Core77

Stark's comment, "When design was nothing there was a lot of good designer because they was obliged to fight" doesn't work for me. I don't know if it's lost in his translation or if I simply hold a differing view, but I don't believe there are fewer good designers. I think the good designers are simply not getting the press and the hype that the "fluff" designers get (including here on Core).

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.

Kevin - excellent piece, even if you tantalize us by raising questions - "hairy" as you say - without even attempting to answer 'em :)

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.

I couldn't agree more however I feel the issue goes well beyond consumerism straight to empowerment. Currently we have one of the most inexpensive production systems in the history of things...Asia. The infrastructure in Asia allows anyone with an idea or business aspirations to churn out inexpensive, marketable things quickly with plausible to great quality. Look at the cost for tooling these days...cheap, cheap, cheap! The cost of engineering and mfging design...getting cheaper by the month. Realistically if I had the balls I could hop a flight to Hong Kong, identify a few vendors, negotiate a purchase agreement and a development contract and bam!...with the internet and help from UPS or FedEx I could be in business drop shipping my product to people all over the globe. The ease of development and the possibility of a low cost channel that reaches billions contributes to "designs" so-called backlash. Truly anyone can make almost anything, esp housewares or furniture-which get a lot of attention these days!

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.

chad makes a good point in his last sentence regarding his colleague's view of ID. and it ties in with csven's notion that now that design is "kewl", it attacts a different kind of student.

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?"

I would agree and disagree. I wouldn't go as far as starck went, but then again making a career and life out of making innovative designs can probably bother him a little to see the basic of designs getting praise. I would say that design becoming a fad and trend is kind of a bothersome thing because companies who have no idea how to use design properly just hire someone to make a quick this or a pretty that, that's not design. It's the process of confusing the masses who are easily influnetial, being design is a trend all you have to do is put design some where with the brand and bada bing, you hit gold, the masses are rushing, like the historic "gold rush" era when families would sell everything they owned for a chance of riches. Now design is the gold rush, consumers are the families and the brainless brands/companies are the slickster scam artist of mining help.

Chad, you made a good point with the Asia argument.
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.

@tr - actually, that's not what I was getting at and it's my fault for not explaining. As someone with a aero degree, when I went back to get my degree in ID it was no different than how you describe in the respect that ID students largely discounted engineering issues. So that's probably not really changed.

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.

A lot of design now seems to lack technical know-how.
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 saturated designer community can actually be a very good thing for artists�giving them added dimension in expression using an endless assortment of new mediums, which can multilayer visuals and experiences that play on familiarities with the general public. The 'fluff-' and 'stuff-' aesthetics may be seen as nothing more than a breed of contemporary kitsch, a prolonged crush of the populace that works as a teller of the times. Nothing to be ashamed of. The internet generation is only a decade old. We're still scribbling infants.

The stuff or design of which you speak is in actually anti-design. Design is a process that seeks to solve a problem, therefore if the problem is not solved or creates more problems then it is merely a bad solution. Design is a means to an end and cannot be evaluated on a whole. Everything is designed. You can't say that everything is unnecessary. The problem is that a good solution will fade into the background and go unnoticed and bad solutions become the focal point.

There has always been a difference between stylists and designers. When I went to design school, engineering mechanics and calculus were part of the Product Design curriculum along with drafting, drawing and sculpture. True design was taught as the artistic balance of materials, processes, function, ergonomics,
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.

Backlash or Backing It Up?

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.

we should not make too much out of the current "designer gadget avalanche" - yes less shitty chairs please! the real industrial world's output in technology products and software is still as non-designed and culture-less as ever. our mission has just started - to humanize industry.

One of the things we in Sustainable Design Advocacy have been striving for -- all these many many years -- is to get designers to grow-up and accept the responsibility for their design choices. Stark's article is a wonderful reality check along these lines.

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

Its about time that this is being discussed publicly. Over time it seems that design has lost its focus. We have created a stigma for ourselves by losing sight of what it is to design for a user. We should take a step back and really think about why we "design" and who are we designing for? And for what greater good?

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"

I think that design is design and has an ever changing meaning becuase thats evolution. In the same way there are phases in say the History of Painting there will be phases in design. During my studies at Syracuse U. our basis for design was always research, making something 'pretty' came last, first it had to be functional and backed with thought. But when presenting my work to companies all they want to see are the pretty pictures.
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.

I think the article is good..yet it misses a few things. First is to point out one quick thing and that is that the definition of "planned obscelence" is different from Packard to Brooks Stevens the one that actually created the idea and phrase of "P.O." Brooks even points out that his intention was not that designers are do make "self destructive, self deteriating" products that only live for so long then get tossed so as induce more purchases. He said that it was to understand that as time goes by technology, requirements and materials become outdated on products and that it is reasonable to assume that products have a certain "function life" (you don't still use a 1950s TV do you!?) and that with some consumers always purchasing the latest and greatest.. that it also generates a secondary used market for products(we have used cars you can buy right?)that was his point NOT the idea that products are to be simply quick profit-generating junk. As for my last point, Stark is a successful self PROMOTER! not designer (not in my eyes anyway) he is the same as Raymond Loewy was in that he is good in understanding the consumers taste toward design AESTHETICS, while completely ignoring the required elements of manufacturing, costs, shipping, competitiveness. He has only gotten fame from that, by making products that are limited run, art museum "fancy" in shape, color, and size and selling up high up clientele that are the same ones in art galleries buying junk thinking it will go up in value cause a art critic says it will. We can utilize this in a good way though. If you in designing a product can show that it design DOES sell yet, not compromise the product by making it either too expensive, non functional or a "art piece" then we can put a positive spin on this. Just make sure that IDSA in its yearly awards recognizes that and doesn't give out awards based off the fact it is "artistic" or emotional but that is fulfills its duties, and does it beautifully.

there is nothing black and white in this world anymore. It is really hard to say who is right or not. too sad!

form following function or function following form?

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.

A timely if tired topic designers have heard thousands of times by now. While we by no means detain exclusivity as kitschmeisters and purveyors of forgettable "fluff" - witness the similar pollution in art, film and music, to name only some - the stuff we leave behind is voluminous and highly durable, whether good or bad. In this sense designers have a far higher responsibility to the general public than other creatives.

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.

I'd like to add that MocoLoco or DesignBoom, I can't remember, recently polled it's audience for new interview questions.

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.

In my graduation class of maybe 30 so called 'industrial designers' back in 1998, maybe 3 could actually draw and maybe 2 understood mechanical engineering, the rest just showed up everyday and did what the teacher asked and got marks for 'improvement', improving from shit to sucks is not something i consider graduate material, let em repeat until they are of certain calibre. I say, take computers away from students and you will quickly find out who is cut out to be a 'designer' and who will bring the profession of design down even further then it is today... trim the fat.

I think we should point alot of the blame for the excess in so-called "Designers" at the internet and software programs which fall all too easily into the hands of glorified graffiti artists. I was alarmed when searching through a list of design agencies, based in the UK, with the most terrible brand logo's. No wonder the most experienced critics are tearing their hair out so much about the lack of classic work coming out these days. Unfortunately it seems to be more about making a quick buck with a highstreet name and then relaxing rather arrogantly. The training I received both at college in the eighties and later during my early years in the glass bottle industry set me up with far more valuable design tools than the latest 3D software will ever do. The truth is that weak design really IS superficial junk that won't stand the test of time and unfortunately gives the genuine articles amongst us a bad name!

as a novice designer in some cases.. I just feel that in the end people need or don't need to be reminded of what a designer is..The fact design is to be un-spoken word or artifact in the line of pre- and post- production that makes the object or idea legible to the user.. we should go back to the days were ideas were non-victorian and leave the 1950s heavy vintage cars to the artists and collectors..lets make start making things like paper-clips and milk bottles or web pages that are legible to the right demographic user rather than conquer or over power the anonymity with heavy graphics and sound..In a age of mass production or mass 3rd world production lets be smart managers who help these people to be legible for themselves rather than super-sizing their exploitation....And yes this is riddled with metaphors..so

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..

I find this fascinating because i try and talk about this same lack of substance in architecture. Csven hit the nail with the lack of understanding of physics.

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.