Designy-ness vs. Design
Where is the line between design and "designy-ness"? A recent essay got us thinking about how consumers identify real innovation beneath a cosmetically enhanced product. Join the debate.
Last week Rob Walker (the New York Times' Consumed columnist) put a link up on twitter to this essay by Rob Horning at the online journal of cultural criticism, PopMatters, with the pullquote: "Designy-ness is an ideological sheen on consumerism." He called on design bloggers to take up the provocation, so we thought we'd start a conversation here, and invite you to discuss among the Dwell community what distinguishes actual design from aesthetically elevated consumerist fodder.
Horning begins with an assertion that many of us have considered before: That the line between using design to produce functional improvements and using design to manipulate the appearance of a fundamentally unchanged product has grown blurry (greenwashing, anyone?). But he doesn't argue, precisely, that the latter is not design, but rather that the act of gracing an object with the recognizable "touch" of a designer has itself become what many consumers perceive as design (or call it "designy-ness")—"the good becomes a mirror in which we see reflected our own good taste."
This train of thought could certainly lead to a discussion of what "green design" has come to mean. To some degree Horning's sentiments echo those of many rigorous designers who would attest that truly sustainable design is inherently unglamorous, found in the rejiggering of production lines, the reuptake of waste streams, and the chemical reformulation of materials. Glamorizing consumer products by applying a "green sheen" (indeed, an ideological one) generates nothing less than an equal and opposite result: unbridled acquisition of more bamboo tealight holders.
Many of those designers currently champion "heirloom design" as a sustainable solution to overconsumption and disposability. Products that are designed to last, to be cherished and handed down through generations, represent an age-old perspective on material possessions that looks awfully good now that all of our resources are in alarming decline. Of course, most objects aren't hoisted into the orbit of timeless design based on endurance alone. Perhaps there's a place for skin-deep beauty when wildly innovative functionality or tremendous durability constitute an object's character.
But Horning doesn't head down the environmental road. While there's an implicit awareness that more consumption yields more waste, he concludes with the concern that "designy" goods may lead to the corrosion of individuality, as we rely on market-approved symbols of good taste and refined design sense to dictate what we collect. "We think we are curators of our own personal museum of tasteful, design-y goods, but in the end it’s someone else’s institution and we are just the guards."
It's not exactly a rosy outlook on the future of society's relationship to design. I'm left wondering whether increased access (read: affordability) to what is perceived as "design" (you know, as opposed to every other physical object found on every other shelf in every other store, which somehow escape being defined as "designed objects") has any societal benefit, or whether Horning is correct in speculating that it does little more than redeem commodification.
Much like the word "sustainable" no longer seems to register in people's minds as meaning "able to be sustained," perhaps "design" no longer evokes the many hidden processes that lead to an intentional melding of material, structure, function and performance. Did it ever? Is it possible to facilitate an interface between objects and the average consumer public that would hold intact the whole system and history of design?
As designers and design thinkers, what's your opinion? Please share in the comments.
Image: ex novo
Products
-
Plume Cheveux Necklace
-
Arrow Hook
Pros This powder-coated aluminum pointer is three hooks in one: In addition to the smaller hooks to the side, the shaft can be extended forward from the wall. Like all good graphic icons, the…
-
Branch Hooks
Taking us back to the basics, these branch hooks require only a tree branch, knife, sandpaper, varnish or paint, and a way to connect it to the wall. Pretty simple, yet makes for a clever gift.
