26
EDUCACIO EN DISSENY,
2009
Deglobalising DesignThe article, based on the presentation made at Educating Designers for Global Citizenship, UWC Cardiff, in November 2005, questions the role of design and recognises its potential as a tool of
social change beyond a profession intended to satisfy the needs of
industrial production, beyond
local-global considerations and from the context of a country like
India. It argues that design schools must enable hybridization of
different creative process and facilitate the development of a
community social awareness.
The First Salvo
“As long as [industrial design] concerns itself with confecting trivial toys, killing machines, and sexed-up shrouds, it has lost all reason to exist…” [ PAPANEK ]
When I first read Papanek around 1985, it came as a shock. Here I was, studying to be an industrial designer, in a world-class design school, a replica of the best in the West. And design was all about ushering in modernity and the good life to India. But we had already sensed something was deeply wrong, and Papanek made us realise it first: we were not in the West, we were in India. Design was not the same here as it was in the countries and cultures that we were trying to emulate. His critique applied to us doubly: not only from the sustainability and ethics point of view as he wrote, but also from the cultural and aesthetic point of view that we intuited. Indians became globalised circa 1700s, as part of the British Empire. Of course, our status was not of equals. Mahatma Gandhi led our fight for independence in the early twentieth century, but he kept unforgivingly pointing out the unequals in our midst – the underprivileged, untouched and untouchable. In 1907, he critiqued ‘civilisation’ and technology as being highly problematic and inimical to real swaraj (self-rule) particularly for India. It was he who argued passionately for empowering communities to become self-sufficient and sustainable till his last breath. Today, India is again a hub of globalisation, one of the catalysts for which is a colonial relic – the English language. Our unequals remain as they were, gaining little out of India’s global achievements, of course, this view will not be universally accepted. I firmly believe, however, that it is time to rethink our models of growth, progress and development, and reorient design. And here, by ‘we’ I don’t only mean India but the whole planet. Globalisation is not helping build a planetary consciousness and collective responsibility. And Yet… “What inspires consumers to spend money in a slow economy? Frequently, it’s a hot, new, attention-grabbing design that creates an emotional ‘Gotta Have It!’ response. Design has always been one of the most compelling reasons why consumers buy a product, but never more so than today.” [ IDSA 2003 Design Trends Report ]
This is how the Industrial Designers Society of America positions ‘design’, but it could well be the Indian design establishment or industry lobbies such as the Confederation of Indian Industry. What is particularly embarrassing is that while this text is applicable [problematic as it is] to the present reality of Western economies, it remains at the aspirational level for us. Our developmental ideal is to match Western standards of living for our entire population, even though in private we know this is impossible. We aren’t content with aspiring towards the qualitative aspects but seek to emulate it in manifest form as well, the implications of which we know on our planet’s health. And the world’s industry is only too happy perpetuating this. Indian industry, in the most part, finds it easier to import or copy than to commission original innovation, notwithstanding the odd Tata Nano even if we were to discount its own problematic. In our economy, innovation occurs invisibly—at the bottom of the so-called pyramid or even outside of the pyramid—where the innovator, producer and user are often from the same locality and subculture, and sometimes even one and the same person. A Reluctant Majority; A Fragmented Minority “The ‘First Things First 2000’ manifesto was in fact an updated version of a similar document published in 1964; this shows that the issues addressed in it were long-standing and were unresolved. The tumult instigated by this text highlighted the ambivalence of many designers towards the profession’s perceived role[s].” [ MEYER ]
Issues of social responsibility do find greater currency in India than the apparently low levels in the West, although this proportion seems to be changing of late. Any sensitive person cannot help noticing the stark contrast between the slick designs being created in the studios and the ever-increasing squalor and poverty around us, the increasing failure of the infrastructure, and the very different aesthetic and culture of our streets as compared with what we learn and later, practice and preach. However, the majority of Indian designers would be as ambivalent about their profession’s ultimate role and positioning as their Western counterparts, remaining mutely sympathetic to alternative causes. My own informal study suggests that those designers who have pursued alternative careers do find their education relevant, but are dissatisfied with the lack of exposure to alternative career options and the absence of critical perspectives in college. This leaves only a small minority of us who are committed to