Food Design is nothing but advertising

This is not fooddesign. it's cooking

-->

Food has become a socially relevant subject in a short space of time. This is understandable because the theme has a direct connection with major health issues, such as obesity, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. In addition, food has a direct relationship to even much larger themes such as global warming, plastic soup, over-consumption, biodiversity and water consumption.

Food also has a moral side. Should you cut a pregnant sturgeon because her eggs are so delicious: caviar? And is it okay for 15 chickens to spend their lives on 1 square meter? At this moment, everything on our planet that is keeping us busy, can be related to food.

Growth because of relevance

When a subject has that degree of relevance, designers will poke their noses into it. It understandable from an economic perspective: where something changes, there is something to earn from it. Apart from that: most designers like to engage with issues that are significant to us.

As a result, a whole army of food designers have started to emerge. This platoon is developing rapidly, because there already is a bachelor department at the Design Academy Eindhoven, headed by the uncrowned queen of food design, Marije Vogelzang. Furthermore, food designers have graduated from different universities as well, so this growth is unstoppable.

Yet I wonder what designers are actually doing in this sector. Not a whole lot I believe. It can’t be the design of food, since there is already a profession for that. Someone who determines which ingredients are used, how the food is prepared and how it is served we call cooks or chefs. Whether it is a star chef or it is Unilever who recently made the Unox pea soup with less salt. Cooks and chefs discuss this, in consultation with their managers. No designers involved. If a designer really wants to design food, I suggest that he or she takes a cookery course. It is the shortest route and it is a guarantee for the best training in food design. And be aware: the design process of a meal resembles the design process of a designer. Good chefs are already good designers.

They are creative, they have a plan, they listen to the customer and to themselves. They can handle assignments, they can make budgets and send an invoice. They often make prototypes and usually tweak the prototype again, based on the feedback they are getting. In short: chef = designer. Let's not pretend that designers know better, because we don’t.

Branding and advertising

I fear that designers play a big role in the branding of food - to give people the feeling that food can be authentic, that love and care has been put into it. Designers therefore make a lot of chalkboards to write the menus on, because then the food seems fresher. They serve on plates with surprising, uneven shapes or even on pieces of stone. They design different uniforms for the waitresses, they design different menus and invent cheerful, creative names for the dishes.

Can we call this food design? No, this is food branding or simply advertising. 90 percent of all those food designers are part of the advertising industry without knowing it. They invent new ways of selling food. Name a chicken leg: 'primeval poultry roasted in sesame oil' or call sauerkraut 'Choucroute'. Or add a story about the origin of the salt that is used in the butter.

These examples were real and there a numerous other: everybody can tell a few. Designers are popular in the food industry because they can create the illusion of small scale, authenticity and creativity. Values that we like to connect with food. Food designers dress up, pack, articulate, drape, envelop, embellish and stylize. Practically all used to be the competences of the advertising craftsman.

Designers are often praised for the 'awareness' they can create, and also around this theme. We no longer expect solutions from designers but take pleasure in 'generating awareness'. It is true that awareness is the first step towards change in complex systems like the food industry is. And it is valuable that someone is doing so.

Can I point out that generating awareness used to be a typical advertising task as well? Do you remember the hundreds of commercials for non-drunk driving. Or for safe sex, careful with fireworks, careful with drugs and social workers? They were all products from larger advertising agencies. All to create 'awareness'. I'll just say it once more: designers in food are primarily concerned with advertising.

-->

Het ontwerpproces van Jip & Janneke

Zo veel spraakverwarring er heerst over wat design is, zo eenstemmig is de designwereld over het karakter van het design-proces. In vrijwel álle publicaties over design methodologie zijn soortgelijke beschrijvingen met bijbehorende schema’s te vinden. We kunnen het misschien niet eens worden over wat het vak behelst maar in elk geval wél over welk proces wat er aan ten grondslag ligt.

