e
RSS Alert: New Article at Core77: Beware the Backlash
Kevin McCullagh takes on the current backlash against design--from charges of "too much fluff" all the way down to "too much stuff." And everyone--including designers, editors, and advertisers, are getting in on the act. Here's a snippet:
There's a storm brewing in designland. A backlash is gathering momentum, and what's more, some of its chief dissidents are design's leading lights. Philippe Starck sheepishly peered out of the cover of December's Icon magazine, under the 'I killed design' banner. In an Observer article a few months earlier Stephen Bailey, the fiery British design critic exclaimed "When I hear the word 'designer', I reach for my chainsaw."
-
oFavorite This
-
Q25Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Studio Redeye, LLC.
Our goal as a full service industrial design studio is to create designs that emotionally connect wi...
-
Mighty Studios
Mighty Studios is a business-savvy product design consultancy. We believe that good design should be...
-
Spanner
Spanner, a creative engineering and product development design studio, enables the world’s leading b...
-
FLUID Design
FLUID (former LUNAR Europe) is an award-winning creative design and innovation agency located in Mun...
-
Spitfire Industry
WHO WE ARE Spitfire is a design studio headquartered in Brooklyn. Our founder, Isis Shiffer, an awa...
-
Cardboard Helicopter Product Design
We are a boutique product development studio in Cleveland, Ohio, and we make ideas fly. Drop us a l...
-
Sundberg-Ferar | Product Innovation Studio
Sundberg-Ferar, a product design firm, helps the world's leading durable product companies to turn c...
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
My belief is that a long time ago when the Bauhaus was new, everyone who 'designed' made endlessly repeating variations on classical design. These were based on a 'golden mean' which in a large part relied on physics. Adornment and embellishment upon the impassable original was the focus of both designers and architects, to the point that thousands of tradesmen learn t how to make acanthus leaves and fluted columns in stone and wood and hundreds of architects produced endless temple floor plans.
Along comes the Bauhaus and their big beef was that form must follow function. This was not only a physical revolution in design, it was also a political revolution amongst designers who finally threw off a thousand years of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, as a culture we are still unconsciously used to the hackneyed stylized reproduction as a valid expression of originality, and this dichotomy of purpose in turn is interpreted as a license to heave ones own ego upon the product. This is where the physics of the detail is lost because at no stage do such people get reminded that they are more often than not simply reinventing the wheel and no matter what they embellish it with, it has to work as a wheel.
When a beautiful design does 'work' it is usually because it literally does work and the only things that do work are those things that obey the laws of nature, ie physics.
I am not suggesting that a return to classical models will make a new renaissance, I am suggesting that its inevitable abandonment (because politically it had begun to stink)threw the baby out with the bath water and allowed it to be replaced with personal ego as the new point of reference.
Note that that is not what the Bauhaus said. They said "form must follow function". they did not say "do what ever the heck you want to do". Form and function are as basically about physics as you can get, so when are they going to start teaching designers and architects to get off their high horses and have a good look at how hooves work. Ego should not come into it until a long way down the track.
To ask the ego to design something is problematic because the ego is to the brain as the eye is to the body. It is not a designer of anything. Ego is the emotional interpreter of what we see and feel and it is intellect that must design with the information recieved from ego. Basically, asking ego to design is like asking a robot to design and then congratulating it when it comes up with another robot.
To step back from ones own identity and see that physics is the one true arbiter of taste, is to begin to enter the realm of functional design. I can't make a tree grow backwards or expect a cat to bark but that is often the level of hideousness that passes for design and architecture. Why?, because designers need to go back to roots just as the whole world does at this time. Mr Stark, took a walk in the park and saw how dark it was getting. Well Fark, it's about time he joined us.
plain-|- If you have an idea to make a start-off company's trash recycler device less taxing on weight and more porous to allow air to come in and not let the smell come out� do it
DON'T ADD FINS AND METALLIC LIGHTS THAT ARE BRIGHT TO SEE IN THE DAY BECAUSE ITS iTastic..
The winner: "In a world full of stuff, why make more."
I feel this is more critical than "anti-fluff", which is very different inside and outside the design community.
I don't see anything inherently "wrong" with intellectually lightweight, non-problem-solving objects as they can represent a basic human desire for escape, fantasy and story-telling. Not every object created by mankind needs to survive the test of time - the implications with today's production abilities would be rather unpleasant. The real problem is most industrial designers are very poor story-tellers and only perceive fantasy as stylistics. This is a direct limitation of design education which, as others here pointed out, never truly fulfilled neither the "hard" engineering requirements of the profession, nor its "soft" artistic side to its true potential. Both of these require similar analytical rigor to create what all today happily announce as being the "user experience".
What has ocurred in the end is a largely missed opportunity for this field to mature into a uniquely respected profession the same way architecture or engineering are. Yes, mass industrialization is relatively new historically, but crafting simultaneously functional and meaningful objects is an activity as old as humanity itself. Design today is certainly no follower of that great tradition and doesn't deserve to be either.
