Fast-realized design ideas challenge mass-produced industrial designs

This post is a quick English translation of an article I originally wrote in Turkish, which was published by Radikal Newspaper's monthly Design supplement on 31 January 2010.

---

"Always go to your customer with at least three alternatives" is perhaps the most well-known advice given to design students as they prepare to embark on their professional career. The initial stages of a typical design process indeed witness a quantitative variety in alternatives. But as the process draws to a close, the number of ideas in consideration gradually decreases, eventually falling to one. Quite naturally, this decrease is quantity assumed to give birth to an increase in quality: after all, the commercial world's first and foremost expectation from designers is unique and flawless designs that are apt for being manufactured by the error-intolerant process of mass-production.

While a typical design process displays the above characteristics, a number of recent examples of practice suggest that some designers choose to maintain a contrary approach. These designers are not interested in providing the 'customer' with a single flawless design idea that is to be mass-produced. Instead, they are in pursuit of realizing as many of their design ideas as possible, with or without flaws. This is precisely why they strive to finalize their design processes as quickly as possible. They steal the notion of 'rapidity' away from the industrial context, where it typically connotes a 'systematic efficiency' and 'perfection.' Fostering an affection for intuitiveness, they bestow this notion to the studio-workshop realm. Thus they shift focus away from working for industrial mass-production toward fast-realizing their design ideas.

The first project which I believe exemplifies this recent trend is ”speed-furniture” by the Israel-based design studio Godspeed. These designers conceive and finalize each of their furniture designs within a duration of only one hour. They use scrap pieces of wood reclaimed from carpenters in Tel Aviv as raw material for their designs. A similar example from the field of furniture design is Martino Gamper's "100 Chairs in 100 Days." The London-based Italian designer maintains an approach akin to that of Godspeed to create brand new chairs using material he locally reclaims. As part of his design process he uses some pieces just as they are, while he subjects others to radical changes according to new roles he conceives for them.

The cover of Şerifcan Özcan's Ten Plus One project portfolio

For diversity's sake I now want to mention an example from graphic design: The New York based designer Şerifcan Özcan's ”Ten Plus One.” The project comprises eleven different design ideas, realized from scratch in eleven hours. Özcan says what led to this project was nothing but the pressure exerted by a school deadline. Upon realizing that he was short of projects for a thick enough portfolio, the designer came up with the idea for ”Ten Plus One.” Ironically, the designer was even contacted by one customer who was interested in buying one of his 'one-hour' designs.

As suggested by the above examples, the approach that I have called 'fast-realized design ideas' follows a process which ensures the full execution of design works within a short and/or limited time frame. As part of such process, the traditionally distinct phases of 'design' and 'production' merge into one another, blurring the distinction between the notions of 'prototype' and 'end-product.' It can easily be argued that these works compromise on the characteristic of 'flawlessness,' which is essentially assumed of the end-products of a conventional design process. In fact, the very flaws caused by these unique fast design processes often serve as a positive quality; an 'added-value' of sorts. It is this phenomenon that places such works somewhere in the intersecting worlds of arts, craft and design.

A packaging design from Şerifcan Özcan's Ten Plus One project portfolio

Are these designers influenced in any way by a specific stream of critical thought? At first glance we can suggest that designers have, with the aid of the recent crisis, finally acknowledged their historical role as consumerism's driving force. In the light of the above examples, could we not suggest that designers have realized that the relentless demand imposed on them by the industry for creating 'flawless' and 'unique' designs has turned their creative process into a vicious cycle? It is possible to argue that by hacking those two key notions of 'flawlessness' and 'uniqueness', these designers aim to break the creative bottleneck and the above mentioned vicious cycle. More cynical views may suggest that these designers instrumentalize the prestige often attributed to 'designed' objects. Some may go even further to argue that they exploit this prestige, not unlike what their 'star designer' colleagues have done throughout the last few decades, this time through a more underground manner; with a touch of 'planned imperfectness.' Whatever perspective we may maintain as we look at this trend, what all of its examples boldly underline is that we are witnessing a reversal of the traditional hegemony of 'product' over 'process,' whereby the latter is on the rise as the more valuable asset compared to the former.

Read more!

Generative Design: Toward a World of 'Unique Copies'

This post is the English translation of an article I wrote in Turkish, which was published by Radikal Newspaper's monthly Design supplement on 29 November 2009. Images are taken from Kram/Weisshaar's website.

Breeding Table No. 7 (Photo: Frank Stolle)

Art critic Rosalind Krauss was posing the following questions almost a quarter century ago: "What would it look like not to repress the concept of the copy? What would it look like to produce a work that acted out of the discourse of reproductions without originals?"* A contemporary approach named 'generative design' is creating the very culture of 'reproductions without originals' Krauss was envisioning.