re-orienting design towards addressing wider and more meaningful purposes. Yet, it seems to me that even this small minority is fragmented into different, almost competitive positions titled variously as social design, service design, design for sustainability, eco-design, and so on. What is the reason behind this? Possibly this has to do with where each of us comes from, the particular context, brand of politics, book or theory that has inspired us whether it’s guilt or biomimicry, dematerialisation or natural capitalism. But I suspect there’s also this competitive streak, the desire to be ‘the next big thing’. Some of our differences are superficial, but some run very deep… This is a very crude attempt at mapping the contradictions on one plane: On the North-South axis, I map the contrary positions of ‘more’ versus ‘less’ (in terms of consumption or GDP). On the West-East axis, I map [the] ‘north’ versus [the] ‘south’. In each quadrant, I have listed an approach towards improving quality of life. This is very cursory, we need to articulate and map out all our positions and contradictions in relation to each other, and obtain a strategic perspective of our cumulative efforts. Understanding differences even within this minority rather than glossing over them can only help us. Is there anything at all, then, that we do agree upon? Assuming what motivates all of us is a concern for a sustainable future for our entire planet (and all its inhabitants), we obviously cannot condone the dominant historical approach to ‘growth’ and ‘development’. Can we first agree to reject the all-pervasive ‘eternal abundance’ growth and development model –that the affluent countries have grown wealthy but precariously unsustainable with, and that the poorer countries are clamouring to embrace as their magic wand for growth? Delinking Design from Economics “From the very beginning, design has been firmly fixed in the mechanisms of consumer culture [The] ‘design for the market’ approach is in large measure a contributing element in the difficulties designers face today as they try to [develop] a much-needed ‘social model’ of design practice.” [ MEYER, MARGOLIN ]
Clearly, the market model has run its course. It is becoming more and more obvious now that our very measures of progress, growth and development are inadequate and misleading. Yet, our governments and global institutions refuse to unqualifiedly acknowledge this folly, nor is business able to embrace changing our systems of measure. All contemporary design education has emerged from the Bauhaus model, which was defined in the [European] context of rebuilding a war-torn economy by raising levels of industrial production and consumption. This ‘economic growth’ model continues to define [and constrain] us. It is time to reconceptualise design in tune with contemporary knowledge [about the past, present and future] and re-prioritise our current and future constituencies. It was Einstein who said that you can’t hope to solve a problem if you’re steeped in the same consciousness that created it in the first place. Today, we have the opportunity to step outside the mindset that created the problem of non-sustainable and inequitable economic growth, thanks to the tremendous advances in knowledge and understanding we’ve gained from the ecological sciences. To this, I submit another field that can contribute to our knowledge and understanding—spirituality. That is why my position on sustainability is that it won’t be achieved without two kinds of transformation: external and internal. I submit that design has to engage with both, not merely the external. Therefore, I would like to extend the notion of the ‘social model’ to a ‘spiritual model’. I get my inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi, who insisted on individual action prior to or simultaneously with collective action to achieve self-reliance and win political independence. What’s Wrong with Design for Business? Here is how business may well argue for design for sustainability: “We should develop products which [people] love and cherish… [with] which [they may get] so attached to that they revolt against the prospect of losing it.” [ OTTO ]
This was a totally earnest but hopelessly naïve suggestion made at a UK Design Council seminar on sustainable design: as long as sustainability can be somehow co-opted into the endless growth and profits paradigm, it is fine. To me, it captures the typically myopic and blinkered response of business to the challenge of sustainability. In my experience at least to be perfectly honest, the vast majority of business, in its pursuit of delivering shareholder value, is about avoiding risk unless absolutely unavoidable and attaining endless growth—including those with heavy research and innovation budgets. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is their favourite mantra. ‘Innovation’ reads well in brochures and advertisements, but it raises the chances of failure. On the other hand, design is all about disruptive change. When we claim that design is the art/science of risk-proof industrial innovation, we actually ‘dumb it down’ – we diminish its potency. When we deploy it for short-term, tactical purposes, we again diminish its potency. In its thirteen years of existence, the school where I teach has only been approached by industry for tactical assignments, often seeking to exploit the classroom as a cheap source of unchallenging ideas. On the other hand, I see that NGOs are more open to longer-term, strategic projects, and often provide the really exciting design challenges, but they don’t have the luxury of lavish funds, nor do they supply the opportunity for glamour or ego boosting. Let us agree once and for all that business values and disposition are intrinsically antithetical to a social/ecological agenda and even to an unconstrained ideation and innovation agenda, while design has enormous affinity with social, ecological and spiritual values and change is its vital nutrition—the more radical, the better. So, why not leave the management of business and risk in secure and predictable ways to the CAs and MBAs? Let them approach design only when and if they are truly open to radical ideas that aim at social transformation. Can we rescue design to its unconstrained potential of being ‘the’ discipline of ideas, of creative social or systemic transformation, liberated from any narrow context? Isn’t Design – Business = Art? If we ‘de-frame’ design from business, what we obtain is not ‘art’, but ideas and methods (many do overlap with art): what some call ‘design thinking’. A core element of ‘design thinking’ is systems thinking –an ecological concept– just as another is out-of-the-box thinking. For many of us, design without a business ‘frame’ is tantamount to art. I remember my own indoctrination at d-school: anything that didn’t make money got trashed as ‘art’. Artists were self-indulgent and unaccountable losers; designers, on the other hand, were the people with a mission: with problems to solve and industries to save. This comparison was as artificial as it was counter-productive: we denied ourselves the incredible wealth of ideas that originate from art. I’m glad to note that design is now being abstracted of its application context (in the Ph.D. discussion groups, at least), and its real value as a combination of ideas and methods is being realised. My thesis is that design comprises two core elements: systems or holistic thinking and creative or out-of-the-box thinking. I see art and design on the same continuum – design merely (and unfortunately!) tends to be more methodical, conservative and pragmatic. We Need New Exemplars · Enrique Peñalosa: Bogotá · Margrit Kennedy: No-Interest Money
· Laurie Baker: Local Building
· Michelangelo Pistoletto: Love Difference network
· Lyonpo Jigme Thinley: Gross National Happiness
· Masanobu Fukuoka: Do-Nothing Farming
· Carlo Petrini: Slow Food movement
· Sudhir Sahi/UNDP/Government of India: Endogenous Tourism
Here is the irony: some of the most breakthrough design ideas of late have come from non-designers. Each of these embody a systems perspective with some audacious out-of-the-box thinking, that should put us to shame. Mind you, it’s not important whether they are succeeding or not (let us de-link design from the tyranny of success once and for all], but the sheer intelligence of their idea and its ability to trigger better ideas [let us firmly focus design on achieving quality ideas). I would like to compile all these and more such case studies, to show students that a career in design can actually be creatively exciting, challenging and fulfilling. Can we steer them towards great (not necessarily ‘big’) ideas as their legitimate role and purpose? Why can’t we enable and empower our students to produce hundreds of such breakthrough ideas? I believe this is simply because we do not set up such challenges for them. Instead, we ‘dumb-down’ their minds by setting inane (business-defined) challenges in the belief that it will train them better for an industry job. How do we liberate design to becoming the discipline of quality ideas and societal innovation? I will share with you a list of inspiring and intriguing ideas picked out from the scrapbook in my mind. I have chosen those that can be applied at an institutional as well as at a personal level, and I truly hope they will spark or catalyse our individual as well as collective thought process here. Here then are a dozen assorted suggestions, some drawn from Srishti’s experience. 1. Understand the Political Economy of Design “To comprehend how design evolves from an individual activity of proximate designers into an ‘object’ of politics, we should understand the political economy of design. This begins from the notion of design as a process of creating artifacts that have economic value.” [ SULFIKAR AMIR ]
An extremely important step is to learn from our past: understand our own cumulative impact on our society and environment. A study on the political economy of design, in terms of who really gains and at whose expense through our interventions, is imperative. This is the one book I would love to write, and I’d be happy if someone got there before I do. 2. Interrogate ‘Growth’ and ‘Development’ “Liberalisation helps the rich access design more easily, widening the gap. Importing products crushes local talent.Uncritically adopting alien cultural norms for design triggers flight of talent. Flight of value leaves no option but to export labour and raw materials. Design for the ‘public good’ rendered unviable, disappears. Real ‘problems’ and ‘quality of life’ issues ignored in favour of more trivial ones. Creates want, not choice [and ‘freedom’ implicit] ‘Globalisation’ should not mean following the Western example.” [ BALARAM ]
