Hasta La Ideas

Architect Peter Zumthor presents a series of his models in an old post office beside the Austrian gallery Kunsthaus Bregenz that he designed in the 1990s.

A variety of clay, wood and metal models are displayed upon shelves specially created for the show by Zumthor.

The exhibition includes many pieces that have been in storage at the gallery for nearly five years, since the architect’s previous exhibition there in 2007.

The exhibition runs until 28 October and another Zumthor exhibition entitled Architecture and Landscape is planned for 2013.

We filmed an interview with Zumthor last year at the opening of the 2011 Serpentine Gallery Pavilion – watch it here.

See all our stories about Peter Zumthor »

Here’s some more explanation from the Kunsthaus Bregenz:

KUB Collection Showcase Architectural Models by Peter Zumthor

In presenting Peter Zumthor’s architectural models the Kunsthaus Bregenz is opening a part of its hitherto little-known collection to a broader public. Few are aware that even before the opening of the Kunsthaus in 1997 purchase of works by contemporary Austrian artists as well as works at the crossroad of art and architecture by international artists had already begun. Significant donations by Donald Judd, Per Kirkeby, and others to accompany exhibitions and publications with the KUB have further extended the collection. Moreover, in the past three years there has been a policy of purchasing works from the big solo exhibitions or of artists donating them to the institution as a form of return service.

One of the largest groups of works in the collection consists of architectural models by Peter Zumthor. Some of these exhibits have been in storage at the KUB since the architect’s solo exhibition in 2007. Further models have been or are still being added to the collection as permanent loans.

As of June 2012 a selection of these models by Peter Zumthor will be on show in the 200 square-meter space on the first floor of the Post Office building directly adjacent to the Kunsthaus Bregenz. The curatorial conception and design of this showcase has been developed in close consultation with Peter Zumthor by Thomas Durisch. Realized buildings as well as projects that remained in the design stage will be on show. In its variety the exhibition demonstrates the outstanding role that working with models and original materials such as wood, metal, or clay play in Peter Zumthor’s studio.

In addition to the majority of exhibits, which are presented on a system of display shelves specially designed for the purpose by the architect, three specimen projects will be individually displayed. These three projects, all involving cultural spaces in the broadest sense of the word, are of recent date. All three buildings serve in different ways as gathering places for the presentation of cultural products such as handicrafts and music or (Redevelopment of De Meelfabriek, Leiden) revitalize an industrial heritage. Two of the projects (Werkraumhaus, Andelsbuch, and New Town Gate, Isny) are also notable for their geographical closeness to Bregenz.

Following the current presentation an exhibition of models by Peter Zumthor in the KUB Collection Showcase titled Architecture and Landscape is planned for 2013.

The post Architectural models
by Peter Zumthor appeared first on Dezeen.

We’ve (flot)spotted some of NZ-based Richard Clarkson‘s work before and we’re always curious to see what he’s working on. His latest project, the f(x) Chair, has more in common with his more cerebral Rotary Smartphone concept than his rather more straightforward, papasan-like Cradle.

The f(x) chair is an exploration of mixing and mashing different seating contexts. At its core is an application created through Processing & Grasshopper, a powerful generative 3D modelling plugin for Rhino. The app allows a user to mix and match any standard context with any standard “seating task.” For instance if a user wants a seat in the kitchen with which to also work in the outcome would look somewhat like a stool—office chair hybrid. The power of the app then comes from the ability to adjust the percentages of the mix, i.e 20% kitchen / 80% work.

Where his fellow Kiwis’ “Sketchchair” was based on a similarly digital concept, Clarkson’s f(x) Chair generates results that might be considered as the polar opposite of the SketchChair: both programs allow for customization, but Clarkson’s application suggests the drawbacks of a pseudo-scientific approach to furniture design.

