Will Design Ever Be Better Understood?
- Started
- Last post
- 84 Responses
- vespa
so i went to this debate at Pentagram last night centred around the question: "Will Design Ever Be Better Understood?"
There were many points made and i couldn't begin to paraphrase the discussions that came out of it but the main debate seemed to be between the director of the serpentine gallery and one of the partners at pentagram, the former saying that design is going through a golden age of understanding, and the latter saying that there is no discipline within the design industry and no understanding going on whatsoever.
at one point one of the panelists made some comment dispairing about getting "chavdom" to understand design better and everyone did a smug little snigger and it REALLY got my blood boiling!
so i put my hand up and said that i think there's a bit of a design class divide where at the "top end" of the industry in architecture and the cultural sector, design may well be going through a lovely renaissance but on the corporate frontline designers are in danger of becoming mere marketeers.
i mean how on earth can "design" connect with the general public when we seem to oscillate between lack of confidence overcompensated for by arrogance, and smug self-important assuredness that the minions will never really understand what we do?
i didn't say this but i think that until there is more honesty within the industry i think the general public will just see us as smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
i did tell them that i quite like not knowing what i'm doing because that's when i do my best work, to general nodding and assent.
what do you think?
- kelpie0
I started a big proper answer there, but after about 3 paragraphs it turned into a mad spitting rant, so I stopped.
Needless to say, I agree with you :)
- waynepixel0
and the latter saying that there is no discipline within the design industry and no understanding going on whatsoever.
--------------------------------No discipline. Sorry What?
- vespa0
garn kelpie, spit a bit! it's good for you pet
- vespa0
no discipline i took to mean as too many cowboys and not enough guidelines/communication of effective working processes within the industry. which to a certain extent i agree but at the same time wouldn't it be boring if we all knew all the answers all of the time?
- soda0
that sounded pretty interesting Vespa, any more information on the talk anywhere?
I do agree with you about the 'not knowing what I am doing' bit.
(I think we had this conversation over the forth sambuca at the ICA!) Being lost in something and trying to find your way out of it by learning the software or a technique or reading research is always the most satisfying work. That's what I loved about getting into 'multi-media' back in the day. No one knew what they were doing, we were all trying to work out best practises and new methods.
Happy days!
- clerk0
did the pentagram partner exemplify why/how there's no understanding going on whatsoever?
- paraselene0
okay! finally had time to read this! phew!
sounds like a great discussion last night, or at least the beginning of one. and, at heart, it points to the perpetual situation of design as a rogue sibling surfing on the cusp between high and low art.
i think that always being in danger of wiping out on one side or the other is always good. and i think not knowing is also good.
but there is something really scary and dangerous about the industry being co-opted by capitalism in the same way that leni riefenstahl and heimat cinema was co-opted by the nazi regime (don't get crazy on me, it's just an analogy).
i guess what i wonder is whether or not a day will come when we have to recuperate everything we do from a smudgy marketeering legacy...
kark! i guess i'm a pessimist.
- paraselene0
christ. that made no sense at all and came out all sideways.
soz!
more coffee!
- ribit0
were they talking about industrial design as well? (Is the selling out to marketing more on the media side?)
- kelpie0
(Is the selling out to marketing more on the media side?)
ribit
(Sep 27 05, 03:24)it's kind of definative. unfortunately...
- kelpie0
but like the Murphys, I'm not bitter ;)
- fate_0
I think para put it best. It's a balance between art and business. Designers HAVE to be a bit of "mere marketers" and also a bit of "tortured artist" in order to effectively communicate. It's a balancing act like para said, and when designers fall to one said, we fail.
To divide it between "Are you disciplined or are you not?" is missing the point by a looong shot. The real measure is effectiveness. This should be bloody apparent to anyone who has seen the rise of Doodles in illustrations, or Nopattern, or Hi-res. All highly undisciplined, but all highly effective.
- ********0
bloody hell vespa. You had to lower the tone with a design related thread...
What I think... is that I agree with you, but however. What's wrong with "smugness"? That we know, that we know more than the proles about design? 90% of it is on a need to know basis. 90% of design is invisible.... people who read the paper dont care about the fonts' leading or tracking, yet those elements make it work and if some filthy prole wanted to fuck with that then surely we can and should call rank and put them in their place aye? Of course we dont need to get "smug" about it, but it's our job to know more than they do.
Brain Surgeons know more about brains than I do and I'm quite happy to let them be smug about it because they deserve to be.
- soda0
good point, fate
- kelpie0
better point Moth ;)
- kelpie0
design should re-focus on teh things that matter - goatee beards, fine knit woolens and baw-achingly expensive faux NHS specs.
And iPod Nanos...
- soda0
that's true to a point, moth, but if you think that design should be about inclusion, we can get smug about what we know and what goes on behind the scenes to make IT work but if that trickles down into the actual thing we are creating you start excluding the user/reader/viewer. Art seems to shift towards excluding the viewer more and more (unless they are in the know)...
Okay that's a sweeping statement but it suits my point so I'm leaving it!
- fate_0
Moth still misses the point. If the "proles" started eating up some really base, wild, and undisciplined form of design, you will most likely follow suit in order to be effective. You design for a public, not for a textbook.
- ********0
design should re-focus on teh things that matter - goatee beards, fine knit woolens and baw-achingly expensive faux NHS specs.
And iPod Nanos...
kelpie
(Sep 27 05, 03:36)Home-shaven heads and the cultivation of a receeding hair-line?
- fate_0
No soda, that's a really true statement. Art can and usually does, by nature, strive to be subjective. Whereas design really should be largely objective.