Articles and Essays 3 страница

William Lyons, founder of Jaguar Cars Sidecar, 1920s Production: Swallow Sidecar Company Jaguar SS 100, 1935 Production: S.S. Company (later renamed Jaguar Cars) Jaguar XK 120 Roadster, 1951 Production: Jaguar Cars C-Type Jaguar racing at Silverstone, July 1953 Production: Jaguar Cars D-Type Jaguar, 1954 Design: Malcolm Sayer Production: Jaguar Cars Jaguar 2.4 litre saloon, 1950s Production: Jaguar Cars E-Type Jaguar Series 1, 1961 Design: Malcolm Sayer Production: Jaguar Cars © JDHT An E-Type Jaguar roadster on the cover of The Motor magazine, mid-1960s E-Type Jaguar, Series 3 Production: Jaguar Cars © JDHT Jaguar XJ6, 1968 Production: Jaguar Cars The 'leaping cat' mascot used on Jaguar cars from 1937 Design: F. Gordon Crosby Production: Jaguar Cars

Article 8. Jaguar Car Manufacturer Great British Design Quest   From the sleek XK120 two-seater and Mark 1 saloon to the sexy E-Type sportscar, JAGUAR designed and built many of the best-loved British cars of the mid-20th century. The flair of its dynamic founder William Lyons made the Jaguar marque synonymous with seductively designed and sharply priced cars. When Jaguar Cars prepared to unveil its new sports car at the 1961 Geneva Motor Show, the founder, Sir William Lyons (1901-1985), insisted that an early production model was driven there all the way from the Coventry factory. The new E-Type only just got to Geneva in time. The suspense ensured that Jaguar’s sexy new sports car was a media sensation even before it was unveiled. Such stunts were typical of Lyons, who combined a salesman’s flair with an instinctive ability to anticipate what motorists wanted and the determination to deliver it at the right price. The E-Type was typical. With the promise of a top speed of 150mph (with a fair wind) and a price tag of £2,097 for a roadster – half the price of an Aston Martin – Jaguar billed it as Britain’s affordable answer to a flashy Italian Ferrari. Snapped up by celebrities such as the footballer George Best and George Harrison of the Beatles, the E-Type was among the most successful British cars of the 1960s and is still seen as a glamorous symbol of the era. It was one in a succession of successful cars that enabled Lyons to transform Swallow Sidecars, a tiny motorcycle sidecar manufacturer in the English seaside town of Blackpool, into Jaguar, one of the world’s most prestigious marques. Born in 1901 in Blackpool, where his father ran a music store, Lyons became obsessed by motorcycles as a teenager. At the age of 20 he bought a stylish aluminium Swallow sidecar made by a neighbour William Walmsley to add to his Norton motorcycle. The following year - 1922 - Lyons suggested that they went into business together and found a workshop for them to move to from the garage of Walmsley’s parents’ home. Swallow Sidecars flourished and in 1927 they diversified by adding their own bodywork to the chassis of an Austin Motors’ Austin Seven, the first affordable car to be made in Britain. They then started to build stylish cars by adding flamboyant bodywork to cheap chassis bought from Austin, Wolseley, Morris and Fiat. By 1928 orders were so brisk that they moved Swallow from Blackpool to the Foleshill Factory in Coventry, in the heart of the British motoring industry. In 1931 Lyons persuaded the Standard Motor Company to manufacture engines and chassis to their specifications and they produced their own branded cars, the SS1 and SS2. Three years later he bought out Walmsley’s share of the business, and renamed Swallow the S.S. Company. Realising that the next logical step was for S.S. to develop its own engines, Lyons assembled a talented team to do so. He already employed a talented coach builder to oversee the bodywork in Cyril Holland, and hired a brilliant design engineer William Heynes. In 1935 the S.S. Company introduced a sleek, low-slung car which its advertising agency christened the SS Jaguar. The following year Bill Rankin, the company’s public relations officer and a keen amateur sculptor, designed a mascot for the car’s radiator in the form of a leaping Jaguar. An unimpressed Lyons said that it looked: “like a cat shot off a fence”. During World War II the factory switched to military production of jeeps, sidecars and aircraft components. Lyons arranged for him and Heynes to be on fire watch duty together to plan how to rebuild the business in peacetime. As the initials SS were reminiscent of the Nazi regime, Lyons changed the company’s name to Jaguar Cars after the war and pursued his dream of producing a luxury saloon capable of being driven faster than 100mph. In October 1948 Lyons unveiled the Jaguar XK120 – or Super Sports – at the Earls Court Motor Show in London. To the war-weary British public in an era of rationing and the Utility Scheme, the pure lines and voluptuous curves of the two-seater sports car were breathtaking. Equally impressive was the luxurious interior with a walnut-trim dashboard and thick-pile carpet, and