Talk:Dieter Rams

Rams and Ive
While I think it is true, I don't think it is appropriate to say "Rams' designs have been very influential on Jonathan Ive's" designs. There is only a direct connection between the iPhone calc and Rams calculator, and even then you can't say it was done by Ive. I'm going to add "speculated" until an explicit link between the two is made. Thoughts? aerotheque (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes certain ideas are in the air and based on universal human understanding of forms and feelings. It could theoretically be true that Jonathan Ive had by accident the same idea as Rams, yet not knowing of Ram's product. I say "theoretically" in a scientific sense. Therefore, in a scientific, "no original research" environment I suggest to even take any relationship with Apple off the page since it's not proven. The word "speculated" was there and I changed it to "obvious" to put the article into that direction. Because as the guide lines for non original research state: "...this includes speculation...". I know that the word "obvious" can be as much debated and I personally would like to see links to Apple as it seems just very obvious that Mr. Ive was influenced, but we just don't really know. Is there a published interview out there where Mr. Ive admits that he copied or got influenced by Rams or Braun? That would be great and helpful to undermine the validity of that paragraph. Geraldaine (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are many articles that speculate on the link, but there must also be dozens of famous designers likewise influenced by Rams. Is it that important? I guess the notability of Apple makes it so.... but anyway I removed the calculator reference. It's such a trivial homage, not itself aligning with his own principles and not produced by a department under Ive in any case.+&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;+ (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

thin
This article needs more. BingoDingo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

links
f.y.i., the link to the article at icon magazine only links to their front page and not to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbudde (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This site looks good. It's commercial, but the items sold are period pieces and they keep the page up after the item is sold. http://www.dasprogramm.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.210.108 (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
I grew the lead section a little bit today, and I wonder whether the "lead too short" template (dated October 2013) can now be erased. Chimin 07 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per your edit, I have removed today the lead section template. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dieter Rams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616061959/http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/rams.html to http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/rams.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716232639/http://www.iconeye.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=4157%3Ainterview-with-dieter-rams to http://www.iconeye.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1%3Alatest-news&id=4157%3Ainterview-with-dieter-rams

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dieter Rams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100824003849/http://www.iconeye.com/index.php?view=article&catid=291:icon+010&layout=default&id=2323:dieter-rams--icon-010--february-2004&option=com_content to http://www.iconeye.com/index.php?view=article&catid=291:icon+010&layout=default&id=2323:dieter-rams--icon-010--february-2004&option=com_content

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

SK 4 vs SK 61?
The used in "Life and career" section appears to be the Braun SK 61, not the SK 4 as captioned (and as labelled by the museum where the photo was taken, presumably thus the file name too). This appears to be a mistake, albeit a very understandable one (the tone arm and platter are the giveaways). For comparison, see: and this page on the Braun site. I'll substitute the image if no objections. (Also, the SK 61 is in the "Gallery of works" section.) Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: as the photo in question is your work, I thought it proper to alert you.

PPS: Also see: Rams' biography on Vitsœ site (showing SK4).



"[S]uccessor to the Bauhaus" claim?
There is a sentence in the article that makes the claim:

"In addition to being a successor to the Bauhaus, Rams eventually became a protégé of the Ulm School of Design in Ulm, Germany."

Whilst it may prove to be factually correct that Rams could be considered a (or even "the") successor to the Bauhaus tradition in some demonstrable way, in my view the claim is not supported by the cited source. It appears to be a simple misreading of the original text (which itself is arguably rather ambiguously worded, so easy to misread—especially if the reader's English comprehension isn't A+ top-of-the-class):

"Rams became a protégé of the Ulm School of Design (successor to the Bauhaus) luminaries Hans Gugelot, Fritz Eichler and Otl Aicher."

If no objections, I propose to move and integrate the relevant information into the first paragraph of the section (improving syntax and meaning en passent).

Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)



CDO and other improvments
, thanks for your recent edits. Much better wording re: Ram's influence, etc. (I placed the tag, but wasn't WP:BOLD enough to simply remove the "CDO" claim — which, in my view, was dubious at best, given the fact that this is fairly recently coinage.) Thanks also for fixing my fat thumb wikitext errors in the "Gallery" photos.

I do question the removal of the comparing Rams' work at Braun with the subsequent Rams influenced Apple work. Without entering the affray about Apple borrowing ideas of others (imitation = flattery in my book), this seems like an important aspect of his influence on "the practice of design, as well as 20th century aesthetics and culture" (to quote your much improved wording). Also wondering why you removed the "golden section" diagram. Am I missing something?

On another point, for what it's worth, I tried to create a 5 x 3 grid of images in the "Gallery of works". Is there an image that could be used to fill-in the blank created by moving images to relevant sections in text?

Lastly, should the Braun products be written with or without a space between the letter and number (e.g., SK 4 v. SK4). Braun identifies them with the space, as do many articles about the subject. Not sure what the convention is here and didn't want to edit the entire text without being certain.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding Rams' influence on Jony Ive and Apple, I think it's pretty well established that Jony Ive is an admirer of Rams' work and influenced his pieces. I left the relevant paragraph in the article, but removed the image because it felt like it gave Apple's work an overly prominent role in an article about Rams, and my concern is that it implies that the biggest impact Rams' work had was being "copied" by Apple, rather than a more widespread influence, of which Ive's work is but one example. (And if I'm totally honest, it was also an aesthetic choice on that specific image, which isn't very well composed and felt pretty cluttered, but that alone is not a good reason!)
 * The "golden section" diagram I took out because superimposing the golden ratio on designs (whether designed objects, graphic design, or other) is something of a trope, and it's not actually established that it was part of the design process for the item in question, and I don't think it adds information to the article. (It's remarkably easy to make enough parts of the diagram line up with something on the object so that in retrospect it looks like the proportions were derived from it).
 * Gallery - That makes total sense! I've been having issues whereby my laptop defaults to the (old) vector skin (rather than the newer vector-2022), so the number of items is a neat "two rows of seven" for me. Agreed that three rows of 5 in the default skin would be preferable. Perhaps the image of the SK 4 used earlier in the article would work?
 * It would be great if the article was consistent, as you suggest. Either way would work, but if Braun styles them with a space ("SK 4") then it seems reasonable to go with that throughout.
 * Dotx3 (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added an image to the gallery that brings the total to 15, and done a pass on the spaces in Braun's product names. Dotx3 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with your aesthetic choice re: Braun/Apple comparison image — which probably would not meet Rams' (or Ive's) approval pre se. (The file is also misleadingly named, although the caption did correct this.) It may serve a purpose in illustrating the point, though I'm not wed to it either way. Curious to hear other people's point of view as to whether the ugliness æsthetic of the image itself is outweighed by the information it imparts.
 * Point taken re: Golden Section. Nothing to add. You're right. Weniger, aber besser.
 * I've struggled to get my head around gallery layout (here and elsewhere). Seems like it could be improved (aesthetically and technically), especially if what one sees is dependent on configuration of kit. Is there a better way to do it?
 * Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * re: Apple — I might see if I can assemble a cleaner and more informative composite image.
 * re: Gallery - Agreed, although I'm not sure there's a good solution to be had. I think my issue is an edge-case, so hopefully it now looks good for the vast majority of users. Dotx3 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're able to make a better illustration of how the Braun designs are referenced by Apple's products, I do think it would add valuable context here. (It's probably true that anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of design will likely be aware of this already, but it seems less certain that a casual reader looking to learn about Rams would be.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Overzealous ip edit
This series of summarily explained ip edits (1, 2, 3) remove useful information. While there is merit to the elimination of excessive External links and erroneous and/or useless formatting, it may have been too heavy-handed. I'm inclined to re-instate some of what was eliminated (unless there's a good rational for its removal). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)