One of the things I hate about the design of most things, especially most electronic things, and definitely most autmotive things, is they're all designed to be new. They're all at their best when you buy them and they get worse the second you remove them from the packaging. Everything premium is made from easily scratchable metal, instantly grubby plastic, or never to be pristine again glossy white stuff. So full marks to Sony for the elegant way a black DSC-T7 loses its paint and looks kind of cool when it does. Not every one will look like this, my cameras always get pretty battered, but there's a splendid patina to the thing that makes it feel personal and mine.
It's like the Japanese notion of Wabi Sabi... beauty in imperfection.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 26, 2006 at 06:03 PM
Great observation and well said . . .
Posted by: JAbbott | June 30, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Before I began reading this, I was afraid you'd be upset about the way that camera has aged, but I'm glad you can appreciate it.
My problem with products today is that they are rarely even given enough time to age. My digital camera have either broken or been made obsolete, while my Pentax K1000 and Bronica S2a (from the 70s!) still work like new. When the do give up, they can be repaired locally.
I just think people should go back to building things that last. Sigh.
Posted by: Brian | June 30, 2006 at 09:49 PM
My Canon Powershot 110 has silvery paint that is eroded away in a fleck, speckled pattern by too much exposure to salt water spray. It looks really neat, actually, and still works fine although it developed a dead pixel in the CCD element. It's barely 3 years old, though, which makes you wonder. But I like how the finish went long before the functionality, like your Sony.
Posted by: evan | July 05, 2006 at 10:13 PM
Beautiful example of two great problems for designers today. First, making products which age gracefully using current manufacturing technologies (it's pretty hard to make 20 year old plastic look like anything other than ratty, nasty, 20 year old plastic). Second, making products which are allowed to stay around long enough to gain those patinas (desire for growth, increased profits, and marketing novelty pushes a planned obsolescence agenda on most design departments). I wrote a little piece on some designers who are trying to do both, and others who are trying to do one or the other, by making products which start out very anti-minimalist, rather than sleek, stainless-styley.
http://www.idfuel.com/index.php?p=416&more=1&c=1
Cheers,
-Dominic
Posted by: Dominic Muren | July 12, 2006 at 03:41 AM
Great article Dominic, and thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by: russell | July 12, 2006 at 08:14 AM
Russell, this post was picked up by Design Observer the other day.
Can't find a link as it was just mentioned in the side bar.
Posted by: Ben | July 12, 2006 at 08:25 AM
That slightly scares me. It's always intimidating to have too many designers around. They, you know, notice things, and then raise eyebrows. And you can hear them muttering about kernning and golden sections.
Good though, that's nice. Maybe I can break through the 10,000 ceiling on technorati.
Posted by: russell | July 12, 2006 at 08:32 AM
Technorati need a sliding scale of football grounds to measure hits, I think.
You know, from Plainmoor to the Bernabeu.
Posted by: Ben | July 12, 2006 at 08:38 AM