Recent technological advances provide designers with the possibility of modeling not only the form but also the 'DNA' of artifacts. This is precisely what is of primary concern to 'generative design': how to design not only the artifacts themselves but, more importantly, the processes that will produce those artifacts. Therefore, what 'generative design' actually designs--thanks to software such as Processing and Mathematica--are algorithmic processes, which then result in the production of unique products.

Stockholm based design studio Kram/Weisshaar's project ‘Breeding Tables’ is one of the best examples to generative design. Clemens Weisshaar and Reed Kram intend to revert the conventional idea that has long since lain at the heart of industrial product design profession: coming up with 'original' designs for mass-production. Their goal instead is to be able to create an infinite number of unique products--in the case of this specific project, tables. In order to do so, the duo turn to contemporary manufacturing technologies. Eventually what they design is a process, which is based on a computer code developed specifically for this project. Forms that are distinct from one another are physically manufactured by laser-cutting and steel-bending machines which are again controlled entirely by computers. To be more clear, each process results in table legs that each have a unique geometry.

The diagram showing parameters set by the Breeding Tables software

(Image: KRAM/WEISSHAAR)

It is important to examine in further detail the impact brought about by 'generative design' with respect to the ethical and legal issues that evolve around the concept of intellectual property. The notion of 'the copy' continues to have nightmarish connotations for designers in newly industrialized societies, due for the most part to the loopholes in intellectual property law and/or the application thereof. (An example is Turkey where professional designers are currently lobbying in order to fill such loopholes. Their effort resulted in a draft law that was presented to the Parliament last February, which suggested that all designs, officially patented or not, should be protected by law.) However, there is another side of the coin: the fundamental shift brought about by the Information Society paradigm opens up for debate the very established notions such as 'intellectual property.' A popular example to such debate evolves around the 'open-source' phenomenon, which has enabled individuals to share the fruits of their creative processes with one another with almost no legal protection. As a result, especially in the post-industrial West, conventional design processes that focus entirely on the 'end-product' are increasingly abandoned. The pioneers of 'generative design' also hint at a future where designers adopt process-oriented approaches: exploit possibilities presented by the latest technology, and work with time as their new medium--and information, their new material. Furthermore, advances in manufacturing technologies reduce the cost differences between mass-producing the same product, and fast-producing unique products--in other words, "rapid prototyping". As Kram/Weisshaar’s 'Breeding Tables' shows, generative design does not aim to produce an infinite number of copies based a single, unique design but rather pursues to create infinitely many originals without being based on an initial prototype. This is precisely why the validity of the notion 'end-product' is threatened by such projects: in the last analysis, the commercial value/intellectual property to be protected by law is not the 'end-product' but rather the design process (including the software and algorithm) that allows designers to create those products.

Generative design stands out also as a strong alternative to the recent method of 'mass-customization', which is often preferred by designers who aim to provide a diversity of alternatives to the end-user. The sneaker giants such as Nike and Converse, who popularly prefer to use such method establish platforms on their websites with the claim of allowing users design their own unique sneakers. Here, their aim seems to be to increase the number of unique options for end-users and perhaps include them in the design process. However, to what extent this aim is accomplished is rather questionable. As many color, texture, pattern options as 'mass-production' can claim to provide, the number of truly unique products defines a limited domain. Additionally, it could be suggested that such method delegates a good portion of design tasks to users, which in turn consumes their time and energy. Given that generative design invalidates the very notions of 'originality' and 'copy' by allowing the production of an infinite number of unique copies, it would not be unfair to suggest that it will soon surpass methods like 'mass-customization'. Finally, the world of "unique copies" Krauss was talking about twenty years ago, seems to have been realized by 'generative design'--and in a rather legal and ethical way, too.

---

*Krauss, Rosalind E. 1986. The Originality of the Avant-garde and Other Modernist Myths. MA: The MIT Press.

Read more!

Reflections after the 2009 Stockholm Furniture Fair

Those of you that are obsessed with furniture fairs, and have missed the Stockholm one that took place recently, can sit back and relax. Call it the crises or a design-bottleneck, what I have seen during my recent visit to the Stockholm Furniture Fair was not so satisfactory. However, a couple of projects I stumbled upon at the fair helped confirm an emerging trend I have been observing in a number of design fields. It is a trend I call by the name "mass-production of design ideas"--artefacts that are executed within a very limited timeframe—where, this very characteristic of the artefact's design process is also being used as a way to promote it.

One example to this trend comes from the Israeli design studio Godspeed, who exhibited at the fair a furniture series by the name "speed-furniture". To describe briefly, the material used to make these pieces is waste wood that had been reclaimed from Tel Aviv carpenters. How this project specifically relates to our trend is that all "speed-furniture" is produced from scratch within a time limit of one hour.

Another example from the fair to what I call "mass-production of design ideas" was a project carried out in University of Gävle's 'Design and Wood Technology Programme'. Here, participants of a ten-day workshop produced unique pieces within this limited timeframe. Similar to Godspeed's case, they had defined material limitations too, using only lycra and birch.


