08. December 2009
Thinking Multiplicity
Our time is characterized by accelerating changes in cultural, social and political as well as in economic and technologic sphere. They are sometimes part of life before we have found for ourselves language to express these phenomena’s. Although the speed of reality hardly leaves us space to reflect we do need time for taxation of these new aspects. More over we are seriously challenged to adjust our advanced life to this shifting context.
Evolution is of all ages, but today’s shifts are marked by huge density and quantity (urban life and information), by the parallel complexities that are intertwined (the relation of cause and consequence, as for instance in regard to the ecosystem), and by the invisibility of its appearances (like genetic, bio and nanotechnology), which challenge our capacities as never before. The present dominant neo-conservative mind set shows us that we have difficulties with these changes. The world opened up, knowledge is available, technology all over, and we are able to communicate with everyone. But at the same time from cultural perspective we have great difficulties with the ‘other’ and fear is currently one of the key drivers of global society. Stated in the critical reader published in occasion of the Dutch pavilion of the Venice Art Biennial 2007: The gab between the negative and positive poles of power, however, and the means to gain access to self-empowerment, is growing wider and deeper by the day, under the pervasive pressure of negative political passions, global warfare, structural injustices, gender inequalities, growing racism and a state of enforced fear and suspicion of others. The economic disparities between continents grow bigger and bigger, but also within each country social and economic segregation is increasing. The equal access to resources, finance and information has not developed in the same pace as the economic growth itself. In many countries the political landscape is dominated by centre right standpoints and the debate itself takes often place in headline vocabulary. We miss the voice of nuance – a condition for reflection and progress.
The culture of design can be perceived as an indicator that tells us how we think and adapt to contemporary context. If we design, shape and build our environment we write and read human culture. Sometimes it happens that developers bring alternatives to existing attitudes, new tools or commodities that change our habits. As we can see how the iPod have changed the music industry. But foremost we encounter examples of adjustments of existing concepts. This we see in corporate design (repetition) and the design of car manufacturers (alternation). We see technological erections such as oversized video screens that pop up on the hotspots in public space, and which are nervously trying to convince us about their relevance. Another example is the free newspaper at morning rush hour, a widespread phenomenon across Europe. Although in both examples their high communicative promises those media are mainly filled with loose messages, low quality images, visual effects and one-dimensional commercial radiation. The randomly chosen forms and the words that belong to the persistent communication repertoire often do not touch us anymore. It is about presence (dasein), not about intent or relevance. The long-term effect is a culture of indifference and apathy.
Increasingly the designed appearance and technologic presence is a condition to be recognizable and to take full part in society. This is often called ‘having identity’ or ‘communication’. In fact, often is meant ‘being recognized’ or ‘being visible’. In economized society the principle of visibility mainly comes to the surface in the form of brand strategies. It is this strategic mode of communication that conditions people in their mental en physical orientation and which influences their consumer behaviour. Design and designers are massively instrumentalized to work within the strict boundaries of those strategies. Never before we were so obsessed by identity and physical appearance as now. This will even increase in the near future.
During recent years design has become fashionable and part of the political agenda of the corporate and public sector. Countries even started to establish national design policies (called creative industry) to create possibilities for differentiation, identity and economic benefit in the market and public realm. A creative landscape is a fruitful source for inspiration and for business, however the reflective component within the design discipline needs always its place to secure the discipline itself. Today, art, which inhabits the ability to show society the value of the alternative (in conceptual thought and image) have become not seldom primarily a business and public relation consultants advice even artists. By the omnipresence of design, also the ‘un-designed’ or that what is not mediated through design has become a different valuation as well. Being un-designed is hardly possible, because it is not expected in the regular social fabric. And even the un-designed is also designed. Think about many subcultures in which strict visual codes circulate that are also fostered by corporate intent.
Design is all about change. To design is about the transformation from one state into another (projected) state. Within its own concept the wish for change is always present and that aim executed for instance by a modification, through re-ordering or a reshape or the invention of the subject matter itself. The wishes for those changes (designs) are as diverse as their incentives, the demands, the interests of the corporate and non-corporate commissioners, and the groups of people, the public, and the professionals from the design field. But why design seems so limited when we look to the actual output. As a designer I am sometimes reluctant towards design, because of its exchangeability of the design strategies and its output. Often we are confronted with environments with designer chairs or perfect Wallpaper lounges, which frequently are ‘copied images’ from earlier reproductions. This modus operandi of design bears the same efficiency that the concept of Human Resource Management (HRM) inhabits by managing resources instead of dealing with humans.
Here I would like to plea for another attitude towards design. Design is about the process of valorisation. A designer observes and analyses the matter of its assignment. He/she questions the design question: why that question has been asked to him? In whose interest has the question been posed? What are the various problem definitions? And so on... Depending on the formulation of the design problem, the assignment changes its orientation. Which type of design processes is relevant to the design problem? When the right tools for the design problem are not available new instruments need to be developed and designed. The design problem is defined by the context of a commission. It is the same principle of a square – the space around the square defines the square. However still designers tend to stick to the world of design instead of focussing on the design of the world.
In regard to this in times of accelerating changes more conceptual creativity is necessary. We need to train ourselves, rather than trying to give answers, to learn to pose interesting and relevant questions. Instead of falling back on the sedimented habits of thought, institutionalized by tradition, the logic of the (design) economy, we propose a leap forward into the complexities and paradoxes of our times. We need to work together towards a renewing of the grammar of our social and economic interaction, the social imaginary about citizenship and cultural identity. We need to invest in different and sustainable ways of harvesting the resources and qualities of earth.
The field of design needs to invest in a design culture based on clear observation, knowledge, diverse and multiplicity attitudes. Design is in need to become sensible for issue management and being connected with realities to make the field of design sustainable. The designer needs to rethink about his role in society and market. Is it a role that is focussed on formalities or is it a role as a catalyst? Depending on its context he can be an economic catalyst, or a social political catalyst, or a cultural catalyst. Being a broker in concepts, relationships and strategies. The designer catalyst is aware of his context, the urgent and the dynamics around. But he is also aware about the chances and possibilities. For gaining relevance of his activity the visionary designer needs to think and act in a multiplicity way. Informed, analytical, cross-referential, un-dogmatic and after all near to human life.
Zurich September 16, 2007 © Evert Ypma