We need to problematise notions of growth and development – for our students, as well as for ourselves – and draw inferences and implications for design. For instance [above] is Balaram’s critique of liberalisation and globalisation. While he does not spell out an agenda for design, we can pretty much infer it by reading between the lines. The cry for social accountability from design is arising around the world. Here are three faculty members of the University of Botswana’s engineering department. “Most products that are used in Botswana are not compatible with the country’s conditions. Botswana is in a situation where, ‘the manifested needs of humankind [must] become the engines to drive design solutions.’ Despite this fact, designers still ignore the above needs and concentrate on the market demands which most of the time are not ‘needs’ but ‘wants’.” [ KHUMOMOTSE, M'RHITAA, MOALOSI ]
And here is Ezio Manzini. What he says here has grave consequences for developing countries like India, where the informal economy remains the country’s biggest social enterprise, and yet enjoys no legitimacy or political representation. “In the last century the idea [of ‘comfort’ and ‘growth’] generated and propagated throughout the world by the west, was [to grow in ways] that lead to a reduction in the informal economies and an increase in the formal economy entities that produce and deliver the services and products necessary.” [ MANZINI ]
3. Find Alternative Values, Clients and Roles “The basic human needs for material security and comfort are real and can be purchased, but beyond a certain point, [we confuse] consumption for the harder-won yet more-enduring values of love, peace of mind and contribution to others.” [ ROBIN ]
Critiquing is easy, but coming up with alternatives is tough, especially in a unipolar world – not just in terms of superpowers, but also in terms of ideas and ideologies. While all our governments seem to agree on a single idea, it is amazing how diametrically opposite their citizens feel. It appears that along with the commons, common sense and sensibility are also becoming disempowered. Let us not yield to the imaginary security of cynical pragmatism. Of course, this immediately raises the question of who is it that design works for? Who’ll pay our fees? From my experience and observations, there are a number of alternate clients for us: government, NGOs, no profits and community/social organisations, academic and cultural institutions, and the very substantial option of becoming idea-driven social entrepreneurs ourselves. There is also a huge ‘sunshine’ economy that’s emerged around fixing the unpleasant consequences of non-sustainability, like waste management, that has eluded our radar screens. I present business as just one of the many opportunity spaces for design and designers when I teach. The NextDesign Leadership Institute is already talking about shifting the focus of design from being a cog in the wheel to being the leader, and going beyond discipline-specific simple problems to non-discipline-specific complex problems. In brief, we have nothing to lose but our blinkers. 4. Audit and Reorient Pedagogy · Stop teaching counterproductive beliefs and values · Teach appropriate beliefs and values in more effective ways · Implement a pedagogy of liberation · Redefine progress as achieving sustainability · Replace anthropocentric values with eco-centric values · Remedy skill gaps · Reorient education towards the future · Eliminate parochialism [ LAUTENSACH. Empower the learner to take action. ]
A cliché but built around a kernel of truth, like most: education is the most obvious place to start making a difference. Alexander Lautensach identifies tertiary education as the key culprit propagating unsustainable ideas and practices, saying most decision-makers and proponents of such practices hold tertiary degrees. His point is that bringing about fundamental changes in educational values can promote sustainable behaviour and decision-making. I believe that his suggestions apply even more to design education, perhaps posing a bigger challenge for us than for general education. 5. Redefine the Method “When designers approach design ‘problems’ in this holistic, relational way; when they develop this systemic approach into a methodology, the design profession will finally be able to expand its horizons and become a truly social practice that addresses our real and almost overwhelming needs and concerns.” [ MEYER ]
Most design programs today have a course on systems thinking and design or strategic design [or their equivalent] at the advanced levels. It seems obvious that this should inform our approach to designing in every project we undertake subsequently. But does it, actually? Do we really apply systemic and strategic thinking to our innovation? If we do, what’s the reason for it usually failing to produce a genuine breakthrough? I wager it is the constraining frame of ‘business’ once again. And yet, when I do apply systemic and strategic thinking to an assignment, I know it produces amazing results every time. I believe systems thinking and strategic thinking are too important to be taught only at the graduate level, and not so difficult that they cannot be introduced at the foundational level. I propose we insert these modules as a precursor to beginning design activity, so they inform and contextualise the act of designing throughout its tenure. In this proposed model, I envisage widening the scope at the starting point, then introducing systems or ecological analysis and visualisation – both important new skills, followed by a strategic assessment of the various possible design interventions. The strategic dimension would introduce concepts of short-term versus long-term and optimal versus wasteful or limited. The idea is for the student designer to realise that she has to generate and choose from several strategic/systemic options prior to commencing actual design work. In fact, note that the actual designing part has been rather diminished in terms of proportion, in comparison with the pre-design analytical and strategic work. 6. Consolidate Old Skills “Social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision-makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.” [ BUCHANAN AND RITTEL ]
I’m sure you are all familiar with the concept of ‘wicked problems’, as defined originally by Rittel, and later quoted by Buchanan. I’m not sure I agree with Buchanan’s premise that designers are constantly dealing with ‘wicked problems’ [I actually wish they did] based on my experience of working on countless ‘no-brainer’ assignments, which is why I’m not sure if these are old skills that we merely need to consolidate or new skills that we need to equip ourselves for. Whichever be the case, there’s no denying these are exactly the kind of problems that design for sustainability poses, and that we have to learn how to deal with them – possibly based on how societies have historically dealt with them. 7. Develop the Individual Poonam Bir Kasturi co-founded Srishti [since 2007, she is on her own], and strived to bridge traditional craft with contemporary markets and the design school. She launched a unique ‘specialisation’ in 2002, called ‘Design for Community and Self’ [DCS]. Its premise was to nurture the student’s personal ideas and values to help her define a meaningful work-life mix, and then enable her acquisition of the necessary skills and understanding to achieve it. This has now evolved into a project-based interdisciplinary design course called ‘Sangama’, or confluence of streams. The students who opted for it are versatile learners, adapters and improvisers, with only foundational technical skills, but with powerful contextual, social and process capabilities. Most importantly, they seem to be having fun and carving out interesting and unusual future careers for themselves. 8. Don’t Exclude the Spiritual I coordinated an interdisciplinary studio based on the living [folk-oral-musical] legacy of the fifteenth century mystic saint-poet, Kabir. Students were immersed in the research [done by our artist-in-residence] and were invited to interpret and express Kabir’s ideas using their own modern media skills and sensibilities. This resulted in a range of projects that were ‘reflective/spiritual interventions’ in effect. The forms evolved were ‘art’ but the methods used were ‘design’. It is worth commenting that humour was a consistent thread through many of the works that came up, indicating that spirituality need not be terribly severe or serene either. A colleague suggested that I should begin my presentation with this section. I wavered, because this is indeed my personal position [and passion]: that any profound social transformation requires far more internal effort than in the external, and the only way to achieve that is to design for and with the spirit. India has had a legacy of shortages, and what has kept her resilient and cheerful through these is her powerful spiritual traditions. While some accuse these of glorifying poverty, I think they make perfect ecological sense as they scorn material wealth and selfish greed for spiritual wealth and selfless sacrifice. This is what Mahatma Gandhi paraphrased so evocatively, “The earth has enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed.” This is the kind of abstinence that I wish people like Mr. George W. Bush would preach to their audiences! 9. Disrupt the Conventional At Srishti, we have driven a 3-week wedge into the 33-week annual quota, that we call the Interim Semester. It requires every student to sign up for one of the various elective programs for its entire duration. The electives are an eclectic mix of critical and speculative, earthy and sublime, always new and topical. They defy conventional ‘design specialisations’ and are offered by non-mainstream practitioners. They have become the major source for new thinking and creative initiatives amongst students. Can you take a minority idea subvert and infect the entire institution? Yes, you can, if you have the director on your side! In Srishti’s case, though, Geetha Narayanan has often been the principal instigator of alternative, subversive and speculative ideas. In spite of this, it remains a real struggle to get a broad buy-in, be it at the student level or the faculty level. However, we’ve been fortunate to get a formidable array of extremely talented and unconventional artists, designers and technologists visiting us. They enable us to place on offer for three weeks every year, a range of fascinating hands-on workshops. Over six years, we’ve seen how the seeds planted here bear fruit in terms of student interests, passions and sometimes even careers. 