the six cylinder engine designed by Heynes and Wally Hassan with a hemispherical head, twin overhead camshafts and top speed of 126 mph. Lyons oversaw every detail of the car’s design, down to the stylishly skinny cross-ply tyres. Sought after by movie stars, like Clark Gable, Jaguar sold over 12,000 models of the XK120 from 1949 to 1954. By the early 1950s Lyons was investing heavily in motor racing, knowing that success there would enhance Jaguar’s appeal to ordinary motorists. Determined to win at Le Mans, he hired Malcolm Sayer (1916-1970), a gifted design engineer who had worked in the aviation industry for the Bristol Aeroplane Company, to develop the C-Type racing car. Believing that aerodynamic efficiency was of the utmost importance to a car, Sayer employed many of the techniques he had learnt at Bristol, including wind tunnel and smoke tests, to his work at Jaguar and based his designs on mathematical principles. The C-Type won at Le Mans in 1951 and 1953, and Sayer was given the go-ahead to develop a second racing car, the D-Type. It won at Le Mans three times in four years, but tragedy struck when Lyons’ son John died in a car crash on his way to the 1955 race. Lyons decided to withdraw from motor racing and to concentrate on road cars. He began with saloons, to take advantage of the growing demand for stylish family cars among the newly prosperous industrialists of the 1950s. In 1955 Jaguar launched the Mark 1, modelled on the de luxe Mark VII. The body shell broke new ground for the company. As a unitary construction, it had a stiffer base, while being lighter than the traditional separate chassis and body build. The front and rear of the car reflected Jaguar’s established design language, yet the side profile was completely new. The interior included modifications which would form the pattern for future Jaguars. The seats were deeper and wider, while the dashboard dials and gauges were moved from the centre to face the driver. A status symbol for upwardly mobile Britons in the late 1950s and popular as the villain’s car in gangster films and television crime shows, the Mark I was to be updated as the Mark II in 1959 and as the Mark II 240/340 in 1967. The appeal of the Jaguar marque was still rooted in sleek sports and racing cars, and Malcolm Sayer drew heavily on this in the long low lines, graceful curves and seemingly endless bonnet of the E-Type, which also sported Grand Prix detailing in its built-in headlights and baby radiator grille. Lyons’ own favourite E-Type was the fixed-head coupe developed by the gifted US-born sheet metal craftsman Bob Blake. The body was of monocoque construction with a front subframe for the engine. Four wheel disc brakes were fitted with a revolutionary independent rear suspension in a cradle mounted on the body by rubber blocks. Just a month after the launch of the original E-Type open-top roadster in Geneva, Graham Hill entered the E-Type for its first race at Oulton Park – and won. Jaguar was to make 72,500 E-types from 1961 to 1974. During the 1960s the company became embroiled in mergers and acquisitions. Lyons bought the Daimler marque in 1960, principally to secure access to its factory and skilled workforce in Coventry. In 1966 Jaguar merged with the British Motor Corporation and, two years later, became part of British Leyland. That year it launched the XJ6, developed by a team led by William Heynes. Quieter and less flamboyant in style than the E-Type, the XJ6 and Heynes’ powerful XK engine proved to be exceptionally popular. Lyons then focussed on the next step, the development of the yet more powerful V12 engine under Walter Hassan, which was launched in 1971. Lyons announced his retirement in 1972 to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the year that he had founded the company with William Walmsley. Having built Jaguar from scratch, Lyons had moulded the company in his image and fired it with his ambition, yet had the good sense to hire and reward gifted designers and engineers such as Sayer and Heynes. He continued to offer advice throughout his retirement, notably on the development of the XJ coupé. Yet Jaguar floundered without Lyons, losing its identity and commitment to quality in the travails of British Leyland. Jaguar was privatised in 1984, the year before Lyons’ death, and sold five years later to the Ford Motor Company, thereby ensuring the survival of one of Britain’s most famous motoring marques under US ownership. BIOGRAPHY 1901 Birth of William Lyons in Blackpool, Lancashire. 1921 Lyons buys an aluminium sidecar made by his neighbour William Walmsley. The following year they go into business as Swallow Sidecars. 1927 Swallow starts to make cars by constructing the bodywork to add to an Austin Seven chassis. 1928 The company moves from Blackpool to Coventry to be closer to its suppliers in the heartland of the British motor industry. 1931 Swallow strikes a deal with the Standard Motor Company to supply engines and customised chassis for the SS1 and SS2. 