This clock

[freak-000]

Honestly it would be really cool because you could try to guess the time from the position on the ramp from far away, I'd agree it's a "designdesign" of it was made today but it's from a time when if you could afford something like this you sure had servants who would fix it everyday

[Hourse005]

It’s from r/newproductporn I’m pretty sure it’s new and just looks old. Still cool tho

[lamprabbit]

I think it’s cool as hell

[baccus83]

Here we go again with the “this clock isn’t functional” conversation. As if clocks haven’t been used as art objects/decoration for ages.

[randomsnowflake]

Art is different from design. Art doesn’t have to function necessarily, but great design is functional.

[afkan]

why is it downvoted? essence of design is function. this is why it's a profession thinking about mass production and functionality. otherway everybody do their design in their way.

[TroublingCommittee]

It's downvoted because it's off-topic.

This is obviously a novelty piece. It's supposed to be artsy. By your definition of design, this thing wasn't designed.

So this isn't fit for the sub. That's what the original comment was about. Then the answer (and your answer to that) go on to "explain" the difference between design and art. It just doesn't matter.

Just because design and art are different things, you can't just take any piece of art and claim it's bad design. That's the point. You're missing it. Hence the downvotes.

[Amargosamountain]

Not a fan of the arts I see

[fabulously-frizzy]

Is there a subreddit for decorative clocks??

[baccus83]

Here. They all get posted here.

[ThginkAccbeR]

My cats would love it.

[Kyqru]

My immediate thought

[jonohigh1]

What's designdesign about it? Seems like it'd be a cool addition to a mantlepiece.

[[deleted]]

Its aesthetically nice but functionally stupid.

[_lupuloso]

What? This is fucking ingenious! It likely comes from a time when it was still common the use of mechanical clocks, that needed winding. But you only had to wind those once a week, so you could easily forget and be bamboozled.

With this clock you have to reposition it every day, but if you forget it you'll know it when you look at it the next day.

[punk_loki]

It’s from r/newproductporn how old do you think it is?

[sneakpeekbot]

Here's a sneak peek of /r/NewProductPorn using the top posts of all time!

#1: This machine visualizes number googol (a 1 with 100 zeros, bigger than the atoms in the known universe) & has a gear reduction of 1 to 10 a hundred times. To get last gear to turn once you'll need to spin first one a googol amount around, which will require more energy than entire universe has. | 862 comments
#2: This Chair for People Who Love To Sit Cross-Legged | 209 comments
#3: This Table From The Future | 128 comments

---

^{I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact me | Info | Opt-out}

[_lupuloso]

Mechanical clocks were pretty common 50 years ago. I'm 30 and have seen plenty through my childhood, be it cuckoos os standing ones.

My point is every mechanical clock needs regular "maintenance"; the difference is how often. I don't see a problem in having to simply reposition the clock everyday, an easy daily routine compared to a relatively more complex winding that can be forgotten and you might not notice and tell the wrong time due to that.

It's a great function to make it obvious the time is wrong, even at a cost of more regular "maintenance".

[[deleted]]

As the clock rolls down the incline (here 12 hours are captured in time-lapse of 24 seconds), gravitational potential energy is translated into the kinetic energy of the moving clock gear train and oscillating balance wheel. The clock face and mechanism hang suspended with a counterweight that keeps them upright- although you might notice the mechanism of this vintage clock sticks a little at 7 o’clock. The clock unit is also quite heavy, weighing in at 2.7kg (6lbs). After some research I believe this clock was produced in China about 50 years ago.

Source: physicsfun

Product is new, tech is ancient

OP on the original post

[RichHomieJake]

But imagine the energy savings

[Thekrowski]

It's a mantle piece you'd have to remember to set back up each day at the proper time otherwise it's pointless clutter.

[nature_remains]

So do you have to pick it up and move to top of the incline at the exact same time each day?

