a few weeks ago my friend went to new york for the weekend and ended up stopping by at magnolia bakery. she picked up half a dozen cupcakes and brought one back for me! naturally, i had to take a picture of the cupcake that traveled across the border only to end up in my tummy. while macking on the cupcake, i reminisced about all the good food that i had in new york…

on that note, i present you with the photographic proof. i’m also going to take a tiny hiatus from this blog to focus on the end of the semester. one paper and one final down, two massive papers and two monster finals to go. (my fingers are crossed for an influx of profound ideas and inspiring words) have a good week and eat well!

the stillness of hugs

busy is the word of the week around here… and there will be a lot of tea drinking!

a light blub designed by pieke bergmans

i believe that design holds the key to the future. i say so with confidence because design, as a process, has always been about the solving of multiple problems under one common motive, particularly by means of visual aesthetics. after seeing pieke bergmans’ design virus series, however, an interesting question came to mind: if design is problem solving, then what is the purpose or the underlying achievement in revealing the often invisible constructs of design?

light bulbs use electricity, which in turn emits heat. light bulbs are made of glass… glass becomes superfluous when heated. the material, in becoming molten, can change shapes and can be affected by its given environment. these light blubs are therefore light bulbs undoing their own design – what makes traditional light bulbs efficient become the means of exploitation in these creations.

at what point are these still considered objects of design? their original ergonomic intentions no longer remain, but the aesthetic values are still there. we see them, we like them, they still emit light and can be used as fancy chandeliers in a lofty loft somewhere. so can we call this “un-design”, or is it simply conceptual art?