Curiously, most designers still believe the public is "interested" in design - only designers are interested in the tortuous meanderings of the activity itself. For most people on the street hurrying about their rushed lives, products may as well grow on trees and ripen only at Christmas. How we are perceived by other professionals, including engineers and artists, is of much higher importance for our species' survival. Ah, if only product designers could utilize technology like engineers and understand the human condition as artists do.
Maybe that would be the beginning of a new sense of mission, of a purposeful sense of urgency now missing. The fault for our low standing despite clearly contributing at least some well-being to society does not rest with the minority of shallow Hollywood-ready prima donnas among us, nor even with the gullible tabloid-like design media, but with the vast quiet majority that we are. Being non-opinionated, highly interiorized and submissive in a nascent creative profession few outside it understand is bad news if you seek recognition. It is also what led to such a complex field of activity as product design to be literally subjugated by this other, far louder modern "invention" - marketing. At least when your friends point out to all the mindless trinkets on the shelves you can always say "but marketing made me do it".
When some here talk about design "constantly evolving", this is where it's at. The core purpose of product design never needed to "evolve" really, but we have been morphed into something else by others in society with more clout, thicker skin and deeper pockets.
losing the product in the design is never a good thing. designers' egos often lose sight of that. Obsession with brand identity as a result of mass consumerism kind of feeds all the perceived negatives of design.
There seems to be more of an emphasis on rendering skills than on how you get to these points.
I do think, however, that as designers we must brace ourselves as the design field becomes more and more known to the average person, that it is quite possible that the field of design will become more dilluted, but as in every field there are those people who stay true. I don't think that you must study engineering or math or science to be a good designer, because you actually can learn about the functions of what your designing as your designing it. You won't be able to learn micro-physics in one evening but if passionate enough you will learn what you need to know. Hopefully good designers would want to know. I think that good designers have endless curiosity, and would strive to better themselves.
Another problem is that as designers we see our visions so clearly and we want others to understand and cherrish the paths to our visions. We also want to design for the public and the massess, the only thing is the public wants a new cell phone every 6 months, no one wants to keep anthing to understand it, they want to use and move on. Thusly rapid fire design. Which applies to both fluff and non fluff.
The world needs "Fluff" (what ever its definition may be), but it also needs substantial innovation.
Lately it seems that we have been focusing on style and fluff, rather than trying to really dig deep into solving a problem or issue, or to satisfy a user. Design for design's sake doesnt cut it anymore. There needs to be more substance to back up design decisions. User-based design probably needs to be re-emphasised, as well as a broadened background of skills and knowledge, in order to regain our credibility as "designers"
In pushing for a fundamental change in the way designers think of their roll in the bigger scheme of things -- over coming fear is the biggest hurdle. "...no one wakes-up devising ways to trash the planet. Our choices have become a death by 1000 cuts. Manufacturers, their creative service vendors, and the consumer all play a part in this scene, and fear is one of the key factors in why change is slow to arrive. Fear felt by the consumer that the unfamiliar product isn't as good -- coupled with fear of wasting their ever-stretched dollar. Fear felt by the manufacturer that the consumer won't accept the new product. And fear by the creatives of being fired (loosing the account) for stepping too far out of the norm." (from http://www.indes.net/e-publishing/idnpub2.html)
As an "out" sustainable designer for over 10 years now, I can tell you I've never been so busy. Things are changing, and the Designasours are seeing their days numbered.
Wendy Jedlicka, CPP
More articles
http://www.indes.net/e-publishing
http://o2umw.org
While designers with the time and ego can spend time debating the issue of a backlash towards design, those who are in the trenches, often producing those designers goods, must deal with the more real issue of Backing up the design, in effect, supporting their design choices.
If, designer Naoto Fukasawa finds relevance in removing design from design, this should come as no surprise, since he is the powerhouse behind MUJI, the non-design design giant. While he may expound on his beliefs and still introduce great design, he, at the same time, delivers a compass pointing directly to MUJI.
Starck, on the other hand has delivered one shocking view after another on design. He, right or wrong, has ridden the wave of rock star status, while cashing in on what he now refers to as his �shame�. This stance could easily be taken as another bold move, rather than a heartfelt murmur in a design confessional. Perhaps it is somewhere in between. After all, one must be a giant to have their statements taken so literally.
Rarely do we read of Icons having to back up their designs, rather, they are the ones we see as pushing design to the next level-or at one time did.
Backing up your work is much harder for the average designer, their exists little or no cool glossy magazine spreads to tout the importance of your name, no calls to create the latest Vitra iconic object. We do not receive invitations as much as slim chances to get the job, vying for work with thousands of other designers.
Backing up your design choices should lead to clear explanations. A client or consumer should be able to grasp why an object is the way it is. If a book is small, perhaps it is because it is of an intimate nature. If an object nestles in a person�s hand, might it be meant to create a personal connection, or bring out a persons ability to nurture and protect?
If, as designers, we work toward backing up our work, being able to clearly convey our choices, would we not offer a better service to all involved? Do we make this an issue of fear and distrust of our abilities and our intentions? I hope the former, accountability should be our greatest hallmark, not running in shame from a backlash of poor choices.
economics and anything else that seemed to apply. A classic esthetic could only be achieved by manifesting form from these indigenous factors.