Event
-
Design USA: Contemporary Innovation
This exhibition features outstanding contemporary achievements in American architecture, landscape design, interior design, product design, communication design, corporate design, interaction…
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Related Products
-
Plume Cheveux Necklace
The flow and movement of the Plume Cheveux is so…
-
Arrow Hook
Pros
This powder-coated… -
Branch Hooks
Taking us back to the basics, these branch…
Latest
-
02.09
An Architecture Guide to Pyongyang
German architect and writer Philipp Meuser realizes that…
-
02.08
Fair Chairs
We continue our coverage of the 2012 Stockholm Furniture and…
-
02.07
Seven from Stockholm Design Week
It's about mid-way through the 2012 Stockholm Design Week and…
Follow
Dwell
-
Thanks, @dailytekk, for including @dwell on your list of 100 Best, Most Interesting Blogs & Websites! http://t.co/hbMnDiTO #design
-
Was Mario Manningham's Super Bowl catch a work of #architecture? http://t.co/zxD47gN1
-
“@archpaper: Move over Ice Cube, Moby jams to #architecture, launches new blog about Los Angeles: http://t.co/eVKNB5WK”
-
What does the #architecture of Pyongyang look like? Just interviewed the guy who wrote the guide book http://t.co/qA6Pm0Nm
Good article thanks for info.
Amen. I'm finding it harder lately to explain to someone what I am as an Industrial Designer. "Don't you just make things look pretty?" Is what I often hear. And the funny thing is, they're not off in that assumption, most of the design world has come to just that! But that's not all of us. I am not interested in producing greenwashed (one of my favorite words so thank you for using it) goods that someone who already has 100 of them can buy to feel better about themselves. When we have an international water crisis on our hands, largely un-opposed sex trafficking in our world, and so many more countless problems, TRUE problems, it is a waste of time, and highly offensive to continue wasting our "design" talents on trivial, overproduced, soon to be in a dump trinkets.
When people come to believe the whole world is "on sale" Design and Design Thinkers are lost.
One thing that I think people forget is that let's say that a product is backed up by an ethical value chain that is socially and environmentally responsible, it still needs some kind of sheen. There are all these products out there competing and without sales pop, the ones that support the wrong types of value chains will win. In that way, good design can actually do good, but its the outward design that's the key.
Excellent post, Sarah, and some very good food for thought. Especially well illustrated and encapsulated in your mention of the "unbridled acquisition of more bamboo tealight holders." I feel just as much "consumer anxiety" when I walk into, say, a Whole Foods, where at every endcap is an unbelievably large and shiny array of "green" and attractively packaged products, as I do at a big-box store.
@Michele: That's not consumer anxiety, that's the excitement of shopping. It's like what our ancestors experienced looking over across the savanna at a herd of zebras drinking at the water hole next to a baby elephant. So much to choose from! And at such low prices.
I think the question is, Can we imagine a different relationship between consumer and consumed than the one that has subsumed almost every aspect of our material culture since World War Two? If we can't imagine anything better -- an alternative that can out-compete a consumerism based on the creation of unmet needs, the privatization of responsibility and the invisibility of consequences -- well, then all design is more or less just window dressing. That said, I think it's a real possibility that we can. In which case, design could be a revolutionary tool. But the conversation has to go to the very core of our identities as people, in my opinion...
Hi Sarah, first i want to say that your post is really interesting and that it open space for many discussions. But there is something that kept me bothered about it: I think its easy to blame on sustainability the fustration of design made in marketing departments! Truth is that before we used to have the same problems but things were not painted green. In a world with so many problems, as said in comments before (which i dont agree the way it is putted there), it is small to discuss this design issue without reaching to a deeper point: Do we have to consume that much? Is there a lot more to design in western rich society? Green design can be a great tool to bring opportunities to countries far away of the fancy european stores and maybe that`s why "bamboo tealight holders" doesn't shine as beautiful as they do once they leave poor countries that find in these products a way of survival! As a designer i think these discussions are really productive, but the narrow point of view presented really bother me. It is easy to think that green design is this tool-trend that's is being used to make people consume more without seeing the true possibility of change that it can reach. I do agree in most of what is written in this post, but i think that it is dangerous to talk about sustainability as greenwashing. It generalize a industry change as a trendy marketing tool, forgetting that it is the opposite and specially forgetting all the positive consequences of this movement.