1934 Lyons buys Walmsley’s share of the business and changes its name to the S.S. Company. 1935 Launch of the SS Jaguar luxury saloon developed by William Heynes. 1939 With the outbreak of World War II, SS switches to military production. 1945 When the war ends, the company changes its name to Jaguar and resumes production of cars. 1948 The voluptuous XK120 – the Jaguar Super Sports – causes a sensation at the Earls Court Motor Show in London with a top speed of 126 mph, luxurious styling and a powerful engine. 1950 Lyons hires Malcolm Sayer, a gifted aerodynamicist, to design the C-Type racing car, which wins Le Mans in 1951 and 1953. 1954 After the success of the C-Type, Sayer designs the D-Type, which wins Le Mans three times. 1955 Launch of the Jaguar Mark I luxury saloon, a unitary construction, with deep seats and racing-style dials facing the driver. 1959 The Mark I saloon is updated as the Mark II. 1960 Jaguar buys the Daimler car company to secure its production facilities and skilled workforce in Coventry. 1961 Launch of Jaguar’s E-Type sports car as an open-top two-seater with a top speed of 150 mph and a price of £2,097, half the price of an Aston Martin. 1966 Jaguar becomes part of the British Motor Corporation. 1967 The Mark II saloon is updated as the Mark II 240/340. 1968 Launch of the XJ6 sports car with William Heynes’ powerful XK engine. Jaguar becomes part of British Leyland. 1971 Launch of the V12 engine developed by Walter Hassan. 1972 William Lyons retires from Jaguar. 1984 After a difficult period under British Leyland’s ownership, Jaguar is privatised. 1985 Death of William Lyons. 1989 Jaguar is bought by the Ford Motor Company. FURTHER READING Philip Porter, Paul Skilleter, Sir William Lyons: The Official Biography, Haynes Group, 2001 Eric Dymock, Jaguar File, Dove Publishing, 2004 Martin Buckley, Jaguar: Fifty Years of Speed and Style, Haynes Group, 2002 Nigel Thorley, Jaguar E-Type, Haynes Group, 2001 Jeff Daniels, Jaguar: The Engineering Story, Haynes Group, 2004 Jonathan Wood, Jaguar E-Type: The Complete Story, The Crowood Press, 1998 Nigel Thorley, Jaguar: All the Cars, Haynes Group, 2003 © Design Museum designmusem.com

Mekong, 2006 Gala Wright Delta Chair, 2006 Gala Wright Shelflife, 2006 Charles Trevelyan Helve, 2006 Charles Trevelyan Standing Hanger, 2006 Magnus Long Petit Fleur, 2006 Magnus Long Shoe Shelves, 2006 Maqgnus Long Portrait, 2006 Viable

Article 9. Viable Furniture, Product and Lighting Designers (1979- + 1974- + 1970-) Design Mart – Design Museum Exhibition 20 September 2006 – 7 January 2007 The mid 1990s began a phase in which amorphous forms predominated in design. After almost a decade, there has been a recent return to the hard edges and precision offered by geometric principles. Whether out of a desire for stability in an increasingly unstable world, or the challenge of creating forthright objects that belie their complex computational formation, designers are again embracing sophisticated geometries. The overriding sense is a maturation of design, and is typified by the work of the young design company, Viable. Magnus Long (1979-), Charles Trevelyan (1974-) and Gala Wright (1970-) established Viable in 2005 after meeting at the Milan Furniture Fair that year. As they make the transition towards designing more collaborative products, Viable affords the three designers a platform to debate and promote each other’s respective ideas and processes. Influenced by her degree in physics, Gala Wright’s work explores the interplay of opposing forces. The elegant Delta seating system blurs the boundaries between rigid and flexible structures while the Mekong table – a luminescent globe caught within a glass cube – plays on the optical illusions created by the materials. Charles Trevelyan's integrated shelving and chair unit, Shelflife and the Helve chair and footstool are intricately calibrated structures that speak of Trevelyan’s background in engineering and his discerning appreciation of the end-user’s needs. Beyond functional storage solutions, Magnus Long’s Standing Hanger and Shoe Shelves provide rigorously researched and elegant sculptural installations. But it is Long’s Petit Fleur light – a pendant lampshade that fits over the waist of a light bulb – that best captures the Viable spirit: manufacturable and marketable furniture and lighting designs that can also enjoy a light-heartedness in an often overly serious industry. Q. When did you each first become aware of – and interested in – design? Magnus: I remember brainstorming with my family when I was eight, we were seeking alternative uses for a BIC Biro. My big idea was a device for planting seeds – pushing the shell of the pen into the soil and dropping the seed down the shaft. In the end we came up with over 80 alternative uses. That kind of thinking was always encouraged in my family, especially by my father. Gala: I was always interested in how things were put together