Material Innovations

The following categories are based upon separate articles that represent three divergent ways of approaching design—and the successes and challenges that each of these methods face.

urban activism at work

Contestational Design: focused on the role of design activism, seen particularly through the lens of the technology utilized by activists

This mode of activism as design acts separately and autonomously from other systems—it works from the outside in, functioning on the outer limits of the mainstream, while also somehow managing to steer the trends of broader society.

Positives:

+new ideas are developed quickly out of necessity to meet every-changing needs and desires

+the unique context of the development of contestational design leads to innovation that often results in solutions that address broader trends

+higher degree of autonomy than design counterparts working in the commercial realm

+inherently creates personal connections, as the work often relates to the empowerment of the individual, and collective action

+long-lasting relationships are formed between designers through genuine solidarity—not just written agreements or documents

+ provides rewarding and meaningful work for those involved—because it is separate from career-driven work

Natalie Jeremijenko's Feral Robotic Dogs

Negatives:

-heightened pressure and opposition from external forces

-minimal data collection involved in design work

-replicability and speed are favored over long-term sustainability

-face overwhelming challenges and pushback from various levels of power (political and otherwise)

Indian craftwork in the marketplace

Designing Freedom focused on the interaction between designers and traditional craftspeople in India

This particular lens sees the role of design as working in partnership with other modes of creativity and making.

Positives:

+designers can be trained to help empower craftspeople—and to help others solve their own problems in general; act as co-creators

+may act as catalysts for change by posing the right questions, in order that people become engaged of their own accord

+the designer has the possibility of being the “integrator, the bringer-together, the crucible between customers and craftspeople”

+ “design can empower the individual craftsperson to create balance between these forces, and thus make ‘right’ decisions”

+design as collaborator be may used to clarify issues that are associated with craft, create ways to strategize, and “leverage the situation for the benefit of craft”

+can help create a bridge between craft and the citizens of the 21^st century

+ can help in the process of role-realization for craftspeople

Negatives:

-design solutions that merely partner with makers often do not take into account the craftsperson’s point of view

-design as a separate entity from the making too often results in the establishment of the “upper” (an elitist, status division)

-design can cause there to be a distinction between the thinking and the making of the object—good design thinking should connect the left and the right brain

-danger of design allowing a loss of rootedness in tradition and inherent community connections

Faroe Islands Education Center: by Bjarke Ingels Group

Yes is More. focused on the work of the Bjarke Ingels Group

This kind of design makes all the decisions—it is the overarching and dominant force behind the concept, creation and completion of an idea.

Positives:

+designs through the lens of incorporating a variety of concerns and thinking through all possibilities

+ design as a way to enter the system at a leverage point, to “shortcircuit an irresolvable political debate”

+ merging the master plan and the masterpiece means you really get to produce something you want; you recognize the problem and actualize the solutions

+ addresses issues that cross all borders—social concerns, issues of urbanism, aesthetics, architectural plans, etc.

Negatives:

-there is the danger of only producing one point of view if one cohesive group is responsible for so many levels of decision-making

-one individual entity is responsible for solving all the issues

-when one takes on this much power, there becomes the necessity to negotiate politically at some level, as well

-much more prone to receive criticism if responsible for all decisions

So where do I fit into these design schemes? Speaking purely objectively, I would like to most identify with designer as partner, simply because this framework makes sense to me as a tool for the empowerment of others. However, the idea of Gesamtkunstwerk is quite central to the way I work—I love having a vision of the big picture and the capability to fashion each facet myself—and so, in truth, I think I am much more aligned with the approach of Bjarke Ingels and his team. I see nothing inherently wrong in working this way, although there is the fear that with much power, one can become rather dictatorial or totalitarian in thought. As Poonam Bir Kasturi states in her piece on Designing Freedom, “For learning, power is a disability. ” Though it seems as though Ingals is able to continue being a listener, and to take other ideas into the fold of his work, I see there being a danger of the separation between “uppers” and “lowers.” To use a slightly non-sequiter example, I am reminded of the world of fashion, and Anna Wintour’s (the head of American Vogue) role within in it. She has this kind of overarching, dominant power which allows her to have a very clear, distinct vision of what she wants Vogue to be (and exercises her power to do so), but as a result, the American public sees fashion through the eyes of Anna Wintour, as opposed to a variety of viewpoints.

And thus, I believe that working this way—to be the choreographer, the dancer, the set designer, and the musician—can make for very exciting, cohesive, seamless results, but it also requires one to walk a very fine line. One must stay open and receptive to the ideas of others in order to learn first, and then succeed.