For All Those Underneath
Quanhan Li
What is good design? Two years ago, I would have referenced anything minimalist, modern or chic as good design. I would have nodded my head at ornamentation or any form of “uniqueness” across common household goods; like a yellow and white duck pepper salt shaker. Shopping therapy was passed down from my sister to me and so I purchased for the sake of owning and grossly contributed to over consumer consumption; a phenomenon that long existed before I was born. I was too much a naïve young brat with no clue of how ravaged our global ecosystem was becoming - or rather, already was.
Image 1: White and Yellow Duck Salt & Pepper Shaker
However, that was what helped develop my understanding of Good Design. A well designed product is one that is simply sold well - a notion that is supported by the immediate infringement of IP and release of mimic goods for any successfully marketed product. In our capitalist economy, further spurned since the industrial revolution, the average consumer doesn’t see the full picture of the service they are really buying. I want us to view the product market space as it really is and away from the aesthetics of choice and individuality. What we need is not human centered design, nor is it universal design. What we need is a blanket design - design that considers everything beneath the surface of that fine knit weave and all the potential stakeholders that are directly and indirectly impacted.
How might we approach a more blanket design? One of the cornerstones of this manifesto begins with reimagining the byproducts of the goods we consume. In a society that is primarily governed with a linear life stream, the initiatives of change need to start there. It is imperative that we begin to head towards a more circular consumption route.
After I graduated college and began to work in the commercial products industry, I came to the realization of how wasteful we, as a species, were. Waste was so streamlined that hired waste movers were brought in weekly to remove excess packaging, broken products, punctured goods, test models, and ideation mock ups. We had developed a system around how to move waste instead of how to reduce it. We had overproduced goods in order to meet a turnover that was not plausible and that resulted in poorly produced products that were not ready for use. Packaging from overseas shipping, from customer delivery, from returns, to broken products that littered our engineering floors proved to me how wasteful just one company can be.
This is the basis of my first plank;
GOOD DESIGN SHOULD BE CONSIDERATE OF WASTE
However, this was the groundwork of how new companies were to be found in this continuously competitive market. Fast turnover rates to beat customer expectations and even faster trend setters, hoping to make it big. Drawing from Papanek’s triangle of progress, how can every product produced that quickly truly be progressive regardless of the change they might bring? With how riddled our globe is with innovative goods; how drastic of a change can be considered equivalent to the disruption it can subsequently cause?
Is the manufacturer market to take all the blame? With how the global economy is set up and how money furnishes our homes and livelihood, it’s no wonder so many innovations exist. We supply the continuously rising demand for goods we don’t even know we want, and as consumers, we’ve overridden any desire to adopt products that are simply satisfactory. Take, for example, the “All White” Painting sold at Christie’s for $20.6 billion dollars. Although a true exemplification of Minimalism in it’s rejection of everything, it also highlights the ridiculousness within our consumption.
Image 2: All-White Painting by Robert Ryman $20 million
Products, or objects, designed for satisfactory, emphasize the need for reduction of consumption. A good example of this representation can be found in products from brands like MUJI. In the book, Designing Design, Kenya Hara, in his role as MUJI’s art director, mentions the idea of “no design” in the pursuit of ultimate design. The absence of the designer and the “egoism of the creator” really highlights the basics for our survival and nothing else.
Image 3: MUJI Humidifier
However, I am not advocating for minimalism or modernism in design - as can be seen in their work. Nor am I advocating for absolute reduction of consumption to our bare necessities. I am, however, advocating for design that focuses on the byproducts of our daily usage and all globally affected species. Design that avoids the inherent bias of the perpetrator will focus on both the intended and unintended users instead. This is the basis of my second plank:
Good Design Should Show Appreciation
What does it mean to be appreciative? As opposed to traditional global centered design, where designers attempt to solve a problem with the mindset of an outsider, this focuses on addressing problems with solutions that involve the target user group. A good example of this is Papanek’s “Tin Can Radio.” Although it doesn’t follow typical design aesthetic, it is an accepting design that utilizes local waste and labor to generate a usable product. It is a design that is Socially Responsible. It is taking into consideration user chosen aesthetics that moves away from Eurocentric designs. It is taking into consideration access to materials, local job opportunities, and a need for change as opposed to a desire to inflict change. As described by Teddy Cruz, there is a need to take advantage of the capital known as the “human resource” for better design methodology. Appreciative designers are participants within their design scope and appreciative designs involve all their users as necessary participants.
Successful designs often follow this principle - the capitalist economy is proven powerful in this regard. With a constant feedback loop of what needs to change and what works, products are rebuilt into more long lasting or satisfying. However, this also imposes unnecessary costs and wasted labor in order to find this equilibrium. Through the constant iterations, companies are forcing change, instead of allowing the market to dictate the necessary changes. When the iPhone first launched in 2007, it was innovative as a communications device. Can the same be said of the iPhone that are released today or in the next couple of months? In her manifesto BEYOND THE NEW, Hella Jongerius argues the need to redefine New. Jongerius describes the phenomenon head on, an “obsession with the New for the sake of the New.” With the amount of human and economic capital spent on the minute changes between devices, can it not be reallocated to better causes? Is there hope for a migration to needed change and away from inflicted change?
Image 4: iPhone 1st Generation
There is a desperate need for degrowth - a step back in order to step forward. In her piece “Unlearning: From Degrowth to Decolonization,” Jamie Tyberg describes the design strategy as a “fully fledged alternative” to the “current growth society” within the context of development, economy, and capitalism. The justification of material consumption and product development should be inherently involved with the voices of the largest stakeholders of the design. Sometimes the largest stakeholders are those without voice - how can we hear their complaints? There needs to be “care for the earth’s systems” as well as its inhabitants.
Good Design Should Be Communicative
It is vital, then, that communication happens between the intended and unintended users and the maker. Vandana Shiva provides a possible direction for this - a “new paradigm for living.” Within her “Earth Democracy,” our current paradigm of living is challenged to be considerate for the interconnectedness across species. As “earth people,” we should design and exist within the limitations of each other. It’s a shift towards circular growth and permaculture through the capitalization of seed potential. Communication, therefore, is not restricted by the language of the tongue and is instead opened by the language of our needs to equitably exist on this planet.
In practice, I refer to Joichi Ito’s manifesto, “Resisting Reduction.” He proposes an alternative measure of success as compared to the one within our current economy, where wealth and status are primary determinants. Through an acceptance of currencies beyond money and power, the playing field is equalized to allow for progress to explode, as opposed to the current linear trend. It provides an escape from our impending doom due to the global climate crisis and into a world where "more than enough is … TOO much.” As alluded to before, a reduction within raw material consumption is imperative. Companies are starting this initiative with more sustainable alternatives. Companies, like Meta, are hopping on the VR/AR train in hopes of reducing emissions through making experiences virtual. These replacement currencies are one direction towards a circular future, although only time will tell how successful they are. This design strategy highlights the importance of communicative design and the role it holds for successful solutions in the subsequent years to come. Perhaps this can begin the cycle of truly better innovations and a brighter future for future generations.
However, in an era that’s so technologically advanced, shouldn’t better solutions already exist? To answer this question, I refer to Alexandra Ginsberg and her examination of better. Ginsberg begins by asking what does it mean to be better and the impacts of designing better solutions. To her point, an object that carries the bias of the designer is not better because it only addresses what is better in their perspective. It is problematic, especially for a designer, as it introduces more conflict between the designed product and their user base. As Hara suggests, it is important for the ego of the designer to disappear from their product so that their intent for better comes from a place of understanding what better means. This, albeit, is much easier said than done. As the number of people increases, the visualization of better becomes blurry. Modern design solutions often incorporate too little conversation with those who need it and too much from those that don’t. Can those that are underprivileged experience the craftsmanship within an Eames chair? Can the poor who need proper health care monitoring afford an apple watch? One can argue that those are not whom it’s designed for, yet the ones whom it's designed for often don’t need it.
Image 5: Eames White Ash Lounge Chair and Ottoman
Within this scope, I refer back to designing for inflicted change as opposed to necessary change. How do we make design inclusive without being exclusive? What is inclusive design? Even if coming from a desire to do good, the inherent consequences of any design will impact the unintended users; generating a population of excluded users. This does not necessarily relate to just form or function; nor is it primarily related to usability and accessibility. This is a conjunction of all of the above, as well as money, status, and a need for change. As such,
Good Design Should Be Easy To Access
A good design should not be limited by the barriers of entry that ultimately differentiate groups of individuals or species from each other to create a hierarchical society. In a society so privy to hierarchical systems - such as the caste system in India, the current figure head monarch in Japan, or even an elected official in a democratic society - how can we pull away and rebuild?