Maar kloppen al die schema’s en die proces beschrijvingen eigenlijk wel? Volgens mij niet. De wekelijkheid van een designproces is veel complexer, chaotischer en onvoorspelbaarder dan de vakliteratuur ons willen doen geloven. Wat ons voorgespiegeld wordt is een versimpeling van de werkelijkheid.  

Het archetypische designproces bestaat uit 5 onderdelen.

1. Na de opdrachtformulering is er een analytische fase waar het probleem verkend wordt. Hier worden vragen gesteld aan de opdrachtgever en desk research gedaan.

2. Daarna is er een fase van synthese. Het geleerde wordt gesorteerd en een benaderingswijze (van de opgave) ontwikkelt zich. Ook wordt het verdere verloop van het proces gepland in deze fase.  

3. In het midden is de creatieve kern van het proces. (Het wordt in schema’s vaak als een gloeilamp aangeduid, het oersymbool van creativiteit). Het ontwerp concept komt hier tot stand. Zonder deze fase, spreken we niet van een ontwerp proces maar van een management proces.

4. Na de creatieve fase wordt overgegaan tot de uitwerking, ofwel de executieve fase. Schetsen worden tot tekeningen uitgewerkt en er worden (al dan niet fysieke) modellen of prototypen gebouwd.. Soms worden er materiaal- en constructieproeven gedaan.

5. In de laatste fase wordt er getest, verbeterd en gepresenteerd. Er worden conclusies getrokken en (waar nodig) wordt er terug gesprongen in het ontwerpproces.

Er zijn natuurlijk varianten, variërend van minimaal 3  fasen (Think, Create, Act) tot 7  (Define, Research,. Ideation, Prototype, Choose). Opmerkelijk is ook dat het proces van product design echter nauwelijks verschilt van dat van interaction social of architectonical design. Over de breedte van het vak zijn steeds dezelfde procesbeschrijvingen te zien.

Design proces voor matige ontwerpers

Naar mijn idee worden in al die beschrijven de processen van middelmatige en slechte designers opgetekend. Goede ontwerpers werken niet zo. Het is een designproces voor als je depressief bent, of even geen ideeën en inspiratie hebt. Dan biedt zo’n model houvast om tenminste íets aan de opdrachtgever te tonen op de dag van de deadline.

Wat is er mis? Ten eerste wordt creativiteit opgesloten in een klein deel van het proces. Bij levendige ontwerpprocessen speelt creativiteit gedurende het héle proces een rol. Van opdrachtstelling tot presentatie. Een levendig proces is bovendien geen tweede keer hetzelfde. Soms is het pas achteraf op te tekenen verschilt een proces per opdracht, per situatie.

Ontwerpprocessen zijn veel chaotischer

Een standaard designproces suggereert dat designers een voorspelbare gang hebben. Volgens mij dienen de voorgekookte procesbeschrijvingen vooral om opdrachtgevers gerust te stellen. ‘Maakt u zich geen zorgen, ik werk procesmatig, dus het komt allemaal goed.’

Op zichzelf is dat ook prima; het geeft iedereen houvast als verwachtingen geschetst worden. Bovendien is het een leidraad om later verschillende fases in rekening te brengen.

Ontwerpprocessen worden dus te braaf, te analytisch en te voorspelbaar voorgesteld en opgetekend. De werkelijkheid is veel complexer, en vooral veel onvoorspelbaarder. Er zijn talloze ontwerpprocessen, die soms in de omgekeerde volgorde worden afgelegd. Iedere ontwerper heeft wel eens mee gemaakt dat hij op weg naar de presentatie besluit het allemaal anders te doen. Hoe past dat  dan in het kant en klaar schema?

Ontwerpprocessen zijn zo talrijk en divers als er ontwerpers zijn. De processen van Stefan Sagmeister zijn onvergelijkbaar met die van Irma Boom. Frank Gehry werkt totaal anders dan Norman Foster. Kostantin Gricic werkt heel anders dan Karim Rashid. Hun ontwerpprocessen zijn welhaast de kern van hun ontwerp eigenheid. Bovendien hebben goede ontwerpers niet vaak een voorspelbaar ontwerpproces. Was dat wel zo, dan waren ze veel eenvoudiger te kopiëren.

Wie zijn Jip & Janneke ?

Waarom mag die werkelijkheid, waarin elke ontwerper zich zal herkennen niet opgetekend?  Wie verspreidt het Jip & Janneke ontwerpproces?

Degenen die het ontwerpproces graag inzichtelijk en voorspelbaar willen voorstellen zijn niet designers zelf. Het zijn de design managers en Design thinkers, omdat zij vooral het proces ‘verkopen’.  

Zij zijn degenen die het meest belang hebben proces getrouwheid. De waarheid zou een onverkoopbaar model opleveren. Maar ook ontwerpers hebben belang bij het ontwerpproces, omdat het als management tool prettig is. Een groep is makkelijker aan te sturen, delen zijn makkelijker vooraf te benoemen en achteraf te factureren. Voorspelbaarheid heeft altijd en management voordeel.

Creativiteit

Een design proces is een breiwerk van management vaardigheden en creatieve vaardigheden. De management vaardigheden (informatie verzamelen, synthetiseren, testen, prototyperen, itereren) zijn goed te beschrijven. Maar voor creativiteit is dat veel ingewikkelder.

Creativiteit is een onwetenschappelijke, onvoorspelbare en onregisseerbare bezigheid.  Creativiteit laat zich niet op afroep herhalen, en het laat zich nauwelijks meten. hooguit de bijverschijnselen en de condities ervan zijn te meten. Creativiteit is een onaangepaste, anarchistische darkhorse. Die niet doet wat je van hem wilt, en al helemaal niet op het moment dat je het van hem wilt.

car design got boring

The Paris Motor Show took place last week, and once again it showed us that cars are dull, ugly and predictable. Thirty years of safety and environmental regulations have eliminated all design freedom. The designers are not to be envied.
But while the petrol heads have ended up in a rut, there is plenty of progress from mobility start-ups who are developing electric cars and car-sharing concepts. We should expect cars from Silicon Valley to look different. But how exactly? After a century of car design, can a totally different visual language emerge?

Shocking comparising of contemporary station wagons of 8 different brands

It's easy to believe that cars have reached their full potential technically, stylistically and culturally. A modern car can circle the earth five times and reach maximum speed easily, yet it rarely needs a visit to the garage. Petrol consumption in engines has halved over the past half century, and driving has become exponentially safer. In the past you hit a lamp post and died; now your car can overturn and you can walk away unharmed. Moreover, today's car is more comfortable and easier to handle.
Experimentation within the auto industry has ceased
All those achievements are down to designers who have done their best. Cage frames, airbags, anti-lock braking systems, crumple zones, he
ad supports and weight reductions have made cars smarter, cheaper and more economical. What a pity that aesthetics have deteriorated along the way, for today's cars are ugly and incredibly boring.

experimental approaches to the 5th door

You cannot blame designers, because the margins within which they have to design have become so narrow that there is scarcely any room for change. As sales have become increasingly stagnant, experimentation within the auto industry has ceased – in sixty years the automobile has transformed from wild, expressive and visionary to obedient, regressive and compliant.
All major car manufacturers make five incontestable models. Attempts to launch other concepts often flop, as we saw with the Fiat Multipla, RenaultAvantime and Subaru SVX. Producers keep faith in what sells well. Cars resemble one another because there is so little technical variation, with most of them featuring a monocoque structure, front-wheel drive, and a water-cooled engine at the front. The wind tunnel does the rest in creating uniform shapes. Details don't reveal much variation either. Everything from a cheap Fiat to a pricey Mercedes features the same connection between rear door and floor. All wheels are roughly the same size and clearly visible. The aesthetic values that apply to cars have become more uniform.
Manufacturers who have never produced a combustible engine are turning the automobile world upside down
What great vision there is today comes from mobility start-ups, whose motto may as well be "the car is dead, long live the car". New car manufacturers who have never produced a combustible engine are turning the automobile world upside down. In the world of Silicon Valley it seems that consumers don't necessarily even need to own a car. Apps likeSnappCar and Uber already enable different kinds of car use. Newer car sharing initiatives like DriveNow and Car2Go are growing rapidly and car-poolers can team up through BlaBlaCar, Avego and PickupPal.

Automobile manufacturers like Tesla and Byd make nothing but electric cars and have a totally different company culture. Likewise, motorbike manufacturers like Zero and Brammo don't use any petrol whatsoever, and so have a much clearer focus. These companies resemble computer firms more than car factories. An electric vehicle contains up to a million lines of program, so it's no surprise that newcomers all operate out of Silicon Valley, since proximity to developers is vital. Apple, for example, is just around the corner from Tesla.
Electric power is a major advancement for the quality of life in cities. Noise, particulates, carbon emissions and exhaust smells are all reduced, and centralised generation of energy is much cleaner. Politicians – sometimes begrudgingly – agree, which is why electric cars are sometimes allowed on bus lanes and have designated parking spaces and their owners pay hardly any tax. A "full tank" costs just five euros.
A new design repertoire cannot be invented overnight
On top of that, drivers make a better impression, especially morally. I drive an electric motorcycle myself and I notice that it's also a more social vehicle. Asking for directions or pulling away doesn't cause a stink or lots of noise or intimidate anybody. Yet although you now can step out of an electric car and hold your head up high outside a hip cafe, it's important that everybody can recognise what type of car it is – that it is not of the old guard.

There are therefore plenty of reasons to give electric cars a distinct appearance. But the challenge is not that simple. A new design repertoire cannot be invented overnight. So what opportunities are there to make these cars stand out?
Two technical differences offer pointers. Electric motors require hardly any cooling, which means that they do not need ventilation openings. BothBMW i3 and Renault have already detailed cars with a distinctly closed grille. In addition, electric motors are quiet, which is why Renault has added new sounds for parking and slow driving.
If technology doesn't present much in the way of opportunity, then there is always ideology. Society believes in electric vehicles and wants this to be the future, so a futurist look is appropriate. Futurist style characteristics in the world of cars are the droplet-shaped bodywork, closed rear-wheel arches, and a smoothly curved back, all of which we see in the HondaInsight, and Volkswagen XL1. Fifteen years ago there was the General Motors Ev1, a radically different and futurist design. But the petrol heads in the GM boardroom got scared, and the popular car died a mysterious early death. Futuristic cars have flopped remarkably often.

Citroen Concept car: Karin (1980)

The danger with futurism in design, however, is that it can frighten off customers. The design language is too far ahead of consumer acceptance. Futuristic cars – even from star designers – have flopped remarkably often. Just look at the Pininfarina svx, the Citroën SM, DeLorean DMC12, Tucker Torpedo and the above-mentioned Ev1.
That's why the Tesla-S looks only moderately progressive. "A car like this needs to have a conventional appeal as well", says Tesla's design chief Franz von Holzhausen. The bodywork shape is deliberately conservative. They don't hold back, however, when it comes to materials (97 per cent aluminium), interiors or coatings. A second back seat provides space for two children seated "the other way round" – a design that had never been done before.
In their detailing, too, Tesla cars are decidedly futuristic. The paintwork is coated twice to make it "look like glass". Interior functions are operated on a big touchscreen, and door handles appear only after the car has been unlocked, just like in Star Wars.
Next year a model with two wing-doors – the ultimate futurist device – comes on the market. Tesla, the most important innovator, is not holding back. And that's good news. The future looks bright. Because believe me, very soon the automobile industry will be just as expressive, visionary and wild as it once was. Only this time it will be electric.