Scan barcode
spai's review against another edition
5.0
A book about the simplicity of design is in itself, a masterclass in simplicity.
marginaliant's review against another edition
1.0
Weber may admire the Bauhaus but his book is unforgivably messy. It lacks an interior structure and sense of purpose to connect all of the fluffy personal stories and anecdotes (at times it seems like Weber really wanted to write a biography of Josef and Anni Albers but could not sell it, so he just added all of that work into this book.) Its chapters make no sense, the history is not chronological or thematic, it just sort of meanders. The central thesis of the book, that the iPhone is the epitome of Bauhaus design, is sloppily and lazily supported. A typical statement goes like this:
"Job's interest in rejecting new names, new approaches, and new designs was almost as vital to him as his capacity to try the unprecedented. And when he dismissed something, there was no point in arguing.
The absolute conviction about distastes, and the resolve to stick to your guns after you said no to the second-rate, had been essential at Job's beloved Bauhaus. Discernment was as vital as the will to develop new, out-of-the-box possibilities."
So, to put it another way, Jobs liked for things to be good, and the Bauhaus also liked for things to be good. Coincidence? I think not!
This is patently ridiculous. It reads like a freshman art history comparison paper, indicating points of comparison without sufficient discernment, explanation, or context. If Weber had bothered to ground his book in any sort of design history, he would have found that, actually, the ability to discern between "new but bad" and "new but good" was not a unique characteristic of the Bauhaus. It is a characteristic of good designers in all movements.
This sort of writing ironically lacks the discernment that Weber seems so keen to praise. Any two things can be similar if you cherry-pick your criteria. But are they similar in ways that actually matter, to the exclusion of other things?
This book needed a more thorough grounding in industrial design history, but instead, iBauhaus expounds at length about things no one could possibly care about, like the personal charms and love lives of people connected to the movement. I would trade every sentence about the Albers's yogurt-purchasing or television-purchasing habits for a sentence actually analyzing the iPhone's design (and evolution over time!). I would trade every sentence about a woman's personal attractiveness for literally any acknowledgment that tech design, like the Bauhaus, is frequently a sexist boy's club. I would trade any sentence about the multicultural significances of the color white for a sentence about the evolution of the iPhone's UI.
This book is also utterly baffling for its lack of acknowledgment about the customizability of the iPhone. I know they exist, but I personally don't know a single person with a smartphone who does not have a case on it. Some of these cases are clear, so as not to compromise the aesthetics of the phone, but so many more are pretty colors, fun shapes, interesting textures, or, in the case of my phone, patterned with Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights. Similarly, he goes on for a long time about how iPhone backgrounds are white, which is "cleansing." The same criticisms apply. I'm very fond of my background of Milan Cathedral, personally. But point is, the iPhone is built with customizability in mind, even if that customizability compromises the Bauhaus principles and aesthetics in the original design. Seems weird not to mention it.
I am not convinced that his choice to not interview iPhone designers was a wise one. He might have also been able to get one of them drunk and cajole them into talking about the aspects of the iPhone design despised by the Bauhaus (such as planned obsolescence, exploitative labor practices, enormous expense, etc.) and give these topics more than a single, dismissive mention in his book. But that would require the doing of actual history which, at the end of the day, Weber seems to think is superfluous.
"Job's interest in rejecting new names, new approaches, and new designs was almost as vital to him as his capacity to try the unprecedented. And when he dismissed something, there was no point in arguing.
The absolute conviction about distastes, and the resolve to stick to your guns after you said no to the second-rate, had been essential at Job's beloved Bauhaus. Discernment was as vital as the will to develop new, out-of-the-box possibilities."
So, to put it another way, Jobs liked for things to be good, and the Bauhaus also liked for things to be good. Coincidence? I think not!
This is patently ridiculous. It reads like a freshman art history comparison paper, indicating points of comparison without sufficient discernment, explanation, or context. If Weber had bothered to ground his book in any sort of design history, he would have found that, actually, the ability to discern between "new but bad" and "new but good" was not a unique characteristic of the Bauhaus. It is a characteristic of good designers in all movements.
This sort of writing ironically lacks the discernment that Weber seems so keen to praise. Any two things can be similar if you cherry-pick your criteria. But are they similar in ways that actually matter, to the exclusion of other things?
This book needed a more thorough grounding in industrial design history, but instead, iBauhaus expounds at length about things no one could possibly care about, like the personal charms and love lives of people connected to the movement. I would trade every sentence about the Albers's yogurt-purchasing or television-purchasing habits for a sentence actually analyzing the iPhone's design (and evolution over time!). I would trade every sentence about a woman's personal attractiveness for literally any acknowledgment that tech design, like the Bauhaus, is frequently a sexist boy's club. I would trade any sentence about the multicultural significances of the color white for a sentence about the evolution of the iPhone's UI.
This book is also utterly baffling for its lack of acknowledgment about the customizability of the iPhone. I know they exist, but I personally don't know a single person with a smartphone who does not have a case on it. Some of these cases are clear, so as not to compromise the aesthetics of the phone, but so many more are pretty colors, fun shapes, interesting textures, or, in the case of my phone, patterned with Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights. Similarly, he goes on for a long time about how iPhone backgrounds are white, which is "cleansing." The same criticisms apply. I'm very fond of my background of Milan Cathedral, personally. But point is, the iPhone is built with customizability in mind, even if that customizability compromises the Bauhaus principles and aesthetics in the original design. Seems weird not to mention it.
I am not convinced that his choice to not interview iPhone designers was a wise one. He might have also been able to get one of them drunk and cajole them into talking about the aspects of the iPhone design despised by the Bauhaus (such as planned obsolescence, exploitative labor practices, enormous expense, etc.) and give these topics more than a single, dismissive mention in his book. But that would require the doing of actual history which, at the end of the day, Weber seems to think is superfluous.
More...