One of the main topics, that became obvious in last year's MoMA exhibition “design and the elastic mind”, was concerning to the old question about the relationship between “making” and “thinking”, when it comes to the questions about how we come to know about the World and how we gain knowledge. Obviously the common model is still the two-poled opinions of “either we stand back and analyse things”, or else we “make” things. But especially in design (research), at the interface to other disciplines, it becomes obvious, that both worlds seem to actually grow together. A couple of weeks ago, I had the chance to talk to Paola Antonelli on that:
Paola, first of all: Congratulations for your last exhibition at the MoMa “Design and the elastic mind”. It gave quite a good overview about the current, more or less, “big topics” in design. Once again it became obvious, the two big drivers of innovation and tendencies in design: on the one hand it is the technical possibilities and on the other hand – way more important in our opinion – the current status and change in society. Now, what is more important and what is more difficult: to anticipate human needs and behaviour by the help of the fast growing technical possibilities, or to slow down technical development in order to not forget the addressed human beings?
I don’t think, that it is necessary to slow down the development or not. If you are able to be good with point number one, than point number two comes natural. I think that, if you are able to keep in mind, who human beings are and what they need, and also how powerful they are, then you don’t really need to decelerate progress artificially. You are going to be able to keep it under control for people.
What about the impression of technical or informational overflow? For instance, we all know, that the older people get, the more difficult become their problems and scepticism with fast growing technology.
They might be right, but what it is important, is to be able to customize the speed locally, not globally. People should be able to just customize a filter in the amount of information and the speed however they see fit. So that is, what designers try to make: more flexibility in choices!
Talking about the explosively reciprocal relationship between science and design in the contemporary world, it is interesting how design participates in science and science can be engaged in design. What you call the “new love affair” or “marriage” between both science and design, has become part of a larger trend where design is being explored as a process of knowledge creation. Concepts like, what John Seely Brown has called “thinkering” * or what Peter Galison introduces as the concept of “nanofacture” **, belong to a new culture in which experimentation is guided by engagement with the world and open, constructive collaboration with specialists or interested parties of different disciplines. Which part benefits most out of these kinds of collaboration?
I think, that ultimately it is the world, in the sense that all those different parties are able to keep each other under control, and at the same time they are able to get the best out of each other. It is quite obvious right now, that working in a team is a guarantee of better success. It is also the concept of the collective mind, it is not only that unity makes trend, but it is the fact, that really different expertise makes for a better synthesis for the world. So I would say, that it is hard to say, who benefits the most.
Like right now I just found out that Ben Fry has been hired by my colleagues at SEED magazine, to become the In-house Visualisation Design Guru. So it is obvious, that science benefits tremendously by having a really good designer able to reveal the secrets of data by visualising them better. At the same time designers benefit tremendously from science, because scientists are the ones that devote their own life to studying phenomena and discovering new ones. There really is a continuous feedback between those two spheres. It is impossible to say who benefits the most.
For sure it is a win-win-situation and in the end we all benefit from it. So, are there any other disciplines/sciences/pratices that shall head for a greater design involvement, or at least learn more about designerly methods in knowledge gaining? Which disciplines would that be? Why can/should they learn from or involve design? And why haven’t they done it, yet?
The reason why design has not been absorbed yet into many more disciplines, because it is still considered my many as a frivolous endeavour and a frivolous activity for people. And that comes from that terrible word “design”. If we could find another one, it would be great. But the problem is, that instead it is the constructive method that is so interesting. Now who else could benefit? Scientists and designers of course have a good connection because of [their interest in and tendency to] experimentation. Businesses have already kind of embraced design, although I am not sure, if they have always embraced it in the right way. There are some businesses, in which design is intrinsically part of the DNA of a company, for instance Apple, for instance IBM at the beginning, for instance Kid Robot – Businesses of all different sizes! Design is really part of the philosophy and the soul of the company. And instead there are other companies, where the CEOs say “Oh, we need design” and so they call some consultant that comes there with a set of cards, saying “Oh, I’m gonna teach you about design thinking”. It really is kind of a phony makeup applied afterwards. So I think should be taught in elementary school. It should not be something that you discover at some point in your life, when somebody tells you it is important. It should be part of peoples culture from the beginning. So that, when business people, policy makers, doctors, chemists, engineers get to their profession, they already know, what design is and know how to use it. Also policy makers would benefit tremendously from knowing more about design, because they could involve designers at the right time in the right way also in politics. Not even to talk about how extremely important it is the field of education. It is important that people like you and me and many others just keep on hammering and raining down “Design! Design! Design!” on everybody, until it becomes part of people’s normal culture.
And what does that mean for the education (not only of a designer)? For Example, Ideas in Nanophysics, Nanotechnology or Biomedicine have to be translated to the client or the user and vice versa. Will the future need more specialists or more universalists in design? Let’s keep on the example of Nanophysics: Such topics are not easy to learn, of course. Will we need maybe Nano-Design-Specialists in the future?
I always believed in multidisciplinary teams and I think that designers should be generalists. Now, being generalist does not mean that you have to be ignorant. Let’s say you have to tackle a new area of expertise which is Nano, you have at least have some notions of what that implies. But of course, as you said, you can not have two PhDs in nanophysics. It would be wrong to even try to do that. Designers should keep on doing what they do best, which is to address the production of things in the world – the sensible, human and beautiful production of things in the world. And they should team up with people who are experts in the different areas, that need to be tackled at that particular time. Of course there is always going to be differences. Of course there are going to be some designers that decide to like the nanoscale and they want to focus on that. But in general I think, the world needs now the designers that are more like philosophers.
Do you think, the approximation of Design with the world of science and technology will help to overcome the old fight between theorists and practicioners (especially in design)?
I did not even think, that there were actually theoreticians in design. I know about there is that fight in physics between theoreticians and people who like to do experiments. I had no idea, that there was one going on in design – I am kind of happy, that you tell me! (laughs)
Design as a learning tool can increase understanding and appreciation of the world. It might also enable designers to participate in a wider technological, cultural and environmental (or even scientific?) discourse creating the future world. The growing involvement of different people in design and scientific process changes the role of the designer. On the one hand, more and more people access the possibility to experience their “creative” potential, on the other hand, the designer still has to coordinate or prepare such collective behaviour. How will the development of Networks and Open Source Projects change the task and the role of the designer in the near future?
Designers are already very much working on open source methods, because they try more and more to involve other people in the process. Designers will maybe become almost like the leaders or the masters of ceremony of many open source projects, and will be the ones that are able to canalize people’s interest and to make sure that the direction is always kept – almost like moderators and MCs.
When it comes to design as an education tool, and more for design as an education subject: I am always very wary, when I see design reduced to a method or a process in order to be communicated, because then you get into trouble: you get to the cards of the consultant, you get to the idea of design thinking, which is not an idea I believe tremendously in, if it is left by itself, without a foundation of education since childhood. I would like to first speak of design as an education subject, and then it can become a tool. Basically we need more awareness of design amongst people at large. And designers then will be able to be put in the right roles in different processes, including open source processes.
Let’s come back to the political potential of design, seeing Design as a critical medium, with high potential to cause debates. Tony Dunne denies the Image of a Designer as a “Problemsolver”, but replaces it through the idea of a “sensemaker”. Where between those two poles do you see both potential and responsibility of a designer?
The problem solving part has become so tired, because it has been one of the ways to explain design that lacks so many answers. But the truth is that, between problemsolver and sensemaker there is not too much difference. The only difference is, that “sensemaker” implies a more philosophical attitude. Problemsolving and Sensemaking are not that far apart. But there is something, that I find interesting, which is not contained in the “problemsolver” or the “sensemaker”, which is the “problemmaker”. I like that problemmaker position and I think, that Tony actually has that position, too. He might not talk about it, but he is a problemmaker sometimes. Designers have that role .Especially in Tony's Course at the RCA (Royal College of Art, London), either as students or even as tutors, like Noam Toran, are the ones that actually raise these questionsmarks and ask “What is this all about and can we do something about it?”. So problemmaker is one role I would like to add as interesting to the problemsolver and sensemaker.
True! And actually the idea of “problemmaker” has two meanings: On the one hand, you might cause problems on purpose, by irritating people, for instance you confront them with weird stuff or situations, in order to find out about (or critically comment on) human behaviour, fears and (re-) actions or (mis-) use of object, but being aware of it. On the other hand, by seriously trying to solve one problem in a complex system (especially if it is of high societal relevance), you might cause many other problems. Especially dealing with the big topics in society, we become confronted with the omnipresence of wicked problems, which brings us back to the importance of multi-, trans- or interdisciplinary concepts and relationships.
Now, talking about future anticipation, last but not least, Paola: what can we expect in your nearer future? What are your next exhibition projects?
There is one smaller exhibition at the MoMA, which is called “rough cut”. It is about design that is not pretty. Once again it is about explaining to people, that design is not about pretty things, but rather about meaningful things. It is about things that are not as elegant, as platonic and as pretty, as people are used to thing as design is.
Then I have to do a show on Ron Arad, we are bringing it here from the Centre Pompidou.
And then I am focussing right now on several different themes on visualisation- and communication design. I proposed a show, which is called “Talk to me”. It is all about objects that communicate, with people or amongst themselves. And then I am also focussing on scent, odours and food as forms on design.
Thank you and good luck!
Interview by Tom Bieling
* Thinkering (J.S.Brown):
Melting together of Thinking + Tinkering.
Thinking through action! Thinking through making and discovering through the manual experimentation with materials and objects.
**Nanofacture:
Making things is actually part of science and not just the application of science.
Nanofacturing is a combination of the old engineering/manufacturing goal of making things, and the scientists goal of understanding.
Paola Antonelli,
born in Milano/Italy (1963), has been curating the Department of Architecture and Design at MoMA (NYC) since ten years, now. She has been a contributing editor for »Domus« and »Home« and the design editor for »Abitare«. With exhibitions and publications like »Design and the elastic mind« (2008), she broaches the issue of design in a holistic view, that includes Science, Culture, Social Development, Economy and Ecology. Being also a lecturer at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, Paola Antonelli was rated as one of the top100 most powerful people in the world of art by »Art Review«.
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/2008/elasticmind/
...