Design in the wrong context

When applying to study abroad, I forgot about all the sort of boring details I would have to do when trying to get across to Belgium; insurance, up to date passport, sorting out accounts...one thing I did not bank on was that I would have to enroll myself to become a member of Mechelen city.

Sitting in the waiting room of the Stadsbestuur van Mechelen-Vreemdelingen, I was conscious of the fact that the seating that had been chosen was not the most appropriate.
Surely when waiting, the user would want a seat that would be comfortable but also provide some support? As part of a project I did last year at DJCAD, I had to design and built a chair whilst considering important aspects surrounding seating.
Context. The place in which the chair will reside, is it suited? Where would it best be placed? Is the design suitable for where it will stay?
Function. The primary function is to sit but you also have to consider if it has any other uses. Is there more than one purpose to it?
Material. Cost effective? Durable for the context in which it would be placed?
Aesthetics. Are the materials that are used beneficial to the design? Is the design suited to the market niche?

As a designer it is important to consider these options. Not to blame this entirely on the designer as I am sure that this seating may be suited in another location but whoever placed this here did not take into consideration the users needs, possibly just their own. Clearly seating is essential in a place where waiting will occur but instead of considering comfort, I feel that price was a deciding factor. The materials that the seating has been made from is cheap and is not at all comfortable. Disregarding the fact that this seating will be used extensively, I believe that the lifespan of this will not be very long. As people took a seat they banged bags, carelessly clattered their feet on the supports and children ran across the tops. For me, this truly is design in the wrong context...

Function v Aesthetics

The battle still rages on in the design world. Should an object be functional or just be purely for aesthetic reasons? Can it be both?

In his book, "The Culture of Design", Guy Juiller presents us with this idea.

At the end of last year I watched a programme on the BBC called Design for Life where Phillipe Starck hosted a number of wannabe designers in his studios with the prize of getting to work with Starck himself. Throughout the show the contestants constantly made references to his 'amazing' work.

For me Starck's work is more about making a statement rather than being functional. This is evident in the example that Juiller presents to us, Juicy Salif lemon-squeezer. There is no denying that this is quite an eye catching design and the description given to us personifies what could be an ordinary juicer into something with human qualities.

"Three slender legs rise from delicate ankles. Bending at an impossibly high knee...this tripod holds aloft the raw nature of the implement's bulbous, phallic head." Juiller 2008:75

After such a description it seems hard to follow and sure enough the next section talks about the bad points. "only half - works", "rendering the first squeezing redundant" and "juice splatters out" are all phrases used to describe this 'innovative' piece of design - not something you would want to hear in a review if I were thinking about buying this!

With thanks:
"The Culture of Design" by Guy Juiller
http://renatabatata.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/phillipe-starck-alessistarckjuicer.jpg