and preferred making working robots out of my brothers’ cars and cardboard boxes than playing with dolls. My mother has always been a keen collector of furniture, textiles and ceramics – which undoubtedly had a huge influence on my appreciation of design across a wide range objects. Charles: Similarly, I think parental influence was a key factor. As my father is a mechanical engineer he was always building us toys and encouraging us to investigate, while my mother has a keen eye for design, and encouraged a more artistic side. The first inkling of design aptitude was when I would create meticulous 3D birthday cards for my family in paper and cardboard. I didn’t study any visual arts or design through school, so it wasn’t until after university that this interest was properly rekindled. Q. Why did you decide to study design? M: I didn’t ever consider any other subjects other than design. I studied maths, physics and design prior to my degree in furniture and product design, and it was the combination of logic and creative, abstract thought that appealed to me. I like exploration and investigation. G: Being very academic at school led to me studying physics at university the first time round, and it wasn't until later, after becoming disillusioned with my job in film, that I took a step back and was able to think about what I really wanted to do, and how I could better employ my brain! C: My academic background led me down a scientific path. At the time, I was deciding between a degree in the sciences/engineering, or something more creative such as architecture or design. I knew that I could always return to design if necessary, so chose materials engineering. While very interesting, I knew I’d prefer to be working in a more creative discipline. I went on to do a one year postgraduate course at art school which covered a fairly broad range of areas including some design, albeit far removed from a more formal product or furniture design course. From here I took a roundabout path, finally getting back into 3D design through graphic design. Q. Which of your early projects was most important in defining your approach to your work? M: The Standing Hanger was a concept I originally had five years ago at university – it was a wire frame back then. I was studying how people use their clothes on a day-to-day basis: from the washing machine to the wardrobe to the bedroom floor. It was fascinating hearing about people’s different clothes-management-habits. I also wanted to consider how wheelchair users interact with clothes rails; often they are too high to reach so the Standing Hanger was intended to enable them to grip the rigid frame from a lower vantage point. The idea of creating one design for many people is something I always strive to achieve and I would like to explore Inclusive Design more. G: Although my approach is constantly evolving, I’d say that drawing on my science background, and working with tubular metal produced the folding, rocking loop lounger, which relies heavily on mechanics to make it work. C: I can’t really name a specific piece, largely because I feel that my approach has developed over a number of years working in areas other than design, and that my early projects were a result of this development of ideas. Also, I feel that my approach varies considerably depending on the project at hand. Q. What was it about each other’s work that drew you together? A. When we met in Milan in April 2005, we knew very little about each other's work apart from the pieces we were exhibiting there. At the time we were all under-whelmed by the poor exhibition designs on display and, over drinks, started drawing pictures of our ideal exhibition stand (incidentally, we used that concept five months later at our launch exhibition in a gymnasium in Kings Cross). We discussed the idea of forming a design studio together and came to know more about our respective portfolios. Because we each have quite distinct styles we felt we could create a more dynamic mix than if we were all producing similar work. Most importantly, we recognised in each other common goals and a commitment and dedication to driving our work forwards. Another very important aspect was that we all seemed to get along together and hence work well as a group; a strong dynamic is essential. Q. How do group projects work within the studio – what is the division of labour? A. Although we each bring different skills to the group, fundamentally we’re all designers and therefore there aren’t any distinct roles within the studio. We work collaboratively right from the beginning of a project, when we tend to bounce ideas back and forth between us. Often at that point we’ll each take up a particular concept to work into a design, but we’ll meet and review progress regularly to ensure that the project follows a direction we’re all happy with. We are beginning to differentiate the work we each do according to our own particular skills (for example Charles does