CCDN 271: Assignment 5: Massive Critical Change

Starting and maintaining a fire is simple once you understand the process. Massive Critical Change is no different. It doesn't just spring out of nothing; it has to be created with a nurtured, critical approach, and then developed to the point of fruition. This essay will seek to substantiate the claim that while Critical Design is well equipped to be able to initiate Massive Critical Change (Massive Change generated by a critical thought process); it is unable to complete it due to a lack of socio-political clout and popularity. Massive Critical Change is primarily carried out through corporate power and popularity. Due to the nature of Critical Design and how it tends to operate, it has the potential to have a tangible influence on the inspiration and initiation of Massive Critical Change. Critical Design can often be the spark to the flame. That flame must then be sold through a corporate identity or be picked up and nurtured by the public. The socio-political weight larger corporations bring to the global market allow the decisions they make to be well respected and carry mass. When taken on by the public, the Massive Critical Change seeks to gain momentum through popularity. People have the power to make said change happen, but only when enough support is rallied.

Critical Design generates large amounts of inspiration and publicity for the world of design through the artefacts and theories that it creates. Prominent examples of these artefacts include the “Technological Dream Series” by Dunne & Raby, which questioned the future of robots in our everyday lives (2007), as well as the “Onetrees” project by Natalie Jeremijenko which raised environmental awareness regarding plant growth in different areas (2004). Critical Design is not a specific concept of how to generate Massive Critical Change, rather it is a stance. Dunne & Raby, prominent critical designers, illustrate that the ability to disturb the everyday is where its power to instigate change comes from. Critical Design “suggests that the everyday as we know it could be different, that things could change.” (2013) This suggestion of another metaphorical reality goes on to then being redefined as something that “uses speculative design proposals to challenge narrow assumptions, preconceptions and givens about the role products play in everyday life.” (Dunne & Raby, 2013) This speculative practice, originally creating suggestions, often culminates with critical artefacts, representing the suggestion made by the critical designers as something tangible, more conceivable and suggestive to the market. These created artefacts are powerful tools for initiating Massive Critical Change, as Simon John Bowen; Design Researcher at Sheffield Hallam University suggests. Bowen suggests that they allow the stakeholders and other powerful players in the corporate world to engage with novel situations and develop critical thinking about future possibilities. (2007) Getting the ideas out to the people in power though interesting objects that generate large amounts of discussion is an effective channel for Critical Design to focus its energy, as it has large potential to generate results.

Due to the very nature of Critical Design as a counterpoint to affirmative design (Dunne & Raby, 2013), it is unpopular. Therefore, as a result, the artefacts that are created cannot be sold like normal products that affirm the status quo. This means that on its own, Critical Design cannot alter the status quo, as it lacks the socio-political power it needs in the global market. Another issue with it with regards to Massive Critical Change is that debates relating to Critical Design often rarely leave the elitist and relatively rarefied art galleries and institutions they are displayed in (Yauner, 2009). This pitfall is mitigated sometimes by the aforementioned critical artefacts, but even these sometimes lack the publicity or outspokenness to influence. However, Critical Design isn’t necessarily about creating marketable products. Dunne & Raby assert that at its heart, Critical Design is an advanced form of highly specific activism, tailored to a design audience, tied closely to Conceptual Design, Contestable Futures, and Speculative Design (2013), which future-proofs the concepts and ideas that come out of Critical Design. Massive Critical Change develops out of the ideas of those who have the foresight to look ahead and consider the potential of tomorrow. Critical Design sets that spark for tomorrow’s flame.

