Design thinking

Small Design by JK Shearon
Small Design

Even at a very young age we have begun to examine our creations.  We wonder what should be adjusted, if the proportion is correct, if juxtaposition is satisfying, and so forth.  This does not need to be a taught behavior.  It is an inherited behavior.  I expect many people have this perspective on creations, but some explore it more than others.  And some are allowed or encouraged more than others to take what time they need to look a thing over.  Not that parents need to say, “boy, look at this,” or that, or anything.  But that children be given the time and the space to find relationships and think about them, should be an imperative.

As a photographer…

..or unsatisfied, or semi-professional, or fill-in-the-label photographer, I often look at my photos and I do see the world around me.  I see what I am interested in recording. I see the things I want others to see, things that I saw.  Sometimes those images are works of art, the art of nature for instance.  But the art we must create, that burns deep down inside to get out, is for me often not the art that happens all around me.  It is instead, like a design inside of us, an idea that needs expression.  I might search every day to find a naturally occurring image to record that expresses that idea.  But if I wait for that image to unfold before me by chance of place and time, wait for it to happen, that image may never be made.

So one thing for you…  if you are like me… and you have these ideas inside, maybe the best thing we can do is to make enough of a studio space with whatever we can muster to bring forth and create the raw idea with light, and color, and media.  Whether with canvas, camera, metal or clay, the artist should act and not wait.  My camera is in this room; there is light and color in this room; don’t wait.  At the moment you conceive the work, practice the art.  This is why the photographer constantly carries the camera.  [jk]

The face of Mazda

With self-publishing what it is today, it is easy to poke fun or critique designs.  Cars are probably among the easiest targets.  Cars often exhibit some of the most adventurous changes in design, but there are always some designs that should not have happened.

Sheet metal forming technology took a great leap forward in the first decade of the third millennium.  All of a sudden designers can do things to thin-gauge auto bodies that in past decades they might have only dreamed of doing.  Now we see designers putting creases and curves everywhere.  Frequently we see these doodads of design where they ought not be.  And sometimes new capabilities produce astonishing design.

I love Mazda vehicles; I have owned two.  The first was a 1992 Protege purchased new, in which I had more fun than my BMW 320i and then there was the 1999 Miata.  The Miata was not as tossable as the lowered and re-shocked Protege.  But it was a fun vehicle none the less.  I continue to follow Mazda developments.  As the new Mazdas have come out in the last decade or so I have been saddened to see Mazda do some things with auto design, well, it appears for no other reason than because they could.

The front end-heavy CX-5 is a good example of a mis-proportioned automobile design.  I have borrowed this image from Mazda to illustrate my point.  Now part of the problem is the car cannot decide what it is.  This alone is sometimes a disturbing trend in car culture, but someone has to push the envelope, so no foul with the intent really.  But the problems with this design are twofold.

Mazda must dump the grinning vehicle look.  It is a caricature of a car.  The look demeans car design.  It makes a wonderful brand a joke.  All the designers know there is something really wrong there.  But not only have they made this mistake because no one had the guts to raise their hand and say they did not want to go zoom-zoom in a clown face, they have propagated this look to almost every model in the lineup.  Please.  Stop.  The whole front of the car is too long and too heavy, mis-proportioned.  I will not get into the C pillar which many other brands also continue as a violence against good design by juxtaposing disagreeing lines.  Oh wait, I just did.  Sorry.

But wait, there’s more.

  

  

On the CX-9, Mazda have actually made and maintained a beautiful C-Pillar.  It flows and returns to elegant design.  But the frontal area of the CX-9 transformation actually provides evolutionary evidence of their current trend of proportional malfeasance.  Witness the 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2016 transformation of the CX-9.   From the upper left image, in 2007, respectable if somewhat reserved grille.  But in 2012 the grin begins.  2014 sees the adoption of the clown fascia.  And 2016 gives us the full-on heavy, “I don’t know what I am anymore” look, with a very low chin.

Of course, all of this can be reactified… by a savvy and courageous designer. [jk]

Design form & function

Growing up “tuned in” to performance cars.  I routinely read Road & Track and Autoweek among other magazines.  I learned early from the gearhead (complementary term for us) columnists and reporters that form follows function.  Later in life I finished my Design education.  For me, a new picture of design emerged.  It’s not so much that form or function follow the other.  Good design happens when form and function get married and become as one.  Good design is the result of that marriage.  So in the words of my Design professors perhaps we could say form and function inform each other.

At motographic we seek out designs that follow this notion that form and function agree.  We write short posts to call attention to designs that follow or break this convention.  The posts are the opinions of our three editors.  Those editors come from three entirely different backgrounds.  So sometimes there is agreement and sometimes disagreement.  Hopefully readers will find these writings informative and amusing.  [jk]