Design that Matters
Summary:
February 16, 2001
Design
Philosophy and Talk by Bakhtiar Mikhak
|
Week 1. Feb 12 |
ThinkCycle: Open Source Design - Motivation for studio
and approach - Introduce NGOs &
problem domains |
- NGO contacts - classify problem - Design Lab on Programmable Bricks
(Bakhtiar Mikhak) |
|
Lecture |
Thinkcycle tools &
concepts: Saul Griffith, Yael Maguire, Nitin Sawhney, Bakhtiar Mikhak |
|
|
Assessment |
Request students to write
personal motivation and skills |
|
|
Readings |
Victor Papanek, Design for
the real world Vannevar Bush, As we may think |
|
Class began with a discussion of the readings. What is the
interplay between philosophy of design and actually creating products?
We first discussed articles from Victor Papanek’s book
“Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change”, 1971. (chapters 4
and 8)
Papanek feels that industrial designers are working on
trivial issues and themes that are typically geared to lifestyles of developed
world and not the hard problems in the developing world or even poor/rural
communities here.
He emphasizes that design should be within a social context.
This kind of thinking is usually omitted in most products. It is crucial for
designers to understand the social, economic and political context of what they
do; this is required in society.
Papanek has basic problems with the concept of patents and
copyrights. He feels it is unethical to keep good ideas for patents and make
money of other’s needs. He has always encouraged his students to always make
designs publicly available.
Often the consumer is considered “unsophisticated”. Associational
values of design are degenerated to the lowest common denominator. Design tends
to be determined by guesswork and graphic charts on markets rather than needs
and aspirations of people.
Universities and design schools train narrowly “vertical”
specialists, there is a need for horizontal “generalists” and ones who can
synthesize. He remarks that “the price a species pays for specialization is
usually extinction”. He envisions groups coming to work together for extended
periods of time (months and years) while traveling, experiencing and teaching
one another. A sort of “design commune” (a concept of the 60’s). All students
and teachers would be considered researchers. One needs to break down the
diving line between disciplines and integrate social & natural sciences
like sociology, anthropology, psychology, ergonomics and perception. In future
chapters he even suggest driving lessons form biological sciences.
Papanek deeply emphasizes the Social and Moral
responsibilities of designers. They are responsible for ill-conceived products
taken to large scale mass production and also simply by not getting involved in
the real problems. Are designers imposing their own cultural biases and
lifestyles of the west on the rest of the world. They do this implicitly by
designing only for the west, as these products become rapidly exported
elsewhere.
He takes a systems view and says good design must occur in
the broader understanding of aspects like the market cycle, manufacturing
processes, environmental impact and social effects. He points to the notion of
a design triangle where the real problem is much larger and the designer’s
share typically tends to be the top most tip. For example, rural mailboxes are
designed to be simple, inexpensive and sturdy. Their shape allows snow to fall
off easily. However new designs for a while were created as stylized versions,
these were less practical fads that cluttered the landscape and eventually
become obsolete. Papanek suggest that one needs to question the entire process
of “mail delivery” not just the box to come up with broader design
improvements.
In general, rural or improvised communities suffer from
“design neglect” and any new designs are usually the result of market pressures
and not genuine research. He claims that there is so little design and so few
products that are really relevant to the needs of humanity.
Designers who try to operate within the entire triangle are
accused of designing for minorities or is it really Universal Design?
Examples of socially conscious approaches to design include
novel brick making machines, low cost radios made of indigenous materials, use
for cottage industries to manufacture locally with local labor. Designing TV
sets for Africa should take into account climatology, integrated electronics,
the terrain for transmission, social attitudes and anthropology. Design must be
“operative” to include all elements like local manufacture, materials, skills
and such.
Meaningful engagement can only be gained by spending time in
these communities. We must “train designers to train designers” in those
regions, to be a “seed project” to help form of “design corps” of able
designers out of indigenous peoples. After a generation we may create designers
committed to their own cultural heritage, lifestyles and needs.
People in class questioned whether designers can ever be
fully accountable for their work and to what extent must they try to recognize
these effects. Certainly if one know the potential impact, one should have the
choice to do so differently. It is a personal decision and value judgment in
any situation. Designers have to being to develop a mature sensibility for
appropriate and systematic design.
The key to Vannevar Bush’s article “As we may think” was an effort to move
scientists and engineers from collaborative war-time research (Manhattan
Project) to other projects which would have impact in consumer marketplace as
well as defense industry.
Profitability seen not simply from the ‘margin’ perspective, but from ‘triple bottom line’ - incorporating prospective gains from designing products with economic, social, and environmental sustainability in mind. An intriguing niche in economics, has critics on both sides - business continues to look at raw margins and not positive spill over effects. Some environmentalists say clean water, beautiful landscapes are priceless; to put dollar amounts on worth demeans the value of nature itself. An ongoing debate.
Systems discussion - functionality of a mail-box, design
features, alternative delivery mechanisms.
A physical object, which signals when you have mail (red flag) and
shields your mail from the elements.
E-mail - privacy, confidence that it works, junk mail problems. Other examples of devices and how people
value them. A wind-up radio worth four
cows. Why designs do or do not change:
knowing that people in some parts of the world turn oil drums into houses, why
not design oil drums which are better building blocks? No value to the producer of the drums. The shopping carriage as homeless shelter -
also seen as an artistic statement in NYC.
On audience as re-designer - children use things in ways
adults would never expect.
Participatory design, perhaps happier customers. Also building store of knowledge of custom,
creativity. Considering morality of
design - Feynmann quote (loosely) “Science doesn’t have positive or negative
value, it gives a free hand to the future.”
Example of a bullet proof blanket - as protection on defensive or on
offensive.
Shaping minds at early age - Barbie dolls, toy machine
guns. Nature or nurture? Problem of marketing everything to
children. And ethnocentricity ingrained
deeply, even in organizational systems - Dewey Decimal system has multiple
categories for Western Religion and one for Islam.
Bakhtiar Mikhak,
Lifelong Kindergarten Group (presentation and discussion)
Long term study of children as designers, theoretical, technocentric - developing understanding of attitudes in education. Feels that many debates in education are misguided - e.g. conferences looking at the effect of computers on learning. But some dissent in the class to this - computers are different from pencils; not merely instruments of transcription.
Design Goals stems from three general principles:
1)
Encourage
and support playful interaction
2)
Appreciate
that there are multiple paths and styles of learning
3)
System,
system, system!
One of key strengths of LEGOs as learning tools is that they
ar3e3 an excellent system for a broad range of activities. The move to programmable bricks -
Mindstorms.
Threads in Seymour Papert’s work with Piaget (5 years
together) - intellectual development of mankind mirrored in stages of childhood. Finds that children do have a coherent
system as they acquire knowledge, constantly refining and constructing that
system. By studying how children
negotiate with an object like the brick - discovering more about this process.
Cited reading list from his class, available to us, included
Piaget, Dewey, Vygotsky, Lave, Wegner, Illich, Levi-Strauss, van Forrester
Discussion of “computational construction kits” for
children. The cricket, running on Logo,
extensible, plug-ins. Many
possibilities: motors, data sensors, communications between devices (the
buggies), displays. Brief pass through
some of the other projects going on at the Lab: Opera of the Future; .acg;
disease propagation studies (participatory stimulation badges); city design
project with kids from Pittsburgh.
We are encouraged to look into these projects and ask for
advice as we begin work on our projects.
Many resources available in Lab and around MIT.
Notes by Barbara Mac and Nitin Sawhney, Feb 20