much of the graphics work), but we all still contribute to every phase of the project and debate the issues of the day. Q. How did the design of the Petit Fleur project develop? M: The light bulb is a beautiful shape; it has a bulging waist and because it is made in glass, it’s very easy to see and understand what’s going on inside - Petit Fleur was meant as dressing for a bulb; a tutu from a Degas picture. However, the most important aspect of the design is that the shade hangs directly from the bulb and so avoids having a separate fitting. The bottom petal shape hangs lower on the bulb’s waist as it has a larger hole in the centre. The shape is laser cut and is packaged like a record in its own cardboard sleeve. That means it’s easy to store and transport in larger volumes. Q. How did the design of the Mekong project develop? G: I'd wanted to design an object that used the properties of a one-way-mirror, which the Mekong table did by producing multiple reflections when the internal light source was switched on. I decided to make the light removable so that the reflective properties could be appreciated. The cube is a more convenient size but also demonstrates the one-way-mirror effect even more dramatically, as the light is contained completely inside the cube. Q. How did the design of the Shelflife project develop? C: I wanted to create a piece with a distinct visual identity that retained a strong functional aspect. It was an idea that had been lurking for a while without becoming anything more tangible. Having watched people struggling to browse, read and hold books at the same time, it seemed that somewhere to sit and read would be a useful addition to a bookshelf. The obvious progression of the idea was to then combine these two functions; the chair was the starting point for the overall form with its angles dictating the surrounding structure of the shelving unit. I wanted to avoid something that looked like “multipurpose furniture”, hence the chair and side table became almost part of the structure of the shelves rather than trying to hide or tuck them away. The various angled and straight shelves were carefully considered to provide a range of storage and display spaces – the overall form has a strongly angular, almost graphic appearance. Q. What is the balance between concept and commerciality in your work? M: For me the concept comes first and then the question ‘is it commercial?’ If the answer is no, it either needs more development or needs to be ditched. There are so many criteria for ‘good design’ and for me this includes commerciality – there has to be a desire or need something. Abstract-concepts with no tangible purpose are probably something else outside of design. G: I think it depends on the project. Different projects are designed for different outcomes. Although the ideal is for the product to garner interest from both consumers and the industry, some of the more attention grabbing products gather more industry interest than customer interest. There is definitely a need to increase the commercial appeal of our products now that we have been successful in attracting industry interest, and I think my time at Habitat was invaluable in helping me recognise what this is. C: While we feel strongly about designing pieces that are manufacturable, a new design studio such as Viable needs to generate attention in order to attract sales and commissions. To date we have focused largely on profile, and therefore we have produced several concept driven pieces such as Shelflife, Striata and Gala’s Hide’n’Peek bed. We are working on a new range of work to be launched next year that draws upon the styles we have developed to date, but brings them back to something that is more commercially attractive. Q. Have your objectives changed since forming Viable? A. On forming the studio last year, we set out to build a dynamic design studio producing ideas for manufacturable products, increase our own standard as individual designers and create a momentum between us. These objectives have remained fairly constant throughout the first year and we continue to build on this. However, from a creative point of view, we are working in a far more collaborative way from an earlier stage of the design process than we did previously. By pooling our ideas at the beginning of a project, we are finding that the end result holds true to the ideals we have set out, and there is less backtracking. © Design Museum designmusem.com

Lost and Found, 2005 &Made Finials, 2006 &made in collaboration with Us-Creates Memory Bench, 2006 &made Lost and Found table, 2005 &made Much Kneaded, 2005 &made David Cameron (left) and Toby Hadden (right) 2006 Either Oar, 2006 &made Either Oar, 2006 &made The Spair, 2005 &made

