Latest / Soft Ratios Research / Product design is not art (on the Ulm School)

Transcript

Product design is not art (on the Ulm School) · Soft Ratios Research

• 0:09
  Figure: Soft Ratios Research.
• 0:12
  Ground: The voices are synthetic [pause] no act, just the thinking.
• 0:19
  Figure: Hoyd Breton, a designer at Soft Ratios Studio, teaching himself in the open [pause] which works better with a reply. [pause] If this is interesting, write a review with your thoughts.
• 0:31
  Ground: One subject at a time, twice a week [pause] Tuesday and Thursday. [pause] Today, the Ulm School of Design.
• 0:38
  Ground: There's a picture most people carry of German design. Grey, calm, nothing wasted. A Braun radio. A clock face with two hands and no clutter. And the story goes that the whole look came out of one school, on a hill, in a town called Ulm.
• 0:57
  Figure: The Ulm School of Design. Fifteen years — 1953 to 1968. The line people draw runs Braun, then Lufthansa, then out through Dieter Rams to the objects in a pocket now. Rams even handed everyone the slogan. Less, but better.
• 1:16
  Ground: And that's the version I want to start with, because it's the flattering one. Ulm as the tasteful school. The place that taught the twentieth century restraint.
• 1:26
  Figure: It's not wrong. The objects are real. But it hides what the school actually was, which is stranger and a lot less calm. [pause] It didn't begin as a design school at all. It began as an act of repair. Two of the people who founded it — Inge Scholl and Otl Aicher, before Max Bill came in and turned it toward design — were rebuilding civic life in a bombed country. And Inge Scholl's brother and sister were Hans and Sophie Scholl.
• 1:55
  Ground: The White Rose.
• 1:57
  Figure: The student resistance group. Both guillotined in Munich in 1943. Inge set up a foundation in their memory in 1950, and the school grew out of that. It was moral before it was ever aesthetic.
• 2:11
  Ground: There's a detail I can't put down. After Hans and Sophie were executed, the parents were summoned to a court office — to pay the fee. For their own children's execution. A charge, an amount, on a bill for the killing of your own children. [pause] And I keep asking what a person does with that. You can't answer it. There's no design solution to it. And yet the answer these two chose was: build a school. Teach people to make chairs and typefaces and radios. That's such a strange grief to have. [pause] It tells you the school was never neutral. It was carrying something the objects never show on their face.
• 2:56
  Figure: And they built it on enemy-turned-benefactor money. A million Deutschmarks from the American McCloy Fund — the US high commissioner, John McCloy, reportedly tagged it 'Project Number One.' Postwar re-education money, aimed at teaching Germans democracy. [pause] The cheque reached Inge Scholl in 1952. Then it sat, delayed about a year, because a local editor — a former Gestapo man — denounced the founders as suspected communists.
• 3:23
  Ground: The people rebuilding the country get smeared by a man who worked for the regime that killed their family.
• 3:30
  Figure: That's the ground the school stands on. Keep that in view, because the conservative suspicion inside that smear is the same suspicion that closes the school sixteen years later. [pause] Teaching started in August 1953. Twenty-one students, borrowed rooms. The first rector was Max Bill — a Swiss, trained at the Bauhaus in Dessau, under Kandinsky, Klee, Albers. He designed the campus himself: raw reinforced concrete on a hill called the Kuhberg, one of the first concrete-frame buildings in Germany. Built on almost nothing.
• 4:04
  Ground: So the Bauhaus lineage is literal. When the school opened officially in 1955, Walter Gropius — the man who founded the Bauhaus — was standing right there. [pause] And it wasn't a provincial German outfit either. Students came from something like forty-nine countries. The lecturers passing through were Mies, the Eameses, Buckminster Fuller, Norbert Wiener — the cybernetics man himself. One of the most cosmopolitan rooms in postwar Europe.
