I wanted to out line my personal theories on design, ideas that I use when working on anything from space ships to ancient temples. These concepts i consider personal art philosophies which may still be works in progress.
The areas I'm covering are gender in design, silhouette icon, and politics of materials.
What does this concept mean, gender in design? I use it to designate a feminine or masculine element to a design such as shape, function and its motivation. You could use yin and yang just as well but its more consistent once you begin to use this idea to have a gender designation. Lets be clear here that both are about strengths and weaknesses of a form, and using this built in design sense you get a huge amount of information across with a few simple shapes.This comes as much from my interest in occult symbolism as art history or design.
For instance in Wicca culture there is the knife and the cup, the square and the circle,or in the ancient Greek pantheon this could be the god of war Aries and the goddess Athena, symbols of gender but I want to take that one step farther.
Understanding what each gender means is our first step.
Male: Raw power, 90 degree corners, force,ancient, unthinking,military, monolithic, works for "evil" designs, yet weak in the fact there is some over looked failing.
Female: Refined design, decadence, curves, the future,over thinking,civilian, individual, isolated,works for "good" designs, weaker in that its power is past.
To give some real world examples...
The areas I'm covering are gender in design, silhouette icon, and politics of materials.
What does this concept mean, gender in design? I use it to designate a feminine or masculine element to a design such as shape, function and its motivation. You could use yin and yang just as well but its more consistent once you begin to use this idea to have a gender designation. Lets be clear here that both are about strengths and weaknesses of a form, and using this built in design sense you get a huge amount of information across with a few simple shapes.This comes as much from my interest in occult symbolism as art history or design.
For instance in Wicca culture there is the knife and the cup, the square and the circle,or in the ancient Greek pantheon this could be the god of war Aries and the goddess Athena, symbols of gender but I want to take that one step farther.
Understanding what each gender means is our first step.
Male: Raw power, 90 degree corners, force,ancient, unthinking,military, monolithic, works for "evil" designs, yet weak in the fact there is some over looked failing.
Female: Refined design, decadence, curves, the future,over thinking,civilian, individual, isolated,works for "good" designs, weaker in that its power is past.
To give some real world examples...
The first stealth fighter bomber, the f117, was shaped due to the fact that in the 1970s computers could only do radar calculations on two dimensions, forcing a faceted, hard angle design. This resulted in several effects, first they were referred to in a male context such as "Darth Vader's" fighter. Second the air force requested that they be painted black. The designers had tested the best night fighter camouflage which is a sort of soft molted pattern, not pure black. In other words the technically correct colour scheme failed to match the aircraft's psychological impression.
correct camo, but dull, no evil to it!
This aircraft has been used in every conflict since its release, as an extension of American war policy. Yet in all reality this is a compromised weapons system as several have been shot down and their invincibility is more to do with the over all American air superiority.
Do you think I'm sexy? do you want my body?
Currently there is a new aircraft in service called the F22 raptor which is a update of the earlier stealth system, including compound curves, over horizon missile targeting etc. Yet most people couldn't identify it in a lineup of standard planes of the last thirty years. It had gained in performance, yet lost in its psychological effect. There was no request to paint it anything other then drab gray. Its also worth noting that its the last of the maned aircraft to be adopted by the air force as its begins to robotize. The f117 was used as a sort of tip of the spear, long after its real world fighting ability has passed, where as the f22 seems to be the last great fighter before the march of the robots.
Its also interesting to look earlier to WWII and the project build by the Horton brothers, the Ho229 an all wing fighter bomber. This early incarnation was attempting to be stealthy and use material that that didn't strain the war effort, like wood. This aircraft would also be female, its in a situation where power is past, its futuristic, curved etc. But it still has a lethal look to it, as both gender types can. This aircraft inspires a almost fetishistic reverence despite never getting past testing and crashing due to a flame out.
Another example would be two periods of churches, the first around the time of the early Christians, Byzantine, pre-crusades, mostly western Europe. During the dark ages architecture techniques such as roman arches are lost, resulting in small box like churches, build on the worse shape for support you can have in nature, the square. These structures have a bunker like appearance.
Another example would be two periods of churches, the first around the time of the early Christians, Byzantine, pre-crusades, mostly western Europe. During the dark ages architecture techniques such as roman arches are lost, resulting in small box like churches, build on the worse shape for support you can have in nature, the square. These structures have a bunker like appearance.