Article 10. &made Product Designers (1981- + 1982-) Design Mart - Design Museum Exhibition 20 September 2006 - 7 January 2 Designers today face enormous challenges and very significant opportunities to not only respond to world events with practical design solutions but also to heighten awareness of these issues through design. Since graduating from Goldsmiths’ BA design degree in 2005, David Cameron (1981-) and Toby Hadden (1982-) of &made have initiated such social, cultural and environmental dialogues through their products. Their 2005 ‘Lost & Found' collection highlighted issues of waste and excess by imbuing new life and meaning into salvaged furniture sections with reclaimed timber. More recently, the noticeable increase of natural disasters – the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Kashmir earthquake – has encouraged &made to investigate issues of climate change through a range of objects for emergency situations. The Climatised Objects address the fact that in a crisis people generally improvise with whatever is to hand, not matter how ill-suited the object or material may be. In response, &made have embedded dual-functionality into this new range, offering practical and covetable domestic products that moonlight as life-saving devices. By crafting a sturdy but buoyant dining table with removable legs which convert into oars, &made offer an ad hoc raft in the event of a flash flood. In earthquake scenarios, an unassuming vase switches to an emergency torch on impact if knocked from its ledge, while a series of picture frames convert to flashing navigational aids, much like floor-based emergency lighting on airplanes, at the first instance of a tremor. Far from being alarmist – the Climatised Objects not only merge concept and solutions led design into a desirable range, but are a wry critique on the production of sensational but purposeless objects at a time of environmental crisis. © Design Museum Q. When did you each first become aware of – and interested in – design? David. My first childhood memory of design was making animals from coconut shells with my grandfather in his garden shed! But my real interest developed while studying fine art at school. I was looking at the sculptor Eduardo Paolozzi and making crazy large sculptures from the scraps of cars and washing machines… I distinctly remember enjoying taking a jigsaw to a washing machine drum, it was pretty messy! Toby. As a kid I had a raw interest in constructing things. I spent hours making large, strange and dangerous tree houses with my brother, longing to make the ultimate and most comfortable tree house. At college I was eager to exploit the machinery and processes available in the workshop, which were much more alluring than the academic subjects. Q. Why did you decide to study design? D. Although I never studied Design & Technology, my art lessons offered an opportunity to spend time in the workshop, while also learning about the history and evolution of technology through various essays and projects. It sparked a real interest in objects and an understanding of how things are made and the practicalities of working with different materials. T. Partly it was a reaction to the overwhelming academicism at my college – so I spent most of my time sculpting and painting. At Goldsmiths College in London I realised that I could create a balance between the academic and the creative, through their very specific conceptual approach to design. Q. What was the influence of Goldsmiths on your work? D. I really engaged with the creative process at Goldsmiths, which helped me approach my work in a more unique way, for example enabling me to design objects inspired by the sausage. What was equally important was the freedom within the course to apply this lateral way of thinking to any discipline of design. This allowed a range of students, specialising in graphics, textiles, furniture and web design to work alongside one another and learn from each other, which is a great working environment to be in. T. Before Goldsmiths I had an interest in ‘hands-on’ and material based work, but with no specific direction. The College brought some context to my work but also developed the conceptual side of my work. I was now able appreciate how to turn non-functional objects into functional objects – whereas before the focus was primarily on an object’s aesthetic. Because the course encourages you to think rather than do, it makes you realise what you love about design, because you’re the one who has to teach yourself the physical and program based side of design. Q. How have your objectives evolved since leaving Goldsmith’s? A. Our objectives have evolved in the same direction, ultimately leading us to establish &made. We share a consideration of what is being made and how it sits within a social or cultural context. Our core interests still lie in development and learning as individuals, but since taking that step from students to ‘designers’, we’ve questioned why and what we are actually doing it for. Our objectives are still to design these conceptual pieces but to introduce socially or culturally ethical observations, which then define the object’s function. We also aim