BEACH

Branding & Package Design

A simpler approach to auxetic package design

In our previous post proposing a new kind of auxetic package design, we started with some breathtakingly complex models. That was counter-intuitive, perhaps. Maybe it’s better for us to walk before we run. As amazing as they are, those complex structures are hard to get your head around. It’s easier to grasp these transformations when they’re 2-dimensional.

Toys from Trash

Alison Grace Martin‘s video above is a good place to start. She posted this video as part of her toys-from-trash album on Flickr. She hinged 9 boxes (that appear to be milk cartons) together with tape. In this way, she shows us how we might extrude a 2-dimensional auxetic structure into 3-dimensional packaging. Her kinetic 9-pack of boxes transform in the same way as  Adrian Rossiter‘s animated gif of planar “jitterbugging” squares (above right).

How is this a “simpler” approach? Because we are confining our hinged boxes to movements that can be made by polygons in a 2-dimensions plane. This is similar to an idea we’ve suggested before. (See: The Haberdasher’s Package and Chained Polyhedral Portion Packs)

The difference this time, is that we can design multi-packs capable of “jitterbug” style auxetic transformations. A few have already experimented with this idea.

[Read more…]

Auxetic Packaging

top: Taneli Luotoniemi’s 2015 “Jitterbox”; bottom: one of Bertoldi, Overvelde, Hoberman & Weaver’s recent foldable structures

Auxetic Packaging?

Auxetics are structures or materials that have a negative Poisson’s ratio. When stretched, they become thicker perpendicular to the applied force.

from Wikipedia’s entry on Auxetics

Is “auxetic packaging” really a thing? Most of the references I’ve found to packaging applications seem to be nano-scale. (Auxetic cushioning foams and the like.)

But there are others (artists and researchers) who are experimenting with folded paper and cardboard. And some of these models look (to me) like an intriguing new frontier in structural packaging design.

We have videos and information about two projects in particular (shown above), after the fold.

[Read more…]

The Jitterbug Atom: a polyhedral pack?

R. Buckminster Fuller, “Single-Cell Jitterbug,” 1976, from an edition of 150 (via: Wright)

The Jitterbug Transformation

Lately, I’ve been obsessing about Buckminster Fuller’s 1976 “Jitterbug” sculptures. He made a number of “limited editions” of his kinetic Jitterbug Atom.

Sometimes you will see it called a “single cell” Jitterbug on an auction site, but I think it’s the same thing. Although, it’s hard to tell if they’re all the same size. Dimensions seem to vary, but who knows whether they’ve measured it in its smallest or largest configuration?

Fuller discovered his “Jitterbug transformation” in 1948.

Personally, I never cared much for wire-frame models. Maybe it’s my preference for packaging, but I like it much better when polyhedrons have sides.

Transformable presentation packaging

To me, the later 1976 models are like “proof of concept” for some, as-yet-unrealized luxury presentation packaging. (See also: Geometry, Packaging & Ultraviolence)

When closed, the elegant brushed aluminum, etched copper and stainless steel models are octahedrons with 8 triangular sides. It’s easy to imagine such a shape containing something.

What happens when you open the Jitterbug Atom? You create 6 square openings, thereby transforming it into a cube-octahedron.

Dennis Dreher’s “constant dihedral hinge”

If Fuller discovered his Jitterbug transformation way back in the late forties, why did he let 28 years pass before making these 1976 models?

The early models of the jitterbug were mechanically very unstable structures, requiring a supporting armature to keep them from collapsing, until 1974 when a very special hinge joint was discovered by Dennis Dreher, who was working with Fuller at the time. This joint is called a constant dihedral hinge in the shape of a Maraldi angle (109.5 degrees) and it is what at last makes the smooth motion of the jitterbug possible.

Caspar Schwabe, Eureka and Serendipity: The Rudolf von Laban Icosahedron and Buckminster Fuller’s Jitterbug

[Read more…]

We identify all 5 kitchen debate packs

kitchen debate packsThis uncropped photograph reveals all 5 of the kitchen debate packs (AP Photo)

The Other Packs

In our previous post we scoured the internet for all the information that we could find about the S.O.S package that appears in several famous news photos of the Nixon/Khrushchev “kitchen debate” of 1959.

The thing is, the AP Photo above shows us that there were at least four other consumer packages on display that day in the “kitchen debate” kitchen.

Why is it that writers who reported on this event (if they mention any of the packages at all) usually only mention the S.O.S box?

Maybe it’s because the military/maritime connotations of the brand name strike them as ironic. Considering the context — two super-powers arguing in a kitchen about whether communism or capitalism is the way to go.

One thing that struck me was that on the back of that S.O.S “kitchen debate” box, there’s an illustration of another kitchen with call-outs pointing out various product benefits.

That’s what gave me the idea to make a similar style illustration depicting the “kitchen debate” kitchen. I’m no illustrator, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and use my own illustration to identify all 5 kitchen debate packs.

I must apologize to more talented illustrators, who would have been more capable of properly executing an illustration in this style.

We’ve already covered the S.O.S box. Now we look at the others.

Details about the other 4 kitchen debate packs, follow after the fold. [Read more…]

Packaged (past tense): 1959 S.O.S “kitchen debate” box

S.O.S “kitchen debate” boxPhotograph by Howard Sochurek for Time/Life Pictures. (With permission of Getty Images.)

