RSS Feeds: The Definition of Industrial Design?
It's right there in the title.
By Gadi Amit
I recently approached Phaidon's Design Classics books—those three massive volumes, containing 1000 classic designs—somewhat gingerly. I'm not big on top 10's or top 100's, but a top 1000 seemed fair (even generous) enough. Now, one may naturally ask why certain work is included, and why other work isn't, but for me, the collection as a whole helped to define what industrial design is.
But that's not what you read about these days. Increasingly—and contrary to the Design Classics tacit definition—the perception of Industrial Design is being marginalized by two approaches: Innovation, and Art.
Now, why deal with the definition of Industrial Design at all? Because despite the upswing in its popularity, ID is still one of the least understood professions in corporate America.
Innovation vs. Art
Innovation—the current darling of design-is-good-business pitches, with its pro-business and savvy approach to added value—promises new products (invariably touched by ever-new technology), and often promises a re-imagining of entire companies and business models. (Tom Kelly, among others, moves this characterization further up, to the "art of innovation".) And if you check over at the IDSA website, you'll find that "Industrial design is the professional service of creating and developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer."
Art—and this includes much of the editorial, one-off gestures we see in the media and in design exhibitions—is a kind of design work made for the gallery; a personal expression of the artist who discovers new frontiers of visuals and experiences. Or as Aaron Betsky asserts, "Design should do the same thing in everyday life that art does when encountered: amaze us, scare us or delight us, but certainly open us to new worlds within our daily existence." (Lots of others here.)
Now, why deal with the definition of Industrial Design at all? Because despite the upswing in its popularity, ID is still one of the least understood professions in corporate America, with a persistently low credibility due in part, I believe, to these strong misperceptions. In the business world, the perception is that "outside Apple, there is no ID," or that "outside Apple, ID is either an over-the-top, analytical, process-driven exercise that's expensive and ineffective...or it's a lyrical, indulgent creation of an artist that has nothing to do with shipping a product to the mass-market."
(Two recent anecdotes: An executive at a large retail channel, after sitting through a 30-minute presentation, summed it up bluntly: "Well, this is all very impressive, and the products you've shown here are great. But why is it that all the design projects I've done in the last 10 years have failed?" Or the charismatic young entrepreneur on design awards: "Awards are the kiss of death. If you win a design award, the product is no good, its dead, its never taking off.") Well, we know that lots of successful products do win awards, but the perception is what we're talking about here.
To make matters worse, even within the ID community, there exists no strong, crystallized definition. But perhaps we need one; a definition that moves us away from a polarized innovation-or-gallery message; a third alternative to ensure that the complexity and beauty of our profession doesn't boil down to just a 'business-case' or a 'visual expression.'
So let's revisit the aforementioned definitions with some pushback:
ID is Innovation. No it isn't; at least not always. The glorification of revolutionary ideas over evolutionary solutions is in many cases an ego-driven indulgence of the designer. The client is dragged along, often losing identity (and money) along the way. ID is not about the most far-out idea, or the most 'advanced' or 'progressive' idea. ID is about the right idea.
ID is Art. The formal, visual, aesthetic, and conceptual elements are key tools for industrial design, but should not be limited solely to the signature of an individual. There are countless other considerations that inform a design solution (from cultural heritage and semantics, to feasibility and usability), and these are just as important in forming an object as the designer's personal stamp. Form and aesthetics are tools, not goals.
And while both the Innovation crowd and the Gallery crowd have legitimate points-of-view, their effects on the overall perception of Industrial Design can be polarizing. We have to combine the two with lots of stuff in the middle. Industrial design may be seen as an idea engine, a utilitarian act of product development, or a prop in a story told by an author/maker. But it is also about the affordability and appropriateness of an object to an average person's life. And for more "advanced" products, it can serve as a cultural interface, bridging and inspiring people to approach technology in far more than utilitarian ways. And it can be desirable, and pleasurable.
This multi-faceted definition of ID is tough to market, yet essential to recognize. (Those of you who have tried to pitch ID services in the proverbial elevator know what I'm talking about!). To make matters worse, even within the ID community, there exists no strong, crystallized definition. But perhaps we need one; a definition that moves us away from a polarized innovation-or-gallery message; a third alternative to ensure that the complexity and beauty of our profession doesn't boil down to just a 'business-case' or a 'visual expression.' ("Who ever said pleasure wasn't functional?" Charles Eames famously responded when asked if he designed for pleasure or function. Ray reminded us of what may be the best advice: "What works good is better than what looks good. Because what works good lasts.")
And the problem isn't just a ignorance of the costs pertaining to certain manufacturing process or materials. My impression is that the design universe inside academia is using a different set of physics laws. Or no laws.
A third definition
So what might this third definition be? Steve Jobs does nicely here: "In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service." Or in other (fewer) words, design is a synthesis of the visual and emotional with the functional; It is emotion wrapped within a purpose. And if you want to turn it up to 11, it's an object of desire equipped with a sense of mission.
But let's not forget about the 'Industrial' bit. The toughest part of my job is to get young designers to recognize the significance of the industrial processes to their work. Many design programs in schools place a lot of emphasis on the creation of a personal voice, but that can be catastrophic—particularly at the start of a career—when these aspiring designers are asked to design something for the real market and real people. Many have no sense of feasibility, where there seems to be a negligible appreciation—or ability to articulate—the differences between a $200 toaster compared to a $20 toaster, for example. And the problem isn't just a ignorance of the costs pertaining to certain manufacturing process or materials. My impression is that the design universe inside academia is using a different set of physics laws. Or no laws. It's of fundamental importance that an object be sold successfully, or it fails. In a lot cases, it's desirable that an object be affordale to the greatest number of people possible, or it fails. But it's arguably most important that an object be replicated successfully and with quality, or it fails. In many schools, there's not much Industrial left in Industrial Design education.
And then there's the ultimate judge: cost. The quickest way to end a design debate with a good designer is with a the question: "...but would you buy it?" Deceptively simple, but straight to (through?) the heart, it's amazing how quickly designers who fought hard for a far-reaching concept will reevaluate their position when faced with their own pocketbook. Is it too far to push this to a rule that "if you won't buy it to do the work it's meant to do for the price it's meant to carry, it is not 'Industrial' enough"?
So we've got a lot of ingredients in this soup...Form, function, desirability, manufacturability, affordability, cultural reference, and so on. But our fragile profession might do well to stand on the two legs it was born with: Design that is Industrial. ID is a synthesis of the visual, emotional, functional and cultural (or a way to ceate an object of desire equipped with a sense of mission)...as long as you can repeatedly put it in a can and ship it at a price you would pay for yourself.
Gadi Amit is the principal of NewDealDesign LLC. Founded in 2000, the San Francisco studio has been working with top companies such as Dell, Nokia, Palm and many more. Used both as a progressive design philosophy as well a socially-responsible motto, design's real world success is seen as the core motivation for Gadi and the NewDeal team. Gadi was born and educated in Israel. He moved to California in 1993 to pursue his passion at the famed design agency, frogdesign. At frog, Gadi served in various design-leadership posts, ending as Vice President of Design in San Francisco. More information at newdealdesign.com.