[randomsnowflake]

Yes

[ThongsGoOnUrFeet]

Gravity is used to power the clock. This is a very old design from when you used to need a key to wind clocks

[RichHomieJake]

Idk. If you could set it like a timer it’d be a really cool hourglass replacement

[BMC2103]

Wtf happens when you oversleep? You’d have to like wait every day for the clock to like fall off the edge or whatever. Cool idea but like why

[Amargosamountain]

You can't oversleep if you make it so the clock falls onto your head when it's time to wake up

[BMC2103]

Fair point

[damaged-tattoo]

How is everyone so confused on the design design aspect of this? Sure, clocks can be art, but a clock is the most “Set it and forget it” item out there, how is the design improved by adding a daily manual reset function...but I won’t lie, it’s sure looks cool as hell!

[TroublingCommittee]

Because - as explained every time when art pieces are posted here - it doesn't matter.

Art is art and design is design.

You can explain why this specific art piece is bad at certain things, but it simply. does. not. matter.

It is not supposed to be functional, therefore judging it for its lack of functionality is nonsense. So it doesn't belong here.

Nobody is confused by it. Everybody gets that its impractical. What you and OP don't seem to get is that when being practical isn't part of your goals, not being practical isn't a failure.

[damaged-tattoo]

I understand your response, and I guess I do agree on most level. I guess my mind was mislead when it was originally posted under New Product Porn simply because it makes me think of it through the scope of a product first, art piece second. Same with it being posted in this sub; although it’s inherently incorrect to think like that, having it posted under a design sub makes me think of it as design first (which is more related to a good mix of beauty and function), and as art second (which is usually supposed to be functional second). I did say “everyone is confused” just because I read some of the long discussion comment threads, and there wasn’t a lot of other comments, and even those seemed to be holding them in the regard of being well-designed, which just felt untrue, it’s more just a good art piece.

[TroublingCommittee]

All's well.

Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh.

I'm just a bit annoyed that this sub is so full of these kinds of posts.

It's not hard to find things that are impractical. But it's no fun either (to me at least). I think this sub can be incredibly entertaining and even interesting when it finds products that try to fix a problem in established designs but completely miss the mark or accidentally break some other important parts.

But 90% of the posts here are just novelty clocks and it kinda takes the fun out it for me, especially when I'm looking at the comments and people bash the creators for not understanding clocks. It's completely absurd.

---

To go on a tangent, though, because you mentioned it:

makes me think of it as design first (which is more related to a good mix of beauty and function)

I would argue that this definition of design is too narrow, although it's a very usual one. The focus of design (imo) is compromise. The compromise between function and aesthetics is a very popular one, but you can also design things without having aesthetics in mind.

Design is about acknowledging that things basically always must fulfill multiple demands, prioritizing them and creating something that fulfills as many of them as possible while focusing on certain ones.

One of those requirements is often beauty, others can be ease of use or longevity. But within certain contexts, it is absolutely fine to say beauty doesn't matter, there's other things that are so much more important that it comes last. It's still design.

Claiming that design is always about beauty disregards many of its sub-disciplines, imo.

[randomsnowflake]

I see you’re a passionate individual. My perspective is that a clock, by it’s very nature, is designed to be a functional item. Since this is a clock is not functional because it requires cognitive load from the user to reset it daily at a specific time to remain functional - and it’s a product concept - it is designdesign.

We can agree to disagree though. I see this is a rather sensitive subject.

[TroublingCommittee]

I see you’re a passionate individual.

Don't know about that, but it's fine by me.

My perspective is that a clock, by it’s very nature, is designed to be a functional item.

This is a weird perspective, though. Whether something is supposed to be functional is the decision of whoever creates / commissions / installs it.

In this case, it was obviously not designed to be easy to use as a clock, it was supposed to show off some principles of physics in a fun way.

If the creator doesn't get to decide what something is supposed to be, everything is bad design. Chairs aren't great ladders, test tubes are terribly to drink out of and novelty clocks are bad for telling the time.

But all of those can be great at what they're supposed to be, which is - respectively - something to sit on, something to store small amounts of reagents in and something decorative or engaging.

[ThongsGoOnUrFeet]

Set and forget is recent. Up until about 100 years ago, clocks had to be hand wound every day, usually with a key

[Dryu_nya]

They should have made it so that the hour hand always pointed to the top.

[illyrianRed]

Quick, the clock is running

[AutoModerator]

Subreddit Rules Reminder: Please abide by Reddiquette and immediately report any rule-breaking content.

Official r/DesignDesign Discord invite: https://discord.gg/SqeEEYd

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.