Designers have this entry point. They have an ability to create impact through resourcefulness, inventiveness, and empowerability, not seen in other fields of study. Through a study of Attitudinal design, designers can even reshape world events towards a world that’s better. Willem Sandberg was able to use his skillset to forge new futures for hundreds of Jews during the German occupation in World War 2. However, it is not crucial to foster this level of change with every product; it is the attentive thought and action that makes a design easy to access. Another method to achieve the same goal is through a socially engaged mindset. Similar to how good design should listen to the voices of its users, it should also utilize user engagement throughout its design process as a catalyst for quality growth. Design is never truly finished but perhaps we can reach that 90% finish line without segregating user groups. Through the reduction of inhibitive barriers, we can also shift towards a more appreciative future.
Finally,
Good Design Should Not Be Harmful
As difficult as it is to create a fully accessible product, it is often as difficult to create a product that has no harm. It is near impossible for a designer to imagine every use case in each unique market scenario and then to please each potential stakeholder - no such product exists. There are many places to interject in a product life cycle that can be optimized for better practices. This includes the material sourcing, the transportation of goods, manufacturing of the mid and final assembly models, delivery, end of life, and all that in between. That is not to say that every designed good is inherently bad; I am also a consumer that indulges in much of the current existing market space. Our global ecosystem has been built in a way that restricts many of these practices - to have one, sometimes it’s vital to give up another to be successful. As a consequence of this, the term “harmful” needs to be reexamined and it’s definition redefined. Instead of being an overall umbrella term for all the ethically bad that we understand, I propose harmful - within this context - to be understood as the intent to not defuture.
In his discussion of his 10 points on Time, Duration, and Design, Jamer Hunt touches upon the concept of defuturing, a theory that considers how a pursuit of one path eliminates the possibility of others, “the stark impossibility of thinking that.” This ideology, when brought to design, holds similar power. Can an invention or construction of one thing eliminate the possibility of another? The NYC subway system is my go to example of a defuturing product. It’s mammoth scale and cost has hindered any future alternative method of transportation. The NYC subway is then a harmful design - albeit a necessary one. The conversation between user and product should evoke challenge, precedents, and opportunities, not defuturing, or in this context, harmful.
Cameron Tonkinwise also discusses the idea of defuturing, in Design Away. To avoid defuturing, Tonkinwise encourages the use of Elimination-oriented design - the means of “Creative Destruction”. Within her program, she documents the tenets as such:
Vilify - Communication design used with purposes of deconstruction in hopes of bettering an unsustainability within goods
Replace - Uprooting existing products and product spaces through the introduction of alternative products that can be more environmentally secure, material conservative (convergent design), long lasting (heir-looming), and / or recycling of an old products components to rebirth something new
Restructure - Products that integrate into existing environments to reduce the need for compartmental products
Disown - Service design where products are meant to be leased and not owned
Through a quick scan of her tenets, it is not difficult to see the similarities between elimination-oriented design and current product strategies. Organizations like PETA exist as a vilifying voice. Service systems like Umbracity and CityBike change the dynamic of owning seasonal products. That is not to say those are the solutions, they are far from being completely successful. In certain ways, these same organizations are harmful. Although coming from positive intentions to reduce the need for cars and carbon emissions, how successful was it’s implementation? In 2019, there were a recorded 169,000 subscribers to that platform, a bit more than 2% of New York’s total population. Given that some users can’t use these bikes, such as toddlers, to what extent is the service provided worth the cost of installation, production, and repair of the system? Through the proactive thinking and application of these tenets together is perhaps where these same goods can be considered non harmful.
Image 6: Midnight Rider, Antonio DiCaterina
Cameron Tonkinwise also discusses the idea of defuturing, in Design Away. To avoid defuturing, Tonkinwise encourages the use of Elimination-oriented design - the means of “Creative Destruction”. Within her program, she documents the tenets as such:
Vilify - Communication design used with purposes of deconstruction in hopes of bettering an unsustainability within goods
Replace - Uprooting existing products and product spaces through the introduction of alternative products that can be more environmentally secure, material conservative (convergent design), long lasting (heir-looming), and / or recycling of an old products components to rebirth something new
Restructure - Products that integrate into existing environments to reduce the need for compartmental products
Disown - Service design where products are meant to be leased and not owned
Through a quick scan of her tenets, it is not difficult to see the similarities between elimination-oriented design and current product strategies. Organizations like PETA exist as a vilifying voice. Service systems like Umbracity and CityBike change the dynamic of owning seasonal products. That is not to say those are the solutions, they are far from being completely successful. In certain ways, these same organizations are harmful. Although coming from positive intentions to reduce the need for cars and carbon emissions, how successful was it’s implementation? In 2019, there were a recorded 169,000 subscribers to that platform, a bit more than 2% of New York’s total population. Given that some users can’t use these bikes, such as toddlers, to what extent is the service provided worth the cost of installation, production, and repair of the system? Through the proactive thinking and application of these tenets together is perhaps where these same goods can be considered non harmful.
So far, within this manifesto, I’ve listed rather idealistic planks for what is to be considered good design. However, I’d like to believe that these are goals rather than stringent criteria that define good design. Much like the comfort and coziness one might feel underneath a blanket, I hope that good design can encapsulate that same feeling for it’s users. The world is very different now when compared to when I was a child, much less free and unrestrictive. A child can no longer have the same naivety of dreams within our current global ecosystem. By no means is this manifesto inclusive of all the methods that can help define good design, but hopefully it’s a start towards building a future where children can dream without worry about what-ifs and buts.
Bibliography
Image Citations
Duck Salt & Pepper Shaker. Zulily. Qurate Retail Group. Accessed November 27, 2021. https://cfcdn.zulily.com/images/cache/product/1000x1201/7838/WESTLAND_93971_1369186628.jpg.
Sotheby's. Untitled. Would You Pay $20M for an All-White Ryman Painting? Observer, October 7, 2014. https://observer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/10/9221-robert-ryman-untitled-e1412347080590.jpg.
Holm, Brooke. MUJI Humidifier. Discussing Design with Kenya Hara. Mute By JL, June 18, 2018. https://cdn.goodq.top/caches/1435b86fd69da988c183d422d4a8c7f3/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubXV0ZWJ5amwuY29tLmNuL3FmeS1jb250ZW50L3VwbG9hZHMvMjAxOC8wNi80MDJjNjdiZDlmN2U2OTQ2MzUyNGQ5ZmJiMDRlNGFkNS05MC53ZWJw.webp.
Berkeley, Carl. Iphone First Generation 8GB. Flickr. SmugMug+Flickr, July 1, 2009. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mac_users_guide/3680455198/in/album-72157620801622608/.
Eames White Ash Lounge Chair and Ottoman. Eames Office. Eames Office. Accessed November 28, 2021. https://www.eamesoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/li_elo_p_20110517_033.png.
DiCaterina, Antonio. Midnight Rider. Unsplash. Unsplash, December 28, 2017. https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1514447120-e6b6bb0fc9b4?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=MnwxMjA3fDB8MHxwaG90by1wYWdlfHx8fGVufDB8fHx8&auto=format&fit=crop&w=993&q=80.
Website Citations
Broken Nature: a Public Symposium - #4 LONG-TERM ATTITUDES. Youtube, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48VN0R5EUxk.
Cruz, Teddy. “Returning Duchamp's Urinal to the Bathroom.” R / D, December 2009. https://www.readingdesign.org/returning-duchamps-urinal.
Hara, Kenya. “Designing Design.” Lars Mriller, October 2003.
Helguera, Pablo. “Education for Socially Engaged Art.” New York: Jorge Pinto Books, 2011.
Ito, Joichi. “Resisting Reduction: A Manifesto.” Journal of Design and Science. RSS, October 13, 2017. https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/resisting-reduction/release/19.
Jongerius, Hella. “Beyond The New.” jongeriuslab. Design Academy Eindhoven, Design Indaba, and Z33. Accessed November 28, 2021. http://beyondthenew.jongeriuslab.com/.
Papanek, Victor. “Design for the Real World.” Sweden: Pantheon Books, April 1973.
Rawsthorn, Alice. “Design as an Attitude.” Corner House Publications, 2018.
Tonkinwise, Cameron. “Design Away.” Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, 2014.
Tyberg, Jamie. “Unlearning: From Degrowth to Decolonization .” RLS-NYC. Rosa Luxemburg, July 27, 2020. https://rosalux.nyc/degrowth-to-decolonization/.
Yuan, Linyee. “Seed Freedom: Toward an Earth Democracy.” New York City: MOLD, 2021.