Friday, September 2nd
10.00-18.00h (GMT +1)
on www.designresearchnetwork.org
The term ‘Critical Design’ appeared some twenty years ago in the design research community as a particular approach to human-machine interaction. Referring to a longer tradition of critical approaches in design and architecture, it was meant to re-establish alternative views on product and interface design, telling stories about human values and behaviour that were thought to be neglected in commercial product development.
Since then, as a method, strategy, or theoretical perspective, it has been widely interpreted, appropriated, adopted, enchanted and criticized by design researchers. In this feature discussion, the participants will debate the role of Critical Design for design and research practice.
The discussion is open to everyone. Please join!
Invited Discussants:
Simon Bowen, User Centred Healthcare Design, National Institute for Health Research, UK
Carl DiSalvo, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Li Jönsson, Interactive Institute, Sweden
Tobie Kerridge, Goldsmith College, UK
Tau Ulv Lenskjold, The Danish Design School, Denmark
Ramia Mazé, Interactive Institute, Sweden
Regina Peldzus, Kingston University, UK
Alex Wilkie, Goldsmith College, UK
Program
10.00-11.30 Critical of What? (Moderation: Ramia Mazé)
11.30-13.00 Critical Design outside the Gallery? (Moderation: Simon Bowen)
13.00-14.00 Break
14.00-15.30 Critical and Speculative Design as Scenario Building Approach in Science and Technology Contexts (Moderation: Regina Peldzus)
15.30-17.00 Is there a Post-Critical Design? (Moderation: Carl DiSalvo)
17.00-18.00 Conclusion and Open Questions
organized by Katharina Bredies, Manager, DesignResearchNetwork
Critical of what?
Welcome to the discussion! I'm Ramia, and I'll be moderating for the first 2 hours of this live online discussion. I'll start off with setting out some of my perspective and some questions around this, and everyone is free to continue the discussion by posting comments. (If you'd like to know about me: www.tii.se/ramia.)
My perspective on the topic is oriented towards 'criticality' as it is developing across a range of design disciplines, including vivid discussions in graphics, fashion, architecture, etc., design and a long history of related terms and practices (f.ex. Mazé, 2007; Ericson and Mazé, 2011). I argue for the term 'critical practices' (rather than the niche term/genre 'critical design') to characterize what I understand is a more substantial and growing development of 'criticality' across design.
Critical of what? Some ccontext and questions...
There are a range of diverse perspectives in contemporary design that counter traditional views on what design is and what it should be about - f.ex. 'critical', 'conceptual', 'speculative', 'relational', 'radical', '(h)activist', etc., design. Perhaps this is not surprising - design today must redefine the premises and purposes of the discipline beyond its Industrial Age inception and logics, f.ex. mass-production, market consumption, economies of scale, corporate protectionism, etc. Further, today, designers are operating in the academy, the art world, the public realm and the developing world, claiming a place for design in relation to a range of 'other' people, practices, values and futures than those traditionally served by design. One way of exploring these changing definitions and claims of design is to ask how critical design practices operate? To explore this, I pose the question "Critical of What?" and suggest 2 lenses on the question (based on Mazé, 2009; Mazé and Redström, 2009):
--- Criticality "outside in" - To query their own practice or discipline, designers have been drawing on techniques and theories from other disciplines. What does it do for designers to engage with techniques from, f.ex., art or science fiction? What theories are useful for querying design practice/discipline - originally, critical design looked to the Frankfurt School, but there are also discussions of science and technology studies, gender and cultural studies, political theory, etc? What are the limits - when does design become art or academics (and does it risk being 'bad art' and 'poor theory')?
--- Criticality "inside out" - Designers have been using design skills, materials and methods to mount a critique of phenomena outside design, f.ex. objects and graphics, design games and charettes, to visualize/materialize ethical and political issues in public, industrial and community settings. If traditional design claimed 'problem solving' and 'making things better', what claims can be made for critical design practices? What does design add to the ethical-political discourse about such issues?
Ericson, M. and Mazé, R. (eds.) (forthcoming 2011) DESIGN ACT - Socially and Politically Engaged Design. Berlin: Sternberg.
Mazé, Ramia (2007) Occupying Time: Design, Time, and the Form of Interaction. (PhD thesis) Axl Books, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mazé, R. (2009) Critical of What? / Kritiska mot vad? In: Iaspis Forum on Design and Critical Practice - The Reader, edited by Ericson et al., 378-397. Berlin: Sternberg.
Mazé, R. and Redström, J. (2009) Difficult Forms: Critical practices of design and research. Research Design Journal, 1 (1): 28-39.
Critical for Who?
hi Ramia,
You ask "Critical of What?", I'd like to extend that a bit to include "Critical for Who?"
Simon Bowen makes an argument for the elitism of Critical Theory (Frankfurt School) in his thesis. He then talks about applying Critical Design to participatory design, he wants to to make it do something useful for users.
In your notes for this session you mention designers a fair bit, so another way of looking at Critical Design is that it is a disciplinary perspective, to raise an internal discussion to foster "vivid discussions in graphics, fashion, architecture, etc".
It this notion of criticality, and critical practice, something pedagogical for designers, or is it as Simon suggests a set of methods that can be applied more broadly?
bests,
Tobie
Critical somewhere else
Good morning everybody!
please move your further discussion to this post:
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion-ses...
- we will have more space over there.
Thanks, and have fun!
Katharina.
criticality "outside in"
First a comment on criticality "outside in". Thinking of critical practice through design (rather than critical design) to put it in perspective, one has to remember that fairly young discipline. Art that queries itself, often becomes rather flat - but has a long history of commenting on society. Compared to design, disciplines within art has not been bound up in the same commercial practice. Or possibly, it has not been so concerned with an end-user. Hence, I believe design needs to go through, to use a scandinavian expression this 'belly button viewing' (or to query their own practice). To me it seems that critical design becomes 'bad art' when it is left to only comment on itself, and when it is left in the 'gallery'.
The notion of designs relation to the 'user' compared to art is probably rather important here. How does it involve and make sense to the range of, as you put it Ramia, beyond Industrial Age for 'other people'?
Designer as Director to Engage Users
Ramia raised an interesting question as to skill. Film, interior installations, storyboards and experiences - often centering around a 3D object – have been useful augmentations to 3D objects as such to convey the problems that critical design finds and exposes. Writing as a medium in its own right is another great addition to the repertoire. But do you have to be an accomplished writer if you're using written formats?
The counter question is - do artists, architects and designers draw well? No, some of them don't draw well, or don't make compelling models – but that might not affect the resulting design adversely. You can always outsource those things for tweaking… In that context, the critical designer is more of director, and this perhaps is where the engagement with the 'user' that Li pointed out comes in.
Critical of what?
I like the distinction between "outside in" - "inside out" as a general conception of two different approaches to criticality - or rather critical practices - in design. I, however, think that it would be interesting to further discuss what the implications of the two lenses are. For instance, with regards to the different, I suspect, implications for design as enterprise vs. design as research. Is 'outside in' basically a theoretical, literary and conceptual (in a philosophical sense) practice - whereas 'inside out' is always a material, conceptual (in a designerly way) and craft-based practice? Or are there other, less clear cut, destinations to be made?
...
we proceed here:
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion-ses...
best,
Katharina.