10. Join Forces with Visionaries Early on, I realised I had no ‘big ideas’ for social change (through design); hence I decided to offer my services to those who did. All my career, I’ve worked with visionary NGOs who work in sustainability, gender, craft and livelihood areas. My inputs have played a modest role in actualising their vision, and have positively impacted the communities they work with. I could blame it on the constraining frame of business, but I think it was my personal inability to think beyond it when I graduated as a designer that I was absolutely convinced that something was terribly wrong with the world, although I had no idea what needed to be done. I was fortunate in finding a number of friends who were working with the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi, Richard Chambers, Paulo Freire, Laurie Baker, Vandana Shiva and Ela Bhatt. Since I just could not derive a career out of Papanek’s ideas, I did the next best thing: offer my capabilities to visionaries who had. I think institutions can also follow suit; it is no shame to join up with visionaries. 11. Failing is Good, Fearful is Bad If my previous point highlighted the need to constantly keep looking for and adopting alternative values for ourselves, in this one I want us to liberate our ambition. I applaud Bruce Mau’s courage and commitment. Let us also let the idealism and ambition out of our closets. Let us bring back risk-taking and fearlessness in design—which means accepting and even celebrating failures. My design portfolio comprises a number of failed projects that I am very proud of. At a conference on ‘Development by Design’ in 2002 that we organised, I proposed a seminar where we could share and learn from all our failures, instead of the endless gatherings where we dress up and parade our mostly limited successes to appear much larger than they actually are. 12. Don’t Work in Isolation “The partnership [model] stresses the constant intention and effort to understand other realities and creatively address problems in an effort to develop mutually beneficial solutions. Whereas the dominator system is based on the assumption of a zero-sum game [I win/you lose, or vice versa], in a partnership approach human creativity is used in an effort to develop win/win situations.” [ MONTUORI ]
People like us everywhere have experimented with ‘alternative’ directions for design, with some promising results. So far, no one can claim to have hit upon the definitive and exemplary model, though we’re arguably getting closer and closer. It is obvious that we would achieve a lot more if we did not work in isolation. If we form a collaborative and interdependent network of experimenting institutions, we can pool our knowledge and resources, and extend the scope of our experiments. One of the things that make Bruce Mau seem heroic is the image of him waging a lonely battle, against all odds. True, it is a lonely battle and the odds are huge, but we can ameliorate this by shedding our isolation and joining forces. In order to leverage such a network, we must make it collaborative and interdependent. As Negroponte says, there are three ingredients to stimulating a creative culture and big ideas: diversity and interdisciplinarity, fearless risk-taking, and openness and idea-sharing. Alfonso Montuori has made a very convincing case for developing new models that are predicated on pluralism, complexity and a ‘planetary consciousness’. This resounds very well with my belief that multicultural teams are a highly powerful creative resource to address not only global but local issues as well, and the faster we evolve ways of formulating and activating these, the sooner we’ll begin to see their results. The greatest hurdles in achieving these are the prevailing norms of migration and work permits, but I know that the scientist community has achieved an impressively high degree of mobility and collaboration for itself. We should follow suit. 13. Recognise Differences “Sustainability emphasizes the diversity of societal paths of development not only the ‘Third World’ countries but also – and even more so the highly industrialized countries of the North should be regarded as ‘developing’ countries.” [ BECKER et al ]
We do need to agree on our vision on sustainability, equity and spirituality – in brief, our future (global) society. We do need to address potentially serious differences that probably exist, before they get entrenched. We can then debate and devise various approaches to achieving the vision, co-operatively yet mindful of differences. The first task to forming this network would be to map our agreements and disagreements, and resolve the disagreements to the extent that they do not become counter-productive. I hope we can use this seminar series to achieve this, face-to-face and online. One of the learnings from India is that apparent contradictions can coexist harmoniously and synergistically within the same system. For me personally, the exciting thing about sustainability is that there’s no unique route to achieving it, it’s so completely contextual. In fact, the substantial pervasiveness of traditional knowledge and its counterpart, spiritual values, in our midst even today offer a rich resource for us to jointly explore and experiment with our future lifestyles. 