Today is Nate Berkus Day, declared by Joy and Janet @moggitgirls. For those who don’t know, Nate is (was) Oprah’s designer and is now going to host his own design show on NBC in September.
Whoopie. Another celebrity interior designer with his own show.
But wait! This guy has dogs! This is an interesting twist for us out here in design-lemming-land.
What if every design episode starts off with the question, “Can this design survive a wet dog?” During the course of the episode — as the design is coming together — Nate does a variation on the design for people with dogs and people without. “If you don’t have a dog, that white Italian leather sofa is a good idea; if you do, why not consider this equally attractive but not as expensive pleather look a-like that is easier to clean?” that sort of thing.
Real people have dogs. And dogs play havoc with design. Unless you start the design with the ability to keep it looking clean and nice and work backwards. (inspired by this post by Paul Anatar. If you can’t clean it, don’t install it.)
Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://ht.ly/1YqEz @dogwalkblog joins in on the #nateday festivities.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @Paul_Anater: Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://ht.ly/1YqEz @dogwalkblog joins in on the #nateday festivities.
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I love the ‘Hook’. I would watch this, even though I am a cat person. I am definitely going to ‘Stumbleupon’ this article. Well done.
I think he’s the first professional interior designer to have a network show. Sure, others have shows, but they are relegated to HGTV, Style, and FLN.
@Brian He should definitely do cats as well. Charlie has a cat named Snickers and she has made a mess of the top edge of the very expensive, cream-colored Italian leather sofa with her nails! My design solution? Cover the edge she likes to perch on with a fabric cover that is close to the same color as the sofa. Not a great solution so I’d be very interested in how Nate would solve the problem.
@Jeannine I was thinking that he was the first “cross-over” designer but wasn’t sure and didn’t have the time to fact-check.
Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://ht.ly/21oXR
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @Tinavay: Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://ht.ly/21oXR
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Pingback: Successful design
Do you walk with both feet on the ground? Your take on successful design is excellent because it honors simplicity and function. I cannot tell you the amount of times I’ve been attracted to strong, beautiful, inspiring design only to have the item simply not function, or not function well. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world it would be if the designer had actually used the item in all its iterations before they actually put a price tag on it. This needed to be a 2 part answer because if it were only a matter of creating something refined to its essence it would be art. It is “paying for the printing” as well that gives us successful design. Made perfect sense to me. Thank you.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
Excellent. My first reaction was that good design is expensive. You need a good, experienced designer to develop a good design. One who understands and is sympathetic to the thing being designed. Engineers who actually USE the things they design tend to get better quicker than the ones that don’t (based on observations of software engineers). The military have a level of electronics they buy which they call “Tempest”… I could tell you what that means, but then I’d have to kill you. You know how that goes. Tempest specs are good design because they meet a certain set of needs. But you could still design a badly conceived product to meet Tempest specs. I think you nailed it, “good design” is “good” in the context of usage. Once that graphics designer understands printing, they may still do a rotten layout. But without understanding printing, whether the layout actually works is up to chance, and, no matter how nice it looks, it is not “good” design. I buy that. ((Hey, I took the time to read the blog, of COURSE I had to comment!))
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
@JoAnn Locktov @euonymous Hell has a special level reserved for engineers who design stuff on paper but never bother to use the stuff themselves. I’d like to lash the engineer who designed my mower to the handle, pull that pin on the self-propelled lever and watch him being dragged across the lawn in 90 degree heat
Expensive is paying one designer to design something another has to do over. It is almost always more cost effective to design it right the first time.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
I have never understood the logic of designing something that does not perform its function. And I absolutely do not understand how software engineers can go through life without learning how to type! But because they, and the other people who work on computer designs clearly do not type, we have the caps lock key under the tab key, so it gets hit a lot by accident. You can say that about a lot of the designs we have to put up with these days.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
@joseph Mr. Qwerty is rolling over in his grave obsessing about all the damage he has inflicted. And Mr. Dvork just won’t shut up about how much better he is. Thanks for chiming in. It irritates me when I get code back all riddled with typos on the variables that I have to live with ad infinitum simply because the programmer did not take the time to do it right the first time. Interestingly enough, though, programmers also have pens and paper that make typos at the same rate.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
Well written indeed. I firmly believe in the working backwards mentality when learning. All of our designers must spend time working in our shop, carving, pre-fitting, routing and, yes, installing. That way, they begin to learn what is possible, what reaches the extremes of possible, and what simply may not be worth the additional time and liability in the shop. Very much enjoyed your post. Yes, it must work to succeed.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
Yes, I believe you hit the nail dead center on its head. Your statements here “…If a sink looks nice, but is not maintainable, the design fails. If a couch looks cool but can’t weather a wet dog, the design fails. If a house built on the side of a cliff slides off because the architect did not understand soil composition, the design fails” is exactly, to me anyway, what makes a successful design. What’s the point of the aesthetics if the function of the design fails to work as intended.
This comment was originally posted on DogWalkBlog
RT @dogwalkblog Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://bit.ly/bG5Zq6
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @Hal_Good: RT @dogwalkblog Great design, but will it survive a wet dog? http://bit.ly/bG5Zq6
This comment was originally posted on Twitter