The inability of Critical Design to carry through the Massive Critical Change that it initiates is made up for by corporate power. Large corporations have the socio-political weight and clout to be able to bend the market and current trends to their will. While Critical Designers release many of their own critical artefacts, large corporations often release products that many believe have the potential to be just as critical. One of the most potent examples of a product having massive market impact was the release of the Sony Walkman. Dunne & Raby (2001) state “The original Walkman created a new kind of experience (mobile, personal music) and redefined the role of technology in public spaces.” (As cited in Bowen, 2007, p.3) This product was a revolutionary moment for the consumer electronics market, and as such, had a huge influence on the market for a long time after its release. However, what is astounding is that this revolutionary aspect was not designed, but happened by chance. According to Bowen, none of the stories as to how the Walkman was devised tell of Sony’s desire to affect social change (2007), and Dunne and Raby also mention that “the effects it produced were incidental and not consciously engineered” (2001, p.45). This unexpected amount of social change is sadly uncommon in today’s latest consumer electronics releases, and in many cases abused, with minor changes to an existing system being touted as “the next big thing”, when relatively little actually changes at all. Apple states repeatedly that its products are “sleek, revolutionary, and groundbreaking” (2013), yet often their products are mere iterations of their previous products. This continuously shows the potential for an extremely powerful corporation to completely control the market with both real and engineered Massive Critical Change. This control serves the company well through sales and popularity, making Massive Critical Change an efficient and effective marketing tool.

The Sony Walkman represents a game-changing moment in the history of the consumer electronics market.

While recently Massive Critical Change has not occurred in the field of consumer electronics for a while, the impacts of positive policy decisions with respect to environmental and social concerns have made waves. Large corporations have the ability to make tiny changes that can change the landscape of the entire market, purely because of the company’s scale. “Since forming a relationship with The Natural Step in 1998, Nike has made shoeboxes 10% lighter... ...saving $1.6 million annually” (Mau, 2004). Nike’s decision to partner with The Natural Step has given rise to an ecological turnaround in the product market. It appears to be becoming more and more fashionable for a business to be sustainable. This slight alteration to policies and how products are made was a small step in the right direction for Nike, but the overall impact was definitely an instance of Massive Critical Change. In a round-about way, The Natural Step is activism and Critical Design rolled into one, initiating big changes in large corporations that have a widespread impact, essentially cutting out the creation of critical artefacts and engaging directly with the corporations to bring about Massive Critical Change. Bowen states “Critical Design practitioners point to the underlying values and assumptions of design practices (and design research practices) and suggest problems in leaving them un-critiqued.” (2007, p.2) This nature of critiquing the status quo with regards to the product market actually leads to problems in the system being discovered and dealt with. Without this critical mindset, these problems are rarely seen at all. But having some people focussing on them allows the biggest corporations to completely change the market, carrying out the Massive Critical Change.

Design industries across the world are seeing a changing set of ideologies. We are headed into increasingly uncertain times, and as a result, there has been significant upheaval in the industry. The nature of design itself is evolving and changing, creating a definite instance of Massive Critical Change. “What if we could use the power of design to help create a storyboard of the future of humankind... ...a story of what’s needed to create positive change at a global scale” (Coughlan, 2010, p.3). Critical Design has been challenging us to think differently for a long time now, and some people and corporations have actually listened, resulting in a lot of design for situational futures. “Now, more than ever, we need design to help find solutions to global problems. The field has changed: technology allows everyone to be a designer.” (Klaasen & Neicu, 2011, p.2) This changing scope of design, this realisation that design is more than just products, this realisation that design very much is all around us, is humbling. Design is coming into our homes, and people are beginning to take it upon themselves to improve the world around them. The Natural Step is taking measures to get corporations heading the world into the right direction, and succeeding. Linn & Hayman state that corporate leaders “think their social action should become less about "giving" and more about ‘acting’; moving corporate activity into what was previously firmly charity or government turf.” (2013) This changing mindset on how to use existing corporate resources goes with the changing state of society in general; as we move to a much more open society, the nature of design changes too. People want transparency, people want creative control. People don’t want to give and receive any more. People want to act and create.

This changing scope of design and the design society leads to a state or motion of design known as ‘open design’. “Open design offers unprecedented possibilities for design to improve the world”, state Klaasen & Neicu (2011). The rise of the ‘maker society’ is a part of the expansion of the world of open design. The very method of design changes as people no longer want to blindly buy things, but actually have the skill, the power and the potential to make products themselves. The realisation of cheap rapid prototyping technology can be heavily credited with this social change, as now anyone with the technical know-how, a few thousand dollars and a computer can create something that other people might want. This leaves designers in a unique position. “People can only take responsibility for solving their own problems if the devices and systems that cause them are open to their understanding”, say Klaasen & Neicu; encouraging designers to actually relinquish control and start working a meta-system, designing products that allow people to design products. This changing method of design is leading us into territory that is largely unexplored. Massive Critical Change is being brought about by the consumers, who have been given the ability and tools to create, and now technology is struggling to keep up with people’s desire to create. However, that said, once technology catches up, Brown states that the biggest instance of Massive Critical Change to date may occur when “design is taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone” (2009). The changing form of the design method is a critical evolution that should ultimately result in a more advanced, integrated society.

“In this changing world, design has expanded its agenda to engage with spaces far more diverse than those of its industrial origins.” (Melles & Feast, 2013) In a rapidly changing world, Critical Design fulfils a specific part of Massive Critical Change. Being unable to actually carry out the change itself due to a lack of socio-political power in the global market, it instead resides at the grass roots level of the whole concept. Critical Design seeks “mainly to make us think. But also to raise awareness, expose assumptions, provoke action and spark debate” (Dunne & Raby, 2013) Due to the very nature of Critical Design, it suffers from pitfalls at running the change itself, but at the same time, that’s not actually what it’s trying to achieve. It succeeds at generating debate, it succeeds at proposing new ideas, and it succeeds at getting people to think about the future in a design sense. It challenges the norms, and more often than not, someone is listening. Corporations have the ability to make small changes based on feedback from organisations such as The Natural Step. For large, market-dominating corporations, a small change can result in Massive Critical Change, such as packaging reduction in Nike, as well as sustainable timber usage in Home Depot (Mau, 2004). These changes can change the very core values of the market itself. Popular demand can also be shaken up by Critical Design, but again, ultimately the driving force behind the Massive Critical Change is the public themselves, not the Critical Designers. Massive Critical Change is happening right now in the form of the rise of an open design culture, in tandem with the rise of a maker society. These changes are fundamentally shifting the place design takes in our world, and this raises the question: What part of our lives will design as a whole impact next?

-Bibliography-

Apple. (2013). Apple: Jobs at Apple. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/jobs/ca/

Bowen, S. J. (2007). Crazy ideas or creative probes?: Presenting Critical artefacts to Stakeholders to Develop Innovative Product Ideas. In: Proceedings of EAD07: Dancing with Disorder: Design, Discourse and Disaster, Izmir, Turkey, 11-13 April 2007

Brown, T. (2009, July). Tim Brown Urges Designers To Think Big [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html

Coughlan, P. (2010). How Might Design Catalyse Massive (Positive) Change? The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (37), 34-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/497142247?accountid=14782

Dunne, A. (1999). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experience and Critical Design. London, UK: RCA CRD Research Publications

Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser

Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013). Dunne & Raby: Critical Design FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0

Fabrica. (2013). About Fabrica. Retrieved May 17^, 2013, from http://www.fabrica.it/about

Jeremijenko, N. (2004). OneTrees. Retrieved June 3 2013, from http://www.nyu.edu/projects/xdesign/onetrees/

Klaassen, R., & Neicu, M. (2011). CTRL–Alt–Design. In Proceedings of the Design History Society Annual Conference Design Activism and Social Change.

Linn, R. & Hayman, J. (n.d.). Can Businesses Actually Make The World Better While Making Money?. Co.Exist. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/

Mau, B. & Institute without Boundaries. (2004). Massive Change. London, U.K.: Phaidon Press.

Melles, G. & Feast, L. (2013). Design Thinking and Critical Approaches: The Pragmatist Compromise.

Sony. [Photograph of Sony TPS-L2]. (1979). Retrieved from http://blog.phonografic.com/?p=274

Yauner, F. (2009). Can Critical Design Create a Debate, if it just keeps Talking to Itself?. Retrieved from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/

CCDN 271: Assignment Four: Plan Your Attack!

-Introduction-
While Critical Design does have the potential to create grass root suggestions for improvement to the product market; it lacks the corporate weight to throw around to generate Massive Critical Change. For Massive Critical Change to occur in the field of economic and technological development, it must be generated and carried out by those in power and control of the market, or alternatively driven by consumer demand.

