Core77

Para-huh? The last thing the design world needs is more subcategories

By Helen Walters - April 11, 2011

in Columns

At the entrance to the "ParaDesign" exhibit currently on view at the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco, visitors get to read a definition of the term. ParaDesign, we are told, is work that is "about, against, around, aberrant to, alongside, or not quite design." The work we are about to see, the curators continue, "was intended not to solve problems, as professional architects and designers must do, but to pose keen, significant questions about the codes and habits that give built and designed objects their air of inevitability."

Somewhat surprisingly, my reaction on reading this was not one of giddy joy and expectant excitement. Rather, it was one of grim foreboding. "Oh dear," I sighed aloud, to the slight consternation of the man standing next to me.What instantly bugged me was the implication that solving problems and asking challenging questions are somehow mutually exclusive activities. More than that, that questioning codes and habits is somehow outside the realm of the regular design process. As any designer knows, that simply isn't the case. In fact, design of all stripes balances the tasks of asking insightful questions and synthesizing insights to come up with smart answers. Problems provide the raw materials for design, and developing concepts that challenge preconceived ideas is one step towards finding a solution.

By pretentiously dressing up this one area of design as a separate movement in its own right, the curators both overstate its importance and belittle the skilled professional practitioners who consider such concepts and experiments to be just one part of their overall practice. Design is about so much more than whimsical gimmickry, yet here it's all about the tongue-in-cheek or the defiantly impractical. That has its place, of course. Good design is often challenging, playful, magical. And it's not like every exhibition related to design has to be filled only with practical virtuosity such as the OXO potato peelers. But it sure would be nice to visit a design show that didn't resort to focusing on the often tangential ideas that comprise only a small part of any designer's overall collection.

That's not to say that there aren't some interesting pieces of work on display. Ron Arad's "AYOR" (At Your Own Risk) chair, above, is a rocking chair that smacks anyone who sits in it on the butt when they stand up again. It's a delightful idea that certainly challenges our preconceived ideas about both the act of sitting and the form and role of chairs. But note: Arad might not have solved the same problem he faces when coming up with a new design for Vitra, but he certainly solved the problem at hand here. Namely, to create a limited edition piece of design that could fetch art world prices. He did it masterfully: In 2008, an AYOR chair sold at Sotheby's for £49,250 (about $80,000.)

The "Buildings of Disaster" created by Constantin and Laurene Boym have been trotted out as examples of designerly ingenuity for the past decade. Now don't get me wrong. The Boyms are great; they create beautiful work, regularly. But these pieces are expensive trinkets centered on one okay idea (recreating disaster areas such as Chernobyl or the Dakota Building in miniature). Must we really consider them representative of a new genre of design? Or are they more an example of savvy designers figuring out how to get approving attention by creating a consumer product they could sell in tony stores such as Moss in New York or put on show in galleries such as SFMOMA?

Likewise, "His and Hers" towels were likely included for being unusual work from the architectural duo Diller+Scofidio. Sure, it's somewhat incongruous to see towels hanging in a gallery, and the slogans with which the towels are emblazoned are witty enough. But these are hardly great examples of design, para or not. Unless what we're really celebrating is throwaway ideas, nicely executed.

In fact, arguably the most genuinely "ParaDesigned" thing about the whole exhibition was its own design. For instance, visitors weren't allowed to get anywhere near items such as Arad's chair, which thus remained an abstract idea more than a visceral experience. Meanwhile, the accompanying exhibition guide included minimal details and still managed to be maddeningly indecipherable, provoking a comic display of head-cocking and eye-squinting as visitors tried to figure out what was what and what was where. Perhaps providing useful information about the exhibits was deemed to be too much an artifact of regular design, but how visitors were supposed to appreciate the nuance and subtlety of what they were looking at is anyone's guess.

The root problem in this instance, of course, stretches far beyond the walls of SFMOMA. We are all stuck in a vicious, relentless death spiral of a search for the shiny and the new. This quest has infected our curators (and magazine and newspaper editors) with the desperate need to feature something different, and designers with a feeling that they have to come up with ever more outrageous ideas to get the attention they feel they deserve. Yet separating design from the demands of a client with a problem results in a dangerous elevation of the weird and the ego-based, and a sorry devaluing of the subtle and the useful.

This exhibition would have been much more appealing if it had laid off the faux-intellectualism and just admitted that it was about witty items intended to catch your eye and perhaps make you think twice. Given that shows of design in major galleries such as SFMOMA are still somewhat rare, and that we have never needed genuine imagination, innovation and ingenuity in design more, this feels like a missed opportunity.

Image: Ron Arad, AYOR (At Your Own Risk), 1991; blue anodized steel with lead weights; 36 1/4 x 21 5/8 x 19 1/4 in. (92.08 x 54.93 x 48.9 cm); collection SFMOMA, Accessions Committee Fund purchase; (c) Ron Arad

o

Favorite This
Q
6

Comment

Comments

C. Lapa

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Three schools of design at the turn of the 21st century:
1. Do-good, Honesto-Moderno.
2. Do-good Colonia-Humanitara-Pro-Bono.
3. Do-good Greenwasha-Capitalia.

A new school of art at the turn of the 21st-century:
1. Make-pretty-smile Bad-Designer-Arta.

Ever notice how design critics lament one, then jump on the bandwagon of another to point out what is better?
!Report as spam
Aria Mcmanus

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

What I found so interesting was your assertion that asking challenging questions and solving problems should not be considered separate ideas and shouldn't be highlighted as a "new idea" either. From Dada to the Chindogu movement in Japan, there are categories that exist for the questioning of function in art and design while including aspects of whimsy and delight, often for the sake of pun or non-function.From this standpoint, ParaDesign is not a "new" idea to be whimsical in design for the sake of whimsy, or challenging previous ideas. I agree there does not need to be an additional category of design that defines itself by "not solving problems" using whimsy and delight.What I am arguing for is the idea that there needs to be a subcategory of design that uses whimsy and delight to enhance the utility of the design, rather than be an add-on separate from the function. One might say that this is done in daily practices of design firms or is a part of the process of all designers. However I would argue that it should be identified as a new methodology to include the unexpected or whimsy to add its own utility aligned with the main functionality--this is where real problem solving, improved product interaction and a heightened experience can be brought about.
!Report as spam
Nick

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Here here and well written. In a field that often cries out for clarity of purpose and imposes upon it's practitioners a constant need to define their purpose and worth to organizations, I grow weary of the never ending parade of redefined design themes. Thinly packaged by those who wish to seem new and unique from their predecessors, the result is a disjointed effort that seems at best elitist and at worst gives no credit to the foundation from which it has acquired the full of it's content.

Boo, ParaDesign. Hiss and so forth!
!Report as spam
Helen Walters

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

@James, I totally see how that happened. The lack of context and information really drove me up the wall. @sjh, you're right, I do have a strong point of view ;) However, I'm certainly not saying that couture-style creativity or unfettered thinking have no place in design. Quite the opposite. As I wrote, I really like Arad's chair, which was a great, witty solution for a very specific challenge. My problem is that by dressing up objects such as those on show here as "paradesign" -- something other than design -- the curators unwittingly undermine and devalue the profession as a whole. I get that they almost certainly didn't mean to do that, but I also think it's super unhelpful.
!Report as spam
sjh

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I feel like this article is written from one point of view which is very strong and is part of the reason why design like this is categorized as "not important" or "not design but art" I feel like it is negative and helps to makes no advances in the design world. I feel work like this needs to be made and has the right to be made and shown in a larger venue.

What is your take on over the top couture fashion like Alexander McQueen? I see this as being similar. If you do not have work like this then the ideas like the Boym's can not trickle down and inspire innovation and more critical thinking.
!Report as spam
James

14 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I was really disappointed by this exhibit, especially because it was installed in place of the MoMA's decent (if uninspired) permanent design collection. Having the printed guide instead of the traditional wall placards was annoying as well because we came into it from the "wrong" side and didn't see them at all.
!Report as spam