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.
...
Hello everybody,
above, I just reproduced Ramia Mazé's introductory statement and questions to today's first discussion topic: Critical of what? We will continue the discussion here, but her opening, and a first comment, are to be found here:
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion%3A-...
Katharina
Critical of what? (From Tau)
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?
And as a comment to Tobie post.
Tobie, you write;
Is 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?
I dnt know Simons work that well, but he, as far as I understand, uses critical artifacts as an instrumental way 'to explore alternative needs, wants/desires, practices and products by broadening their (stakeholders) understanding of what is possible.' Is Simons notion of using Critical Design not also used as a pedagogical tool for designers then? What is the difference?
Some answers and further questions from Ramia's and Tobie's Qs
Hi Ramia, Tobie and everyone,
Thanks for your opening questions Ramia. I think your outside in/inside out distinctions are useful and Tobie’s additional framing of Critical for Who is really useful.
I think about critical design practices’ operation by considering that what is produced (critical artefacts, as I’ve called them) provoking some form of reflection, a reconsideration of what is (based on our existing assumptions, values, ideologies etc.). My questions would then be:
1 who makes these critical artefacts,
2 who is reflecting,
3 what are they reflecting on, and
4 what are they reflecting for?
Ramia’s outside in/inside out distinctions seem to imply that, as Tobie noted, designers make, designers in general reflect (outside in) or a wider audience reflecrs (inside out), reflecting on practice (outside in) or wider phenomena (inside out), and, finally, Tobie raises the point of who or what all this critical reflection serves? Beyond, I would suggest, the more general and intangible “discourse” to affecting tangible social change.
As Tobie noted, I pointed toward the elitisim problem of critical theory in my PhD thesis (thanks for the plug, Tobie!). This particularly relates to my first question – if it is solely designers that design. Without going into detail (for brevity and because I’m far from an expert in this area), some critical design practices could fall into the trap of suggesting that existing World views (and the values that underpin them) are somehow inferior and that the provocations they present open up superior World views that represent higher ideals – paralleling low-art, high-art distinctions. In this scheme, designers control what is “high” via what they design. But who’s to say they know better?
I was aiming to bring in a discussion of Participatory Design in the next slot but, to plant a seed for the topic here, we might want to consider what changes when others (non-professional designers, “users”) are involved in making critical artefacts and/or how their reflection is employed subsequently.
Best regards,
Simon
___
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
Yes, I ask myself, "what
Yes, I ask myself, "what kind of activity do I want critical practice to resource?"
Is it about building a particular kind of studio practice, leading to exhibitions and other forms of dissemination, or is it a form of research, with a focus on (amongst the material stuff) papers and the kinds of chat we are having now?
This is not to value one above the other, but I'm no longer surprised that someone really focussed on exhibitions does not want to write a paper!
Already some interesting
Already some interesting threads arising in the discussion! Tobie, you raise a good point, which also has some resonance with Tau's comment (Tau's username is "tul"). You bring up the issue of whether 'criticality' is part of a disciplinary perspective or, instead, a set of methods. I relate to 'criticality' as the kinds of intellectual and ideological foundations within a discipline (in fact, Dunne & Raby's 'Design Noir' also argues for this). In this, theory is mobilized for inquiry within the discipline ('outside in', ie., theories from the social sciences or humanities applied to design) or for design to relate/critique wider phenomena in society ('inside out'). Increasingly (and especially in architecture), this has been an engagement with social critical theories (various kinds of feminisms, Marxisms, post-colonial and cultural theories, rather than previously preoccupation with Frankfurt School theories). In many cases, this has been about increasing reflexivity about the 'for who' of design, raising questions about who does design, who participates in design, who benefits from design, and issues of power, class, ethnic, global, and gender dimensions involved. In some ways, this part of the discourse on 'criticality' might relate to the kinds of issues that you point to in Simon's work. Additionally, these kinds of questions are, of course, relevant to questions of "the users" and "the others" that Li and Regina raise. This perspective is not only about navel-gazing, but about an increased reflexivity about all aspects of design practice (including it's consequences 'outside' design).
These are precisely questions at the heart of Participatory Design as it was originally developed in the social democratic tradition in Scandinavia. As PD has spread to other contexts of design practice, it's intellectual, ideological - and political - dimensions has also been adapted and/or diminished. But design methods (participatory or otherwise) are not neutral - there are always critical-political issues involved. And I would argue that 'critical practices' are conscious and concerned with these issues and how they play out with/for users...
Hacking // Critical Artefacts by Non-Professional Users
I like Simon's question of the implications of non-professional users, and immediately think of hacking. Hacking is a manifestation of critique in an existing system, whether for convenience, extension of use or ideology (including humour!). We can uncover a wealth of insight - both practical, as in usability-related, and regarding basic human values - when looking at the nature, leverage and results of hacked objects and systems.
On a related notes, some critical designers today don't hail from a formal design background; if design were a profession (which it is not), they are 'unprofessional'. Which means they're topical and methodological wildcards.
Designer as Director (from Regina)
Meanwhile, back on the previous thread, Regina raised another interesting question that I’ll repeat in its entirety here:
“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.”
I’m a little wary of Regina’s proposal of Designer as Director as it downplays the role of making in design practice. I’m thinking of making as a form of enquiry here – sketching, model-making etc. as a form of problem-setting (after Schön) or interactive cognition (after Gedenryd). As a designer, the quality of my drawings or models isn’t important it’s the fact that they help me “think out” what I am designing. Designer as Director might then divorce the Critical Practitioner from this form of designing if they are purely the “ideas person”. However I think the definition may still have merit if we think about, as Ramia suggests, Critical Practices and Practitioners. So, perhaps (Critical) Practitioner as Director is a better framing to explore?
Best regards,
Simon
Gedenryd, H., 1998. How designers work. Sweden: Lund University. Available at: http://www.lucs.lu.se/Henrik.Gedenryd/HowDesignersWork/.
Schön, D.A., 1995. The Reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action.
___
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
critical design and participation
hi simon,
I am not yet familiar with your thesis, as tobie mentioned, but very much interested how you draw the relation between criticality and participation.
I would like put into debate is the ambigous role of participation within the current situation. quite oftenly participation has become a symbolic gesture only. As for example Chantal Mouffe mentions, coupled with the power of the media, popular vote is often influenced by strategic utilization facing current consensus politics, which require unending an target groups as individual life style choices.
How could a conflictual participation look like, in which there is a real confrontation between different views instead of participating in some form of consensual view in which nobody is really able to disturb pre-supposed agreement?
How can one move away from romanticised notion of participation into more pro-active, conflictual models of engagement?
Do you see any relation between critical design and participation in that terms?
PD in UK
About this issue of reflexivity, there is was a Design course at the Open University, contemporary to Scandinavia factory PD that mobilised various forms of activism (trade union, marxist).
This was Man Made Futures (the conveners did later appologise of the title) and it was a kind of boot camp for design activism. Here's an openning to the course materilal of 1974 from none other than Nigel Cross:
"Somehow, and from somewhere, new machines, new techniques, new products – in short new technologies – like new courses at the Open University, emerge into society and influence our lives. By putting some of the skills of design in your hands, and some knowledge of the role of design as part of the technology-society relationship in your mind, we, the course team, hope that you may better understand and better contribute to both the emergence and influence of new technologies."
Design as Thinking Tool
Simon, thanks for pointing out something I should perhaps have underpinned a bit more - completely agree that the process of drawing or making models functions as a 'thinking tool', similarly (but, arguably, not quite the same as) to putting something down in words.
Critical design finds, identifies and highlights problems, through the process of tangibilising a concept on one hand, and through the tangible result (i.e. a designed object or system) in the end. But does tangible necessarily mean 'object', or can it be a different format that embodies insight or affords a discussion that results in insight?
critical design and participation revisited
Hi, just tuning in...
just a note, Matthias you ask what a conflictual version of critical design might be. Planning theory might help here e.g. Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (2001). Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London: Routledge.
Borrowing from other disciplines
Going back to Ramia's two trajectories in perspective, what are your thoughts about the adaptation of critical design in design research? I think there is a good reason why the method or/and methodology has been so popular among design researchers, mybe because it felt like a valid (and 'designerly') way of presenting thoughts and reflections. For those of you who are more familiar with Frankfurter Schule, Postcolonialism and Feminism: What is your feeling how appropriate they can be implemented in design practice, having their roots in analytical research practice? How easy or difficult is it to draw implications for design practice, and what might potentially get lost in doing so?
As a product designer, I always have some troubles with what I perceive as a contrast between the (ironic) distance in a 'critical' perspective and the necessary affirmation that is unavoidable in designing a material object. And maybe this is due to the term that has a slight by-taste of elevating the 'critic' to a higher moral ground, unless you take the time to explain your definition of 'critical'? My feeling is that the positive understanding of the word - to provide alternative views, and be it of neglected user groups or complicated human values - is less dominant than the one above.
Conflictual Participation
Hi Matthias, (mmf)
I suppose I do see a role for such confictual engagement in my work. I used critical artefacts with groups of users with the aim of them not liking these design ideas. Rather, the point was to challenge their views of what was acceptable and encourage a discussion of a broader set of possibilities for what I would later design – showing users challenging visions of what could be to then develop what should be.
We might draw parallels with the use of concept cars in the motor industry. Most of these radical visions of styling, function and technology applications are not intended to be mass-manufactured and sold. Rather they prime us for what is coming next – the new car looks/works less scarily different because we’ve seen the concept car. (It’s also another model/sketch that helps it’s designers work out what the real new car should be). In a more provocative and radical sense, critical artefacts do something similar?
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
About Regina's "affording
About Regina's "affording discussion", and how this relates to Ramia's topic of in/out and out/in.
We write about the effects we expect our designs to have, to engender a dicsussion about energy usage, about biotechnology, or etc. etc.
How do we then talk about what the designs do?
I don't think Carl's here yet, but he has a go at this is a paper about the construction of publics. Ramia gives a good description on putting together workshop formats in Switch! but not much analysis of what goes on there.
It looks like there's some scope to develop an analysis of designs in the field.
DiSalvo, C. (2009). Design and the Construction of Publics. Design Issues, 25(1), 48-63.
Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2008). Switch! Energy Ecologies in Everyday Life.
...on the political dimension a critical practice
Hi all,
A agree with Simon's concern that some CD practices can serve as means of propagating elitist criticism of existing values and World views, most notably consumerism of course. I also think that that the application of critical practices to other spaces, contexts and people than the ones found in highly exclusive galleries, exhibitions and other art-circuits places is highly relevant. What strikes me as a crucial point in Ramia's last post however is the always already presence of political- critical issues involved in design(ing). I think that there is a need to address this dimension of what it means to be critical - to what or whom to be critical of? When Simon suggest the a critical practice can serve to "affecting tangible social change", it implies - implicitly or explicitly - an expression of values. I'm not suggestion a return to the old days of 'safe' ideological stances and front lines, but on the other hand there is a risk in postulating a critical practice that does not take a stance for a specific cause or direction in making social change tangible.
I guess another way of framing what I'm trying to say here is, wherein the difference between an political-activist and a critical practice in design is to be found?
-Tau
Critical Artefacts
Hi Regina,
I’ve used the term critical artefacts in the past because artefacts refers to anything human-made. Which in this sense then includes objects, software, systems, interactions, texts etc. And I agree that writing is also a form of making as enquiry/thinking tool (particularly given the number of rough drafts I produce…)
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
Housekeeping: Next session coming up
Some housekeeping: We are already approaching the end of our first session. The next session will be moderated by Simon Bowen, who will open up a new thread for his topic in a couple of minutes. Please join him there at 11.30!
Katharina.
I've expanded a bit about
I've expanded a bit about the 'critical' part of the term 'critical practice', but perhaps I should also make sure 'practice' is also in focus! Regina, Simon and Tobie, you've also brought up issues of skill, materiality, making, studio practice, etc., central to design. My perspective on 'critical practice' is of a kind of 'criticism from within' design - ie., based within and carried out by design means, by designers, by means of their own practical and operational modes. Of course, there are 'critical practices' within literature, art, the sciences, etc., which take different forms. I'm interested here, however, in the forms, effects and uses of the kinds of criticality that take the form of design processes and artifacts. In the 'outside in' perspective, what effect does it have to query societal/environmental/technological phenomenon in forms that are tangible and material? Hacking, for example, can be understood both as a specific method or skill, and engaging particular materials (examples from media, graphic and fashion design in Mazé and Ericson, forthcoming 2011). But it can also be understood as an ideological and political stance in relation to issues of ownership and authorship, for example to interrogate proprietary systems, industrialized production or media hegemony.
mmf, I really appreciate the issues you raise. Each of these terms needs itself to be queried! F.ex. as the social democratic premises of Participatory Design have altered (as well as certain assumptions about values, consensus, etc. in the political discourse at the time. Today, we need to update and continually interrogate the issue of participation in design, including contemporary perspectives on, f.ex. plurality, dissensus, conflict, etc!
Now, I will sign off as moderator, though I'm looking forward to follow and participate in the discussion throughout the day...
planning
Matthias, Alex mentions planning literature, made me think of urban planning stuff in the late 60s/70s. In the UK the Skeffington report was about doing consultation, this was a messy time with lots of social movements and protest.
Rittle and Webber's wicked problems came here too, how to design for social heterogeneity? They tried to make better computer models in the end, which is a bit dissapointing, but their question is well formulated!
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Critcality and sustainable design
Hi all,
I have just tuned in and read through all of your posts.
As Katharina just noted, there has been an increasing popularity of critical approaches in design research with some good reason. Speaking as a design researcher who works on design for social sustainability, I sense that there might be a relation between the popularity of sustainability and criticality in design research.
Do you think that these tendencies are mere fads, or might they be rooted in a deeper discussion about a a designer's responsibility regarding the artefacts he/she creates?
Best regards,
Florian
A couple of thoughts
Really interesting discussion, just wanted to point out two things. First, that perhaps the notion of 'reflexivity' needs unpacking into reflexivities i.e. is it a human competence of capacity, a methodological stance, a self-critical act or an issue of representation. Second, Ramia points to the intellectual and ideological foundations of a discipline where theory is mobilised to inform design practice and discourse. Perhaps here is an interesting point - that existing theory is put to work in the service of critical design. That is, it provides 'criticality'. So, perhaps rather than mobilising theory critical design could start to construct it's own theories.
just sayin
...
Thanks to all of you! That was an amazing first session, and I hate to stop it, actually.
But here's where we proceed with the next session:
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion-ses...
I think there is a danger of
I think there is a danger of confusing critical design with provocations. If a design functions only as a provocative comment where 'solely designers design' we have an issue of designers controlling what is 'high' - an elitist problem.
However, I think the questions Simon post could rather be sen as a design process. I know this is not what he suggest, but if we se it as a process, then following the 2 questions becomes very relevant;
1) Who makes the critical artifacts?
&
3) What are they reflecting on?
For me, this suggests that the critical artifact comes first, and the reflection later, and makes it elitist! In relation to participation, what happens if we swap them around?
As a process, I would suggest we start with the question:
-What are they reflections on?
Those reflections can not be up to designers to decide on (this might be a big difference compared to art?) - & I suggest that this is the point where the question of who participate enters. Who reflects upon what? And how do we decide upon what we are reflecting on? This is the point where we have an issue of designers controlling what is 'high'. I.e this is where we should call for 'thinking out' & reflecting together.
In that sense the question of:
Who makes the critical artifacts? does not, atleast from my perspective open up, or become interesting when others '(non-professional designers, “users”)' are involved in making critical artifacts. The tangibilising of a problem is not directly 'problem solving', but still calls for a form. How can this form, or aesthetic, serve not as seductive, but as an affect upon the issues we are reflecting on?