to have a lot of fun doing it! Q. Which of your early projects was most important in defining your approach to your work? T. For me it was a brief from Foundation 33 – resulting in the ‘Spair’. In response to the requirements of open plan living, the Spair is a flat packed chair that sits on the wall as a graphic or tableau. When needed, the lightweight piece can be taken down and unfolded into a spare chair. I felt this encompassed all aspects of my design process, thoroughly worked through to completion. But it was also coming to terms with my working method – that my objects develop through a series of experiments rather than sketches. Still to this day I’d much rather work through a 3D programme than in a sketch book. D. The first university-based project that required us to take a brief and work it through to a resolved outcome was of enormous influence on my working practice. I realised I needed to work through pages of my sketchbook and developing a solid concept, almost a set of rules for the final outcome to meet, before actually attempting to design the object itself. The brief was to design an object for a new office space where three design companies were merging. The concept I took for this project was a set of objects that would reflect the evolving movement and interaction within this new space. I created a range of paperclips that had set locations around the office, including a key-shaped paperclip that lived near the entrance, a coffee stirrer paperclip in the kitchen and a pin paperclip in the notice board. Q. Given that your working methods are very different, how does the division of labour work at &made? D. We both see the project through from start to finish. Once we have established the direction of a project, we develop the idea both together and individually. I’ll prefer to get going in my sketchbook while Toby will start in the workshop. We’ll also sit down and discuss it together. When working individually we drive each other on, as we’re both aware of the time and effort the other has put in and aim to balance that out. Q. How did the Climatised Objects project develop? A. ‘Climatised Objects’ developed from our diamonds in the rough – rich ideas mined from previous projects that we store for a later point when they may become useful. When working through a project we always hit upon a number of ideas, some of which are relevant for a current project and others that might have potential at a later date. ‘Climatised Objects’ has been something that we have been discussing for a while. We’ve always wanted to do a project that translates the way people in emergency situations use everyday objects in innovative ways in order to stay alive. Although we are all becoming more aware of climate change, we felt that it is still a subject that is often put aside. It is not pleasant to consider that we are gradually destroying our own environment, which has led to an increase in natural disasters and extreme weather. The effects of climate change can leave us facing dangerous situations in our own home, where we are affected by destructive elements such as flooding and earthquakes. Rather than shy away from these negative processes, our ideal was to offer functional solutions in these increasing times of crises. In the case of the earthquake series, these objects rely on the vibrations of an earthquake to then offer themselves as emergency aids. ‘Climatised Objects’ address climate while also playing with public perceptions of the objects. In the case of ‘either oar’, people initially see a dining table but are then drawn closer by the subtle nautical detailing that suggest something more. By exploring the table people are drawn to the central influences on the project. Its about &made pushing forward issues of climate change – not by pushing it into their faces, but allowing them to discover this through the experience of the object. Q. What is the balance between ethics and functionality in your work? A. At &made there is a definite awareness of what things are made from and how they are made, but the projects prioritise the life of the object and what people experience whilst using them. It’s about both the function of the object and the ethical standpoint from which it is derived. Ultimately we want to create objects that people enjoy, but which also have a serious ethical dialogue behind them. Q. And narrative – how important is the story behind the work? A. The narrative defines the starting point from which we begin each project and it is what each object aims to bring people’s attention to. Previously, in our Lost & Found series, the narrative has been the nature of today’s throwaway culture. It differs in every project we undertake, it may be addressing a problem that everyone experiences in their daily life or instead might aim to bring attention to larger but overlooked issues. FURTHER READING Visit &made’s website at and-made.com

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: