If you've ever been to Rome, then you've probably been to the Trevi Fountain. It is, arguably, the most famous fountain in the world. And if you've ever been to the Trevi Fountain, then you've probably thrown change into it, over your left shoulder, and hoped for good things. Lots of people do this. I did it when I was there in 2007 as a grad student. And in 2016, the fountain collected nearly US$1.5 million in change, all of which was (and still is) donated to a Catholic charity. But I can't help but wonder if this number is declining at all. I mean, I couldn't tell you the last time I handled physical money, especially coins. Though maybe this is such an entrenched tradition that people seek out change for this very purpose. The desire to want to believe things that aren't true can be a strong one.
If you've ever been to Rome, then you've probably been to the Trevi Fountain. It is, arguably, the most famous fountain in the world. And if you've ever been to the Trevi Fountain, then you've probably thrown change into it, over your left shoulder, and hoped for good things. Lots of people do this. I did it when I was there in 2007 as a grad student. And in 2016, the fountain collected nearly US$1.5 million in change, all of which was (and still is) donated to a Catholic charity. But I can't help but wonder if this number is declining at all. I mean, I couldn't tell you the last time I handled physical money, especially coins. Though maybe this is such an entrenched tradition that people seek out change for this very purpose. The desire to want to believe things that aren't true can be a strong one.
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.
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.