Styling, on the other hand, pays no tribute to the way the human body works, or if a molded part is going to warp. The concern is only for that moment at the point-of-purchase. The Marketing department rewards this approach because it turns product, even if only for the short term, and calls the stylists designers.
It appears to me that the issue is not so much about Design as it is about Marketing.
If you can't make it or actually use it, what's the point in a groovy 3D rendering?
Concepts are OK, but the laws of physics still continue to exist ...
;)
The point I wanted to make was that back then the students might have hated engineering and math, but they also had to fight the general attitude against studying design at an art school. It was once considered a waste of time by a lot of people (including my family). Consequently, back then at least you got people going into the field who were passionate enough to overcome that bias. They had to care enough to argue with their family and counselors that they actually had a passion to go into the field (because parents will wonder "Can Johnny make a living as an artist?").
Only today, I suspect there is no filter of that quality. It's an acceptable vocation to parents so the scrutiny has, I suspect, fallen away to a large degree. So the question is: how passionate are the people who enter the field? How serious are they? That's where I think we're losing ground. And that might be part of why we see simple projects instead of well-researched efforts. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look at portfolios I find the lack of creative *problem solving* to be rather depressing; especially since, as an engineer among student designers, I found that so amazingly invigorating.
And last but not at all least, I think Thibaut makes an excellent point regarding the PR issue. I recently posted a blog entry on the ties between Advertising and ID, so for me that observation is an astute one.
About the other one, I'd like to have a look at some design student projects made back in the 60s or 70s to have an opinion. It was perhaps worse...
About Starck : he might be a compulsive designer, but he's also a compulsive communicator. With a big ego. He likes to emphasize his talks with big bold ideas that hit you, but it's more to get attention than a deep belief he has. Provocateur. So I don't buy his "I'm ashamed of what I've done".
The problem with design today might also be that more and more design projects are in fact PR projects, it's more about creating a communication device than a meaningful product. Because it seems you need this kind of buzz to attract clients.
I don't know about it on your side of the Atlantic, but here in France, big clients are more interested in seeing your press book than to understand what you actually can bring to them and their users. They're seeking press coverage which seems to equal to professional attitude to them. The press people are thus the one really managing the design market. What seduce the press people ? Flashy fluffy in your face stuff. So what is doing a young designer aiming to be recognized ? A useful and well proportioned product, or a big "look at me" flash sign product with some elaborate words explaining where it comes from. Mocoloco posted a fine example today : http://mocoloco.com/archives/003637.php. "The focus is on the alienation of bathroom furnishings from their customary surroundings and function." Man, this guy just cut his bathtub into three with a damn saw !!!
People are still seduced by the fact that some guys are able to create something different from what's out there. We need to bring them one step further, where they'll be amazed by understanding how and why it is different.
I came from science/engineering fields before going into ID, and i was appalled at the lack of basic science knowledge these ID students possessed. in talking with some, i've found that many went into ID because it is "cool" and they didn't have to take tests (you don't have to 'study' for critiques), or hard classes like math or science. and this backlash against design is evident if one talks to students in the engineering departments. those departments have taken design process elements, and incorporated them into their engineering programs. basically, it seems the engineering departments recognize the value of design; but the design department wants nothing to do with engineering.
and in this university setting, the backlash goes like this: the engineering student says the design student just draws pretty things, but doesn't know how they work. the design student says the engineering student only knows how to build things, and nothing else. many design students i know have a dislike for engineering students, but i always ask these design students "it's very easy for someone not in design to learn the design process. but how easy do you think it would be for you to learn basic science and engineering?"
There is one more factor I feel contributes to the backlash...it is the internal consumption of "design awards", within the design community, given to well written ideas that are poorly designed or executed with CAD smoke and mirrors. I can think of nothing that pricks my nerves like the last three years of design awards in product design. The attention paid to the best written user scenario and fictional CAD model only fuels the fire. The ability to make something look quite real is so easy and tempting that it is easy to overlook how or why to make the thing in the first place. To quote an engineer with whom I work, "ID...well...never mind physics...it looks cool...someone else will figure it out." And this sort of design is rewarded almost daily by design institutions, magazines, websites and blogs. We do it to ourselves.
Is design a single practice? The fact that you can believably say "ethnography and innovation are the new black" points to a shifting roster of players. Besides those who are designers, you have design thinkers, people who don't design, people who do design who aren't designers (if that's possible), people that specialize in various other parts of the process (say, design management), and so on.
Perhaps this is nothing new; but not long ago designers were actively resisting the participation of anyone with another title because "designers uniquely do that" - now there is more of a welcome mat to different specialties.
That may be an upside to the diminishing of design, where co-creation and its ilk make everyone a designer, or open up the thinking alone to anyone.
No answers here, of course, but excited about the dialog and the way you've put forth the state of the world.
He may have meant that the *percentage* of good designers has declined, and on that I'd probably agree. The profession itself has been marketed as being a kewl gig; one that doesn't require studying many of the standard college basics (like math). That's unfortunate in my opinion as I don't doubt that it now attracts a different kind of student than in years past.