i haven't written about design in the slums i have a different take on 'design fior survival'.
Many designs now are made solely for aesthetic purposes and not for their usability. Design sometimes, is about propaganda making us believe that it is what we want. I am talking about design for survival in this instance as feasible design solutions that help further our civilisation. In Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek, his chapter titled Design for Survival he describes how “in industrial circles today, most major research concerns itself not with producing for actual needs, but rather propagandizes people to only desire what has been produced.”
Design seems to have a taken a step further in to the extreme of ensuring our survival. On a trip to the design museum I stumbled upon a design called ‘Life Support’ challenging the design of the dialysis machine by Revital Cohan. Using animals to ensure human survival is the key element even though this device is actually advertised to ‘save’ greyhound race dogs after their short lived careers on the racetracks.
The design is looking at a “way of disconnecting people from the therapeutic machines and cold technologies they are harnessed to” and placing animals in that position instead. It’s no worry that the dog is now known and used as a “respiratory ‘device’” for human purpose, they all get “complementary training” thrown in. Well I’d say that’s a pretty sweet deal they get “complementary training” thrown in with a life of imprisonment and slavery. That definitely makes up for the fact that they are prisoners to the NHS.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am slightly worried that this is what certain designers are proposing. If Victor Papanek is right, which I think in some circumstances he is, does that mean that in the future people will start believing that this is the way forward?
Many designs now are made solely for aesthetic purposes and not for their usability. Design sometimes, is about propaganda making us believe that it is what we want. I am talking about design for survival in this instance as feasible design solutions that help further our civilisation. In Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek, his chapter titled Design for Survival he describes how “in industrial circles today, most major research concerns itself not with producing for actual needs, but rather propagandizes people to only desire what has been produced.”
Design seems to have a taken a step further in to the extreme of ensuring our survival. On a trip to the design museum I stumbled upon a design called ‘Life Support’ challenging the design of the dialysis machine by Revital Cohan. Using animals to ensure human survival is the key element even though this device is actually advertised to ‘save’ greyhound race dogs after their short lived careers on the racetracks.
The design is looking at a “way of disconnecting people from the therapeutic machines and cold technologies they are harnessed to” and placing animals in that position instead. It’s no worry that the dog is now known and used as a “respiratory ‘device’” for human purpose, they all get “complementary training” thrown in. Well I’d say that’s a pretty sweet deal they get “complementary training” thrown in with a life of imprisonment and slavery. That definitely makes up for the fact that they are prisoners to the NHS.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am slightly worried that this is what certain designers are proposing. If Victor Papanek is right, which I think in some circumstances he is, does that mean that in the future people will start believing that this is the way forward?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.