Shining a light on design
And the winner of this year's is:
A designer low-energy light bulb. So, instead of having what looks like a nasal drip hanging out of your ceiling socket, you can now upgrade (for around £20) your existing low-energy bulb with this curvaceous alternative: the .
Will Self, one of this year's judges, was quick to point out that neither he, nor any of the other jurors, considered the Plumen 001 to be the "dernier cri in light bulb design", but thought it was "definitely a light leading the way". Deyan Sudjic, the director of the Design Museum added, "it goes a long way to make up for the loss of the Edison original".
Both men seem less than totally thrilled by their choice and might have been tempted by the in less austere times. The British designers have crafted a very good-looking chair that owes something to , who died at the end of last year. Giving the Branca chair the award would have been a nice nod to great man, but perhaps that's a bit mawkish in modernist circles.
The Plumen light bulb is not without merit though. It does have the design chromosome that most of its low-energy competitors lack. And it has a sense of joie de vivre - as Will Self might say that many products that are "good for you" lack. I'd happily trade a few earth years than spend the rest of my life eating low calorie food that tastes like cardboard and having to wash it down with some alcohol free beer, which does have a flavour, but it's indescribable.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The design judges would rather pop a Plumen in my socket than most of the other low-energy options. And they'd be willing to pay the extra money too. Which makes it a good piece of design. And according to B&Q they're not alone. They are increasingly finding that their customers will pay more for products that have aesthetic as well as functional appeal. Which probably means the owners will look after them better, which means they will last longer, which in itself is helpful towards the environment.
Terence Conran, the founder of the Design Museum, calls it "intelligent design". It's a better term than "good" design, which is nebulous and too subjective. And the Design Museum awards have a decent record of acknowledging intelligent design.
Last year , which is now going into production. The year before that was and the year before that the . I think all these winners will stand the test of time, but I'm not so sure about the Plumen light bulb. Now, if the Branca chair had won, that might have been different...
An arts journal by 
Comment number 1.
At 16th Mar 2011, cping500 wrote:Could we have a picture of Mr Edisons's original and Mr Swann's.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 17th Mar 2011, Odicean wrote:Has anyone else noticed the increasing number of men wearing odd socks these days? It's all but impossible to discern, in the sock drawer, the colour/pattern of socks given the dim light of energy-saving light bulbs. 100W is more like the old 40W. It really is appalling.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th Mar 2011, ian-russell wrote:Good design, with practical objects, should combine functionality with aesthetics but the functionality should come way above the looks. So I'm surprised you consider the chair worthy of consideration. Even from the picture I can see it isn't going to be a comfortable seat; minimal back support and in the wrong direction, no lumber support at all, and the arms are far too narrow - better without.
The lamp isn't really a good design, it's just a variation. I liked the previous winners though.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 17th Mar 2011, ian-russell wrote:L A Odicean,
Can't say I've noticed but can't say I'm surprised either. Is odd socks such a bad thing? If it is, why would a man buy odd socks in the first instance?, that is the question. It's not the fault of the light.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 17th Mar 2011, Graphis wrote:@2 I agree, the level of light given off by these new bulbs is terrible. However, before electricity, people solved this problem by inventing the crystal chandelier, which was designed to amplify and expand the light given off by candle flames. I predict a comeback...
As for this light bulb, and the chair, and the other 'entries': how... disappointing. I can well understand the less than enthusiastic reaction of the judges. None of the designs offer something we haven't seen before, just more of the same with a slight 'tweak'.
But I completely fail to understand why Will thinks giving the award to a chair designed by one designer would be a "nice nod" to another. That's a bit like saying you've bought a Kindle "in honour" of the iPad. If a designer is worthy of an award, give it to them, not someone else.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 17th Mar 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:The 'new' standard' light bulbs as so dangerous and damaging to human health that if your break one you MUST leave the room immediately after opening the windows and stay out for an hour or so - to avoid being poisoned by the mercury vapour!!!! (I kid you not!)
These bulbs are an economic and health disaster and what is worse they are so dim you need several where you once had one - and you can't dim them!!!!!!
So if you are suggesting that artistic expressions of design for these bad products make them some how better try thinking again! The design museum needs to focus on tungsten filament bulbs!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 18th Mar 2011, This is a colleague announcement wrote:The problem with these bulbs is that they do not emit a continuous, band spectrum, but a lined one.
The eye is sensitive to all of these so the bulbs may seem uncomfortably bright to view directly.
However, that which we are trying to see under their light may not reflect the particular lines they emit, so appear dim where they would not under tungsten (that contains all frequencies so would be bound to include those reflected by the object).
The result is the worst of both worlds: harsh, uncomfortable lamps but little illumination.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)