 |
 |
I probably would not tell you something new, but the way the tread goes indicates that it might be useful to mention the following. At the time Papanek initiated his movement, there was a paralel initiative(s) in the domain of architectural design and urban planning. In the domain of building design there is a whole field concerned with the social implications of design projects. It is usually referred to as Environment and Behavior (and its journal) and its professional association is Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA). This is in the USA. In EU the sister organization is IAPS and in Japan and the Pacific -- PAPER. There are also several smaller association in US and the Pacific with a focus on Culture and Environment. They also draw upon the same constituency that supports EDRA, IAPS, and PAPER. There is also the discipline of Environmental Psychology which emerges at the same time, by almost the same people. Related journals are J. of Environmental Psyc and Environment and Planning (with four different branches: A, B, C, and D). It was at the time of Papanek. Evidently, in the 1960's and 70's there were social conditions for initiating such movement. The movement stalled shortly after the beginning of the 80's. pferdomnibus If you are interested in examples from the domains of architecture and urban planning, you can find a lot there. It is just a matter of effort. For example, there are publications about the social implications of the housing projects in US and Sweden. It is mostly about the mechanisms by which big housing developments for low-income people foster anomie, anarchy, and social unrest. There are many studies on the impact of mass transit (starting with the) on urban planning and socio-environmental urban phenomena. (e.g. Kevin Lynch in the 60's and 80's) However, that staff might not be of much use if you are working with examples from industrial design and technology. My interpretation is that Jean is looking for good case studies describing in detail the social implications of (industrial) design objects. This is interesting to me although my focus is in the domain of built environment. At 06:00 PM 1/25/2002 +0100, Kaare Eriksen wrote: >Viktor Papanek is in my opinion the one who most convincing argued for the >designer as a socio-cultural activist in his "design for the real world" >published more than 30 years ago. His thoughts inspired a whole generation >of conscious designers all over the world, and when I started as a >designstudent in 1978 I believed, that the future designer would be doing >a lot of intentional social engineering. We have done that indeed, but I >still wonder whether the 'intentions' behind the last 2 decades of >designers activity were right and deep enough. >Papanek set up different subjects (f.ex. medicotechnical equipment and >design for the third world), that needed the designers concern, and >although medicotechinical equipment at that time was almost untouched by >designers, this area is a very potent and commercially interesting area >for industrial designers today. >What still is missing is the deeper problem-oriented approach that goes >beyond the dominant market-oriented product design, and actually look at >the users future needs as a bit less productfocused. From this point of >view there would still be a lot of work to do for creative engineering and >designrelated cultural development f.ex. in the third world. >I tried once to find some of Papaneks old students by internet-searching >on the names mentioned in the above mentioned book. I wanted to know how >they today relate to the the design-philosophy, that Papanek must have >given them, but I couldn't find any of the designers mentioned. Does >anyone know what happened to the designers of this generation? > >sincerely >Kaare Eriksen >Aalborg University > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Scrivener [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: 25. januar 2002 11:43 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Design and future needs > > >All > >I'm trying to follow this thread. I too am confused as to whether Jean >is interested in design which is intentional social engineering and >design which, as it were, accidentally shapes society. > >The thread contains examples of both. > >A few more examples of each. I recall, perhaps erroneously, a >presentation by the sociologist John Bowers, in which he argued that the >Paris Metro, then publicly owned, was designed with a different gauge of >rail to the then privately owned land railway system thus making it more >difficult for the system to fall into private ownership because the land >trains could not enter the metro system. > >The relationship between crime and technological development is very >interesting. For example, the sex industry has always been amongst the >first to exploit new technology. It was quick for example to exploit the >telephone and the term "call girl" apparently originates from the early >use of the telephone as a medium for making appointments. I bet >Alexander Bell didn't conceive of the telephone shaping culture in this >way. Also, just look at cultural impact that the mobile phone is having, >for example, on language and the way that young people now communicate. > >Any way, if Jean intends to produce a paper or something, I for one >would be very interested in receiving a copy. > >Steve > > > >Nicola Morelli wrote: > > > > I'm re-posting a message I accidentally sent only to Lubomir > > > > HI all, > > I didn't quite understand whether jean's request is about examples in > which someone (designer or not) DELIBERATELY managed to change society or > examples in which products shaped societies and cultural systems. I > understand that some of those who answered to Jean's request refer to the > second interpretation (technology shaping society), while I was trying to > think of a possible answer to the first interpretatino (designers > deliberately shaping society through technology). I can't find, at the > moment examples in this direction, while the debate of technology shaping > society (I mean unintentionally or quasi-unintentionally) is long and > complex and would probably include questions about society shaping > technology (on which several books have been written, especially in the > area of the social construction of technology). > > I can add an example of technology shaping society (and viceversa): how > many products and technological innovations have contributed to the > development of new ways of working? A deliberate trial to use information > technology to shape the way we work was based on telework. Although the > prediction about a widespread diffusion of telework in western countries > did not eventuate, there are several new work arrangement that are based > on an intense use of information technology. For instance a lot of people > can now work from any location, using the Internet to create connection > with their original workplace. In this case was technology shaping > society? or, on the contrary it was society shaping technology (because > people did not like telework, but they did like to work while travelling, > therefore the demand for laptop and other related facilities increased)? > > Cheers > > Nicola > > > > Dr Nicola Morelli > > Centre for Design at RMIT University > > GPOBox 2476V Melbourne Victoria 3001 > > > > Web: http://users.tce.rmit.edu.au/e07643 > >-- >Professor Stephen AR Scrivener >VIDE Research Centre >Design Institute >School of Art and Design >Coventry University >Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK >Tel: +44 (0)24 7688 7477 >Fax: +44 (0)24 7688 7759 >Mobile: +44 (0)7789 590 228 >Email: [log in to unmask]