Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

3% approach

The late fashion designer, Virgil Abloh, had a design rule for himself called the “3% approach.” Above is a slide from a presentation that he gave at Harvard back in 2013 where he listed it as item 3 of his “personal design language.” The idea behind this 3% rule is simple: you really only need to change something by 3% in order to create something new.

Case in point:

Given this, it should come as no surprise that Abloh had cited artist Marcel Duchamp as being a source of inspiration. (We’ve spoken about this before.) Duchamp is most famous for his “readymade” sculptures where he took existing objects — like urinals — and transformed them into art by signing them and curating them appropriately. This was obviously controversial, but it made Duchamp one of the most important artists of the 20th century.

Now, 3% seems like an oddly precise number. I don’t know how, for instance, you quantify the amount of change on the above shoe. Is it surface area? In any event, that’s beside the point. What’s most fascinating for me about this approach is that it suggests that small changes are enough to, not just create novelty, but actually establish authorship. Meaning, the shoe on the right is no longer a Converse shoe. It is now an “OFF-WHITE” shoe. They authored it.

Like the work of Duchamp, this was and is controversial. Lots of companies have sued Off-White for trademark infringement. We know, for example, where the above black stripes came from and we know that Off-White’s multi-directional arrow logo is borrowed from Glasgow Airport’s logo c.1960. But that’s clearly the point of readymade reworks. And it’s clearly enough for people to want to pay a lot more for the shoe on the right.

Fascinating.

Do you think that this 3% approach applies (or could apply) to other things outside of fashion, like architecture and buildings? I think so.

One response to “3% approach”

  1. AM Avatar
    AM

    I think this approach is only as popular as it is contrarian.

    While appreciation of art and beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder, I’ve always looked at these types of artists (starting with Duchamp) with great suspicion as they hide their lack of creativity behind newfangled “theories” as to what is acceptable art and what isn’t while pushing on the boundaries of decency and ethics.

    At the same time, they don’t create or invent anything, just recycle it and push the idea to its limits. While I can appreciate remix culture, this is a segment of it that really doesn’t hide its vacuousness very well.

    I think Duchamp and his spawn are just plain full of shit, as far as I am concerned.

    It’s damn near impossible to tell right now if they’re geniuses or grifters, but I bet my lunch that in 300 years, once the hype is long gone, they won’t be the ones to be remembered.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *