I have always suspected that absolescence was "built in" to anything
manufactured,
not only in america but every where. Not by choice, but by the fact
that not
many people in the world can afford a precision built car that could
last forever.
Not even in Japan. I think better products can only be produced
where labor is
cheap and experienced with the most up to date methods in manufacturing.
"Profit greed" is also part of the problem in the equation.
mando
On Mar 19, 2009, at 7:48 AM, William Conger wrote:
The arguments for good design involve issues beyond the formal
elements as
discussed in the article Berg posted. Sometimes those other
issues, cost,
audience preference, manufacturing habits, etc., take precedence
over the
formal concerns even when they don't need to. Sometimes bad
design, or I
should say, bad design arguments, lead to stupid and ultimately costly
decisions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the design and
manufacture of
American automobiles from the 1950s onward, even to today.
Look at 1950s ads for American autos to see what I refer to. These ads
emphasize style length, heaviness, engine power, extra gadgetry,
and so forth,
all features that led to the demise of the American auto industry.
How did
this happen? The answer is very simple. Somewhere in the 20C
American
manufacturing became a top down enterprise that led by marketing
people and
not engineers and design specialists. The engineers and design
people were
told what to make based on surveys and marketing results, including
the wide
use of psychological preference models. Almost all American
manufacturers of
consumer products, led by the auto industry, were led by marketing
people,
those who rose through the ranks as sales experts, and they in turn
stuffed
their corporate broards with similar colleagues while the engineers
and
designers were relegated to more passive positions.
Thus with sales and costs uppermost, engineers were led to allow
much wider
specs for parts and materials and they were forced to incorporate
fanciful,
trendy exaggerations of design more suited to the fashion industry
than to
industrial manufacturing. Most of all, the basic philosophy of
American
manufacturing was changed to "make it only as good as it needs to
be" --
mindful of fashion and programmed obsolescence -- and away from
"as good as
it can be" -- the prevailing ideal of 19C industry.
We all know how crummy American autos were after the mid 1950s.
They broke
down frequently because the engineering tolerances for parts were
too wide
(and poorly fitted moving parts wobble,wear out, and easily break).
They
rusted out after a few years and were hugely uneconomical. ANY
Japanese car
was better than any American car because the Japanese manufacturing
was led by
engineers (not marketing heros who never held a wrench) and could make
turnaround imporvements in weeks whereas any American car change
took years
because it was tied to fashion overhauls, not incremental
performance and
endurance improvements. Further, the Japanese held to tight specs and
continually sought manufacturing improvements and economical
costs. European
autos were also better than American autos but unlike the Japanese
favoring of
economical methods/design/function they did not care about higher
manufacturing costs that came with higher quality and thus aimed at
the
luxury markets.
This is a long and sad story, easily verified in the literature.
Until there
is a genuine shift away from the American imperialism of wide-smile
marketing
and a restoration of an attitude to make things as well as they can
be made --
with the use of newer methods and cost-saving materials -- we will
not see a
return to the great American economy we thought was our birthright.
Push for getting the engineers and designers, with their rolled up
sleeves and
procket protectors back into the front windowed offices and reseat
the bespoke
suited salesmen in the inside offices where they don't have as much
authority
to tell a engineer to put a doo-dad in and take a washer out.
WC
--- On Thu, 3/19/09, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote:
From: joseph berg <[email protected]>
Subject: "Innovation of new objects seems to go more and more
toward the
development of tawdry junk for the annual Christmas gift market.b
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 12:00 AM
http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20090318/a-good-argument
