CPH127

It has been some time coming but it’s here, a comprehensive exploration into what is ‘Social Design’. This great video comes from the team at the socialdesignsite.com.

UPDATE - from Kate

What is Social Design from your point of view?

I had high hopes for Giles Slade’s Made to Break after reading a positive review of it that promised more than the doom and gloom critique of mass manufacturing by adding interesting back-stories of the development of a range of every day objects. Unfortunately, Made to Break didn’t live up to this billing. It never really does get beyond the doom and gloom, mixes it with a heavy does of conspiratorial paranoia, and applies this formula to every product it looks at. Even more unfortunate, Slade missed a chance to do a much-needed update to the time-worn critique to highlight the real issues we are facing today.

The author’s fascination (horror actually) with planned obsolescence (designing products to intentionally fail prematurely or fall out of style on schedule) follows in a long trail of critiques of the concept. Let me say that there’s little I find likeable about the idea of planned obsolesence - it’s a cynical, underhanded method of getting people to buy more products, more often. I’ll take Slade’s word that it was practiced as widely as he describes in the first half of the twentieth century. And let’s also agree that the early generations of industrial designers - Slade calls out Brooks Stevens for particular scorn for his invention and promotion of planned obsolescence - were instrumental in facilitating it.

At the same time there were also designers who truly tried to create long-lived, durable products that would have a timeless style. Charles and Ray Eames and Dieter Rams come to mind.

Scheduled style obsolescence was honed to perfection by the stylists of Detroit, led by Harley Earl at GM. But to imply this mentality is in place today, unchanged, is completely false in my experience. Never in all my years of practicing have I had a client tell me they want a product to fail after a certain number of months - without exception mechanisms are designed to last as long as we can make them (often designing under a number of constraints such as size, cost, material usage, etc. which perhaps gives the impression they are designed to fail after a certain time). I’ve never had a client say "Make this look good, but not too good. Leave some in reserve for next year so we can get people to buy it all over again." Everyone wants to make the best damn product they can at the time. Hyper competition won’t allow anything less.

Like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney fighting a Cold war in a terrorist world long after the Iron Curtain has come down, Slade persists in a world view that is decades out of date. That world simply doesn’t exist anymore.

(Slade doesn’t help his case by riddling the book with
small factual errors that add up to a sense that he didn’t do his homework. In the
chapter on the development of computer UI’s I lost count of the number
of basic errors: Alan Kay’s Smalltalk is referred to as a networking
method when in fact it was a programming method; the history of Jobs,
Raskin, the Mac and the Lisa is quite contorted; Raskin named the
Macintosh after his favorite eating apple, not because it grew around
Cupertino.)

But a subtler point lost on Slade is that it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t need to. Another world has replaced it, that of voluntary obsolescence, which serves the economic purpose even better. Like the transition of Cold war to ad hoc terrorism, this shift is also one from top-down authoritarianism to decentralized action. The approach of planned obsolescence has so pervaded and framed our consumption mentality that we (as consumers) don’t need to have products go out of style on a planned basis or have them fail on schedule for us to be more than happy to replace fully functioning products with new ones. This fact has saved Apple’s bacon and made them the darling of Wall Street again.

Three major forces are driving this.

1. Style: People are more aesthetically sophisticated and demanding than they used to be, and want more frequent sating of style fixes. When the first design shows were put together for the Museum of Modern Art in NY, the curators had to cast far and wide to put together enough well-designed products to make it worthwhile. Today an afternoon in Target would do the trick (well, perhaps a stop in Moss [LINK] wouldn’t go amiss).
2. Technological progress: Technology is obviously evolving rapidly, furiously, unpredictably, and at the same time becoming networked together in webs of products, services and software that were undreamed of in the 1950’s. This leads to dependencies of performance within the systems that drives updates (ie, updates to replace products that are fine in isolation but obsolete within the network)
3. Competition: The business world is far more competitive and complex than it was 75 years ago with many more players, and those players are more sophisticated. It is this hyper competition that is a major cause of ever more rapid product releases, particularly in the tech sectors, the antithesis of the conspiratorial tone that Slade relies upon.

Slade talks about style and technological obsolescence but doesn’t connect them together into a modern framework, instead adopting the old-guard "save the poor public from being duped by the big bad corporation" trope.

I don’t believe people are simple, unthinking "consumers" of all things provided. They (we) are thoughtful, discriminating, unpredictable, fickle, rational and emotional beings. If we were easy to push product to year after year, companies’ lives would be a heck of a lot easier. But we don’t just take what they give. Long gone are the days when companies could push the new tail fins and have the culture unanimously cry "And they are good!". Decisions now are more localized and individualized, thus less prone to predictability and more prone to churn.

Voluntary obsolescence has greatly sped up consumption from what it was under the days of planned obsolescence. This has led to a degree of ecological destruction (with much more coming from the wastestream yet to be made) that should be of major concern. Whereas the older critique of planned obsolescence was more of a moral crusade - prevent the helpless public from being duped out of its money! - the attention now needs to be on the ecological price we, our children, and our grandchildren will be paying for our current freedom to obsolete our posessions.

Which general was it that said "You always fight your last war"? Unforuntately Giles Slade is doing just that, and has missed an opportunity at an opportune time to critique the new world of voluntary obsolescence and the ecological damage that it is causing.

The
ICIS/LUND project is a joint endeavour intended to create the
foundation for a innovative new Scandinavian Master’s programme in
Sustainable Design. ICIS and the Department of Environmental Strategy
of Campus Helsingborg (Lund University) are the principal founders in
the creation of this educational programme. The Municipality of
Helsingør, City of Helsingborg and Frederiksborg County are
contributing financial partners to the Project. As such, this joint
educational project is designed to elevate the level of sustainable
design competence in the Øresund, Scandinavia and Europe.

Read more at susdes.org