The 1959 S.O.S “kitchen debate” box

This box of S.O.S soap pads shows up in a number of news photographs documenting the impromptu “kitchen debate” between US Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1959.

Nixon and Khrushchev paused to look at the kitchen, leaning against the white dividing railings. Lois Epstein, a perky brunette American exhibition guide, demonstrated how the typical American housewife might use the built-in washer-dryer. On top of the machine were a box of SOS scouring pads and a box of Dash soap powder. “In America, we like to make life easier for women,” noted Nixon. Khrushchev replied that “your capitalistic attitude to women does not occur under communism.”

Bee Wilson, Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat

I first wrote about this version of the S.O.S box in July of 2009. It struck me as very modern and graphic. I had never seen the package design before and (at that time) could find no other examples of it online. One week later, however, I did manage to turn up some vintage ads that featured the same package in color.

historically significant artifact

Then last month, Mike Higgins, a history teacher in Wyoming, found one of the boxes on eBay and purchased it for $22. He generously shared his photos and scans of the box with us. This was a big deal because, aside from advertising images, it’s the only surviving example of the package that I’ve ever seen. As such, it’s just the kind of historically significant artifact that you might expect to see at the Smithsonian. (See also: Mike’s blog about the 25th Infantry Bicycle Corps)

Modern Design

General Foods acquired the S.O.S brand in 1957. They introduced their new logo and packaging in 1959, but replaced it just 1 year later with a redesigned version. How come? Unless someone comes forward with inside information, we can only speculate.

Maybe they conducted some market research proving that the package was insufficiently persuasive. Something similar had happened to a 1950 “modern” Wheaties package design. General Foods competitor, General Mills owns the Wheaties brand. Interestingly, both of these food producers had products that were featured in news photos of the “kitchen debate.” (more about that later)

Personally, I always thought the box looked very photogenic in black and white. And yet I’ve read that the “kitchen” was lemon-yellow, so I imagine the box must have matched the decor nicely. All of which makes me wonder what Sochurek’s photograph might have looked look like, if he had been using color film instead.

NEW PACKAGES By General Foods Corporation, White Plains, New York— for S.O.S. Interwoven Soap Pads. Introduced nationally. Yellow background of the package is retained. Brand name on front panel is in large white letters with each letter superimposed over a facsimile of a soap pad. Two different treatments of the back of the pack feature use of product in the kitchen and its application out of doors.

Chain Store Age, 1959

I like the way they printed the three “facsimile” soap pads in different overlapping colors. It also anticipates the Venn diagram MasterCard logo which appeared the following year.

Mike Higgin’s scan of the 1959 S.O.S “giant economy package”

It’s interesting what they did with the logo(s). That is to say: the designer made two versions of the logo. On most panels they used a horizontal logo with condensed “S.O.S” type against vertically oriented soap pads. While on the side panels they used a vertical logo with extended “SOS” type against horizontally oriented soap pads.

the aberrant abbreviation

In 1917, Ed Cox … an aluminum pot salesman, invented a pre-soaped pad with which to clean pots. As a way of introducing himself to potential new customers, Cox made the soap encrusted steel-wool pads as a calling card. His wife named the soap pads S.O.S or “Save Our Saucepans.” Cox soon found out that the S.O.S pads were a hotter product than his pots and pans.

… The acronym, S.O.S., is the famous distress signal and could not be trademarked. By removing the last period, the name was unique and could then be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

from Wikipedia’s entry on S.O.S Soap Pad

Removing that last period, Cox also gave his trademark a bilateral symmetry. This makes “S.O.S” a more perfect palindrome. By removing both remaining periods in the vertical logo, its unnamed designer made sure that it was also symmetrical. As such, both logos function as a ambigrams and remain legible even when the box is upside down.

Much more about 1959 S.O.S “kitchen debate” box and its logo, after the fold.

[Read more…]

2 packaging-related artworks: Brillo vs S.O.S

Brillo vs S.O.S: on left: a sculpture by Marco Maggi, 2013; on right: a sculpture by Mevna Isosmoos, 2002 / 2014

Today we look at two different contemporary artworks by two different artists, each featuring a different, but well known steel-wool soap-pad brand.

Both artists began with an existing package — or a facsimile of its package design — and then cut out, moved or removed sections.

Looking at them together gives me vertigo. Which is a good thing, in this case.

More about each of the artworks and the artists who made them, after the fold. [Read more…]

3 Pussycat Perfume Bottles

3 Pussycat perfume bottles3 pussycat perfume bottles with removable cat-head-shaped caps

Why Pussycat perfume bottles?

In 2010 we devoted an entire week to animal-shaped bottles. We found bottles in the shape of fish, squirrels, pigs and even rats.

I wouldn’t call it an “inspiration.” (Since that word now seems to belong more to terrorists and copycats.) But I got the idea to research cat-shaped bottles from the Women’s March on Washington and the Pussyhat Project.

“Pussycat” (or “pussy cat”) use to be a perfectly innocuous pet-name for cats. But, over the years, a certain “locker room talk” slang-term has gradually made it much less popular. It became a difficult-to-avoid double entendre. (See also: Johnny Carson and “Instant P.“)

I like the way the Pussyhat project slyly reclaims the vulgar part of this double entendre to its own advantage.

But I digress. The topic today is Pussycat-shaped perfume bottles and we have 3 of them to discuss. [Read more…]

Archives

Categories