Lecture 6 : Danish Fashion

March 9th, 2010

Lecture by Marie Riegels Melchior 

Good design has a long standing tradition within the country of Denmark. Known primarily for their furniture designers, the smallest Scandinavian country has made a push over the last half century to strengthen their reputation as a fashion capital. The effectiveness of this campaign is debatable, however I'd like to understand why being recognized is so important for the country of Denmark and the city of Copenhagen? 

To fully comprehend this question we must first look back at the history of fashion in Denmark. During the 1950's Danish fashion simply didn't exist. Imports from France and Italy controlled the entire clothing market within Denmark. Local mass produced clothing certainly existed, however its impact on fashion was nothing in comparison to the Haute Coutures of Paris. However vernacular Danish clothing soon began to see a shift in the late 50's as a strong youth movement made it's way across waters and into the Nordic region from the USA and London.

Stores such as Deres and Nørgaard paa Strøget began infusing young peoples with a new sense of style; local fashion icons emerged and further progressed the movement. Quickly the trend caught on, and within the next decade the Danish government was using the fashion industry to bolster their image abroad. Finally Copenhagen was recognized as the Nordic Design Capital. So from an early start we see the government stepping in to make fashion an important part of Copenhagen and Denmark's branding. But why is this so important?

 

[http://www.deres.dk/] & [http://www.flickr.com/photos/16854488@N07/2857728323/] 

Much like any business, fashion began outsourcing their work to Eastern Europe in the 70's and 80's after the Cold War. Business that did not outsource closed because manufacturing costs simply became too high. The Danish government chose not to subsidize the industry and yet today, fashion has become the country's fifth largest export. Here we witness diminishing governmental support for the industry, however it has been able to remain somewhat strong despite no federal assistance.

The influence of Danish clothing extended beyond the movement in fashion and eventually gained respect from the well established design community. The Danish Design Council began awarding clothing design awards which have branded icons such as Jørgen Nørgaard's "Rip 101" t-shirt. But despite the country's best efforts, Copenhagen ranks as #26 for fashion design... a far cry from Paris, London, NYC and Milan. 

[http://multimedia.pol.dk/archive/00332/T_jhandler_J_rgen_N_332786c.jpg]

After understanding the history of Danish fashion, I still wonder why it is so important that Copenhagen put itself on the map as a cultural center for clothing design? Denmark is known for their furniture, lamps, etc. Why not stick to what you know best? I do understand their is an inherent power to championing multiple genres of design, but perhaps Danes are content with the #26 ranking. We can't all be good at everything. This situation also raises the question of wether Copenhagen should try as desperately as Antwerp to put themselves on the fashion map? 

Japanese advertisement for a runway show featuring "Antwerp Fashion."

[http://www.superfuture.com/supernews/?tag=walter-van-beirendonck]

Antwerp decided it wanted to be a fashion hub and so people went to great lengths to try and establish its place among clothing's top locations. Museums, tours, etc all focused around fashion popped up over the city and in their defense it's worked for the most part. But despite Antwerp's success, I still don't see a reason why Copenhagen should feel so compelled to enhance it's fashion status around the world. Why not try and produce the best cars? The decision to choose fashion seems somewhat arbitrary to me. My advice to Copenhagen: stick with what you know. Furniture. If the city is meant to become a fashion hub it will happen, much like furniture's golden age. So, embrace what you have and don't be too greedy! 

Reading Review 2 : Welcome to Walk the Plank

February 26th, 2010
Reading: Welcome to Walk the Plank by Tine Nygaard & THomas Dickson

WALK THE PLANK was a collaboration between Danish furniture and Danish cabinetmakers in 1999. 20 pairs of designers were given a plank of wood with the task of creating a piece of furniture. Hoping to combine the skill set of each designer, the pieces were then auctioned off and the money used to establish a fund to which future designers could apply for grants to develop new prototypes. Although much of the article didn't focus on the 1999 collaboration, it did explain how this unique event fit into the historical context of Danish design.

One of the main goals of WALK THE PLANK was to increase communication across design fields. It also aimed to break the mold of young designers trained in a sometimes too academic setting. Lastly, the project tried to spark imagination between the designer and manufacturer to create new designs, when the relationship is usually mute.

The article further highlighted the issues with manufacturer/designer relations. Today we've begun to witness a flux of manufacturing companies that have begun to act as design filters. New designers will show manufacturers their latest creations, only to have the them select the pieces they feel will become the next hot sellers. This process is limiting in several areas. First, it prevents designers from thinking too far outside the box. It trains them to stay within certain parameters so that they can get their pay day. And secondly, it limits any concept models from reaching the public sphere. In the auto industries and fashion arena, its the avant grade styles and concept cars that gauge what the consumer is ready to handle. When manufacturers sit above designers playing design God, the creations we see on Earth are not representative of our designers' true genius.

car and shoe concepts

CAR [http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/assets/resources/2007/10/Honda_PUYO_Concept_Car.jpg]

SHOE [http://www.shoeperwoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/alexander-mcqueen-shoes.jpg]

This idea of catering to mass production was an unfortunate trend that WALK THE PLANK was trying to avoid and in some cases, counter.