14. Ground the Network It is my submission that any initiative focussing on sustainability and social transformation (in a global context) must be simultaneously located in multiple sites: at least one on every continent (except Antarctica!) It is also my submission that any such programme would benefit immeasurably from having a solid community component. Given our academic focus, this probably means we need quality NGO partners. I hope you agree with my conviction that the network must be representative, and that it must be rooted in community. I realise finding the right NGO partners may not be easy, but given our specific focus, I think we’d greatly benefited from having them, and that it is possible to find some really inspiring partners. “Today, there is no place where truly multi-disciplinary approaches to solve development concerns [are] found if there is one group working successfully in water management, they don’t often collaborate with other groups working in rural health or aids for disabled people [which is why] an educational institution would be the ideal instrument that can act as the net-worker.” [ KASTURI ]
The factions and politics of the NGO world are no secret. However, that does not take away from the great work many NGOs are doing – in their chosen areas. It is remarkable, as Poonam observed, that NGOs have not come together to articulate their vision of integrated development. An Invitation I would be happy to offer Srishti as the hub for such a network. We have an excellent critical, creative and logistical infrastructure to host joint experiments and development. We also enjoy close relationships with a group of field-based NGOs who are excited about being part of such a network. Srishti has hosted researchers, conferences and workshops on the issues of technology, design and development. Our faculty has immense experience in devising and running courses that explore issues of sustainability and development from the ground up. We have close ties with a group of NGOs who are extremely keen to factor in design as one of their critical strategies and methodologies for development; one of their initiatives is to initiate a post-graduate course in sustainable architecture and construction that pairs a graduate architect with an expert mason. In all, we have all the key ingredients for a fruitful research programme, all it awaits is the momentum to set it rolling. Case Studies
PAPERS
AMIR, Sulfikar (2004). “Rethinking Design Policy in the Third World”. Design Issues, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 68-75 [28/10/2009] BECKER, Egon; JAHN, Thomas; STIESS, Immanuel; WEHLING, Peter (1997). “Sustainability: A Cross-Disciplinary Concept for Social Transformations” (ISOE-UNESCO) <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001134/113463eo.pdf> [28/10/2009] CHOMSKY, Noam. “Unsustainable Non-Development” <http://www.greenleft.org.au/2000/416/23042> [28/10/2009] KASTURI, Poonam Bir (2002). “The India Report – Revisited” <http://playnspeak.net/articlemit.htm> [28/10/2009] KASTURI, Poonam Bir (2005). “Why Designer? Designers’ Roles, and Impact on Design Education” <http://playnspeak.net/article_whydesigner.htm> [28/10/2009] KHUMOMOTSE, S. M; M’RITHAA, M. K; MOALOSI, R (2002). “Botswana’s Quest for Sustainability: Scope for Design Intervention” (University of Botswana) <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2666> [28/10/2009] LAUTENSACH, Alexander (2004). “A Tertiary Curriculum for Sustainability” (University of Auckland) <http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/lau04260.pdf> [28/10/2009] MANZINI, Manzini (2005). “Enabling Solutions, Social Innovation and Design for Sustainability” (Politecnico di Milano) <http://www.designcouncil.info/mt/red/archives/Enabling%20solutions%20Ezio%20Manzini%2027-09-05.doc> [28/10/2009] MEYER, Rüdiger. “Systems, Sustainability and Design” (Nova Scotia College of Art & Design) <http://www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauterberg/conferences/CD_doNotOpen/ADC/final_paper/348.pdf> [28/10/2009] MONTUORI, Alfonso (2000). “Towards an Education for a Planetary Culture”. California Institute of Integral Studies, No. 4, pp. 96-107 NEGROPONTE, Nicholas (2003). “Creating a Culture of Ideas”. TechnologyReview.com, 2003 <http://www.technologyreview.com/business/13074> [28/10/2009] ROBIN, Vicki (1996). From ‘Excess’ to ‘Enough’: Shifting the Culture of Consumption (Seattle: New Road Map Foundation) “Sustainability – Who’s Doing It?”, D-Futures 1 report, Design Council UK (2002) <http://office.sustainability.dal.ca/Who’s_Doing_What_on_.php> [28/10/2009] WALKER, Stuart (2000). “How the Other Half Lives – Product Design, Sustainability and the Human Spirit”. Design Issues, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 52-58 BOOKS BALARAM, S. (1998). Thinking Design. Ahmedabad: NID BIRKELAND, Janis (2002). Design for Sustainablity. London: Earthscan GADGIL, Madhav; GUHA, Ramchandra (1995). Ecology and Equity. New Delhi: Penguin India LESSIG, Lawrence (2002). The Future of Ideas. New York: Vintage MARGOLIN, Victor; BUCHANAN, Richard (1996). The Idea of Design. London: The MIT Press PAPANEK, Victor (1984). Design for the Real World. London: Thames & Hudson WEBSITES New Road Map Foundation, www.newroadmap.org Society for Responsible Design, www.changedesign.org Institute Without Boundaries, www.institutewithoutboundaries.com NextDesign Leadership Institute, www.nextd.org |
Sobre l'autor
ARVIND LODAYA
Arvind Lodaya, Srishti School of Art, Design & Technology (Escola Shristi d’Art, Disseny i Tecnologia), Bangalore, Índia.