• 4:38
  Figure: Which matters, because Bill wanted Ulm to be the Bauhaus continued. His whole idea of design had a name. Die gute Form. Good form. [pause] He'd already made it into an exhibition, in 1949, for the Swiss Werkbund, in Basel. Eighty panels. Objects from a teacup to a jet plane. And the criterion was clean: a good object fulfils its function, respects its material, suits how it's made — and then does all of that with imagination. Clear, durable, timeless. A shot straight at American throwaway styling.
• 5:15
  Ground: Notice the creed ends on 'imagination.' The last word is a feeling word. Bill thought the person making the thing was, in the end, an artist. [pause] And you can hold his whole argument in one object. The Ulmer Hocker — the Ulm stool, 1954. Bill with Hans Gugelot. The story is that Bill sketched it on a cocktail napkin. Three flat boards and a round dowel. No screws. It's a stool, it's a shelf, it's a side table, it's a little lectern you tuck under your arm and carry off. [pause] And what gets me is how little there is to it. You could describe the whole thing in a sentence, and it'd go together in an afternoon. But sitting with it, it doesn't feel like a diagram. It feels decided. Somebody chose those proportions, and you can feel the choosing. [pause] It's the difference between a line drawn by a hand that knew where it was going and one that was measured out. That 'feel of the choosing' is the exact thing Bill was betting on. That there's a rightness you reach by eye, not by proof. And the eye is trained, not magic — but it's still an eye.
• 6:43
  Figure: Except the man who arrived in 1954 thought the eye was the problem. Tomás Maldonado. Argentine, a painter, a theorist. And by 1957 Bill was gone — resigned as rector in '56, left entirely in '57, in what the record calls an atmosphere of quarrel. He later said the school had suffered a 'technoid degeneration' of its once-good idea.
• 7:10
  Ground: He watched them turn his art school into a laboratory, and it revolted him.
• 7:15
  Figure: Maldonado's position, stated flat, in a lecture at the Brussels World Fair in 1958: the aesthetic factor is only one factor among many — neither the most important nor the dominant one. And then the sentence that became the school's fault line. Product design is not art. And the product designer is not necessarily an artist.
• 7:38
  Ground: I want to push on that, because it sounds brave and I'm not sure it's true. He's standing next to a stool a man drew on a napkin, made by eye, and saying the eye doesn't matter most. What did he actually mean — that you could reach that stool some other way? By calculation?
• 7:59
  Figure: Not quite — not calculation instead of the eye. His point was that the eye doesn't get to rule alone. He brought in what he called scientific operationalism. Method. Ergonomics — measure the body. Semiotics — the theory of signs, out of the American philosopher Peirce — so a visual message could be analysed, not just felt. Cybernetics, operations research, mathematics. One factor among many. The designer stops being the lone genius and becomes a coordinator, sitting inside a team, inside industrial production, as one equal voice.
• 8:39
  Ground: So the claim isn't 'beauty doesn't matter.' It's 'beauty isn't yours to declare.' You don't get to say a thing is good because your trained eye says so. You have to show your work.
• 8:52
  Figure: It isn't a whim, either. Read it generously and there's a moral aspiration under it. Remember what country this is, ten years on. The designer was to be an equal partner in an open industrial process, not a superior artist standing outside it. Call it: no more prophets. Decisions get made in the open, by argument, where anyone can check them. Rationalism as a kind of democracy.
• 9:17
  Ground: That's the founding grief again, wearing a lab coat. If you never want another Führer of taste, you end up with a school where taste has to justify itself out loud. [pause] But here's where I stop following him. You can measure a chair against a spine. You can test a typeface for legibility. You cannot measure why the Ulm stool feels decided and a merely-correct stool feels dead. Both pass the tests. One of them is alive. What science reaches that?
• 9:49
  Figure: He'd say that gap is exactly where you smuggle mysticism back in. The 'aliveness' might just be conventions you haven't examined yet.
• 9:59
  Ground: Maybe. Or it's the real thing and the tests are too coarse to catch it. I don't think the school ever settled that — and I don't think it settles by one side just asserting it.
• 10:10
  Figure: Then take the object that made the school's name. Braun — the radio company, taken over by two brothers, Artur and Erwin, in 1954 — turns to Ulm after that. Gugelot leads the work. The result, in 1956, is a record player and radio, the SK4. Gugelot's housing was two wooden sides and a bent metal sheet. Honest. You could read how it was made just by looking at it. [pause] The trouble was the lid. And there's a story here. Braun's artistic director, Fritz Eichler, goes to see Gugelot in Ulm and finds him melancholic, stuck. [pause] Then Dieter Rams — who's at Braun, not the school, an architect they'd hired the year before — proposes a lid in clear Perspex. Transparent plastic over the whole works. [pause] And Braun hated it. Said it looked like a bread box. They actually shot the brochure photos without the lid. Until someone landed on the nickname — Snow White's Coffin, the glass casket you see the sleeping girl through — and suddenly the transparency was the entire point. That lid went on to change the whole phono industry.
• 11:18
  Ground: I love that the joke saved it. 'Bread box' is a killing word — it makes the thing domestic and cheap. 'Snow White's coffin' is the same object reframed as something you're meant to gaze into. Nobody measured their way to that. Somebody felt the second name. [pause] And the doctrine under the lid is the real inheritance. Material honesty. The works don't get hidden. The speaker grille stays a speaker grille, the joins show, the mechanism goes under glass instead of behind a nice fascia. The object tells the truth about what it is.
• 11:58
  Figure: Which is a technical position and an ethical one at once. Concealment as a kind of lie. It's the same instinct as 'no more prophets' — don't dress a thing up as something it isn't. [pause] And Gugelot is worth knowing as a person. Indonesian-born, Dutch parents, trained as an architect in Zurich. He'd call his own early radio cabinets 'sound furniture' — half a joke, half a real idea, that a radio was a piece of furniture that happened to make sound. He was one of the pioneers of 'system design' at Ulm. And he died of a heart attack in 1965, at forty-five.
• 12:36
  Ground: Dead at forty-five. So the man who set Braun's entire visual language, the systems pioneer, doesn't live to see the school close or the influence land.
• 12:47
  Figure: And this is the thread that runs to the phone. Rams took that honesty — from Gugelot, from Aicher — and boiled it into ten principles and a phrase, less but better. He told the critic Mendini his own work would have been unthinkable without the way those men paved. Rams was never Ulm faculty, to be exact. He was at Braun. But the doctrine is Ulm's.
• 13:11
  Ground: So when people say the whole clean-design religion runs Braun to Apple, that part's honestly true. The line is real.
• 13:19
  Figure: There's a third object I'd put on the bench, because it shows the other half — not honesty, but system. The TC 100 tableware. A student, Nick Roericht, did it as his diploma, 1959. Stacking cups, plates, bowls. Thirty-odd pieces, all coordinated, all built to nest. And the shape of every piece is governed by a two per cent taper — a slope — that exists only because that's the angle you need to pull the piece cleanly out of its mould.
• 13:47
  Ground: So the manufacturing constraint draws the object.
• 13:51
  Figure: A cup isn't decorated first and made second. It starts from how it's made, how it stacks, how it sits with all the other pieces in the set — and the form falls out of that. That's what they meant by thinking in systems. The unit isn't the cup. The unit is the whole family and its rules. [pause] And that's the idea with the longest reach. There was a Swiss designer in the same orbit, Karl Gerstner. In 1964 he wrote a book, Designing Programmes. The core move: not the final thing, but the rule-set that generates a whole family of things. His line — the maximum of conformity to a rule with the maximum of freedom. The most constants, the greatest variability. [pause] If you've ever heard a designer talk about a 'design system' — tokens, a type scale, a grid, parts that snap together — that's this, sixty years on. Define the constants once, let the variety come out of them. It's the pure Ulm reflex: don't make the artifact, make the machine that makes the artifact.
• 14:53
  Ground: So the design systems designers build now — the token libraries, the component kits — those descend straight from Ulm. That's a clean genealogy. I want it to be true.
• 15:04
  Figure: Careful. That's the story designers tell each other, and it's too clean. The people who actually coined 'atomic design' and 'design tokens' don't cite Ulm. There's no paper trail from Gerstner to the token. It's a lineage of ideas, not a documented hand-off. Same reflex, reinvented, probably without knowing the ancestor.