As the manufacturer has gained more influence over designs, their demands on the designer have been raised. No longer are designers able to create an accurate representation of themselves in their work, they are forced to concede to the consumer. In today's age we want, cheap, functional, affordable, aesthetically pleasing, forward thinking and eco friendly designs... but is that even possible? Trying to include all these components into a product or piece of furniture is plainly stated: unrealistic. However, these are the precise molds manufacturers are demanding be filled.

So we've seen the bad, but is there any good in this manufacturing model? The answer is yes.

When the Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen began changing under the direction of Kaare Klint and later B. Mogensen we saw a shift back towards client oriented design. This new middle ground between the custom furniture of the past and ultra-manufactured pieces that had begun to dominate the market came as a breath of fresh air. However the support of what became known as the Association of Danish Cooperatives' furniture division (FDB) ended before it's time had come. Today, the Swedish furniture giant, IKEA, follows similar principals of the FDB.

a set of IKEA furniture

[http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/chicago/painting-fixing-repair/roundup-paintable-wood-ikea-furniture-047775]

The reading went on to highlight the rise of industrial design in today's world, but never gave much conclusion to the WALK THE PLANK experiment. From the tone of the article it seemed successful. I wonder what has become of the money raised and how it has impacted the design scene in Copenhagen?  I believe the concept should be brought back every few years to once again ignite a new generation of designers. Who knows, maybe someday it could spawn another Panton, Juhl or Jacobsen.

Symposium 5: Design Based On Tradition & Modernity

February 26th, 2010

Reading: Craft and Experiments from PP Mobler's Workshop for 50 Years by H. Kaerholm & S.M. Hvass

Presenters:

1. Find an object at home of Danish design (preferable something that you've used or brought here) that is aesthetically pleasing bt turned out to not be very functional. Discuss why it didn't work properly and how this relates to the designer undrstanding material and craft.

Occasionally I need to restock on the necessities: soap, shampoo, etc. Away from home and trying to save money for traveling I head to Tiger. I know, it’s not the greatest, but it works well enough… usually. During my shopping trips to the one stop shop I occasionally become enticed by something outside my shopping list. A few weeks back I came across a grouping/bouquet of picture clips stemming in different directions from a white-cube base. Visually appealing, I thought this would be a great way to display the stack of note cards I’d been collection from various Gratis Postcard stands around Copenhagen. My plan failed.

The picture clip bouquet was dysfunctional on several levels. First, the lengths of the wires were far too similar. This caused the post cards to sit at the same height blocking one another from view. Second, the wires were flexible but always popped back to their original place despite my best efforts to maneuver them into a functional layout. The only thing that functioned properly was the base. I was worried it wasn’t heavy enough to support a bouquet of cards or pictures, but it managed just fine! Too bad the rest of the product didn’t work so well.

My picture display uses the bouquet style from the image on the left with the vertical orientation of the picture clips on the right.

[http://www.amazon.com/Umbra-Fotofalls-18-Clip-Desktop-Holder/dp/B000KPJEZC] 

 [http://www.tigerstores.co.uk/products/1/tiger_home/98846/memo_holder/]

The product didn’t work properly because a strong effort was not put into testing the design. It would have been nice if the wires were moldable, but that wouldn’t be so important if they’d been at varying heights. Besides the issues with the wires, the clips worked fine and the base functioned well. I’m glad I only spent ten kronor on the display piece… I think it’s going to stay here in Denmark. No sense in wasting suitcase space on something I’m just going to toss out once I return home.

2. Looking towards the future: what possible changes in industry would lead to a change in the relationship between designers and manufacturers? Are ther no new designs as the authors emphasize in the readings, where all new designs are based strictly off of designs pre 1970s, or do you think there is new ecofriendly and innovative Danish designs that help the world?

Looking towards the future of design, if we are going to further develop relationships between designers and manufacturers we need to think local. Outsourcing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries (where a different language is spoken and factory workers, not craftsmen, are left to construct products) creates a detrimental breakdown in communication between a designer and manufacturer. By producing products more locally, the designer can have a stronger hand in the production of a product. Additionally, as one works more intimately with raw materials they may begin to see more potential for future designs. When that hands on approach is shipped across the ocean for someone else to experience, the potential is lost.

