Bibliography
Scitovsky, Tibor, The Joyless Economy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992
Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation, The University of Michigan Press, 1994
Dichter, Ernest, Handbook of Consumer Motivations: The Psychology of the World of Objects, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964
Papanek, Victor, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Paladin, 1974
Green, William S., Jordan, Patrick W., Pleasure with Products: Beyond Usability, Taylor & Francis, 2002
Chapman, Jonathan, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences, and Empathy, 2005
Other possibles are:
Hinte, Ed Van, Eternally Yours: Time in Design; Product Value Sustenance, 2004
Chapman, Jonathan, Emotionally Durable Design: Objects, Experiences, and Empathy, 2005
McDonough, William, Braingart, Michael, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things
Norman, Donald A., Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, 2004
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thesis Proposal
Useless Things
Lots of stuff gets thrown away. Truckloads of it go off to landfills around the country every day. Industrial Designers would have designed a lot of the things that ended up in there. And the thing that bothers me about all this is that there seems to be a lot of waste.
When you think about how much energy and effort has gone into creating a product, the fact that it can go to the tip without further ado seems criminal.
If we want to live more ethically, like Norbert Wiener, and engage with the consequences, having a greater awareness about waste would seem a good thing.
The proposal would be to examine the psychology of waste from a consumer perspective and aim to determine if our relationship with our objects is a healthy one.
This would involve reviewing historical precedents as they affect the current situation.
Also why consumers buy products, what are their motivations and needs that are being fulfilled by the object. Is it emotional, functional, spiritual need etc. A lot of people buy things they don’t really need. Why? This is the waste prevention side of the equation.
Waste can also be tackled from a remedial aspect. Are there ways to get people to keep their objects for longer (engaging with object etc)? What Recycling/reclamation opportunities are there?
Lots of stuff gets thrown away. Truckloads of it go off to landfills around the country every day. Industrial Designers would have designed a lot of the things that ended up in there. And the thing that bothers me about all this is that there seems to be a lot of waste.
When you think about how much energy and effort has gone into creating a product, the fact that it can go to the tip without further ado seems criminal.
If we want to live more ethically, like Norbert Wiener, and engage with the consequences, having a greater awareness about waste would seem a good thing.
The proposal would be to examine the psychology of waste from a consumer perspective and aim to determine if our relationship with our objects is a healthy one.
This would involve reviewing historical precedents as they affect the current situation.
Also why consumers buy products, what are their motivations and needs that are being fulfilled by the object. Is it emotional, functional, spiritual need etc. A lot of people buy things they don’t really need. Why? This is the waste prevention side of the equation.
Waste can also be tackled from a remedial aspect. Are there ways to get people to keep their objects for longer (engaging with object etc)? What Recycling/reclamation opportunities are there?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Things That Matter
Interesting read of "Things that Matter" - my allocated reading.
This is a bit of a brain dumps of the ideas and concepts discussed in the reading:
1/ The Modern Movement - "form follows function". Mass production influencing/dictating the forms of objects i.e. what could be manufactured.
2/ Just designing objects felt to be reductionist/boring leading to pop design and post-modern design. Objects have meaning. Objects can be fun. That there is an emotional component/dimension to objects.
3/ That the stress on functionalism results in a loss of attachment with a particular product as any object that can do the same function has the same value (i.e is interchangeable). The object is not valued for it's uniqueness or individuality. I am also referring to mass produced objects here as each object exists independently of its brethren.
4/ Post-modern products have become icon, symbols or signs - the object has become abstracted and is considered in terms of what it signifies, communicates, or represents.
5/ Script - "the deposit in an object of the world view of the designers".
6/ Nothing terribly new here but that as designers we make design choices and discriminate. Favor one thing and exclude/omit others. That these choices can have unintended or unforeseen consequences, and that in some cases certain classes of people can be discriminated against e.g. disabled people.
7/ Exclusion is inherent as we design for particular use(s). One size does not fit all.
8/ An object does not exist in isolation. It is in relation to people.
9/ That there a feedback loop going on. Objects can "invite" certain types of usage. They can condition or train us in certain kinds of behaviors or interactions.
It also talked about TECHNOLOGICAL INTENTIONALITY. Here it started t get a bit vague for me:
"Once technologies have received identity, within that relation they nevertheless can have an own weight".
The jist that I got from that was objects can matter as things not just as signs. The way that I translate is that we can appreciate objects for what they can BE for us, not just necessarily what they can DO for us. Intrinsic value versus functional value.