• 15:24
  Ground: So I'm doing the exact thing this show is meant to catch. Feeling a connection and promoting it to a fact.
• 15:32
  Figure: It's a real resemblance. It just isn't a proven descent. Keep the wall between those. The resemblance is worth something — it tells you the reflex keeps getting rediscovered because it works. But 'it feels connected' isn't 'it's the parent.'
• 15:48
  Ground: Here's what I keep circling. The school's whole gamble was that you could push method further and further into the making until the intuition had nowhere left to hide. So the real question is whether they ever hit the bottom. Is there a floor of feeling that method never gets under — or is 'feeling' just the parts you haven't rationalised yet?
• 16:11
  Figure: And the school ran that experiment to its end. By the mid-sixties the method wing had gone further than even Maldonado wanted — pure design methodology, taught as its own subject. Which is where the most important person you've never heard of comes in. Horst Rittel. A mathematician, a physicist. He taught design method and cybernetics and the philosophy of science at Ulm from 1958, then went to Berkeley. [pause] Rittel helped launch what got called the Design Methods Movement — the dream that you could give design a rigorous method, the way engineering has one. First-generation methods, they'd later name them. And then Rittel turned on his own movement.
• 16:51
  Ground: The methodologist becomes the method's critic.
• 16:54
  Figure: He helped develop the framework for why the dream fails. Wicked problems. The name itself came from a colleague: in 1967, West Churchman heard Rittel describe these tangled planning problems and gave them that memorable label — wicked problems. Rittel and Melvin Webber developed it in print in 1973.
• 17:15
  Ground: And what makes a problem wicked?
• 17:18
  Figure: A tame problem — chess, a maths proof — has a clear statement and a stopping point. You know when it's solved. A wicked problem has no definitive formulation. Every attempt to solve it changes it. There's no stopping rule — no point where you can say 'done, correct.' You can't test-run your answer. You get one shot, and it has consequences. And there are no right answers, only better and worse ones — judged by people who don't share the same values.
• 17:49
  Ground: That's just — most of the actual problems. A city. A school. What a chair in a home should even be. The moment real people and real values are in it, it stops being a puzzle with an answer.
• 18:03
  Figure: And Rittel's later work is what makes the whole Ulm conflict legible — from the outside, after the fact. He left Ulm in 1963; this thought arrives at Berkeley, in print with Webber in '73, five years after the school was already gone. His words: the dichotomies between systematic and intuitive, rational and non-rational design — they're untenable. There is no clean line. You can't sort design into a method half and a feeling half, because the feeling is inside the method the whole way down.
• 18:37
  Ground: So the school that pushed to put method under feeling — to subordinate the eye to the measurement — produced the man who later argued the two can't be cleanly divided. That isn't a failure. That's a finding. They pushed rationalism as hard as anyone ever has, in earnest, for fifteen years, with the best people — and the honest reading that came back, even from inside their own ranks, was: it doesn't bottom out. Push the method all the way down and you still find a judgment waiting there, doing the work. [pause] And that's a different thing from Bill saying 'trust the eye.' Bill said feeling comes first and method serves it. Rittel is saying something harder — that even when you try to make method sovereign, you find judgment sitting at the centre of it, choosing which problem you're even solving. You can't compute your way out of having to decide what matters.
• 19:34
  Figure: You can watch the same lesson land in the corner of the school that tried hardest to make beauty calculable. Max Bense ran an Information department. He wanted an information aesthetics — aesthetic value you could compute, out of Shannon and information theory. It seeded early computer art. But the school's own practitioners found it, in their words, not helpful enough in the actual work. The number never told them which thing was good.
• 20:02
  Ground: The most rational people in the building couldn't get the equation to make a single decision for them.
• 20:09
  Figure: There's a structural thing worth naming too, because it's both the school's engine and its poison. From 1958 the industrial commissions ran through numbered development groups inside the school — Aicher's Group Five did the Lufthansa identity, that strict modular grid with the crane mark and a tightly restricted palette — the yellow later coded as RAL 1028; Gugelot's group did Braun. Real commissions, real money, students on live jobs. It's how a chronically broke school paid its bills.
