I like the idea of objects which have reached their ultimate form. The technology of their making, and secondary design features may still evolve a bit, but in principle, these objects remain the same, simple and versatile, and nothing revolutionary new can surpass them.
The triad of a *notebook, a pencil and a rubber eraser* comes to my mind. Suitable for a child or for a sage; a frontline journalist or a pensive poet, for a writer of fiction and for a scientist; for everyone, rooted deeply enough in our habits, not to be substituted by any electronic device.
What makes an invention perennial? It is a *simple structure, and versatile application.* The more bespoke, sophisticated and narrowly-applicable contraptions are, the less likely they are to become the ultimate ones.
Yes that's a good formula: simplicity and versatility. Sudjic says that an archetype has to *immediately communicate* to the user what it does, and how one uses it. No instruction manuals.
Brilliant. In a world obsessed with innovation, the possibility of stopping is profound, and as you say, definitional -- that which "new" is defined against -- which is usually only implicit. I'll be thinking more about this one . . . bravo.
I like the idea of objects which have reached their ultimate form. The technology of their making, and secondary design features may still evolve a bit, but in principle, these objects remain the same, simple and versatile, and nothing revolutionary new can surpass them.
The triad of a *notebook, a pencil and a rubber eraser* comes to my mind. Suitable for a child or for a sage; a frontline journalist or a pensive poet, for a writer of fiction and for a scientist; for everyone, rooted deeply enough in our habits, not to be substituted by any electronic device.
What makes an invention perennial? It is a *simple structure, and versatile application.* The more bespoke, sophisticated and narrowly-applicable contraptions are, the less likely they are to become the ultimate ones.
Yes that's a good formula: simplicity and versatility. Sudjic says that an archetype has to *immediately communicate* to the user what it does, and how one uses it. No instruction manuals.
Brilliant. In a world obsessed with innovation, the possibility of stopping is profound, and as you say, definitional -- that which "new" is defined against -- which is usually only implicit. I'll be thinking more about this one . . . bravo.
Thanks David, I'm glad you enjoyed it!