Skip to main content

On innovation

Design, innovation and the making of things have been hot topics of late. Whether it is from the perspective of the manufacturing industry, the designers or commentators, many words have been split. Take for example a session on RN's By Design this morning.

It began by addressing some of the structural problems design and innovation face in Australia, but very quickly the two 'industry experts' began talking about what Nike do, what IBM do, what Apple do - what it is that drives their success.

I have two significant problems with this sort of response.

Firstly Apple, Nike, are transnational corporations. They buy skill, materials and assembly processes irrespective of where their board may happen to meet. They are by dint of the sheer size of their customer bases, able to disrupt supply chains, manipulate markets, pressure the prices for raw materials. They also intervene in the process of governance in sovereign states when their economic interests may be perceived to be under threat. Are they successful? So successful that design experts breathlessly inform us continually that they are models we should follow. But they are not ethical businesses, they often act in such a manner as to have negative impacts on other sectors of the economy, and they do not overall benefit either design or innovation outside of their own perceived narrow fields of operation.

Secondly, the scale of such operations is completely ridiculous to offer up as a model for start-ups, or even for governments looking at how to promote innovation. Indeed it is more than likely that behemoths such as Nike in fact stifle innovation as they dominate potential markets, spending more on marketing in a month than most start-ups could raise as investment capital over their entire lifetime.

Innovation is not about privileging business practices and governmental planning which insists on the right to make profit, regardless of the damage or medium and long term problems such decisions will cause. The market is not right, nor rational. Business will demand conditions that best suit them - whether it benefits anyone else is of no interest.

Innovation does not derive from copying someone else. If you want to find out what might drive innovation, I'd suggest start by reading Jane Jacobs, and then move onto Stephen Hogbin or Pat Kirkham on the Eames  design practice. Or perhaps answer the question of why does Lend Lease have to import the laminated timber products it is using in the Forte Apartments project in Melbourne. We ship our forests offshore as wood chips and buy in return tertiary processed building materials.

If we do want to foster innovation, it will come by supporting makers, designers and skilled tradespeople with tax arrangements that support R+D, establishing  innovation hubs, substantially improving design education (instead of allowing universities such as ANU to slowly kill off once vibrant learning environments), utilising opportunities proffered by shifting to a low carbon economy to come up with new ideas, new processes - a future where filling containers bound for Australia with poorly designed and made products will no longer be profitable.


Popular posts from this blog

Social media - useful or evil necessity?

There are many many people much better placed to discuss this topic than I am, but my usual state of annoyance with any form of social media is at a particularly high pitch of late so I thought it terribly helpful for the state of the planet to share my thoughts on this weighty topic from the perceptive of a maker who feebly attempts to use it to 'boost her presence."
Firstly, it always seems to be slightly last year. Yes there are committed users, rather like the ageing fans of Happy Days who still think the Fonz  is the epitomeof cool, not to mention the marketing specialists who can roll out hundreds of excellent reasons as to why you should, including compelling examples of fortunes made, reputations enhanced and products sold in their, well, dozens but what if, at the end of the day, you're just pretty rubbish at it.
Allow me to snap at the hand that one day may offer crumbs from its table...
FacebookThis is obviously modelled on the second circle of hell. You have no c…

An Anniversary

Gazelle table, Judy Kensley McKie - Mahogany, paint, glass, 34"H x 60"W x 18" D

Pritam & Eames Gallery in East Hampton, New York is perhaps the best known commercial gallery focusing on studio furniture in the US today. Since 1981, the gallery has shown just about all of the major makers in the States.

Over June, the gallery held an Anniversary show which included Judy Kensley McKie, Wendy Maruyama and Rich Tannen. Bear with the rather odd layout of the Pritam website - for whatever reason they seem very reluctant to use Flash to display the images...

They will also be holding a show, Seating, from August 6 which should also be very interesting....
"Eggo" Wall vessel, Don Miller - Bleached white oak, 31"H x 18"W x 7.5"D

Raw linseed oil is not a furniture or joinery finish

Repeat after me.....

Raw linseed oil is not a furniture or joinery finish
Raw linseed oil is not a furniture or joinery finish
Raw linseed oil is not a furniture or joinery finish

Raw linseed oil, if it dries at all, dries very very slowly over many months. You might be lucky if you apply it and then rub it all off, but most of time it will linger on the surface, gradually becoming stickier and stickier.

Nor is it temperature or UV resistant. In areas under windows or near stovetops, it will break down or blister. On furniture, it will darken over time til it's almost black, particularly on areas where the piece might be handled such as the back of chairs.

And it will be sticky. And extremely difficult to remove later on.

Oil finishes either have to rely on the oil being modified during its manufacture with the addition of driers or being able to polymerise themselves. Polymerisation means that within hopefully less than 4-6 weeks, the oil's solvent has evaporated, it's ox…