Okay, let’s see what we got from this – passage from last century. Again, for me, it’s for sure an extension of our exploration and discussion on ‘balance,’ – but in an extended context.
For sure, whether the examples of eyeglasses, leg splints, iPods, and so on are within the context of disability or not, what intrigued me is how those supposedly pioneering principles suggested at that time are nowadays spread across a much broader scope: What’s particularly striking is how the central tensions – between fashion and discretion, simplicity and universality – have indeed become increasingly relevant beyond disability design. The Eames leg splint case study perfectly exemplifies this: what began as a disability-focused design solution ultimately influenced mainstream furniture design, challenging the traditional ‘trickle-down’ assumption that innovations flow from mainstream to specialized markets. The argument for moving beyond pure functionality or pure aesthetics to find ‘simplicity in concept and simplicity of form’ feels particularly prescient. Sometimes, it’s so easy to dwell in a term that seemingly fits all – yet we all know there is no such case. Therefore, whether we are dealing with balance or any of the included or parallel concepts, maybe the only fit-for-all is to find out what exactly the idea, ideology, or principle we claim to realize, follow, and develop stands for in the very specific case of our own designing.