e
Eventually Everything / 2012 D-Crit Conference Preview: Q&A with Barbara Eldredge
In anticipation of the upcoming 2012 D-Crit Conference, "Eventually Everything," Core77 is pleased to have the opportunity to explore the breadth of SVA's design criticism MFA program through a series of Q&As with a few members of the graduating class.
Barbara Eldredge will be presenting "Missing the Modern Gun: Object Ethics in Collections of Design" during the fourth and final panel of the day-long event, "Man, Machine, Morality," on Wednesday, May 2nd. See the full schedule of events here.Firearms are absent from all American collections of contemporary design, in spite of their importance to design history and their enduring significance in the culture at large. Even when they are discussed in a design-historical context, it is all too easy to ignore the moral implications that color our perception of guns. Why can firearms be displayed in art, history, and military museums, but not in design museums? What does moral good have to do with the Museum of Modern Art? Many design collections effectively serve as object-based ethical codes revealing how to live a "good" life. Nonetheless, exhibition of a firearm within a design museum has the potential to open a new branch of discussion about guns, design, and morality.
Why D-Crit? Why Now?
Human experience changes with the incorporation of each new technology whether it is fire to cook our meat or motorized transportation or a device that lets us play Angry Birds. It is important to take a critical perspective on the objects and built environments that help to shape how we think and who we are.
Design criticism exists in all cultures and times; it just isn't always called by that name. But it affords a means of examining humanity through our interactions with objects and constructed spaces.
You cite the argument (made by the NRA, among others) that "if everyone has a gun, all are protected." What about the arguments that "if no one has a gun, all are safe," or "if anyone has a gun, no one is safe"?
I'm glad that you asked! Every time someone told me about the security benefits of universal firearms ownership, I thought of the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes and his view that, if left ungoverned, people are essentially amoral. Hobbes is perhaps best known for writing that man is a selfish being whose life is naturally "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
He was a major player in the shaping of Western thought. Many firearms owners who talked to me advocated a Hobbesian view that arming oneself was a legitimate precaution against the eventuality of human violence. After all, Hobbes also wrote, "If men are not naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors?"
But I find the anti-gun arguments, "if no one has a gun, all are safe" and "if anyone has a gun, no one is safe," to be equally Hobbesian and depressing. The assumption underlying all thse statements is that humans are so incapable of self-control and empathy that if they have the opportunity to commit violence then they will use it. So we have to take away such opportunities through heavy government control or being equally armed.
I like to think that the reality isn't so simple. Carrying a firearm can never ensure one's safety but neither can the total elimination of firearms. It's funny to say this since we're talking about design here, but I think that such perspectives put too much emphasis on the firearms themselves and not enough on the average person's capacity for moral reasoning. There is a limit to what designed objects/systems can accomplish.
For many people, carrying a firearm provides more psychological security than practical security. It makes them feel autonomous and powerful. Rather than ban firearms outright, a more effective (though certainly more difficult and idealistic) solution would be to better support social and economic structures that empower individuals. The problem isn't that it is easy to get a gun in America; the problem is that getting a gun is sometimes easier than getting therapy, social equality, and economic stability.
Has your thesis research significantly changed your worldview?
Actually, I was rather terrified to take on the topic of firearms for my thesis. The process helped me to overcome some very strong negative associations that I had with guns.
I went to school in the age of Columbine amid a rash of school violence. In high school, a young man in the year below me brought his father's pistol to school and threatened the lives of several of my friends before being shot down by police. The young man survived. My friends were unharmed. But at the time, my emotional response to the incident was left unresolved. Sometimes it is much easier to focus one's negative attention onto objects than it is to admit the unknowability of human motivation.
What's next for you?
I'm particularly interested in examining how our relationship to designed objects might influence our moral perspectives or capacity for abstraction. I'm drafting a couple of book proposals based on some of my thesis research and I am also working on a nonfiction, one-woman play about the human skulls that have been used in productions of Hamlet over the centuries.
I'm hoping to create some kind of Frankenstein freelance job that combines my writing, research, and performance skills. If anyone has ideas for me, I'd love to hear 'em!
* * *
-
oFavorite This
-
Q11Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Formation Design Group
Formation is a product design + development company focused on human centered design innovation. To ...
-
A2
A2 is a product development consultancy focused on design strategy, market and user research, indust...
-
Zenpack
Your Full-Service Packaging Solutions Company We noticed a gap in luxury packaging companies: Clien...
-
PDR
PDR is a major award-winning, multidisciplinary international centre for design and research with a ...
-
Hatch Duo, LLC
Founded by an award-winning team with over 20 years of combined product design experience, Hatch Duo...