Ironically this mixing of contexts often creates a hybrid which rather than suiting both contexts actually doesn’t suit either, but I argue that this is the beauty of this system. These hybrids allow users to interpret seating in new ways, derived away from the conventional seat to customizable “body support systems.”

Although the final product—doughy globs slapped onto a wire frame—looks like a fascinating experiment in itself, it would be difficult to deduce the design process from any given prototype.

The location, size and fluidity of the blobs are predefined within the app by the user and can be adjusted to suit the users desired comfort levels. The base frame is exported out and CNC bent into sections which are welded together. A nylon web like mesh is then ‘spun’ on the frame. Expanding Polyurethane foam is then robotically blobbed onto points of the web. This manufacturing technique allows for true customization by doing away with moulds or wasteful subtraction manufacturing processes. The intermingling of these elements, rod frame (structure), web (sub-structure) and blobs (comfort) form a relationship in which each element enhances the qualities of the other, for instance the blobs strengthen the web and in return the web gives extra flexibility and thus comfort to the blobs.

(more…)

Off-road electric Land Rovers, stadium seating and grill-mounted bars from our Zambian transport specialists

For our first Cool Hunting Edition travel experience we brought 24 friends and readers on safari in Zambia. Over the course of eight days CH Zambia guests experienced the wonders and wildlife of Africa with a few surprises from our brand partners. More stories and videos here. Started in…

Continue Reading…

In a new ad for the Acer Aspire S5 Ultrabook from Mother ad agency, Kiefer Sutherland sends up his 24 character while demonstrating how real men make cupcakes…

The spot’s link to Intel is a teensy bit vague – essentially it’s saying that the Acer laptop allows us to explore our hidden passions, which in Kiefer’s case turns out to be cupcakes – but it’s very funny so perhaps that doesn’t really matter.

Credits:
Agency: Mother
Production company: Stink
Director: Ivan Zacharias

*The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of his firm or its clients.

The mere mention of design patents in the title of this article has already gotten most of you thinking about the ongoing trial of Apple against Samsung. Many are waiting to see which side of the dispute I’ll favor and some people are ready to unleash their arguments against my position. They’ll have to keep waiting, though, because this article isn’t about Apple v. Samsung…well, as much as any article on design patents right now can manage to not be about Apple v. Samsung.

While we wait through what many are characterizing as the “boring” part of the trial, I’d like to take some time to discuss design patents in general. I’m sure that many industrial designers who are following the Apple v. Samsung case are wondering how a handful of design patents, the oft-maligned afterthought of the intellectual property (or “IP” world), can make up a significant part of a $2.5 billion lawsuit. More importantly, designers should be interested to know what the impact of this case will be on design patents and how that will affect their own work.

From a purely legal standpoint, nothing is likely to change because of Apple v. Samsung, regardless of the outcome. Any design patent not involved in the trial will be the same on the day after the verdict as it was the day before. The decision in Apple v. Samsung is going to be based on how the jury interprets the facts of the case. The only way any law has a chance of being changed is if a decision gets appealed.

The real potential for impact, however lies in the mere fact that the design and business worlds are paying close attention to the design patent side of this case in the first place. Design patents have been around for over 150 years and in that time have only seen limited usage. Sure, many people or corporations have sued in the past to enforce their design rights with some success, but both the number of design patent lawsuits and the number of design patents granted pale in comparison to those of utility patents.

The traditionally meager status of design patents is the reason why many designers are likely surprised by the prominence of design patents in Apple v. Samsung. In all reality, practically everyone who has an opinion holds design patents in the lowest esteem of all the different forms of IP protection. You’ll find that most people listing the different areas of intellectual property will rattle off copyright, trademark and patent while actually only thinking of utility patents—the more esteemed form of patent protection that is geared toward what an invention is or how it functions.

If asked about protection for the visual aspects of a product’s design, that same person might then dismissively mention the existence of a design patent before relaying a common view about them: they’re easy to get around, but they’re cheap and easy to get. This perspective views design patents, at best, a quick way to get a patent number to slap on a product.

