Respond to this response with this form
In the 90's, who are we really designing for?
Design is superficial without meaning,
frivolous without diginity,
temporal without purpose,
stigmatizing without compassion,
untrustworthy without accountability,
worthless without function,
shallow without integrity,
landfill without respect for the earth,
and ceases to be art without passion.
No wonder the industrial design profession continually trumpets its assets and defends its importance. Why, the evidence of our own creation refutes our claims. Henry Dreyfuss said that we should be designing for people. But today, we are not designing for people, we are designing for ourselves. We consider people in our design, not to serve them, but as the means to glorify the designer.
Today, our true motive behind our design is to fulfill our own selfishness, to win an award, to boost our egos, to win great short term profits, to get a grade, to keep a client, or to be in the Museum of Modern Art. And if people just happen to benefit from our design, that's an added bonus, a by product of our true intent.
All of this is not surprising, for this attitude is encouraged and rewarded by the magazines, the museums, the businesses, the design awards, and even by the national organization representing industrial designers.
What if design was done with integrity, honor, and passion?
What if design was responsible, selfless, and respectful?
What if design had dignity, compassion, and meaning?
What if we designed for people?
Maybe then, others would trumpet our importance, instead of us blowing our own horns. Maybe then, designers would earn respect, instead of demanding it. Maybe then, peoples lives would change for the better because of meaningful design.
Jason Morris
April 18, 1995