-
Datum3D Product Development
Datum3D is a one-stop shop product development company located in the Greater Boston Area. Founded i...
-
DesignThink
DesignThink is known for generating highly effective and impactful design outcomes that generate the...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
That's a very good point.
More than that, I'm affraid we could even whitness a kafkian situation; a gun designer made some wrong calculations and designed a lousy firearm, that at random moments blows in the hands of the user. I bet the designer could be sued for designing an imperfect killing machine, that killed the "wrong" people.
Totally absurd.
By the way, you have some very neat stuff on your website. Congratulation!
I also perceive a huge moral and ethical problem with gun designs.
If a designer, designs anything, like a chair or a boat, that does not work properly and people die because of his failure, his career will be gone and he could even get arrested or sued.
But, if a designer deliberately designs something to kill people, it is ok, he is a terrific designer.
It looks very incoherent in my opinion.
Thank you for you long, patient and thoughtful response.
It wasn't lame at all, showed me a different and responsible oppinion on guns.
you say "a gun's one and only purpose is to ignite the gunpowder held in the cartridge and then accurately launch a projectile over a distance". true.
And you also say "a lot of people have a negative outlook on guns, but if we're honest, my rifle or pistol is no more dangerous than a baseball bat, a knife, a car, or anything like that". Also true and I have stated myself this, even slightly different nuanced, in my first response to Barbara.
But what is missing here is the analysis of the intent behind designing and manufcturing the various products we talk about. That's why I have compared the moral issues involved while designing a firearm vs. a kitchen knife.
Indeed, firearms are part of America's modern culture. Those discussions confirm me that and show me how everyday people see this issue. It became such well infiltrated that has lost ocasionally its primary use and started to provide also a sort of entertainment (I wouldn't call it sport, is more a skill than a sport). We should not forget that hunting and shooting range were somehow frequent among rich people or crowned heads all over europe, sometime ago. While now, this became more affordable entartainment to average American citizen.
Is this good? is it bad? Statistically speaking, more people you expose to gun power, more chances are to end up in wrong hands.
I know that my discourse could sound idealistic, but human's hunter instinct should be a matter of the past, like our wisdom tooth - which tends to dissaper, or like our appendix, who lost its purpose in the evolution process.
For that, it needs a superior conscience of life's miracle.
Regards
I agree with all you noted in your second answer. And I also apologize if my assumption offended you.
That wasn't my intention anyway. But let's talk about Barbara's article and her intention. She says "I'm particularly interested in examining how our relationship to designed objects might influence our moral perspectives or capacity for abstraction. "
Bright and ambitious!
But from there I have started all my comments here. And also from the fact that sometimes I (as a designer) could be behind the designed objects that she is talking about, my morality could influence the designed object and therefore, the morality of the product.
Of course, if you design a table, or a chair, morals are hardly to get involved.
But it is happening that she choose the firearms as object of her study. Might be for the exact reason you mentioned: to elicit emotions.
So, sudenly I became emotional and subjective and I think sometimes it's impossible to be detached from the subject of your design, as you suggest.
Because each of us has a different background, different conception about life, ultimatelly we act very different, emotionally speaking.
So it is obvious that a person like me could be amazed by the simplicity and efficiency of cardboard japoneze shelters, especially designed for emergency and catastrophical situations, and rather indifferent or even bothered by the whole firearms design history and huge variations they had over time.
I agree also with your exercise...it is good to have a humble view of your design proposals (you see, I always involve emotions, because I don't think - at least for me - is possible to not be tied emotionaly at a certain level).
The only thing (and this is as practical as it can be) is that you have to admit that your decision maker is a higher design authority.
Regards
"It looks like you're a guns enthusiast bothered by any deeper discussion about gun's existance morality."
My topic of conversation was not about the morality of firearms. In fact, if you re-read my comment, it makes no mention of firearms or any other weapons. You take a defensive stance to my comment and make assumptions of my character. This is exactly the reaction I refer to. Your subjectivity is driving your conclusions.
Notice the use of the word "you" in my previous paragraph. It is meant to elicit emotion. While design should include emotion, if a designer is to be in control of their skill they should also be aware of the effect their own emotions have in their decision making process.
One example I have learned (from Core77 of all places): Make 5-7 concepts and let the decision maker(s) choose what best fits the application. Do not get emotionally tied to one design. Try to develop each concept equally and independently. This is so personal offense is not taken when one concept is chosen over another. Simple steps like these help make better decisions.
This is the voice of the ignorant.
The primary purpose of my guns is to shoot holes in paper, cans, water bottles, bottle caps, ping pong balls, rubber targets, etc.