Of course, these two examples do not stand alone to represent the trend we have been discussing. Another example that comes to mind from the field of furniture design is the "100 Chairs in 100 Days" project by Gamper Martino. For the sake of diversity, another example I'd like to give is from a graphic designer named Serifcan Ozcan, who has created a ten-hour portfolio of ten works, by generating a new project each hour-- and, afterwards, ironically sold one of those projects to a client. I would prefer not going into further detail about these since both projects could be studied in detail via the hyperlinks I've provided. I would rather use the rest of this entry to give my own viewpoint on this emerging trend in design.

According to my interpretation this phenomenon has several sides to it. First of all, designers have been realizing, for a good while now, that they are not only designing for mass-production, but also mass-consumption. With the ongoing crises, designers are very well aware of the fact that they have long been operating along the paradigm of the throwaway culture. Therefore this approach to design might as well be their reaction to this very paradigm.

A more cynical view might suggest that an increasing number of designers are aware of the prestige that is attached to the 'designed' object. They might as well be exploiting this opportunity, much like star designers have in the past two decades, though this time in an underground fashion, with a 'designed sloppiness' approach.

A view based on the labor and economics side of things, which is not very far away from what we have discussed in the above paragraphs, could provide another interpretation. As manufacturing processes become more automatized and globalization of capital is on the rise, the traditional definitions of blue- and white-collar labor are going through a major shift. The flexible markets and the conditions brought up by globalization are pushing forward for a shift in the division and distribution of white-collar jobs. Today businesses talk about the outsourcing of consultancy work, such as design—just like they were starting to talk, a few decades ago, about the outsourcing of manufacturing (blue-collar). Design is increasingly being given as a by-product of the whole consultancy package provided by companies. This is especially evident in the services offered by competent businesses from developing countries.

The examples we have discussed above, might be considered as one type of reaction to these recent phenomena. Can there be another way to react? Ronald Jones suggests the "experience design approach" as another way, where designers develop their skills in an interdisciplinary manner, and move away from an object-oriented practice towards one that focuses on creating intangible commodities. In his article "Are You Experienced?" he provides more insight to this :

its [experience design as a 'business art'] emergence will quicken as China and India begin acting on the obvious, giving design away for free because their economic advantage is with mass-manufacturing, not designing prototypes for mobile phones. China and India’s efficiency at mass-producing physical commodities frees up small but growing sectors of the Western design community to create and distribute intangible commodities, including experiences.

In the wake of these recent phenomena, what is your take on the future? Will we see a furniture fair where exhibited pieces are being designed and executed in real-time? How about an 'experience fair' of "intangible commodities"?

Read more!

Utilising resources: Product design in 1940s Britain

This lecture was only one of the many fruitful outcomes of the invaluable time I spent with Pli Design earlier this year. It is about the 'Utility Scheme's; legislations that put design, manufacturing and trade of certain products under the strict control of the British government during and just after World War II. (You may click here to read a review on this lecture, by Christopher Pett from Pli)

It was first delivered on 18 June 2008, in Rich Mix venue London, during 'Green and Thrifty' event hosted by London Remade as part of the 'Love London' festival. Now this lecture is here for everyone to enjoy. Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Read more!

A world under bombardment

While Londoners were fleeing the city during the long Easter weekend, this was actually a good time for a foreigner like me to check out what’s hot in the capital’s museums. Victoria and Albert was, of course, in the top of my list. This was where I happened to see two pieces of furniture that belonged to a period which I think is very much worth looking furhter into—a period that witnessed a movement called the Utility Furniture Scheme.

Starting in the UK, during the harsh conditions of mid-WWII and lasting for a decade, this scheme was basically a reaction to the material shortages (specifically timber) experienced in furniture production. The main objective was to bring about a more responsible approach to furniture design, so that scarce available resources were used in a sensible way. The reach of its precautions went as far as restricting furniture purchase only to newly-weds and people who had been bombed out.

As arid as this period of British design history might seem to be, I think there lays an inspirational experience for us designers of the 21st century. As the designers of a nation under heavy bombardment and siege—therefore extremely severe conditions—how would you design and develop products that will not bring further destruction to the resources of your country, and which are still beautiful, durable and functional? (Here, I think the designs being beautiful is exceptionally important, since this will help people hold on to life).

Frankly, it is not so difficult to make a comparison between that period of recent history and today. As nonsense as it would be to impose the oppressive restrictions of that time, it is fair to request from today’s designers to ask themselves this question while doing their job: Does the world need a table, a chair, etc. made of “x material”?

And some further questions arise:
Do we have to wait for wartime conditions to act?
If wartime is what urgently requires the sensible and responsible usage of resources of a nation then, in terms of resource usage, are we not in wartime?

Just think of the whole world as a single nation.

Link to the Wikipedia article about the Utility Furniture Scheme

Read more!