This style of building was smaller and less lofty then roman or Greek buildings made centuries earlier. But in opposition to this design the church is basically one entity, and is still expanding. Its power is absolute and mostly unquestioned, where it encounters resistance it simply destroys or kills. Centuries later after conflict with Muslim cultures it reintroduces knowledge lost such as the classic works of early Greeks philosophers, methods of construction such as the arch and large dome. in areas where Muslims hadconqueredbut had been pushed back such as Spain they left examples of structures, many to this day, which lead to a greater understanding of what could be done in terms of form and scale.
While this is being studied there is great political and religious upheaval, the church fractures in to Catholic and Protestant, with the usual unending bloodshed. The church is no longer the center of the universe both literally and figuratively. Yet this is the period of the finest European cathedrals such as Notre Dame or Exeter cathedral.
There incredible soaring arches, curved system of external weight distribution on buttresses allow a grace of form in European design unmatched to this day while the political entity of the church was failing.
Now to use a sci fi concept to illustrate this, this may have been thought out or more likely came organically due to this concept's archetypal effect.
The BORG: In their first incarnation they were suppose to be androgynous yet seemed more like a mechanical SS who travel space in one of the best star trek icons, a massive cube, on end, a square.
The BORG: In their first incarnation they were suppose to be androgynous yet seemed more like a mechanical SS who travel space in one of the best star trek icons, a massive cube, on end, a square.
were here, were cyborgs, get used to it!
circle vs square, fight!
Now in "Star Trek First Contact" they introduce the Borg queen who during her escape from the cube uses a spherical ship. The square has become the circle with the introduction of the female queen.
Another great historical example would be the first battle of the ironclads, Monitor and Merrimack. I can't think of a better real world example of this design principal in action.
One ship, a floating bunker box ram vs a un-seaworthy but maneuverable round turret on a slab. Another sci fi illustration of this would be the Return of the Jedi ships in the form of the evil empires hard angled star destroyer vs the good guys bubbly mon calamari capital ships.
Am i evil because I'm boxy, or am i boxy cause I'm evil?
I'm like a good guy space boobie...!
And lastly to really drive it home heres the best example of the last few years in the magical pixar film WALL-E, seen her with EVE. There machines but ill bet you can tell which one is male and which one is female?
The next area I want to cover is the idea of a iconic silhouette, which combined with the gender idea can produce great design. In my opinion detail will add a scale and if done correctly, realism, but in terms of story and character the silhouette and gender concept will have the greatest cinematic impact. I think this is one of the reasons that despite years of CGI ships, top whatever lists have a larger amount of miniatures then CGI ships even if you adjust percentage for the amount of years. Click here for a top 75 list....
The lack of real world forces and ability to add detail at will has lead to a sort of mushy design look despite the technical ability of the concept artists. You see this in comics as well with hyper detail art with no sense of depth or tonal range. I'm guilty as much as any one, but I've tried to be more conscious of this and I'm thinking more in terms of a general criticism.
WRONG!So in general the idea here is to create a simple shape, pure geometry that in its outline speaks volumes. For example take a cross shape, upright would be a a hospital/research ship,[Think planet of the apes, remake] on angle the X has a aggressive shape ideal for a gun ship. [really? You can't figure that one out? sigh, X wing.] So without breaking down every shape this is more about thinking about the character of the object in relation to its shape, by defining it then finding its ideal geometry. Another example is a triangle or pyramid, which can be used for ancient structures, remove the top portion of the pyramid and it becomes both more ominous, such as bunkers, to futuristic, like the computer structure in Nassicca, Captain power villain lord dread pyramid, the Tryrell building in Blade Runner to the SKYNET battle building.The idea is to create a iconic image in the audience with even a quick viewing. The intent and reason for a object should be visual and the simpler that is done the more effective.
This will seem silly but think of the comedic character "Mr Bean" and his vehicle of choice, which is a English mini. Now think what it would say if he drove an army truck or a bankers Mercedes.
Its interesting to note that one of the most consistent criticisms against the first transformer movie in design was that it was impossible to tell the Autobot's from the Decepticon's at distance or in a quick view with out seeing their logo's. Yet as you can see there's a huge amount of detail, but it adds nothing really to story, nor recognition of who's who.