The negative view of design patents is so widespread that even most designers feel that there is no meaningful way to protect the appearance of a product. The fact is that while many of the innovations that come out of design and design thinking find adequate protection in utility patents, most designers feel that there is no meaningful way to protect the appearance of a product. As a result, designers often feel that a substantial part of their work is left vulnerable to copying. This feeling exists in spite of the fact that an entire section of IP law in the United States has been carved out for the protection of a product’s visual design.

Before we get too far in, it is important to understand the different types of IP protection and how they relate to each other. Put as simply as possible, patents protect things and methods for making or using things, trademarks essentially protect brand identity and copyrights protect artistic expression. As mentioned above, patents are further broken down into utility patents and design patents. While methods fit exclusively within the area of utility patents, physical things can find protection on both the utility and design sides.

Essentially, the structure or functional elements of a thing can be protected by utility patents, and the physical appearance can be protected by design patents. If there are any features of a product that straddle the line between being functional or being visual, you can often find a way to get protection from both types of patents. This alone is a major advantage of design patents over trademarks and copyrights, which both specifically exclude coverage for anything functional (the recent grant of trademark protection to Hershey’s notable chocolate bar pattern notwithstanding). To get design protection for something that has unique characteristics both visually and functionally, all you have to do is to find a way to present it so that the appearance of what you’re protecting is dictated more by aesthetics than by function, if only slightly.

While Apple v. Samsung isn’t currently rewriting any design patent laws, it’s certainly putting design patents in a position that makes them hard to ignore. Apple’s focus on its design rights with respect to a product that is also covered by over 200 utility patents (by Apple’s own count) is making people realize that, if you’re serious about design, you need to seriously consider design patents. The key for designers going forward is going to be knowing what it means to be serious about design patents.

Unfortunately, I can’t simply say that the common, dismissive view of design patents is absolutely false and that filing more design patent applications and suing more people for design patent infringement will fix everything. The fact is that not all design patents are created equal, and that it’s really easy to end up with a bad one. If you go into the patent process with the view that you’re just trying to get a cheap and easy patent, a design patent can fit that bill, but it may prove to be worth about the amount of consideration and time that went into it. Often, this ends up being very little or nothing at all. On the other hand, with the right thought process and a little extra effort, it is actually possible to get valuable coverage from a design patent.

The problem is that the cheap and easy approach to design patents is so pervasive that it weighs down the entire design patent system. The result is that each of the components of this view have been almost accepted as fact. However, the thinking that design patents are easy to avoid, that they’re cheap and that their only redeeming quality is that they’re easy to get, are really misconceptions about design patents that arose over time from lack of understanding of or appreciation for design itself. As you can see, this problem is bigger than three individual design patents and can’t be fixed by one simple trial, but designers can use the opportunity presented by the current attention to design patents as a way to take steps to erase these misconceptions.

To understand how to get valuable design patents we need to understand why so many bad design patents have been filed and have been issued in the past. This involves exploring each misconception about design patents to see that they are not indicative of inherent limitations of design patents in general. Of course, simply knowing that good design patents are a possibility is only one step to actually getting one yourself. Fortunately, there are a few simple things that designers can do themselves to ensure that the design patents they get or that cover their designs are worth the effort and expense.

Misconception 1: Design Patents Are Easy to Get Around

Everything starts with the idea that design patents are inherently narrow in scope and that any design patent can be avoided or “designed around” by simply making some minor change to the original design. Historically, it’s true that most of the people who have tried to sue someone for infringement of a design patent have found that their patents can’t protect against much more than blatant copies. We can see that this isn’t always the case though, by the simple fact that Apple’s case against Samsung has made it this far. The reason why people have such a hard time covering other products with their design patents, however, is really a problem with how those specific patents are put together and not because of some built-in limitation of design patents in general.

(more…)