Saturday, November 1, 2008

The meaning of a product

Design is based on user’s needs. That is one of the biggest factors that make design different from art therefore the meaning of a product is basically defined by what needs a product is designed for. In other words the meaning of a product is created by designer’s initial idea based on the needs. But as we saw the tow examples of case studies in the class, sometimes products might get different social meaning which is different from the initial idea of designer. In Maines’ case study of the vibrator, it was developed as a medical device but as time changed it became a personal sex toy. Similar thing happened in history of the stiletto heel, it was kind of symbol of new modern woman who was active and economically free. But it changed its meaning in the late 1960s, when women rioted to be free of these heels. These two case studies are good example of how the meaning of design can be accepted in different time and different society, but are they really changed their essential meaning? I mean in both cases products still do the same job even though people accept them in different concept. The vibrator is still used for sexual pleasure whatever it is used for; as a medical purpose or personal pleasure. Also the high heel is still popular fashion item that make woman look more beautiful.
When you design something, you can’t really predict every possibility to be used by users either the social effect that your design would bring. Sometimes it could be used in different way and in could be symbolized in unexpected way. I don’t think that is failure of design because everything changes it meaning in different time and different circumstances. I think what we can really control as a designer is the function of the products. The thing we really have to focus is user’s need. We consider about the unmet needs and fulfill the needs. I think that is the most important meaning of the product and if the product successfully meet the need, it obtains ultimate meaning as design.

No comments: