Futuristic Gizmos, Conservative Ideals: On Anachronistic Design

She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2021

Digital Creativity, 2013

1990

Artifact Vol 3, No 4 (2015): The Design Concept, 2015

This essay sets out to rectify the false dichotomy between the notions of uselessness and usefulness in relation to design, in order to argue for a useless design practice. The argument is structured into three main parts. Part I opens with an introduction and goes on to frame design as a hybrid discipline that has been characterized by usefulness since it was born of the Industrial Revolution. The notion of useful design and its continuingly intimate relationship with the neoliberalist growth economy is subsequently unpacked through scrutinizing the basic demands for quantification & acceleration, conflicting use and temporality with special attention paid to the Anthropocene. Part II elucidates the ambiguous relationship between the useless and the useful through the related critical/conformist dichotomy present in Dunne & Raby’s A/B Manifesto as well as through useless and useful design fictions. From here the unuseless chindōgu by Kawakeni and the unfindable objects by Carelman together frame the useless as a “useful overdrive.” Additionally they illustrate the constant risk of assimilation, festishization and spectacle that disruptive useless design artifacts face within the neoliberalist growth economy. In the digital realm The Useless Web accentuate the post-ironic and absurd qualities in useless design. Part III asks: what is useless design, why do we need useless design and how could useless design exist? From five opening propositions, useless design is positioned among related concepts such as Redström’s “design after design” (2011), Hunt’s “tactical formlessness” (2003), Tonkinwise’s “designing things that are not finished” (2005), and Jones’ “pure design” (1984). Useless design is finally argued to find its value from its ability to valuate and actively traverse the growing chasm between the industrial and the post-industrial design paradigm. In essence useless design is an invitation to make useful, here “useful” understood in reappropriated terms, beyond its currently one dimensional, confined state. On that note, the essay concludes by shifting its gaze from the abstract insights gathered throughout the essay towards the concrete urgent task of prototyping a useless design practice.

2013 DEFSA Conference Proceedings, 2013

Contemporary design practice (and theory) is growing up. There is evidence to support the emergence of a new breed of designer who is able to reflect on her or his role in society, and to be critical of what they make and what the resultant consequences of that may be. Design is often used as a vehicle to criticise and comment on issues, highlight problems and shortcomings in society, and present views and perspectives. This suggests that design is at a distance and impartial, but the truth is otherwise. Design is ideological and an expression of the values mediated by the designer and commissioned by others. This is the status quo: affirmative design. When design steps away from this position and critiques itself, critical design is the result. Presenting alternative perspectives and reflecting on the role of design is its purpose. This paper will address this emerging phenomenon that originated in product design, and the discourse extant to the work of Dunne and Raby. By identifying the characteristics of critical design and visualising the pathways, processes and consequences that distinguish it from affirmative design, the paper will argue that design practices, other than product design, can be scrutinised according to this model. Furthermore the virtues of the designer’s authorial voice will be extolled as reflexive of this and necessary to establishing a culture of design critique, and to positioning critical design as an integral, important and necessary part of design discourse.

In this chapter we offer a framework for thinking about the design of technology. Our approach draws on critical perspectives from both social theory and science and technology studies (STS). We understand design to be the process of consciously shaping an artifact to adapt it to specific goals and environments. Our framework conceptualizes design as a process whereby technical and social considerations converge to produce concrete devices that fit specific contexts. How this happens – and the possibility that it might happen differently – is a crucial point for philosophers and other students of technology to consider. To date, design studies have been focused predominantly on the work of what we might call proximate designers, while work in the field of STS has focused on the role of non-designers such as clients, stakeholders, and other socially relevant groups. However, little attention has been paid to ways in which historical choices and cultural assumptions about technology shape the design process. Our goal is to address this oversight. We begin by posing a seemingly simple question: is design intentional? A review of the literature draws our attention to at least three possible levels of analysis: that of proximate designers, the immediate design environment, and broader society. We then present a critical theory of technology that provides a non-deterministic, non-essentialist approach to the study of technology. We argue that critical theory, with its emphasis on examining taken-for-granted assumptions, offers a theoretical space for thinking differently about design. Finally, we discuss the possibilities opened up by critical theory and some of the obstacles that stand in the way of realizing a richer world of design.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2014

interactions, 2010