% quality then cars would be much more able to exist within closed loops of production, and cost of the skin would go way down.
June 30th, 2008
3:53 pm
I apologize for sounding ignorant, but it seems so strange that it has taken a ‘big-profile’ car company so long to come up with the concept of ’skin’ as the actual exterior shell of a vehicle. Us humans, are definitely funny beings …. we seem to do a lot of things backwards or go about design the most round-about way. For how long have aboriginal peoples been using the skins of animals for the shells of canoes and other devices of carrying items or people from Point A to Point B? It seems really weird to me, after seeing GINA, that this idea has not been previously widely pursued. How come no one thought of it earlier on? The concept already existed; why didn’t anyone take it further at the beginning of the car design process? Even airplanes at the time were being designed with fabric-like shells; how come Mr. Ford didn’t think “Hmmm, there’s an idea! Maybe I should cover my Model T with some sort of flexible fiber!” Perhaps it has something to do with the steel (as well as other metals) industry and the oil industry and those who control these industries monopolizing the design of transportation to generate large incomes for themselves at the expense of bad ideas and reeking havoc on our environment. It seems funny that even as very young children, we, humans, learn through mimicry, but when it comes to creating things as adults, we completely abandon early childhood education and embrace the most difficult way to assemble a vehicle (not to mention the most unnatural – both in concept as well as the destructive environmental impact). And then, when we see machine mimicking human behaviour, we are creeped out. But, the “BMW humanesque eyes” are SUPER CREEPY!
Also, I find the links between the notions of this post and the ‘Das Rad’ post very interesting.
I apologize for sounding ignorant, but it seems so strange that it has taken a ‘big-profile’ car company so long to come up with the concept of ’skin’ as the actual exterior shell of a vehicle. Us humans, are definitely funny beings …. we seem to do a lot of things backwards or go about design the most round-about way. For how long have aboriginal peoples been using the skins of animals for the shells of canoes and other devices of carrying items or people from Point A to Point B? It seems really weird to me, after seeing GINA, that this idea has not been previously widely pursued. How come no one thought of it earlier on? The concept already existed; why didn’t anyone take it further at the beginning of the car design process? Even airplanes at the time were being designed with fabric-like shells; how come Mr. Ford didn’t think “Hmmm, there’s an idea! Maybe I should cover my Model T with some sort of flexible fiber!” Perhaps it has something to do with the steel (as well as other metals) industry and the oil industry and those who control these industries monopolizing the design of transportation to generate large incomes for themselves at the expense of bad ideas and reeking havoc on our environment. It seems funny that even as very young children, we, humans, learn through mimicry, but when it comes to creating things as adults, we completely abandon early childhood education and embrace the most difficult way to assemble a vehicle (not to mention the most unnatural – both in concept as well as the destructive environmental impact). And then, when we see machine mimicking human behaviour, we are creeped out. But, the “BMW humanesque eyes” are SUPER CREEPY!
Also, I find the links between the notions of this post and the ‘Das Rad’ post very interesting.
July 2nd, 2008
11:20 pm
Thanks for the post mitra. :)
I don’t think that sounds ignorant at all! It is amazing how long it takes us to figure these design problems out. Per and I were discussing a similar topic the other day and he mentioned that our evolution often seems to work a lot like the herringbone method of design/problem solving, in which you mostly work laterally and gradually move forward to find the solution to the problem. The more complex the problem, the greater amount of information there is to filter through to solve it.
To the misfortune of the automobile, it doesn’t seem that their design has even been lead by the proper problem. I would assume that the initial design problem was transportation from A to B. This problem is not complex and was solved in no time. In order for automobile manufacturers to stay in business within our wonderful economic system, they would have to produce new products that were better than the last, and thus invent new design problems.
These new problems would have been market driven and since energy is sooo cheap, the market was not asking for innovation to make cars lighter, more efficient, and more sustainable, but rather bigger, stronger, and faster. Until recently, we haven’t seemed to have any reason to change these design problems, and thus the ultimate car of the 20th century was big and strong and fast (BS&F).
The automobile market is now in a bit of a transitionary phase. People still like their BS&F, but are now faced with high energy prices to influence their buying decision. So it is quite possible that people don’t exactly know what they want now, and for designers that might be liberating. Automobile manufacturers aren’t necessarily having to innovate with the BS&F in mind, and can now approach new design problems in witch they can re-create the idea of what a car is.
So what can we learn from our slow and clumsy approach to design thus far?
Change the economic system! If our economic system put a true value on natural capital, all of this would be different. But of course, hindsight is 20/20.
Oh, and I like the link you made between Das Rad and and this…. but I think I will let someone else talk now. :)
Thanks for the post mitra. :)
I don’t think that sounds ignorant at all! It is amazing how long it takes us to figure these design problems out. Per and I were discussing a similar topic the other day and he mentioned that our evolution often seems to work a lot like the herringbone method of design/problem solving, in which you mostly work laterally and gradually move forward to find the solution to the problem. The more complex the problem, the greater amount of information there is to filter through to solve it.
To the misfortune of the automobile, it doesn’t seem that their design has even been lead by the proper problem. I would assume that the initial design problem was transportation from A to B. This problem is not complex and was solved in no time. In order for automobile manufacturers to stay in business within our wonderful economic system, they would have to produce new products that were better than the last, and thus invent new design problems.
These new problems would have been market driven and since energy is sooo cheap, the market was not asking for innovation to make cars lighter, more efficient, and more sustainable, but rather bigger, stronger, and faster. Until recently, we haven’t seemed to have any reason to change these design problems, and thus the ultimate car of the 20th century was big and strong and fast (BS&F).
The automobile market is now in a bit of a transitionary phase. People still like their BS&F, but are now faced with high energy prices to influence their buying decision. So it is quite possible that people don’t exactly know what they want now, and for designers that might be liberating. Automobile manufacturers aren’t necessarily having to innovate with the BS&F in mind, and can now approach new design problems in witch they can re-create the idea of what a car is.
So what can we learn from our slow and clumsy approach to design thus far?
Change the economic system! If our economic system put a true value on natural capital, all of this would be different. But of course, hindsight is 20/20.
Oh, and I like the link you made between Das Rad and and this…. but I think I will let someone else talk now. :)
July 3rd, 2008
12:33 am