When it comes to new ecofriendly Danish designs, I can’t think of any one specific product, but in a sense the impressive environmental record of Denmark is a design that can help the world. With an abundance of public transit, bike friendly cities, a commitment to green energies and organic food, Denmark’s way of life is a design other countries should adopt. 

Reading Review 1: Danish Design, A Structural Analysis

February 2nd, 2010
Reading: Danish Design - A Structural Analysis by Anders Kretzschmar

Kretzschmar's 2003 article titled Danish Design - A Structural Analysis, focused on the history, state and future of Danish design. Through a series of studies, the author evaluates what needs to be done in order to continue to spread the knowledge and work of Danish designers as we move further into the 21st century.

As we well know, Arne Jacobsen was the founding father of Danish Design. Others, such as Utzon and Henningsen also began their illustrious careers around his time. These prominent designers were known for working independently rather than running a large firm that tailored to the needs of a client. Jacobsen, for instance, was famous for tweaking his contracts so he could design every last element of a building - even the handrails and doorknobs.

We’ve begun to see a growth of design jobs over the last 10-15 years, but the market still remains a small fraction of Denmark’s overall economy. Of the current designers, most still choose to work independently as ARTISTIC DESIGNERS, much like Denmark’s stars of the past. It’s not often one will come across SERVICE/CLIENT DESIGNERS, who tailor their jobs to fit the needs of someone else.

The studies evaluated show that Danish designers must make stronger efforts to connect with their clients and expand their businesses outward. Despite an overall satisfactory mark from clients, Danish designers are still known for having poor communication skills. If Denmark is to put itself of on the map as an even larger European design capital, it is essential that designers being to work better with the people and expand their ideas to create larger firms.

However at what point does one “sell out” and become a designer that works for others over themselves. We walk a thin line when talking about art and design. Is design for people and art for ourselves? Are there times when the two words are interchangeable? 70% of surveyed designers said they want to expand internationally, but can they pry themselves away from their solely artistic background to reach out to more clients?

I applaud the country of Denmark and its designers for hoping to share their designs with the world. After living here for several months, I understand just how seriously they take the matter. However, I would like to close with a warning not to get too carried away with expanding your empire. Do it carefully and purposefully. Stay true to your roots. The minute Danish designers begin to loose sight of their past, the more homogeneous Danish design will become – and Danish design is an all too important part of Denmark’s history to loose. 

Required Group Field Study 1 : Illums Bolighus

Select one of the classic/historical works of product design seen on the filed study today that you are familiar with. Select a new/contemporary work that you are seeing for the first time within the same genre. Compare and contrast the 2 in a critical reflection.

Arne Jacobsen is arguably Denmark’s most respected and recognizable designer. His Egg and Swan Chairs that debuted at the SAS Royal Hotel have become landmarks in Danish design. What made helped make these chairs so famous was their unique shape. Smooth and curvy, Jacobsen’s chairs pushed the way designers and consumers viewed the experience furniture can have on the body. But as we know all too well, one good design leads to another, and pretty soon your idea becomes someone else’s creation. Sadly, we’ve witnessed the manipulation and distortion of Jacobsen’s 1958 masterpiece by Spanish designer, Patricia Urquiola.

Jacobsen's Swan Chair

[http://arquidocs.wordpress.com/2009/10/]

Born shortly after the Swan Chair's creation, Urquiola began her career as a lecturer but soon started working as a designer herself. With plenty of pieces to her name, I came across BLOOMY while touring Illums Bolighus in Copenhagen. Although descriptions of the piece pay no homage to Jacobsen’s Swan Chair, its form suggests otherwise.

Bloomy

[http://bestchairsdesign.blogspot.com/2008/05/patricia-urquiola-bloomy-armchair.html]

Suppose to “symbolize the stages of the life of a flower, from budding to full maturity,” the piece comes in a variety of bright fun colors and textiles. Bloomy also take shape in a couch-like form and is accompanied by a small side table. Together the set tries to create its own identity, but there is no hiding that Urquiola has clearly drawn inspiration from the Danish classic.

Bloomy Couch

[http://www.bonluxat.com/a/Patricia_Urquiola_Bloomy_Seating_Collection.html]

I understand this happens all the time. Old pieces are given new life in a current designer’s reinterpretation of the furniture. However, what I find discomforting is how Urquiola finds no shame in ignoring the form’s creator. Additionally she goes on to describe the piece as if it were her own original idea. What’s so wrong with admitting the form of your chair grew from inspiration by someone else’s? I would be the first to admit Patricia Urquiola’s Bloomy collection is very beautiful and quite sculptural, but to give her full credit for the design would have Jacobsen rolling over in his grave.

So this leaves me with the question: When is it OK to reinvent someone else’s creation? When you give them credit? When you enhance their original intentions? Designing pieces that mimic others walks a very fine line between genius and copy. At this point, I would call Bloomy a copy.