I recommend you visit a range and confront your hoplophobia. Anyone there will be happy to introduce you to the happy world of shooting. It's a little intimidating at first but you come to grips with it and then it's all fun.
The only danger here is getting hooked - firearms are an EXPENSIVE hobby! Just remember the 4 cardinal rules, use your head, and don't be afraid to ask questions.
Oh, and about the killing part: There's nothing wrong with killing in self defense. Every gun owner I know hopes they can go their entire life without using their gun to injure another human - even in self defense. And yet, if it comes to that, there's no better force multiplier. The important thing about handling anything dangerous is to use what's in between your ears - whether it's driving a car (kill more people than guns), going to a doctor (kill more people than guns), swimming in a body of water (kill more people than guns), or smoking a cigarette (kills more people than guns).
I think I got her point right, but I 'm not sure I got yours...It looks like you're a guns enthusiast bothered by any deeper discussion about gun's existance morality. And that's happening in a context where exactly that is the point.
I would let Barbara to decide though, either my thoughts are adding any value to her research, or not.
@Splodge
I agree with you, she is embarked in a brave endeavour, kudos!
Thank you for citing the Bible, but your assumptions were wrong: I'm not bothered by those words. More than that, none of your arguments contradict what I have said in my original comment.
If you have some patience, I'll explain you why.
Let's see...Luke 22:36-38:
"36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."
First of all, these paragraphs are not supposed to be read and interpreted out of their context. To fully understand them we have to see the big picture. Therefore, the whole context is: Jesus said thaose words in the night when He was sold by Judah, just few hours before. He said that to his Apostels with a very specific purpose: He knew that in between the moment of His selling and the moment of Scripture word's fulfillment - His Risen from the Deaths - his Apostles will have to face all the human weakness, therefore they'll just seek material support (purse, scrip, sword - traveller's stuff). But His urge was a metaphoric one; that's why when the Apostles said "here are two swords" Jesus answered "It is enough". If it wasn't just a metaphor, he would have said "get another ten". Further more, the metaphore becomes more obvious in Luke 22:49,51
"49. When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50. And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51. And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him. "
Why do you think Jesus stopped his Apostels imediately and healed poor Malthus ear imediatelly? Because he urged them literaly to get weapons?
No, He actually knew about their humainly hesitations, but allowed them to be expressed only until His Resurrection. After that, the Word of The Scripture is revealed as the Truth, and only Love, Hope and Faith should govern their lives.
Why we don't live just with that?...this is out of topic here.
And between us, Christians, let's remember also these words of Jesus Christ
"52.Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Mathew 26:52
I hope you followed me.
A sword is more a weapon than a kitchen knife. Is hard to imagine that a sword was created to cut the bread. as hard as is to think that a hand gun was created to crack wallnuts. they are both immoral, as you said. but I was talking about designing the everyday kitchen knife.
On the other hand, I agree with you that a gun is a tool that offers protection from those who would do them harm. Still, this is just showing our primitive and foolish behaviour. It's rather sad we didn't learn anything from the past, since we're still making and using guns.
We - as designers - shouldn't put all the responsability on the man behind the trigger. We should carry with us a higher morality and responsability, whenever we start working on such objects. An ethical/moral oath would be a good guide, just like doctors have Hypocrate's oath.
I too wish that firearms and guns in particular had a bit more respect in our industry, they're a combination of ergonomics and aesthetics, but only to the point of improving the functionality of the object. What more could you want out of design? Show people a picture of a Colt 1911 .45 and most people will at least know that it's a .45 or a colt .45, show the same people a picture of an Eames Chaise and it would suddenly become clear that something that is famous in our industry might pale in recognition to something many designers pass off as just a tool or just a weapon.
I would love to see a design museum have a feature on guns, the ergonomics, different designs, and overall importance of functionality of the product could teach a lot of students, professional designers, and the public in general a lot about the application of design and why certain decisions were made. Arguments for a standard rifle setup on an AR-15 vs. the bull pup design on the Steyr AUG in an open minded (hopefully people can remove their negative opinions if they have them) forum could really get minds thinking about ergonomics and the end user.
@Razvan
I understand your issues with guns, and I understand a lot of people have a negative outlook on guns, but if we're honest, my rifle or pistol is no more dangerous than a baseball bat, a knife, a car, or anything like that. However it has a deep seeded respect, love, and fear in our society, more so than probably any other designed product, yet it doesn't seem to have the respect that other items seem to get in the design industry and I think that is what Barbara is looking at.
