Martino Gamper, “One hundred chairs in one hundred days in one hundred different ways”
The traditional practices of industrial design (1) focuses on the shape of the object, its materials and its productive process. It is generally based upon various branches of engineering. Once you add ergonomics to industrial design the field starts to expand: the human body appears, with its dimensions and its limits. Ergonomics and physiology become relevant.
Widen the scope and you arrive to the present situation: objects become interactive, computers disappear into the objects. Interaction design, computer sciences and various branches of psychology have to be added.
Moving the camera further backward, we see the objects as nodes within networks. The background becomes foreground (and viceversa): objects become touchpoints, part of complex services. Some more computer science, without forgetting marketing and business management.
Can we broaden our angle of vision even more? But above all, is it useful and does it make sense to look at a wider field?
If we accept this challenge, we will notice that these levels of organization and activity of objects, services, environments and human are governed by practices that are probably best studied by sociology (and science-fiction, someone would say).
In this progressive widening of perspective, all the design techniques we mentioned before still apply to their specific level (you may design a complex service architecture, but the underlying layers of computer-human interaction and ergonomics still apply). Climbing up to the level of practices has the great advantage of distributing properly the various disciplinary responsibilities.
Finally, before entering the sixteen families of our grid, we would like to share the conditions of relevance for our selection and classification (2).
The families of items collected by us always refer to “objects”, whether they are analog or digital. Of course when we say “object” we say it in a philosophical sense: Bakelite glasses are an object, a bike-sharing service is another object, the content of a tape cassette with Commodore 64 software (do you remember?) is again an object.
We like to start from contemporary situations and environment (mostly having to do with “everyday” life) and then go back in time to see if there were other places and people busy with similar problems. After grouping these findings into the sixteen families we mentioned above, we went further in our reflection and we let ourselves be led to some curious results springing from our classification exercise.
So far, we have mostly focused on the relationship between the “how” and the “what”. Perhaps it could be useful to be spend some few words on the “why ‘” (i.e. what are the objectives of our course).
Why on earth devote all this energy to re-classifying the knowable universe of material culture?
Because it seems to be more and more relevant (while at the same time, previous classifications become less relevant). We are here in a school. Think the way we teach design to young students.
Let’s imagine four students. Alfredo, Barbara, Charles and Diana.
Alfredo and Barbara are in design school. Charles and Diana are enrolled in a school of fashion.
The dream of Alfredo is to go to work for Nintendo, designing interfaces for the Wii. Not so far from the dream of Diana (aiming for the marketing and communication department in Issey Miyake company in Tokyo). Meanwhile, Barbara is in love with the conceptually sophisticated self-production of Martino Gamper, while Charles would like to start a small company with some friends to explore the Sardinian regional textile tradition and cross it over with contemporary ingredients (Charles is a great admirer of Antonio Marras).
Under the current dominant mode of knowledge transmission, these four people would be grouped according to principles related to the “thing” (do you want to study graphic or fashion? design or visual arts?). Still, the empirical experience tells us that in terms of transmission of knowledge, the relevant bit has to do with the “how”. Everyone knows that Alfred (Mr. Nintendo) should be in class together with Diana (Ms. Miyake, ie. the corporate world). There should also be another classroom where Barbara (self-design) sits next to Carlo (fashion as limited series of textile handicrafts).
The example above is just one, related to school. We could add several more, and this will be the main structure of this course.
As you might reasonably expect, the following classes have been organized around sixteen design “situations”. Almost all of these situations is integrated by some weblinks and the usual bibliography of paper sources. Our kind student is invited to leave this blog and move on to read other stuff every time a reference tickles his fancy..
Throughout the text we present some hard questions. These are the questions that come to our mind when we look at the world through this particular set of sixteen glasses. These questions generally don’t have precise answers, and when we do not have them, we are fairly unsure about them (be warned that when our answers look convincing and appropriate, this is the moment when we are lying). Our sympathy goes to the designer who is able to come up with new questions and never considered issues (compared to his colleague who works producing accurate and detailed answers to given questions).
At any rate, we are more proud of our questions than of our answers. Here is the first question for you:
Imagine you go to restaurant with your friends, to have dinner. You arrive and you are shown a kitchen where you are told you’ll have to cook the dinner by yourself. And there is more: you’ll also have to set the table and serve yourself. Once you have eaten you will have to clean up everything, and – of course – you will have to be very happy to pay for the whole thing. The restaurant will give us only the ingredients and a series of simple recipes in iconic format.
A strange restaurant indeed.
If you think for a moment, it is not so strange. This is what Ikea does with furniture: Ikea has created a new set of behaviors for us. We are all happy to transport the things home, assemble them on our own, and feel incredibly smart and contemporary because we have paid a lot of money and performed a number of operation previously performed by a vendor. Ikea, in other words, has relalabeled what used to be the work of porters and movers as a part of acceptable middle class living.
Why does Ikea manage to pull of this magic feat, and others cannot? Where is the secret?
1. For the ones interested in this topic, the best introduction to the world of industrial design is: John Heskett, “Industrial Design”, Thames & Hudson, New York, 1985.
At the same time we shouldn’t forget the recent book by Richard Sennett: “The Craftsman“, Yale University Press, 2008. Sennett comes up with an amount of very interesting questions (and convincing arguments) related to the supposed relevance of industry as we know and its production models. A very interesting text that helps us understand how the newest technologies could bring the idea of “craftmanship” at the center stage. Sennett says: “The mistake that the economy is paying is to have based itself on a short term vision and a model of organizational flexibility, instability and speed to adapt to change. This is also what happened with the management of human capital: no resources have been invested in knowledge, and the workers during these recent yearshave been able able to acquire only a partial experience, working in fragmented and unstable companies. In my book “The Craftsman” I highlight the difference between those who just know how to do something and are content with that, and those who possess a craftsmanship that leads to continual improvement. Today this vision has no place in large organizations”.
(published in: “Il Sole 24 Ore”, 14 January 2008)
Richard Sennett, “The Craftsman”
2. Geographers give us very useful warnings about descriptions. First of all, we have to be aware that a full description is completely impossible, because it would be infinite. Because of the infinite amount of details that could be observed in the world, a description must be in fact a selection. The parameters of the selection are what makes the description meaningful.
In an ideal process we start from the goals, from which we take the filtering parameters. Once we have the parameters, we can start observing. The nineteenth-century explorer who goes up the Nile searching for its source would pass by the Pyramids without noticing them, because of their irrelevance to him. From this point of view, the description is not only an analysis but it is a 100% “design” activity. These issues (as well as subtler ones) are discussed at lenght in: Giuseppe De Matteis, “Le metafore della terra. La geografia umana tra mito e scienza”, Feltrinelli, 1994. Similar consideratins apply to science, or even to very simple observation activities: every experiment, every operation related to data collection is supported by a hypothesis defining clearly what is data and what is noise.
Terry Gilliam, “Brazil” (or, Orwell vs Huxley…)
Name and things useful + important (to be remembered for the exam):