-Paragraph 1- What is Critical Design & what is it trying to achieve?
Critical Design is not a specific concept of how to generate change. Critical Design is much more of a stance. Critical Designers are attempting to disturb the waters of the everyday. That is their niche. They want to engage society with challenging issues from the ground up. They seek to challenge the very nature of what design is, as well as what its service to society should be.
Critical Designers define their own work as something that “uses speculative design proposals to challenge narrow assumptions, preconceptions and givens about the role products play in everyday life.” (Dunne & Raby, 2013)
Refer heavily to Dunne & Raby as well as Bowen.
Critical Design is a diverse stance that, overall, suggests there is a state that needs to be changed. This relates back to the fact that Critical Design serves as a group that has a stance that, while perceived as critical and un-sellable, still serves a purpose for the development of the greater status quo.

-Paragraph 2- What problems does Critical Design face?
Due to the very nature of Critical Design, it is unpopular. Therefore, as a result, the artefacts that are created cannot be sold like normal affirmative design products. Debates relating to critical design often rarely leave the elitist and relatively rarefied art galleries and institutions they are displayed in. (Yauner, 2009)
Refer to Yauner, as well as Dunne & Raby.
Critical Designs rejection of current ideologies as the only ideologies means that the ideologies currently socially “in” are ignored, and the product will not sell. As a result, Critical Design itself cannot lead the charge in an instance of Massive Critical Change. It only lays the spark that has the potential to start a flame.

-Paragraph 3- Massive Critical Change’s modern beginnings
The press release of the Sony “Walkman” was at first received with small amounts of criticism, but once physically released, it sparked a worldwide revolution in consumer electronics. However, while at the time the Walkman represented a critical change to the industry and would be considered Massive Critical Change, it was not designed by a critical designer. Yes, it was changing the status quo, but the change was instigated by a popular, valuable, and affirmatively designing corporation. Critical Designers rarely have the corporate weight to throw around to generate Massive Critical Change, as this sort of power rests with the large companies.
Refer heavily to Mau, Yauner, as well as Barab.
The release of a game-changing affirmative product often causes Massive Critical Change nowadays, and usually carries far more weight in the market than a critical design, where the audience can often be limited.

-Paragraph 4- Tough decisions with big repercussions
Massive Critical Change however still very much has the potential to be sparked by critical designers. This is especially true in the field of environmental and social concerns, where there is almost always a large amount of consistent activism taking place. Changes suggested by Critical Design and carried out by affirmative corporations can have massive impact on the market, as well as global corporate policies.
Refer to Mau, Dunne & Raby, and Barab.
A small change in policy for a large corporation can result in a massive change for the industry as a whole, especially when it comes to controversial issues and unpopular decisions.

-Paragraph 5- What happens when commonplace ideologies are challenged?
The design industries themselves are being forced to change. The biggest upheaval in recent years has been the rise of 3D printing. Designers have had to relinquish the task of designing products for the consumer, as the consumer is beginning to demand more creative control over their products.
Refer to Coughlan, Klaasen & Neicu and Linn.
These changes themselves show the beginnings of Massive Critical Changes to the industry. Critical thinking is about challenging long-standing ideologies, and these changes are definitely challenging long-standing ideologies. The industry has to re-think what they can sell to people, as well as how they can provide services to their customers.

-Paragraph 6- What impact can the consumer have?
The way the design industry is changing is due to a changing method of design. Consumers are demanding control and creating things previously limited to the industry, and as a result, even the most fundamental laws of our societies are beginning to lose relevancy. The area we are heading into is largely unexplored. Companies are attempting to make headway in these areas before the consumers expect it to be the norm.
Refer to Klaasen & Neicu and Brown.
The biggest instance of Massive Critical Change to date may occur when “design is taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone.” (Brown, 2009)

-Paragraph 7- Where does Critical Design sit currently?
If the world is so controlled by the consumers and corporations, then where does Critical Design actually fit? Critical Design has very much carved out its own niche, where it serves as a suggestive force. Critical Design isn’t incapable of generating change, but it initiates that change at a grassroots level, challenging the ideologies of the corporations and society, so as to raise awareness.
Refer to Dunne & Raby, Fabrica, as well as Linn.
At its core, Critical Design is a form of activism that, depending on the designer, can have a variety of targets and goals.

-Conclusion-
Massive Critical Change is not something that just springs out of nothing. Due to the nature of Critical Design and how it tends to operate, it can suffer from some serious pitfalls, but at the same time, it has the potential to have tangible influence on the generation of Massive Critical Change. It can be the spark that can start the fire.
However, that said, there is no fire without wind, and that wind is the companies and corporations with the money and power to influence the product market on a global scale. The socio-political weight they bring to the market allow the decisions they make to be well respected and often followed. Leading by example in the marketplace is one of the most powerful tools to bring about Massive Critical Change.
There is also one final option. The flame is picked up by the people. The flame is nurtured and spread through the public, gaining momentum through popularity. People have the power to make change happen, but only if the change is popular enough.
Massive Critical Change is no random event. Regardless of the initiation, the effect on the world can be truly massive.

-Bibliography-
Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., Newell, M. (2004). Critical Design Ethnography: Designing for Change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254-268. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.2.254

BOWEN, S. J. (2007). Crazy ideas or creative probes?: presenting critical artefacts to stakeholders to develop innovative product ideas. In: Proceedings of EAD07: Dancing with Disorder: Design, Discourse and Disaster, Izmir, Turkey, 11-13 April 2007

Brown, T. (2009, July). Tim Brown Urges Designers To Think Big [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html

Coughlan, P. (2010). How Might Design Catalyse Massive (Positive) Change? The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (37), 34-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/497142247?accountid=14782

Fabrica. (2013). About Fabrica. Retrieved May 17^, 2013, from http://www.fabrica.it/about

Klaassen, R., & Neicu, M. (2011). CTRL–Alt–Design. In Proceedings of the Design History Society Annual Conference Design Activism and Social Change.

Linn, R. & Hayman, J. (n.d.). Can Businesses Actually Make The World Better While Making Money?. Co.Exist. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/

Mau, B. & Institute without Boundaries. (2004). Massive Change. London, U.K.: Phaidon Press.

Melles, G. & Feast, L. (2013). Design Thinking and Critical Approaches: The Pragmatist Compromise.

Yauner, F. (2009). Can Critical Design Create a Debate, if it just keeps Talking to Itself?. Retrieved from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/

CCDN 271: Assignment Three: Make a Claim and Substantiate It

The influence Critical Design can have on Affirmative Design and its actual validity as a game changer is, in my opinion tenuous, at best. With Affirmative Design propped up by both the capitalist and consumerist worlds it would seem improbable that Critical Design could harness enough momentum to topple such a well-established and well entrenched stronghold in the market place.

Dunne & Raby state that one of the biggest misconceptions of Critical Design is “that it is only commentary and cannot change anything” (2013). Critical Design is closer to the everyday than art, and that is where its power to disturb current societal trends comes from. If Critical Design were too weird, it would become art, and yet if it is too normal, it would become part of normal life, assumed into society, and become part of normality (Dunne & Raby, 2013).

The essay will argue that Critical Design has little capacity to instigate massive change. Critical Design is unable to lead with consumable examples, as debates relating to critical design often rarely leave the elitist and relatively rarefied art galleries and institutions they are displayed in (Yauner, 2009). Critical Design at its best only challenges the status quo with provocative questions and ideas, due to the nature and scale of its work (Dunne & Raby, 2013).

I will assert that for change to really happen, it has to be generated through popularity or through corporate power - affirmative processes that effectively change the status quo, not challenge it. This essay asserts that big corporations truly hold this sort of power, as “One incremental change for them (the Home Depots and Nikes of this world) becomes massive change for the entire industry” (Mau, pp.26, 2004). Big businesses; such as Home Depot, have the ability to control the market and impose new policies because of their corporate bulk (Mau, pp.26, 2004). This essay contends that Critical Design should not be acknowledged or credited with anything other than complex strategies for suggestion, as the capacity for change comes from popularity, and critical design is due to its nature an unpopular sector of design (Barab, 2004).

Starting with Klaassen & Neicu’s paper CTRL-Alt-Design, this essay will look at the concept of open design; where product design is outsourced to the consumers themselves. The designers have to relinquish control, allowing for a maker society where rather than selling products, the designers create the means to make the products. “They must become metadesigners” (Klaasen & Neicu, 2011). According to Coughlan, design itself has the power to change the world, although some people would argue that design has also been instrumental in endangering the planet, reminding us to exercise a degree of caution (2010). The expansion of the maker society will usher in a new age, where design becomes a true force for positive change, (Klaasen & Neicu, 2011) and that design “may have its greatest impact when it is taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone” (Brown, 2009).

Nominating Massive Change as the intersecting theme, this essay will look at the global impact created by an evolving method of design thinking, underpinned by some of the afore-mentioned sources. Design theory is given an increasingly different role in a changing capitalist world with respect to consumers and producers, as the roles of the two are beginning to change significantly (Klaasen & Neicu, 2011). The essay will provide a valid critique of Critical Design in a world dictated by consumers and powerful corporations, while also looking at the flipside of critical design and what roles it proclaims itself to fill. Understanding why and how massive change occurs, and what elements have influenced the world of design to instigate said massive change, is the key to realising the true potential or non-potential of critical design as a game changer.

Bibliography

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., Newell, M. (2004). Critical Design Ethnography: Designing for Change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254-268. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.2.254

Brown, T. (2009, July). Tim Brown Urges Designers To Think Big [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html

Coughlan, P. (2010). How Might Design Catalyse Massive (Positive) Change? The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (37), 34-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/497142247?accountid=14782

Klaassen, R., & Neicu, M. (2011). CTRL–Alt–Design. In Proceedings of the Design History Society Annual Conference Design Activism and Social Change.

Linn, R. & Hayman, J. (n.d.). Can Businesses Actually Make The World Better While Making Money?. Co.Exist. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/

Mau, B. & Institute without Boundaries. (2004). Massive Change. London, U.K.: Phaidon Press.

Melles, G. & Feast, L. (2013). Design Thinking and Critical Approaches: The Pragmatist Compromise.

Yauner, F. (2009). Can Critical Design Create a Debate, if it just keeps Talking to Itself?. Retrieved from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/

CCDN 271: Assignment Two: Identifying a Standpoint & Support

The influence Critical Design enforces over Affirmative Design and its actual validity as a true game changer is, in my opinion tenuous, at best. With Affirmative Design propped up by both the capitalist and consumerist worlds it would seem improbable that Critical Design could harness enough momentum to topple such a well-established and well entrenched stronghold in the market place.

The essay will argue that Critical Design has little capacity to instigate massive change. Critical Design is unable to lead with consumable examples and at best only challenges the status quo with provocative questions and ideas. I will assert that for change to really happen, it has to be generated through popularity - affirmative processes that effectively change the status quo, not challenge it. This essay asserts that big corporations truly hold this sort of power, as suggested by Linn & Hayman’s article Can Big Businesses Make the World Better While Making Money? This essay contends that Critical Design should not be acknowledged or credited with anything other than complex strategies for suggestion.

Starting with Klaassen & Neicu’s paper CTRL-Alt-Design, this essay will look at the concept of open design; where product design is outsourced to the consumers themselves, the designers having to relinquish control, allowing for a maker society where rather than selling products, the corporations sell the means to make the products. This essay will also look at how design as a practice has been affected, but not truly changed, by Critical Design. It will also look at how Critical Design is too inwardly focussed to create a noticeable grassroots effect, as supported by Yauner’s investigation Can Critical Design Create a Debate, if it just keeps Talking to Itself?.

Nominating Massive Change as the intersecting theme, this essay will look at the global impact created by an evolving culture of design and the design method; supported by Melles & Feast’s research Design Thinking and Critical Approaches: The Pragmatist Compromise, as well as Coughlan’s article How Might Design Catalyse Massive (Positive) Change?, where the design theory is given an increasingly different role in a changing capitalist world with respect to consumers and producers. It will provide a valid critique of Critical Design in a world dictated by consumers and powerful corporations. The essay will also seek to understand why Massive Change occurs, and what corporations have influenced the world of design to instigate said Massive Change. The primary text I will use is Massive Change by Bruce Mau and the Institute without Boundaries.

