Design is steeped in the tradition of Modernism. A big part of that tradition is the story of progress: the sense that, in everything we Modern people do and make, we are moving forward toward a future where all our everyday problems are solved and we are free to explore some higher plane of human existence.
Of course, it doesn't really work that way. And that's part of the problem with green design.
AT On... The Catch-22 of Green Design
Make a light bulb that uses less energy? Done: but now we have to deal with toxic cleanup issues, questions about mercury, and questions of taste over the color of the light.
Replace a hard-to-recycle plastic bag with one that can be recycled or reused? Done (again and again and again.) But we're constantly forgetting them or leaving them in the car -- and our beloved, carbon-spewing car is a much greater threat to the environment than even a lifetime of plastic bags.
The issue seems to be that, as human beings and as designers, we are really good at making and using stuff. What's not so easy for us to change is our patterns of behavior. We see the future of design lying in the design of products and services that, rather than making life "easier" by increasing the amount of stuff we buy and toss, instead present little challenges here and there that, through surprise and delight, encourage us to change our behavior.
A good example is Clay Moulton's Gravia lamp, which shows how little human energy it takes to get a lot of light and makes a virtue out of age.
image by macsony via sxc.hu
Comments (4)
Top Green Tours
Top Posts
Copyright © 2008 Apartment Therapy
Are those the Bauhaus flats in Minneapolis?
view ModernStoryteller's profile
Please don't mention the Gravia as an example of anything. It's thermodynamically impossible; there have been innumerable posts all across the internet showing how, even if we assumed it worked with 100% efficiency, it would not provide anything even remotely approaching the promised light output.
...and nothing in the universe works with 100% efficiency, thanks to thermodynamics. The Gravia wouldn't be a little dimmer, it would be a LOT dimmer. As in: uselessly dim.
The only thing the Gravia demonstrates is the absence of scientific awareness in award committees.
view minimalia's profile
Let's not be too hasty in judgement here...from the press release on the light:
"The award was for a conceptual design project based on future technology, and the lamp was one of many futuristic designs recognized at the Greener Gadgets Conference."
view ChristopherB's profile
Future technology is one thing, utterly impossible is another.
There is no future technology that can make the Gravia useful. None. It is not thermodynamically possible for this device to output a useful amount of light.
Here's my lovely concept: a ring that makes it so the wearer is immune to all diseases, does not require food or air, and cannot be killed.
...where's my award? Certainly this ring is a lot more inspiring than a simple lightbulb, and it's equally feasible. How does the ring work? Well, it's just future technology. Y'know, nanostuff. And biotech. Yeah, that's it. Nano-bio-tech.
The Gravia, as designed, would produce less light than a nightlight. To produce useful light, it would have to use weights that are hundreds of pounds, or use a falling distance that's hundreds of feet.
Hundreds. There is no, repeat no future technology that can change this, unless by "future technology" you mean magic.
But hey, it's just a concept. A concept that is precisely as useful as daydreaming about magic unicorns. Feel free to daydream about magic unicorns; but giving things like the Gravia awards & all manner of blog coverage does the design & ecology fields a disservice. It makes us look like illiterate daydreaming twits who have no idea what it takes to make real solutions to real problems.
...and we wonder why the engineers don't take us seriously?
view minimalia's profile