Talk:Philippe Starck

Untitled

New Design

What is "New Design"? it is mentioned several times in capital case, as some sort of named movement but there is no link or explanation. A general internet search does not turn up anything that would seem to make this common knowledge.

The Juicy Salif, in fact, has since become an affordable and popular cult item

In my view this is an and completely disfunctional piece of kitchenware. It's not cheap either - since when has 40GBP been affordable for a lemon squeezer? Its legs are too close together, so you don't find many ordinary containers will fit below it to catch the juice - and it doesn't come with its own. Its high centre of gravity make it unstable especially when applying any force to actually squeeze a lemon on it. It doesn't catch the pips, so they end up in the juice, and its shape makes the juice run off at odd angles and often miss the container, assuming you've found one to put there. You may as well squeeze the lemon in your hand. Or buy one of those highly functional and very cheap (like 1GBP) plastic squeezers that actually work and usually come with their own built-in container and pip catcher. To me, the first rule of design is Form Follows Function - but this seems too everyday, pedestrian and sensible for many modern designers. They seem to feel that form is everything, and never mind the function. Recently a "top designer" (actually Marc Newson - I just looked it up) unveiled his idea of a flying car. Nothing wrong with speculating about the future, but it pays not one iota of attention to any principle of aerodynamics - it could never fly in other words. It was basically a Jetsons-looking car thingy with stub wings. It seemed to get the media very excited but it's really a joke. Have people become so enthralled by "designer" names that something looking cool is all that matters? The Starck juicer looks cool alright, like a 50s alien spaceship or something - but it's totally useless. I'd have more respect if he sold it honestly as a model of a 50s alien spaceship (paperweight?) instead of trying to pretend it's useful. And 'pretend' is the operative word - it's utterly pretentious. Graham 11:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine, but how does this impact the article? If you want to add alternative POV, you have only to edit the article :) Dysprosia 11:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't impact the article as such, and it's highly POV, obviously, so that's why it's on the talk page. Maybe if it stimulates a debate some consensus might emerge about how criticisms of Starck or perhaps of "new design" in general can be addressed in the article. I wouldn't really know how to do it, there's something about Starck that gets right up my nose, so I'm the last one to be able to do it neutrally! Graham 11:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starck?? Oh please...

Okay, I do find that he does challenge convention as an aesthetics designer.. but the true mark of a product designer is one who finds design solutions to existing problems. Starck adds more problems to existing products in purely in the search for aesthetic exotica. I have no problems with making things look great in theory, but they should be just that. In practise, you NEED to make sure that a product is practical to use.. anything else is just smacks of pretentiousness and you are not really engaging all sides of the brain to produce a suitable practical AND positively aesthetic product.

Lets face it. Starck products sell, because it is Starck. But often, you find that people that are likely to spend £40 on a juicer that causes more problems than it solves are also quite pretentious. The likes of Seymour and Powell, who find real solutions to problems, as well as design positively aesthetic products is much more preferable. Design exercises are great for exploring ideas but you cannot seriously think that everything that looks good is easy to use??

Ross Product Design University of Central England (BIAD/TIC)

Your definition of "product designer" is still a POV. If you look at critical design (which, unlike "new design", is an established and well-documented practice), you'll see that it's not at all concerned with utilitarian design, but it still has legitimate purpose. dz7 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Starckbook.jpg

Image:Starckbook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent COI edits...

Most if not all of the recent edits by IP accounts are from Philippe Starck PR folks. I encourage them to discuss changes on the talk page, and we also need to recognize that changes from these accounts are WP:COI, which is *not* to say they are wrong, but must be looked at closely. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement tag

This whole article reads like an advertisement. This is likely because, as pointed out in 2013, it was written by Starck PR personnel.

"Starck's buildings, while dedicated to work, are no less instilled with life and its constant effervescence"

"Starck, who loves ships and the sea, designed the new infrastructure[...]"

"In November 2012, Starck published his first book of interviews, Impression d'Ailleurs, with Gilles Vanderpooten. In it, he expresses his view of the challenges facing the world to come – ecology, solidarity, youth, science – and, as a humanist, suggests ways we can make a difference."

"With environment and ecological concerns, he created the Good Goods catalogue with La Redoute."

Disgraceful that his article has been this way since 2013. Needs a complete rewrite and protection from Starck PR personnel.

Stosseled (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Pramac

Why does a search on 'Pramac' redirect to this article, which doesn't contain a single instance of the name or any relevant indirect allusion to it that I can detect?

I'm aware of no more than that Pramac is an Italian company, or group of companies, that has involvement with the Pramac Racing team, hence my own interest in finding out more about the (presumably) parent organisation. If sufficient material for a stand-alone article is not available (which seems odd), a redirect would be fair enough, but it should at least go to a relevant article which contains something about the subject.

Is there in fact a connection between Philippe Starck and Pramac, that has been omitted (or deleted?) and should be (re)inserted here, or is the redirect (created by User:Mac) entirely spurious? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.163.217 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

shameless sycophantic flatulance

much if not most of this article lacks credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

There's no way to disentangle the giant copy-paste that this created so I took the B step in WP:BRD to go back to a known reasonable copy. Q ^{T C} 04:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:BOLD, I've now removed all of the unsourced statements (including most of the promotional garbage). This article really needs to be blown up and started from scratch, though... Yunshui ^雲_水 09:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

[Comment]

Reference 59 links to a porn site. That should probably be changed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.195.49 (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)