Thanks for the comments, Pedro. I definitely agree that we should be leveraging design for socially responsible ends, to help improve health and quality of life for people in addition to using ecological resources more efficiently. Indeed, *that* is what we should be calling sustainable design. The unnecessary production of consumer goods that simply drive excess consumerism without facilitating any real, sustainable change (but are marketed as if they do) is what I'd call greenwashing. It's not all one or the other, which is why I think consumers who really do want to use their dollars to vote for change need to be aware of what's what.
This post by Sarah is thought provoking and strikes a familiar and complex cord with me. As a graphic designer, I create many pieces which end up in a landfill. As a creative professional hired to communicate a message, I want those transmissions to be adding to solutions. Currently, I find they are the deck chairs of a vessel off course. As a designer, am I able to think about the world differently? So far, I haven't been able to, but I want to believe that there is a future that includes design as a foundation. I want to start thinking about design as a vein system of a body. Communication which flows through systems and becomes part of something whole.
I'm an avid reader of both Rob Walker's and Rob Horning's blogs, so I'm glad to see the topic taken up here. One issue I have with "heirloom design" is that I'm skeptical that the answer to today's problems lies in finding a new mode of consumerism. The focus on the heirloom itself obscures the actual question of the total amount of resources needed to create a class of consumers wealthy enough to afford a Rolex, and supposes that we can address the problems of consumerism by having a _more_ reverential attitude toward consumer goods. And lastly, this is just one in a long series of non-political solutions. The ideology of consumer capitalism says "Don't tell anyone how to live, let everyone choose their own lifestyle and their own unique forms of enjoyment." By not making this political and making it a voluntary lifestyle choice, we say "We won't force it on you, but we'd really, really like you to do it :)" This commits us to the proposition that the political and economic systems will stay basically as they are while we wring our hands and "raise awareness". I don't know if this will be enough, we may need to find something more radical. I don't think anyone has any idea what this could be, but still, we should be open to it.
When I tell friends that one of my passions is design, I'm often prompted to clarify whether I mean trendiness, minimialism or modernism (the answer is none of the above), and this has brought me to realize this: Good design to me is simply design that reflects thoughtfulness and care. It's often beautiful because its creator is thoughtful, beautiful because it's functional, witty because the thoughtfulness visibly shows through, or beautiful and witty because it reveals its creator's passion towards making an audience smile, making something that solves a common problem, making us realize that we face a common problem etc. And for one or more of these reasons, it's usually something novel and new, something that offers a new perspective and challenges me as a result. Judging by this yardstick of thoughtfulness and care forces me to consider where an object or system came from, and I find that it's then straightforward to distinguish between designy-ness and good design, even when they look quite similar on the outside.
As long as people design to fit inside labels such as mid-century modern, post-modern or Craftsman without a working knowledge of the technical restraints that resulted in such "styles", we will always have designy-ness. When designers stop looking to cram solutions into styles with labels to define their work, evocative solutions will naturally evolve from the combination of training, experience, creative thought and the most appropriate and scrupulous application of the materials and technology of the time, without the limitation of a faddish label or its implied and dated caché. Beams are meant to support ceilings, not be hung from them and roofs do not "float" over glass walls. Design is honest, designy-ness is not!
Great Design, be it the styling, proportions, materials, craftsmanship, functionality and what have you, represents a superior level of refinement applied to the approach and achieved in the ultimate solution. When I buy a product that truly captures the dictates of Great Design, I will buy this product only once. I will use it, admire it,and enjoy it every day and I will never consider replacing it or buying yet another one. This is also "green".
A Messenger Bag: Is a type of bag that resembles a rucksack but with just a single strap designed to be worn around the chest with the bag resting on the lower back. Usually very spacious a messenger bag is useful for carrying lots of items
It's time to differentiate between designers and stylists.
Thanks for giving this information…
We're all up for sustainability in all areas of our business. Interesting reading - thanks
RSS Feed
Add a Comment