• 20:39
  Ground: And the poison?
• 20:40
  Figure: Large sums flowing through faculty hands, inside a school the local conservatives already distrusted. It handed opponents a lever. The thing keeping the school alive financially is the thing they'd use to attack it. The same doubleness as everything else here. [pause] And the most striking afterlife belongs to one of Bense's own students. Gui Bonsiepe. After Ulm closed he went to Latin America, [pause] and in Salvador Allende's Chile he was the chief designer, in 1972 and '73, of the operations room for something called Project Cybersyn — Stafford Beer's attempt to run a whole socialist economy in real time, by cybernetics. A hexagonal room, seven fibreglass chairs, control buttons built into the armrests, data coming in by telex to a single computer.
• 21:32
  Ground: A Bauhaus-descended German building a cybernetic control room for a socialist president. The Ulm dream of rational design, scaled up to an entire national economy.
• 21:45
  Figure: And it lasted about as long as the government did. After the 1973 coup, the Pinochet military abandoned Cybersyn and destroyed the operations room; a decentralised, worker-fed machine was no use to a dictatorship. The historian Eden Medina wrote the standard account of it. And now people invoke it both ways — as the ancestor of the real-time data monitoring firms like Uber run on, and as a lost vision of planning done in the open.
• 22:14
  Ground: So the same idea can serve Allende and it can serve Uber. Which tells you the method really is neutral. It doesn't carry the ethics. The ethics have to be brought.
• 22:25
  Figure: That's the point Ulm keeps making against itself. The founders believed rational, honest design was inherently on the side of democracy. And the tool turns out to be a tool. It'll build a workers' council or a surveillance panel with equal ease.
• 22:40
  Ground: Then I want to go back and be harder on the founders. If the method is neutral, then all that moral weight at the beginning — the White Rose, the repair — none of it actually transferred into the objects. A grey Braun radio isn't more democratic than a chrome American one. It's just quieter. The ethics were in the people, not the things.
• 23:01
  Figure: Partly. But I'd hold one distinction. The ethics didn't live in the finished radio, no. They lived in the process — the insistence that nobody gets to be the prophet, that decisions happen in the open, that the object tells the truth about itself. That's not visible in the object like a colour. It's visible in how the object was arrived at. Which is exactly the thing you can't photograph, and exactly why the school gets remembered for the wrong half.
• 23:28
  Ground: The famous half being the look.
• 23:31
  Figure: Bonsiepe wrote a whole essay late in life — 'The Invisible Facets of the HfG Ulm' — arguing everyone fixates on the same handful of beautiful products and misses the real Ulm, the invisible thing: the methods, the arguments, the ethics of the process. And he also mocked what the method wing became. 'The arabesques of rationality,' he called it. The splendour and boredom of design methodology. One man, on both sides of it, in one life. [pause] And the school died the way it was born — politically. December 1967, the state government of Baden-Württemberg says: merge into the local engineering college and give up your autonomy, or we cut the money. Students and staff refuse. Sit-ins, teach-ins.
• 24:18
  Ground: The school of 1968, meeting 1968.
• 24:22
  Figure: Two days after Paris erupted in May '68, they got word that Gropius — eighty-three now — was opening a Bauhaus exhibition in Stuttgart. So they demonstrated outside it, with placards saying the state was doing to Ulm what the Nazis had done to the Bauhaus. And Gropius ended up addressing the demonstration through a loudspeaker. The founder of the Bauhaus, an accidental recruit to a student revolt about the death of his own successor school.
• 24:49
  Ground: And the placards — tell that part.
• 24:52
  Figure: The placards were set with total care. Lowercase spruce sans-serif, exact palette. Even dying, the school demonstrated its own discipline. The protest was itself a piece of Ulm design. [pause] The vote to withdraw all funding came in November 1968. René Spitz, who wrote the forensic political history, argues the decision had been made at the very top of regional politics — no protest was ever going to move it. And the premier, Hans Filbinger, reportedly framed it this way: we want to make something new, and for that we need to liquidate the old.