The lack of real world forces and ability to add detail at will has lead to a sort of mushy design look despite the technical ability of the concept artists. You see this in comics as well with hyper detail art with no sense of depth or tonal range. I'm guilty as much as any one, but I've tried to be more conscious of this and I'm thinking more in terms of a general criticism.
WRONG!So in general the idea here is to create a simple shape, pure geometry that in its outline speaks volumes. For example take a cross shape, upright would be a a hospital/research ship,[Think planet of the apes, remake] on angle the X has a aggressive shape ideal for a gun ship. [really? You can't figure that one out? sigh, X wing.] So without breaking down every shape this is more about thinking about the character of the object in relation to its shape, by defining it then finding its ideal geometry. Another example is a triangle or pyramid, which can be used for ancient structures, remove the top portion of the pyramid and it becomes both more ominous, such as bunkers, to futuristic, like the computer structure in Nassicca, Captain power villain lord dread pyramid, the Tryrell building in Blade Runner to the SKYNET battle building.The idea is to create a iconic image in the audience with even a quick viewing. The intent and reason for a object should be visual and the simpler that is done the more effective.
This will seem silly but think of the comedic character "Mr Bean" and his vehicle of choice, which is a English mini. Now think what it would say if he drove an army truck or a bankers Mercedes.
Its interesting to note that one of the most consistent criticisms against the first transformer movie in design was that it was impossible to tell the Autobot's from the Decepticon's at distance or in a quick view with out seeing their logo's. Yet as you can see there's a huge amount of detail, but it adds nothing really to story, nor recognition of who's who.
One of these kids doesn't belong...
Without colour or in silhouette these two are almost identical. Now compare that to these designs.
Not only can you tell them apart if shown to some one who had not seen the movie and ask them to identify say good from evil they would have no problem doing so in seeing even just a silhouette.
My last concept is something I'm calling the politics of materials, this is more a term for how an objects appearance could add thematic, political or character elements.
Case studies could be the effect of having gold coverings over a buildings walls, what would that say about its inhabitants?
Or what effect does chroming a surface have? Does it become futuristic or fascist?
My last concept is something I'm calling the politics of materials, this is more a term for how an objects appearance could add thematic, political or character elements.
Case studies could be the effect of having gold coverings over a buildings walls, what would that say about its inhabitants?
Or what effect does chroming a surface have? Does it become futuristic or fascist?
Think about Thx 1138 cops, any movie of riot cops with there mirror face plates to the mirrored sunglasses of the scary southern sheriff in cool hand Luke, or even Cobra Commander. To men in black two with the chrome mini robot which has both of these properties.
On the opposite end of this is the convention that any primitive or in a sense space hippies in say star trek well inevitability be in raw or rough fabric with basic geometric colour patterns. Yet in most so called primitive cultures that have past the stone age use complex weaves, varied colours, metals etc.
What is also interesting is how different periods from say ancient roman to french aristocratic in the 18th century vs modern 20th century vary in colour theory and fabric choice. For example bright colours and a leopard skin would fit perfectly in to a wealthy roman senators wardrobe but would to our eyes be the wardrobe of say a white trash shopper at Walmart. We would tend to think of darker business suits as the wardrobe of some one rich and powerful today yet would be the colours of dour pilgrims or tradesmen in the 17th century.
On the opposite end of this is the convention that any primitive or in a sense space hippies in say star trek well inevitability be in raw or rough fabric with basic geometric colour patterns. Yet in most so called primitive cultures that have past the stone age use complex weaves, varied colours, metals etc.
What is also interesting is how different periods from say ancient roman to french aristocratic in the 18th century vs modern 20th century vary in colour theory and fabric choice. For example bright colours and a leopard skin would fit perfectly in to a wealthy roman senators wardrobe but would to our eyes be the wardrobe of say a white trash shopper at Walmart. We would tend to think of darker business suits as the wardrobe of some one rich and powerful today yet would be the colours of dour pilgrims or tradesmen in the 17th century.
Even done all fancy with leggy models it still has a white trash feel...
While this is only a gloss over of ideas I hope I've illustrated my points enough to make some of these theories useful or to at lest start a discussion.
RSS Feed
