Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s super normal!
I started reading more about Jasper Morrison and things has written following a ‘PichiKichi’ (see here for an explanation!) on him and his design from my friend and fellow PDE student, Calum. Jasper has quite helpfully written us an essay about his own design philosophy¹.
Jasper Morrison is a designer from London. He makes lovely things. I am quite fond of them. I even own a pair of his shoes. Despite his designs being noticed by many in the design world, he claims a requirement in his design is a ‘lack of noticability’¹. Why is that?
In his designs Jasper wants to be ‘Super Normal’. Uncomfortable with the state of ‘design’ at the moment, constantly thrusting colours, shapes and personality in your face; Jasper wants us to step back and embrace normality. Design today has become the subject of many magazines and marketing strategies. People are having to get noticed and to do so they are striving to be ‘edgy’ and different. Design has, in Jasper’s words:
“become a competition to make things as noticeable as possible by means of colour, shape and surprise”¹
Design used to be about serving the user and their needs, making their lives better. But Jasper thinks that has been abandonded in favour of being different and standing out. In favour of making things special. Why’s that a problem? He says:
“Special is generally less useful than normal, and less rewarding in the long term. Special things demand attention for the wrong reasons, interrupting potentially good atmosphere with their awkward presence.”¹
I mostly agree with Jasper here. Design is too important to be centred around being special. Everything we use has been designed. We don’t need every table or chair or lamp to be special or even interesting. We need them to work. As Steve Jobs famously said, “Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” There is so much more to how it looks and feels that gets lost when we are seeking to make special products, when we are distracted. The bulk of the products that are designed should surely be normal objects that work really well.
But not just normal, super normal. Objects that “transcend normality”. What does that mean? Naoto Fukasawa who inspired and has helped Jasper’s thoughts on ‘Super Normal’, describes it as this:
“these things are those that have permeated daily life, things that we don’t find any element of design in.”²
The concept reminds me a lot of Dieter Rams’ “As little design as possible”. “Less but better”. Dieter’s principles for good design themselves born out of similar frustrations to Jasper’s, that design had become cluttered and burdened with non-essentials. It’s the idea of purity, simplicity. Products built for a purpose should be like tools, not decorative. They should be “restrained and neutral, leaving room for the users self expression”³. In fact Jasper’s thoughts remind me so much of Rams it’s striking that he hasn’t quoted or even made reference to him. ‘Super Normal’ is basically just a combination of Rams’ principles on unobtrusiveness and ‘as little design as possible’.
It also reminds me of the thoughts I had about obvious design. Especially when Jasper talks about picking up a wine glass. It is just the way it should be because of course it should be that way.
Designers today are seeking to replace old with new. We often aren’t just making objects to do a task anymore, we are trying to make objects do them better. And because we are aware of what’s come before we don’t have the “innocence which normal demands”. This is where the problem has come in, as designers have tried to be bold and different. To deviate from the normality history has dictated. But Jasper thinks we should instead aspire to ‘super normal’. To summarise all the normality that has come before. To take the past and to learn from it to create the most normal and obvious solutions. Not the most wacky or unusual or exciting. You don’t need to necessarily add to what’s come before, perhaps you need to take away. Ruthlessly declutter.
So is this is why Jasper is well known? Is his lack of noticability noticeable? Does it cause him to make great products? Sometimes the best way to get noticed isn’t trying to get noticed, but getting your head down and doing a good job. But I don’t think Jasper succeeds in removing all that is special from his products, in making them free from every element of design. And I’m glad he doesn’t, he has a style and I like it! It’s not easy to simply aim at super normal. Jasper himself says this about anonymous designers:
“In the case of the unknown author, he or she designs totally anonymously, while the designer who chooses to avoid or limit personal creative expression, designs conscious of the fact that his name will be on the product. Super Normal is more common in the world of totally anonymously designed things”
It is hard to be altruistic in design. To not put a twist on something. To not add features that would be talking points. Even subconsciously. But I cannot see why that is a bad thing! I am all for this idea of decluttered, simplistic design that’s free from unnecessary distractions. But no one would actually like it if all products were devoid of all personality. Jasper’s products have interesting proportions and shapes, and that’s great! I don’t think it is a bad thing to have character, it’s just bad to let that be overpowering. It’s bad to let that get in the way of designing the best possible product for the user.
Writing this I’m actually quite sure that designers like Rams, Fukasawa, and our dear Jasper are not actually advocating for a lack of personality or style in design. They all have designed a body of work that clearly has a style, clearly they have put their personality onto them. They are just opposing adding design simply to attract attention. As little design as possible implies some design is necessary. And obviously so. They are merely opposing unnecessary design. It can look beautiful and have character so long as it’s not taking away from the product. So long as the goal isn’t to look beautiful and have character. Fukasawa insightfully talks about his thought process when designing:
“I approach a mobile phone by asking myself, what is most “mobile phone–like” about it? The focus shifts from design to simply using a mobile phone or a pen. All the unnecessary elements fall away very smoothly, and we’re left with an underlying “good feeling.” I’ve been able to design products that communicate this good feeling subtly, so that the good feeling rises to the surface gradually, rather than putting it out front.”⁴
Simplifying products down to their bear essentials doesn’t need to take away the character and joy of a product. It can be the character and joy of the product. Fukasawa’s not talking about making it less special, just not shoving that in your face. The normality makes it special. It lets the way the product works be special.
I have laboured over this post for far too long, changing my mind, trying to see how the philosophy clashes with others, and working out what I think myself. That’s alright though because the whole point of this exercise is to help me work out what I think. I like so much of the thought behind this idea of Super Normal and the products this philosophy produces, but I don’t think it can be a hard and fast rule for all design. Sometimes I think we need special. I’m going to leave you with this interesting video about making a shotgun. There are so many elements here that could be stripped away. You could simplify it greatly, the detailing on the handle for example. But I think all of that would make it worse design. And we have to ask why is that? Why isn’t it bad design? There is something beautiful about the craft, that doesn’t fit into the neat little box that is Super Normal. And I think that’s ok.
- Jasper Morrison. Super Normal, Lars Müller Publishers, 2006
- Jasper Morrison. Super Normal Dialogue, 2006
- Dieter Rams. Ten Principles for Good Design
- Naoto Fukasawa. Helvetica / Objectified / Urbanized: The Complete Interviews, edited by Gary Hustwit
