Dieter Rams | 7. 3. 2008 | Interviewd by Barbara Predan
Luck plays an important roll in our life

You were born in 1932. The Nazis were already on the rise. During the war you were a very young boy. How do you remember those times?
Actually, I don’t remember those times, for being just a baby. During the war my father was not on the front line, he was responsible for radiotelegraphy. But at that time my mother and father weren’t living together anymore. So I was actually living between my mother and my grandfather. In the beginning of the war, the only thing that mattered was how good you were in sports and maybe in mathematics. These were terrible times.
But I have to mention that, as a child, I was one of the first who got in the newspapers. You see, when I was born, my stomach was closed and I was the first baby in Wiesbaden whose stomach was operated. As I was the first it was mentioned in the newspaper. So, you see, that was the beginning, in 1932. (laughter)

Was the desire to help rebuild your country one of the reasons for your decision to study architecture?
Actually, it was because of my grandfather. He was always very interested in how things are built and done. All the small furniture that he built in his workshop was done manually. He hated machines and I believe that this is why I hate the computers nowadays. He was a great influence on me. In his workshop I always found something interesting, like a brochure from Wiener Werkstätte for instance. And this was the reason why I decided to become an architect.
When the war was over I was only thirteen years and a half. I was very lucky. You see when you were fourteen years old the Nazis took the young to the so called Volkssturm, so I was really lucky not to go there. This proves my belief that luck plays an important role in our life.

Is it also because of your grandfather that you are a trained carpenter?
After high school, in 1948, I went to study at the so called Handwerker- und Kunstgewerbeschule. It was a short course, one year, and that is when my father decided, OK, you want to be an architect, but you should learn something serious as well. So I had to finish a three year carpenter course. After three years I moved away from my parents and was already thinking of studying urban planning. A lot of good architects at that time worked in Frankfurt. After writing many letters, and receiving no answers, I met an architect, Otto Apel. He teached at Tezno and was also working together with Albert Speer, the Nazi architect. I remember thinking to myself I don’t want to have anything to do with the Nazis, but on the other hand I was the youngest in the class and I might learn a lot in this architectural course. He really liked me. He used to look over my shoulder and say to me, “architects who can make a good drawing are dangerous because they can make their own illusion”. He called me Pimpf – this was a nick name for the beginners in the Hitlerjungen.

And then Braun came along …
After two years with Apel, there was an ad in the newspaper, that some company, Braun, is looking for an architect. Apel told me that I should answer. I remember that I really didn’t want that, because my plans at that time were completely different, and also, who was this Braun anyway. Nobody knew anything about it. In a way he forced me to answer the ad. In Braun they told us that we have to make a project and after they will decide who will get the job. The project was to add some storage to a guestroom. I found the project very interesting. After two months came another invitation. At that occasion I had the chance to meet Erwin Braun. I’ve also seen the designs that Hans Gugelot did and had the chance to hear what Braun wanted with his company. When I saw these ideas and met the man I became very enthusiastic to see such progressive thinking. When I started working there I worked as an architect, but very soon it became obvious that design and engineering will have to merge. I was the first to become the head of the design department in 1961. At that time the main problem was that the “surrounding” didn’t fit with the objects. So we had to design the surroundings that would fit the designed products.

In one interview you’ve stated that, at the time when you were starting at Braun, people had loudspeakers with carpets on them. This made them look like curtains or furniture. You, on the other hand, wanted a more technical look. From today’s standpoint, we can conclude that Braun’s products triggered changes in public perception and contributed to a shift of values in society. What made you think of a new way to design household appliances?
It was a totally different world. Even Braun’s employees didn’t believe that somebody could buy this. When I was creating I was designing things that I wanted to have. For me there was no real doubt. Of course, the important role was also played by Erwin Braun, who supported my ideas.

But while making this, have you realised that in a way you were building a “brand new world”?
Actually we were so busy at the time, that we didn’t have the time to notice. We believed in what we did and believed that we are doing it well.