• 25:28
  Ground: From the premier who'd just framed the closure as a need to liquidate the old, said about a school founded in the name of two people the Nazis killed. It closes the loop the smear opened in 1952. The same conservative suspicion, sixteen years apart, finishing the job.
• 25:49
  Figure: A school built as democratic repair, shut by the state it was built to redeem, in the middle of the revolt it had spent fifteen years philosophically anticipating. That's the shape of it.
• 26:01
  Ground: So what's left standing, once you take away the tasteful-school story?
• 26:06
  Figure: Start with the man who helped build the scientific turn and then walked it back. Otl Aicher. Back in 1967, while Ulm was still open, he was named lead designer for the 1972 Munich Olympics — and carried it on after the school closed. The pictograms, that whole clean signage world, built on a grid of horizontals, verticals, and forty-five-degree diagonals. Those figures are ancestors of the little symbols you read in airports and stations. When the American transportation symbols were drawn in '74, the designers surveyed the whole field of existing signage — Munich's sets among the sources they studied; and the international public-information standard grew up in the same domain. [pause] So Aicher's grid is, quietly, one of the most-seen design systems there is. You've read its descendants ten thousand times without noticing. That's method's real triumph — not a museum object, but the invisible language of the terminal and the hospital corridor.
• 27:05
  Ground: And then, at the end of his life, that same man writes a book called Analog and Digital, and turns on the whole thing. He goes after — his words — the rationality of Modernism, the dominance of purely abstract thinking. He writes that things that are digital and abstract are not greater, not higher, not more important than things that are analogous and concrete. [pause] The man who did more than almost anyone to make design abstract and systematic spends his last words defending the concrete. The thing you can touch. The thing that resists the grid. Two of the deepest rationalists the school produced, Rittel and Aicher, both walking back to the same place from opposite ends of their careers.
• 27:58
  Figure: Rittel left the most usable version of it. He was an early skeptic of the idea that a machine could do the thinking for you — he said expert-system knowledge would turn into 'freeze-dried prejudices,' old judgments frozen and served back as fact. And he had a test I keep. He said: my eyeglasses don't see on my behalf. They help me see better. Use the computer that way — not to think for you, but to make your own thinking sharper.
• 28:25
  Ground: That's the whole Ulm argument compressed into a sentence you can carry. The tool that replaces judgment against the tool that sharpens it. Same question with the stool, with Cybersyn, with anything now.
• 28:39
  Figure: The archive that holds all this — it's inside Bill's original concrete building now — has an epitaph for the school that I think is the truest line anyone's written about it. It says: it wasn't the end that was heroic, it was the hopes at the beginning. The school shouldn't be measured by what it achieved — but by what it was no longer able to achieve.
• 29:01
  Ground: Not 'look what we built.' 'Look what we were interrupted before we could find out.' That's a strange thing to carve on a monument.
• 29:10
  Figure: And that's the honest residue. They set out to make the feeling answer to method — to put the prophet under the argument, the eye under the measurement. And the reading that came back, in earnest, over fifteen years, is that you can subordinate it but you can't remove it. The intuition never leaves. It only gets better informed.
• 29:29
  Ground: Which isn't a defeat for method. It's the most valuable thing method ever found. The stool still has to be felt. The cup still has to be felt. What Ulm changes is that afterward, the feeling has to be able to explain itself — it doesn't get to hide behind the word 'taste' anymore. Judgment and proof stop being enemies and turn into the two hands you work with.
• 29:55
  Figure: Bill said trust the eye. Maldonado said don't. And the truest answer wasn't one the school lived to state — it came later, from Rittel: neither. The line between them was never really there.
• 30:10
  Ground: So the thing they built to sort feeling from proof spent fifteen years circling the suspicion that they were one faculty in two coats. And then the state shut it down before anyone inside it could say so plainly.
• 30:25
  Ground: When something strikes you as right — a room, a sentence, a face across a table — could you ever fully show your work? Or is 'it just felt right' the honest floor, the place where every proof finally runs out and something older takes the last step?