Bibliography

Barab, S. A., Thomas, M. K., Dodge, T., Squire, K., Newell, M. (2004). Critical Design Ethnography: Designing for Change. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 254-268. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.2.254

Coughlan, P. (2010). How Might Design Catalyse Massive (Positive) Change? The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (37), 34-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/497142247?accountid=14782

Klaassen, R., & Neicu, M. (2011). CTRL–Alt–Design. In Proceedings of the Design History Society Annual Conference Design Activism and Social Change.

Linn, R. & Hayman, J. (n.d.). Can Businesses Actually Make The World Better While Making Money?. Co.Exist. Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/

Mau, B. & Institute without Boundaries. (2004). Massive Change. London, U.K.: Phaidon Press.

Melles, G. & Feast, L. (2013). Design Thinking and Critical Approaches: The Pragmatist Compromise.

Yauner, F. (2012). Can Critical Design Create a Debate, if it just keeps Talking to Itself?. Retrieved from http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/

CCDN 271: Assignment One: Tools for Investigation – Assessing and Critiquing Sources

Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, USA: Basic Books.

Starting with a fierce grounding in design psychology, Norman’s book analyses the way we look at the everyday items that surround us. Norman encourages us to think about the attachments we build with our mundane possessions presenting both a stark criticism of poorly designed commonplace objects, as well as a heartfelt call out to everyone that has precious simple possessions.

This source is relevant to the first topic of “the everyday”, as it looks in depth at the emotional connection people establish with the objects, as well as the significance of the effect of the design on that connection. The relevance is also inherent since Norman looks at the defining differences between a possession and an object. Emotional attachment to everyday things is generated through a range of elements, including the design of the object itself, as well as other crucial elements.

Yao, M. Z., Rice, R. E., Wallis, K. (2007). Predicting user concerns about online privacy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(5), 710-722. doi:10.1002/asi.20530

With the propagation of the internet continuously expanding, the need to study the way people feel about their online privacy grows ever larger. The ASI’s study explores this concern, while also seeking to understand the human need for privacy, as well as investigating the concept of self-efficacy and whether the internet needs to be regulated.

The investigation is extremely relevant for the topic of “Google Warming”, if maybe a little outdated at about 5 years old now. It has a lot to say with regards to not just privacy concerns, but other relevant lead-ins to the topic as well. The exploration into the primal need for privacy is particularly interesting, as it looks at it from an evolutionary perspective, a refreshing perspective to say the least. The text also reaches an extremely appropriate conclusion, that the concern about online privacy is not a unique concept, but rather an old problem that has manifested itself in a new technology.

Walther, B. K., Philipsen, H., Agerbæk, L., Wildermuth, N., Løfgreen, L. B., Grønning, A., . . . Pilegaard, J. (2010). Designing for Critique, Designing for Reflection. In T. B. Jacobsen (Ed.), Designing New Media: Learning, Communication and Innovation (pp. 75-110). Copenhagen, Denmark: Academica.

The chapter in this book deals with the notion of critical design being neither art nor traditional design, but more of a splinter cell of design, seeking to amaze, raise awareness, and provoke people. The ideas presented challenge our idea of what is normal and what is strange. Løfgreen seeks in his chapter of Designing New Media to find a universal definition of critical design, while at the same time creating a deep rift between the understandings of what design is versus what art represents in a societal context.

The relevancy of this source has to be partially unearthed to be properly understood. Looking at critical design via a psychological perspective, it grants insights into the way critical designers think. The concepts often deal with elements of life that we find to be embarrassments, and seek to pose questions like “why do they need to exist?”.

Buechley, L., & Perner-Wilson, H. (2012). Crafting technology: Reimagining the processes materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), Article No 21. doi:10.1145/2362364.2362369

Buechley & Perner-Wilson present us with an extensive background on the development of craft, which is nowadays almost synonymous with DIY. The article discusses the physical and mental experience of designing and creating using the skill set that crafts generate. The article also includes surveys with craftspeople, and also incorporates a look at the psychology behind craft, as well as what it means for society as a whole.

This source discusses the gender stereotyping inherent in the history of DIY/craft, as well as bringing the nature of craft to the page. Craft is an extremely individual, creative industry, fraught with problems of its own, separate from those of high design. The evolution of craft into a “makers” society is very interesting, as it shows a move towards industrialisation, despite the very essence of craft being anti-industrial. The article explores this movement in-depth, drawing intriguing conclusions.