Core77
- Topics
- Features
- Awards
- Jobs
-
Firms
- Firms
- Search Firms;
- Firm Projects
- Forums
-
More...
- About Us
- Contact Us
- Advertise
- About
- Terms of Use
The Context of 'Low Product': How designers can help articulate a new social language, by Ann Thorpe
Take, for instance, the Core77 design site. It is great that they publish your article. But are they also committed to the same beliefs in how design must shape the future? Or is including your article just tokenism? Sadly I see it as the latter. Look at their coverage of Milan: just eye-candy photos of the latest product. I presented a concept-based installation, derived from New Zealand Maori mythology, in Superstudio Piu but received no mention. Well they don't have to like my objects or think them worthy in coverage. But, in our press and exhibition commentary, I stated that 'We believe that if design today does not contribute towards a better way of living, it is both irrelevant and irresponsible. Our vision is to be able to promote ideas more than products." We trucked or airfreighted no crates, bringing two boxes of luggage containing parts to be assembled on site. We used 1kW of power compared to our neighbours' 500 kW average. In the heart of the Milan style-fest is that not worthy of comment? Obviously not! But there were five almost identical images of an advertising promotion for Verve Cliquot by Tom Dixon.
I see the same, having-it-both-ways, attitude everywhere: forceful articles like yours in magazines full of pictures of 'luxury' houses, cars . . . stuff. Metropolis is the most glaring example. We have a magazine here in New Zealand, which even changes from glossy paper for its consumer drool section to rougher, recycled-looking paper in its 'sack-cloth, sustainable' section!
There are two tides swimming hard against each other, and the split runs through us all. Many of us know things have to change radically, but the consumer economy is a stubborn and reactionary force that is deeply embedded. It is desperately trying to cling on to business as usual, hiding this as much as it can behind a few, conveniently (for them) selected 'eco' or 'sustainable' ticks. Too often we swallow the lure of responsibility fulfillment offered by the ticks, and carry on as usual.
........
I really like your new social language idea, but feel that you only present part of it. Everyone still sees design as the same problem-solving function. Yes it has to do this, but that is not enough. Elsewhere ( www.davidtrubridge.com/the-cultural-designer-3/ ) I have argued that maybe one of the drivers behind the past consumer binge is a lack of nourishment: the stuff we have been consuming is designed to be like junk food. It makes us fat, lazy and unsatisfied, leaving us unnourished with only a craving to come back for more. How can design solve system problems (ie, design the way we do things, rather than the things themselves) while at the same time nourish us culturally, spirituality and socially? So far it has failed to do this. This adds another layer to the process of design, bringing it into a more social, art-based process. If we are culturally and spiritually nourished then I believe we will loose the craving we now have to form our fragile identities around the stuff we buy. In all the arguments for for eco- or sustainable design, this is surely a key missing element.