DRS2012 Bangkok Proceedings Vol 4 - Design Research Society

Figure 1 Walter Gropius: Terraced Houses in Dessau-Törten, 1928.
Figure 2 Facade of the Terraced Houses in Dessau-Törten, around 2000.
Figure 3 Interior of a House in Dessau-Törten, around 2000.
Source: Fig 1 Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum für Gestaltung, Berlin; Fig. 2, 3 Nils Emde.
Dagmar STEFFEN
At least, since the modernist ideas in design, the term “experiment” has become
widespread in the design community, as a literature review in the German design
magazine “form, Zeitschrift für Gestaltung” indicates. A query in the ‘form’ online-archive
(www.form.de) shows 350 hits for the term ‘experiment’ and its inflections during the
period 1957-2007. A deeper analysis of the articles and reports sheds light on the usage
of the term by the authors and the implicit meaning it receives from that: products, that
stand out from accustomed shapes, established product categories, and familiar use, and
products that challenged the borders of technical feasibility or cultural acceptability – such
products were called ‘experimental designs’. Figure 4–6 show three examples of what is
meant by ‘experimental design’ by design journalists, designers and companies. Their
focus is on innovative, outstanding products that attract a great deal of attention from
media and market.
Figure 4 Verner Panton’s design Atmosphére for the publisher Spiegel Verlagshaus (1968).
Figure 5 Luigi Colani’s Total Living Unit (1969).
Figure 6 Fernando and Humberto Campana, Armchair with cuddy toys (2004)
Source: Fig 4 http://designmuseum.org; Fig. 5, 6 www.form.de
Reflection or contextualisation within a theoretical framework, not to mention generation
of theory, is usually beyond the interest of the authors in the ‘form’ magazine. Thus,
referring to the scholarly concept of experiment described above, there is no doubt, that
most designers pursue “a rudimentary form of experimental action” (Schmidgen, Geimer
& Diering) i.e.; trial and error. During the design process, they may often be in the
situation where they ask themselves ‘How can I master this or that?’, and advance
several alternative hypotheses. As hypothesis-testing practitioners, they apply the same
logic as the hypothesis-testing scientist, described by Schön. Nonetheless the difference
between both activities is fundamental. This becomes obvious in a text from Willy Rotzler
Conference Proceedings 1753