Dry

Story and Painting by Lehan Winifred Ramsay

Lately I have been thinking about the effect that Apple had on design. On the one hand, Apple has introduced a very strong kind of design that is immediately recognizable, not only for being Apple but also for being GOOD design. But inside of that, Apple threw away some of the important core meanings of GOOD design. They threw away durability (with products that have to be replaced too often), they threw away heritage (with products that can NOT be kept) and they threw away flexibility (with products that can not be re-used.

I have always thought that Apple design was very Japanese, and it is interesting to use Apple as an example of “Japanese Design”. It is very beautiful, it has an other-worldly quality about it, it’s sometimes as if the design is enough to justify its existence, no function needed. That brief, slick, cute and eerily perfect product? Before Apple, it was Japanese Design.

But after the earthquake of March 2011, in a time of new understanding of the frailty of our environment and our responsibility to it and ourselves to care for it, it may be time for a re-think. Part of re-thinking is about changing perception. If we consider that Apple is the world’s most successful example of “Japanese Design”, and we look at those problem areas – durability, heritage and flexibility – can we make a blue-print for a new definition of GOOD design?