Session 4: Design as a state of mind  comments
Elite design or ubiquitous design?

         Dr. Venkatesh's presentation of "design as a state of mind" raises
interesting issues. Coming from marketing, in this view:
  "Design is not viewed as a way to adapt to customer needs but as an
expression of a visionary outcome.  From the customer's point of view
design becomes a matter of experience."
Designs, in this view, provide an experience, elicit an emotional response,
and provide visions of how things might be.  This view positions the
designer as a visionary, a person who can touch your emotions, and one who
can provide incredible experiences.  It is assumed that the designer is
also the one who addresses the user's needs.  This is a bevy of fairly
sophisticated tasks, perhaps requiring extensive training, and this becomes
an activity for those with special talent or training.  In this view design
is an activity only elites (highly trained persons) can engage in.
         Another view I see underlying the design-as-a-state-of-mind is
that design becomes part and parcel of everyday life, that it cannot be
envisioned as an activity separate or distinct from the everyday production
of artifacts.  Design become everyone's business and is an activity that
every person thinks about and views as important.  Venkatesh named some
companies that do this, and it seems that some countries may already value
design in this way, examples without offending anyone, would be Japan,
Italy, etc. at least in the modern sense.  This view would imply that many
everyday objects would be designed (well) by everyday non-designer
folk.  This in architecture is known as the vernacular tradition  buildings
designed and built by non-professionals and non-experts.  In this view,
design becomes part of the subconscious of the people. Ubiquitous design
might be an appropriate term here.
I heard Ranjan also making the plea that In India now there perhaps is very
little consciousness of design, and little funding for it.  Maria offers
similar view of design in Colombia, with design faculty at least having to
make large investments themselves.  Francois-Xavier also asks whether in
resource strapped countries design can be relegated as a higher order need
after many of the more basic needs are met.   In the fist view above,
design remains something that only trained persons can do.  In many
countries licensing regulations prevent others from designing.
There is however, something attractive about the second view of making
design part of the subconscious of the people, whether design becomes an
activity everyone engages in or professionals ply their wares.  One of the
major advantages of locating design in the academy or university is the
opportunity offered to have design be seen as something everyone can avail
of.  Enabling students from other majors to take courses in the School of
Design and making some courses become part of breadth requirements options,
and enabling others on campus a window into the world of design education
and practice could help in this regard.  These, by the way, are part of the
proposal for the UCI SoD.
         Maria's note about the cost of design raises another issue. Though
high level design, like high art, is something that can be only for those
who can afford it, there may be another possibility.  Attention can be
devoted to the study of local and vernacular design, local materials,
situated concepts and ideas.  Ranjan's work on the bamboo initiative seems
to be an effort in that direction.
         Francois-Xavier's other question regarding how designers trained
here would function when they went back is an interesting question.  If the
curriculum emphasizes examination of local and situated views and
conditions, then they could be quite useful.  But, what has happened in the
past is that the study in developed countries has become a mechanism of
simply importing ideas from elsewhere and in some instances forcing these
rather an evaluation of the appropriateness of the ideas.  Some of this
discussion has occurred in the hi-tech lo-tech debate.
         Questions have been raised about what kind of people would be
doing the teaching (Christena).  This is a hard question to answer, though
there is a pat answer: good people. There are many questions:  What are we
asking about?  Qualifications & training?  Experience?  Past
record?  Innovativeness in idea generation?  What they will teach?  Who
they will teach?  Will they be doers, thinkers, researchers,
motivators?  How will they teach (Rosan, Carma and Michael's points)?  The
answer is that we would like all of these, and have made provision for them
in the SoD proposal.  But there still remains the question of how to find
such people, and how to ensure that they will continue to do what they
promise.  Some things will have to work out later, but the selection of the
people is without doubt a crucial component of the implementation.