« half the battle is not enough | main | Good artists borrow, great artists steal »
I juiced with the Philippe Starck Juicer, and it made me sad.
Juice flies everywhere. The item is not stable-- it wobbled with each turn. I found myself starting the orange on the juicer, then finishing just with hand. Gorgeous, but art not appliance. In case you were wondering.
Compare to the juicer i own, a wedding present from my sister. It looks like a Brancusi, but works beautifully. No splash, fast, powerful and has outlived a couple electric juicers my husband is drawn to.
When will people realize beautiful and usable are synonyms, not antonyms.
I'm glad you told us - I've been looking at these and wondering whether to get one. Hmmm...can't really afford to spend on something that doesn't work in the slightest. Come to think about it, I think Don Norman mentioned the same...
Back when I was in school studying industrial design, we marked this juicer (it had just debuted) as the epitome of a designer so full of himself that he lost perspective on the design. Is it beautiful? Yes. Does it do the job it's supposed to? Not even close.
I don't know if it's still true now, but the original versions were made of aluminum, which can be corroded by citric acid. Real good choice for a 'juicer'.
Don Norman mentioned in a speech that someone sent him the Gold Limited Edition of the juicer, which came with a warning "Do Not Use For Juicing".
Too bad Starck couldn't take a tip from Alexander Calder who made it a point of pride to design useful objects, for example cooking spoons, that were also pleasing to look at. I too have coveted the Starck juicer but now I know its for lookin' not for usin'.