To make a point and hopefully not get too political or ideological, a gun's one and only purpose is to ignite the gunpowder held in the cartridge and then accurately launch a projectile over a distance .Carrying a firearm doesn't make you any more dangerous than driving a car. The mindset and intentions of the person using the tool is what can make it dangerous or useful. True, a criminal can use a gun to take life or steal, however a young woman can use a gun to protect her body and her life. I have a mindset that gun actually create civilization, not destroy it. Guns equalize the natural disadvantage of size and strength, allowing people to defend themselves from odds that they, by themselves, wouldn't be able to overcome. Being able to protect yourself from a criminal, and the knowledge most criminals have that roughly 1/3 of Americans are gun owners, is a huge deterrent to crime and if you look at the cities with the highest crime rates like Chicago and Washington D.C. many of them have extremely restrictive gun laws that do nothing but keep law abiding citizens from purchasing something they have every right to, something politicians like to forget is that criminals don't follow the rules.
There are several more uses for firearms as well, I own a few guns yet have never been hunting, have never been in a self defense situation, and hope to never do neither seeing as I have no interest in hunting for sport and I think the reasons for avoiding a life-threatening situation are obvious enough. However, I do compete in pistol and rifle competitions where the gun is nothing more than a piece of sporting equipment much like a soccer ball or a baseball bat, only this one requires much more responsibility to own and use.
As I said earlier, nearly 1/3 of America of 85 million Americans own guns, all but a tiny minority of that number are perfectly law abiding citizens who are looking to protect themselves or their family, or enjoy themselves with friends at the shooting range or while hunting. The actions of a few people who most of the time have purchased guns illegally should hardly affect the rights of the majority of safe, responsible owners. And the great thing is, if one of those owners who is out to kill, steal, or harm, there's a large portion of the population ready to defend the prey from the predator.
Sorry for the novel, but in closing what I want to say is: I don't want people to fear guns, only to respect them as a beautifully designed (well, most of the time) product that requires skill, practice, and responsibility to own and use. I would never force anyone into gun ownership that didn't want to be a gun owner, however I also ask that people don't force perfectly law abiding citizens to give up their rights just because something seems scary to them.
p.s. super lame and possibly useful piece of "gun guy rhetoric"
Saying guns should be banned because they scare you is like me demanding that cat ownership be made illegal because they make me sneeze.
Feel free to respond to me, I love answering questions about guns and gun ownership.
I'm particularly happy to note the observation made here about people's moral reasoning being key, not the presence or lack of a firearm.
I'm doubly impressed considering Barbara's initial position.
@Razvan
Speaking as one Christian to another, you really need to do some scriptural reading on the topic. Specifically, I think you should start with Luke 22:36-38.
When what you read there bothers you (as, considering the views shown in your post, I suspect it will) please don't shut your ears to it. Instead, dig deeper, until you understand the biblical position inside and out.
Just as the knife is not immoral, neither is the gun. It has nothing to do with what they can be used for - in fact, as they are, both are totally amoral. It is entirely down to the user.
Just as a gun can be an implement of terror and destruction, it can also be used as a tool to protect and preserve people from those who would do them harm. It's all down to the man behind the trigger...
Well done on taking on a task with interests that may conflict with your own! Getting your own opinion out of the way is sometimes the best advantage in coming up innovative solutions. It shows that design's subjectivity can be both liberating and constricting. Much discussion I see in design tends to mingle in political ideologies. Disrobing politics from design truly frees the designer and allows solutions not previously thought of or even reveals problems otherwise unknown.
@Razvan
You should read closer in what Barbara did because I think you missed the point of the thesis.
I think you definitelly touched a deep theme. Something that can go back to Abel and Cain.
For me, guns are nightmarish.
I'm a mechanical designer, artist and industrial designer myself, and I had my tough times in deciding over a project morality. few thoughts here: eventually everything can be used as a lethal weapon. Why concentrate only on guns? what's so special about them? why are they stirring so many moral discussions?why not talking about guillotine or "iron maiden" torturing device? or maybe a knife? or a simple pen?
well, when I was asked to design something close to a gun, I had ot say no, because I found that is not on the same page first of all with my Christian faith, then with my principles and my past experiences.
so why is a gun imoral but a knife not?
because when you design a knife, the primary use of that knife is to cut bread, wood, ropes, etc...so it is primarily a tool. Imoral became only when used by an imoral person.
but when you design a gun, the primary use of that object is injuring or killing. No matter who is behind its trigger. it can be used to crack wallnuts, but that's 0.0000000000000000001%.
I think that those inquiries you start from should sound more like "if everyone could be a bit more moral, tolerant and kind, we all would be safer".
and all the effort put into developping this instrument of killing would be just a matter of how to display it in a torture instrument museum, where guillotine and iron maiden are.
and good designers could spend their time and expertize in designing something more usefull for humanity.
regards