The things I find interesting here is the parallel between how as a society we deal with objects and how we deal with people. The emphasis on functionality - what a thing does. Being useful. Did modernism have a fallout effect on handicapped or disabled people. When an object is no longer useful it gets discarded. I think I read somewhere about 80% of objects getting thrown away while they are still functional.
I think about getting old. Not being young and 'new' anymore. Getting put on the scrap heap. Trundled off to an old persons home while I am still functional/living.
Which kind of gives me an idea for an essay topic - Useless Things - some investigation into that area.
Back to the reading. Further concepts introduced:
1/ Ready-at-Hand Tools/objects that permit engagement through the wold through themselves. e.g a hammer.
2/ Present-at-Hand ?? hmmm. The opposite of ready-at-hand. There, but no longer operational or functional.
3/ transparency - when our awareness shifts from the tool (e.g. hammer) to the task (e.g. hammering/nailing). In a sense the hammer disappears or becomes transparent.
There is one contentious bit here for me:
0"Transparency enables people to sustain their relationship with the product even when something goes wrong". hmmm. Not sure about that one. Would you hang on to a hammer if it was broken?
ENGAGEMENT vs CONSUMPTION
Basically I think this means that we use objects without engaging with them. e.g. my Bic pen, I don't really thing twice about it, I just write with it. And that we want to aim for more of the former and less of the latter.
SUMMARY
If we cherish our objects we will keep them around for longer which means filling up landfill at a slower rate.
This is a bit of a brain dumps of the ideas and concepts discussed in the reading:
1/ The Modern Movement - "form follows function". Mass production influencing/dictating the forms of objects i.e. what could be manufactured.
2/ Just designing objects felt to be reductionist/boring leading to pop design and post-modern design. Objects have meaning. Objects can be fun. That there is an emotional component/dimension to objects.
3/ That the stress on functionalism results in a loss of attachment with a particular product as any object that can do the same function has the same value (i.e is interchangeable). The object is not valued for it's uniqueness or individuality. I am also referring to mass produced objects here as each object exists independently of its brethren.
4/ Post-modern products have become icon, symbols or signs - the object has become abstracted and is considered in terms of what it signifies, communicates, or represents.
5/ Script - "the deposit in an object of the world view of the designers".
6/ Nothing terribly new here but that as designers we make design choices and discriminate. Favor one thing and exclude/omit others. That these choices can have unintended or unforeseen consequences, and that in some cases certain classes of people can be discriminated against e.g. disabled people.
7/ Exclusion is inherent as we design for particular use(s). One size does not fit all.
8/ An object does not exist in isolation. It is in relation to people.
9/ That there a feedback loop going on. Objects can "invite" certain types of usage. They can condition or train us in certain kinds of behaviors or interactions.
It also talked about TECHNOLOGICAL INTENTIONALITY. Here it started t get a bit vague for me:
"Once technologies have received identity, within that relation they nevertheless can have an own weight".
The jist that I got from that was objects can matter as things not just as signs. The way that I translate is that we can appreciate objects for what they can BE for us, not just necessarily what they can DO for us. Intrinsic value versus functional value.
The things I find interesting here is the parallel between how as a society we deal with objects and how we deal with people. The emphasis on functionality - what a thing does. Being useful. Did modernism have a fallout effect on handicapped or disabled people. When an object is no longer useful it gets discarded. I think I read somewhere about 80% of objects getting thrown away while they are still functional.
I think about getting old. Not being young and 'new' anymore. Getting put on the scrap heap. Trundled off to an old persons home while I am still functional/living.
Which kind of gives me an idea for an essay topic - Useless Things - some investigation into that area.
Back to the reading. Further concepts introduced:
1/ Ready-at-Hand Tools/objects that permit engagement through the wold through themselves. e.g a hammer.
2/ Present-at-Hand ?? hmmm. The opposite of ready-at-hand. There, but no longer operational or functional.
3/ transparency - when our awareness shifts from the tool (e.g. hammer) to the task (e.g. hammering/nailing). In a sense the hammer disappears or becomes transparent.
There is one contentious bit here for me:
0"Transparency enables people to sustain their relationship with the product even when something goes wrong". hmmm. Not sure about that one. Would you hang on to a hammer if it was broken?
ENGAGEMENT vs CONSUMPTION
Basically I think this means that we use objects without engaging with them. e.g. my Bic pen, I don't really thing twice about it, I just write with it. And that we want to aim for more of the former and less of the latter.
SUMMARY
If we cherish our objects we will keep them around for longer which means filling up landfill at a slower rate.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)