Relacionat 26 EDUCACIO EN DISSENY, 2009 LUISA COLLINA La formació dels dissenyadors del futur: A partir d'un cas específic, el curs de postgrau Product Service System Design (Disseny de Sistemes de Productes i Serveis) impartit a la facultat de disseny del Politècnic de Milà a estudiants italians i internacionals en anglès, es pretén exposar un conjunt de reflexions inherents al perfil actual i futur del dissenyador, entès com un «professional reflexiu» –en paraules de Donald A. Schön– cridat a actuar en contextos incerts i poc definits, capaç d'estructurar d'una manera original un problema i de trobar –mitjançant tècniques híbrides i complexes, amb instruments adaptats d'altres disciplines o de producció pròpia– solucions d’espectre ampli, experimentals i innovadores. [...]26 EDUCACIO EN DISSENY, 2009 DAVID DUNNE El disseny de noves escoles de negocis Davant d’uns problemes socials de creixent complexitat, les empreses
s’han començat a interessar pels processos i mètodes de pensament dels
dissenyadors, dos dels aspectes més importants dels quals són l’atenció
centrada en els usuaris i el pensament de sistemes. Alhora, els estudis
empresarials es poden beneficiar d’incorporar alguns dels conceptes i
mètodes que aprenen els dissenyadors. Aquests inclouen com formular els
problemes, utilitzar la recerca etnogràfica, raonar abductivament,
sintetitzar informació i col·laborar en grup. 26 EDUCACIO EN DISSENY, 2009 GAVIN MELLES Doctorats professionals en disseny? Els doctorats professionals van sorgir durant els anys noranta al Regne Unit i Austràlia com a re sposta a les pre ssions institucionals que re bia el segon cicle de l’ensenyament super ior de masses (estudis de postgrau). S’han de senvolupat, així, programes de doctorat alter natius que inclouen projectes (cre atius) i que afirmen abordar els valors professionals i pràctics de les arts i indústries cre atives, incloent-hi el disseny, de maner a més apropiada que el doctorat tradicional. No obstant això, donada la discutible categoria professional 24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 AZRA AKSAMIJA La mesquita genèrica El concepte de mesquita genèrica investiga la representació de la pràctica islàmica contemporània en un context laic i explora la idea de la mesquita com a espai multifuncional a través dels anomenats Principis de Disseny Generatiu, una sèrie de directrius de disseny conceptual que he après estudiant la història de l’arquitectura islàmica. [...]24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 ALESSANDRA CAPORALE La Deriva Natural (en l'obra) de Natalie Jeremijenko Punta de llança de l’art digital i electrònic, el bioart o a-life art, natalie jeremijenko "juga” amb la intel·ligència artificial i la biotecnologia i duu al terreny del hightech unes pràctiques socials d’art activista que tenen les seves arrels en els moviments socials lligats als nous mitjans (nous media). 24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 JOAN SUBIRATS, JAUME BADOSA Quin disseny per quina societat? La relació entre la política i el disseny no és evident. Només des d’una concepció generalista de la política, entesa com la forma en què regulem el conflicte social, podem començar a acostar-nos a aquest binomi aparentment estrany. 24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 MIREN ETXEZARRETA És possible un disseny crític? El disseny, una magnífica eina de potenciació de qualsevol activitat col·lectiva orientada a la millora social, difícilment aconseguirà orientar-se envers aquesta direcció mentre visquem en un sistema econòmic l’objectiu principal del qual consisteixi en obtenir beneficis per al capital privat. 24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 RUEDI BAUR Autosatisfacció visual gairebé generalitzada En la seva base el disseny representa interessos radicalment diferents als que actualment dicta el mercat. I precisament per aquest fet el disseny pot ser una alternativa civil per col·locar de nou l’interès real de les persones davant dels interessos financers d’uns quants. 24 DISSENY CRÍTIC, 2007 RAQUEL PELTA Dissenyar amb la gent En el context econòmic de les nostres societats capitalistes, el disseny és una eina que serveix per augmentar la quota de mercat. Nogensmenys, en tot sistema existeixen fractures i contradiccions i els dissenyadors poden operar productivament amb aquestes. Un dels grans reptes es aconseguir la consistència professional sense renunciar al principis ètics. [...] 01 DISSENY, COMUNICACIÓ, CULTURA, 1986 JORDI BERRIO Crítica social i cultura del disseny |