At the lecture you’ve mentioned that you hate being forced to read instructions. I guess this is one of the main reasons for one of your commandments – the one that states good design is self-explanatory. In order to achieve that, you literally had to invent a new visual language – one that is simple enough even for a layman to understand. You and your team succeeded masterfully in achieving this goal. Why, in your opinion, is simplicity so underrated in today’s world?
At that time the main problem was in designing the graphics for the product and of course to print this as exact as possible on the product. One of the issues was also that trained graphic designers – coming from Ulm – didn’t want this job. They of course could do it, but didn’t want to, because as they explained it, this wasn’t their job. So we had to train the team in our department.
As for the simplicity, it might have to do with the zeitgeist. In our times, after the war, everything was in more or less in a state of improvisation. At the time, when you had to improvise how to get something on the table to eat, you knew how to be satisfied with the minimum. This also brings me back to my grandfather. When he was making things, he couldn’t do anything complicated, if not for the other, he didn’t have the tools to do it. But even though he did it simple, he did it in high quality. And in the way he was doing it, I’ve learned a lot.

It’s quite surprising that your best-selling product is the Oral-B toothbrush for Gillette.
Yes, I am still very proud of it. At the time it was a very innovative design in the field of electrical toothbrushes. And I am very happy to see that it is still in production.

Gillette purchased a controlling interest in Braun in 1967. Over the years, Gillette introduced a marketing logic which slowly eroded the principle of coherency that established Braun…
I don’t agree with that. First of all, I’ve stayed in Braun. The president of Gillette at the time was very enthusiastic over Braun. He was amazed by the fact that such a low-profile company suddenly became known world-wide. At the time Gillette was very successful money wise but as for the identity, not well known. The president thought, if I buy Brown, it will improve the reputation of my company. I know that I said in some interviews that Gillette way of thinking wasn’t right for Braun, but I must state that at the beginning this was not so. There were many mistakes also from our own management.

But still, today, it seems that nothing can be done without marketing. In my opinion marketing people are constantly “forgetting” that without a good product all the marketing is just a waste of money. How can we switch the attention back to the product?
Actually, the problem is elsewhere and can be solved by right personnel in top management. Only one or maximum two right people are enough for the job. When marketing people are not sure, they start testing things. I’ve always criticised that. I find it very narrow minded. The main thing that marketing is responsible for is the return of the investment. And as we know, investments need many new products, new investigations and a lot of money. Production facilities have to be technical masterpieces in itself. To repay these investments everyone wants to be on the safe side, hence the testing. But you can’t be successful without taking risks. Because without risk there is no progress. And of course this is not something that marketing should be working on.

You’ve once stated that what you dislike the most are politicians, because they’re making us more stupid. Could we say the same for marketing, is it making us more stupid?
I don’t want to say this in general. In every profession there are good and bad exceptions. But, let’s face it, it is getting very difficult to find good ones nowadays.

Memphis was in a way a reaction against the prevailing marketing logic. I guess this was not Sottsass’ intention but in a way it spawned the anti-product culture that you’ve mentioned in your lecture. It triggered the excess that – as you’ve said – we should avoid at all costs. Even though we all get tired of excess really quickly, many still crave for it, react on it. Why is that?
I believe that the core problem lays in education. Once I was invited to a design conference in Aspen. I still remember the speech of Buckminster Fuller – it lasted for hours and still no-one dared to speak – and it was inspiring. So, the answer is: education. To change the way we do things, we have to change the educational system.

Today, Braun is not what it used to be. Does this prove that, in order for a company to succeed, there has to be a magic link between a daring entrepreneur and an innovative designer full of curiosity?
Yes. After I left the design department, they gave me the title I will never forget: executive director for corporate affairs. But with this they also took away all the power of execution along with the budget. In a way my hands were tied. At that time my successor and the new chairman had no background in Braun tradition and what is even worse they didn’t want to learn about it. In 1999 the ignorance resulted in shares falling. This was the impulse for Americans to change the whole management, which for Braun brought even more communication problems. Marketing was getting even more important, with all the tests I mentioned before. The situation right now is pretty sad, because nobody really knows what to do with Braun. The past can teach us a lot, but we have to be willing to be thought.