|
|
For the exhibition do create in Milan the Dutch design group
Droog has designed objects that aim to activate the user in different
ways. DROOG DESIGN is a loose collaboration between a group of designers in Holland.
They design things that are sometimes produces in a series, and sometimes
so experimental and complex that they remain prototypes. Many of the times
in the Droog collection have the air of a manifesto, commenting on consumer
culture. Droog Design was founded in 1993. After a series of small shows in Holland and Belgium that year an exhibition was set up at the International Furniture Fair in Milan. Since then a wide range of products has been collected under the Droog name. Droog Design's "art-directors" are Renny Ramakers and Gijs Bakker. Richard Julin talked to Renny Ramakers about Droog and its design philosophy. Richard Julin: What are the main concerns or ideas that started Droog Design in 1993? Renny Ramakers: We started Droog Design because we noticed that a new generation of Dutch designers, though working independently, could be related to each other. Their work displayed a new mentality in Dutch design; they were reacting to general developments in design and culture. At the same time we noticed that design today is increasingly used as a marketing tool and that its cultural function seems to be disappearing. By bringing together these new developments, we thought we could simultaneously contribute to the international debate and promote young Dutch designers. That was how it began. Since then we have been organizing projects with young designers, with or without clients, and inviting foreign designers to participate in these projects. RJ: In you essay "Spirit of the Nineties" you state clearly that Droog's output is design and not art. You underline the importance of the balance between independent and industrial product design. Is Droog the independent rebel that refreshes the corporate design world or do you see yourselves as playing on both sides? RR: I hope Droog can act as one of the independents but at the same time play a role in the corporate design world. Companies are now asking us to cooperate with them. It is striking that they want to adopt our vision. Companies want new ideas. We use the same criteria in our corporate work as in our independent work, though we have, of course, certain restrictions related to production an pricing. It's our goal to follow both paths, the independent and the corporate. RJ: Droog seems to be investigating the recycling of form, recognizability and the ageing processes. How does Droog relate to the idea of originality in visual expression? RR: That's a good question. Recycling ideas, concepts, shapes, products, materials and typologies has nothing to do with a lack of originality. On the contrary, it all depends on how you re-use existing things. A lot of today's recycling practice is not original at all. A lot of designers just bring existing elements together and the result is nothing more than that. Something is original when the end result does not remind you of the ingredients anymore, when it's no longer a collection of existing elements but a product in itself. In general, it's a waste to use things only one, just for the sake of originality. Using something of the second or third time, whether it's ideas, concepts, materials, products, shapes or prototypes gives more depth and durability to the original product. Moreover, using what is already familiar in an innovative way might make new developments easier to accept. RJ: Do you feel that contemporary art addresses design issues or that it is related to them? RR: I think that there are developments in contemporary art that run parallel to some of those in design. For instance, you could connect the idea of "dirty realism" in the designs of Hella Jongerius and the idea of "not wanting to design" in the work of Tejo Remy to the tendency in the photographic arts to prefer spontaneous snapshots over perfect stills. I don't think it's influence but simply that both are a sign of the times: we are living in a self-made perfect environment and in the gym and on the operation table we are creating perfect bodies. It's expected that designers and artists would react to this. At the same time I think that one of the reasons why the idea of "dirty realism" and "not wanting to design" developed so strongly in The Netherlands has to do with the overdesigned and overregulated Dutch infrastructure - nothing is left to coincidence. Contemporary art is indeed moving towards the applied arts which means that a lot of contemporary artists are not making autonomous objects but are looking at human interaction, interfering with existing infrastructures, showing more interest in processes than in objects, regarding art as a matter of context instead of looking at the inherent quality of an object. One could say that there is a connection with issues in design and in that sense, it could benefit design. RJ: Droog means "dry" in Dutch. A wild guess is that historically a lot of creativity has been used to keep your country dry, as large parts of it are beneath sea level. Do you think that Droog's design is specifically Dutch? RR: I think Droog's design has indeed some specifically Dutch elements. In the first place it is a manifestation of Simon Schama's observation that the Dutch are not able to deal with extravagance and excess. Secondly it's a part of our tradition or individualism and recalcitrance. Dutch people love to question thing, love to protest. And if you wish to compare Droog with the necessity of keeping our country dry: our country is man-made, there is no wilderness at all, everything is also organized. I think this rational approach is also visible in Droog's products. Designers do no invent fanciful shapes, there's always a reason behind the design. Article from Nu: the Nordic Art Review Vol. II No. 2/00 ©Richard Julin, curator at Magasin3 Stockholm Konsthall |