Without working with and for people we will be replaced by self-moderated 3D imaging programs, wirelessly connected to 3D printers spewing models. Without a clearly- defined value-system and ideology, the designer is but an educated carpenter, to use Adolf Loos’s famous description. In Western society, one of the most universal acts we are taught as children is to give up your seat on the bus or the train for the elderly. Buses are designed with marked seats under clearly situated modern visual signage reminding us of our simple civic ethical duty. Nevertheless, if you have recently gone on a bus you might have noticed that fewer people embrace this simple and minute duty, leaving the elderly to stand in the hardships of public transportation. We might think that the main issue here is that we no longer consider some populations as weak; the elderly are vital and active and have replaced the label of inability with newfound eagerness, coupled with a new pride, basking in their third or fourth career needed to financially support their longevity. We could also claim that the problem is rooted in modern consumerist society, typically identified as selfish and indifferent. However, when asked, people will usually give up their seat, so why don’t we do it straight away? If we carefully observe we will find that the reason is simple — we just do not pay attention to our physical surroundings any more.
This inattention is coupled with our cowardice, not only as designers but as people, to stand by a clearly defined value system. A key change, mirrored in the rise of centralist rulers, is the ‘newfound truth’ that democracy is overrated, liberalism is weak and pluralist agendas are for suckers. In design, a false-truth hammered through our obsessive consumerism assumes that capitalism is not an ideology but just the natural order of business — a designer selling a chair for four million dollars is just the work of a professional. Social values play no part. Even drawing attention to social agendas quickly dissolves into weak arguments. For example, the first elderly-oriented design call in the UK was labelled “design for your future self”, underlining a detachment from our own imminent yet un-sexy future. Inclusive design, trying to offer various physical and social standards instead of just one healthy model, was quickly engulfed by standardised industrial solutions, giving rise to yet another 99 percent, the infirm, who are pushed to the margins of the design world. Compiled into our smartphones, deaf with our noise-cancelling earphones, concentrated in a parallel world in which we have many alter-personas, we seem less interested in a significant social role. Recent design trends, such as interactive design and even UX, aided by VR, AR and other technological augmentation, deepen this growing gap. The serendipitous chance of
getting lost in an unknown street is replaced by the red dot of navigation apps; looking for a restaurant or choosing a book is regulated by grading apps and social media. We may think we have more options, but actually we are all gradually sentenced to have the same user experiences. To have a strong and flawless internet connection has become one of our most fundamental needs, affecting our personal life and interactions, our business vitality, financial and medical decisions and our very understanding and experience of public spaces such as city streets. Ignoring Jurgen Habermas’s call almost 60 years ago for the necessity of the public sphere, we now have the complete opposite, reduced to nothing. As governments and tech-giants threaten what is termed ‘net neutrality’, the need for a stand for ideology and values is even more urgent. Our political spaces are virtual, the forums and social networks successfully replace the city square; we are supervised through our virtual activity and apps. Even delinquency takes place in the Dark Net at least as much as it does in dark alleys. The virtual world’s centrality in our daily lives supposedly encourages individuality and independence, yet we all experience the world through the same technological mediations. Through shared virtual mediations we not only lose our critical thinking, but also interaction with ‘dumb objects’. If the virtual will soon be our main world, we must focus on transitions between the virtual and the physical. Think of the immense evolution smartphones have gone through compared to the design of ATMs or even the design of the sidewalk. Physical objects and spaces in the urban realm have lost their agency, they do not mediate our interactions, therefore the very integration between the digital and the analogue is starting to crack. While we can still speak both languages we must design their integration.
What can we do, then?
Portnov and Ventura
Jerusalem, 2018. People ‘watching’ a street concert. In our daily routine there is a dissonance between the physical and the virtual worlds. Physical space loses its significance and vitality to the immediate virtual space which has become our main activity site.
on site review 36: our material future
35
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator