Explorations in Design Anthropology
Explorations in Design Anthropology Mid‐semester Submission Author –
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
“There was I‐mark that will be introduced for marking certain selected product in the market. This would be regarded as designed process for marketing. Critically speaking it is not related to design process or it may be or may not be located in an appropriate context of design thinking.” Consider the assertion of the foregoing statement in the light of the design process as explicated from the writing of Balram and Papenek. In assertion to the foregoing statement it is very important to understand the design as currently practiced in a country that has a massive population and vast diversity in terms of the consumers or users. If we take a closer look on Prof. Victor Papenek’s definition of the design process he defines to it as the planning and patterning of any act towards a desired, foreseeable end. Prior to that the starts his first chapter by saying all men are designers. Even in the Indian context it is pretty much evident how the design process is not something that is started and then comes to an end but something that keeps on changing. The Eames report clearly speaks of the classic example of the Indian LOTA that is the result of a design that has come through generations. To understand the design process one has to first understand the context in which it operates(S Balram). The statement made above sounds very vague because it speaks of a marking that will certify certain products as good design in the market and if we critically have a read at it clearly makes a statement in the lines of Industrial Design which is highly criticized by Papanek. If one has to mark a certain product or a certain design as good design then what can be the parameters that need to be considered? How does having a mark on a product reveal its design process? What can be an appropriate context of design thinking on the basis of which such a marking will be given to the product? These are a few questions which need to be answered to really justify the given statement. Balram states that in the west design had emerged out of the need of mass production but the case of India is different. Taking a closer look at the market today how 1
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
many products do we use every day which we can call as Indian Design? With the advent of globalization and the influence of the Americas and the Europe I think the very context of the Indian design has changed. The views of Papanek on Industrial design clearly describes how Industrial Design was rather following a trend to make profits by making products that are not really useful for people to show off to other people who don’t really care. Would I‐ mark be a similar mark that follows the same line? As a mark that certain products have to show off to other products that aren’t really affected by it. The statement clearly reads that the mark is to market the designing process of a product but again the million dollar question that one has to ask is ‘in what context?’ With the kind of diversity we have in the country it is very difficult to define a common context I believe. To get a better understanding of the different kind of contexts related to good design we should take a look some everyday examples. Being a design student and with the laptop becoming a clearly inevitable tool for everyday use we can take its example to understand good design based on context. Nowadays everything is being made slimmer, lighter to carry and more compact. You even have some laptops which don’t even have a cd drive like the Mac Book Air but is so slim and sleek that it would hardly take any space in your bag making it far easier to fit into any bag. Now in the context of mobility this is a good design. A laptop which is easy to carry, slim enough to fit amongst your other books in the bag and light weight. Now on the other hand let’s take a laptop totally opposite to it like an Alienware laptop.
Fig 1: Macbook Air and Alienware Comparision There is a massive difference in the thickness and weight of the two.
The Alienware laptops are much heavier, very bulky and they are almost a size bigger than most laptops of the same size. If you consider the context being mobility and size then the alienware is indeed a bad design but if in the same case you compare performance in terms of graphic operations and gaming then the use of the heavy body and bulky looks is justified and in this context you’ll find the mac book air to be a bad design. We need to make note here that both these products do not compromise on aesthetics and they have their own sense of style in it too. Thus we can see how the context here matter a lot. A particular design goes from good to bad in a matter of context. But again taking this same example is 2
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
the consumer or the user made aware of the design process? The consumer need not be or doesn’t know the different versions or iterations that came out before the companies released the final product. The entire process of designing the laptop is left to the consumer to experience. To understand the design process let us try to apply the function complex which Papanek speaks about in his book. Let us take another example to understand the function complex. Automobile is yet another industry in our country which is fast growing and which seems like ever growing. Each year we see new models of cars coming in and old cars being tagged as obsolete by the service stations. If it’s the context is functionality of the automobile i.e. to commute, travel, burning as minimum fuel as possible then can we say that all small cars or hatchback cars solve this purpose? Is an automobile simply a design which is in the context of mobility at minimum fuel consumption and maximum output? The answer as we all know today is no. Again applying Papanek’s view on the industrial design where products which are sold to people who don’t really need them but they buy them to show off to other people who don’t really care; the automobile is something very similar to this in the context of the cultural behavior of Indians. Let’s take the example of Maruti WagonR. It is a hatchback model but over the years it has developed the sense of the perfect middle class family vehicle. Not too stylish and not too cheap looking. It also solves the exact purpose of the automobile. We might say that it is entirely an Indian design as the car is basically designed for Indians but mostly the technology is by Suzuki designed for Indian conditions. Here we can see how this car works very well in terms of its Method, Use, Need, Telesis, Association and Aesthetics blend in very well together in the context of a middle class or a common Indian man. In this same particular context of functionality in accordance with the culture if we take another car which is more expensive and a little more stylish like the Hyundai Accent which is a sedan. It is not considered very expensive but in the context of a WagonR the Accent fails in terms of its functionality. Apart from a little extra storage space the small family car identity is lost. On the other hand if we change the context to status which is again a major criterion for the purchase of cars then the Accent is a clear winner there. The sedan is considered much more elegant and upper class as compared the WagonR which is a hatchback.
Fig 2: Left WagonR and Right Accent. The family car and the more executive car.
3
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
Hence here there is no singular context on the basis of which one can certify an I‐ mark for a product. The very fact of the diversity of the people living in this country brings about different contexts to the design thinking. So critically speaking the I‐mark may find it very difficult to locate itself in the right context of design thinking. Furthermore the article doesn’t really say as to kind of products that are going to be labeled the I‐mark. In recent trends we can see how India ends up being a dumping zone of tried and tested products in countries in Europe or Americas. With the massive influence of cinema and the upper class making an example for the middle class the products that work seem to be coming not out need but more out of the cultural trend of showing off one’s status through the possession of imported material. Like an example quoted by Prof. Vishwajit Pandya in one of his discussion with his students about the sale of imported polythene carry bags or the practice of a lot of Indians to buy, save, and store products that come in from the west. So here you cannot really apply a context for the designing of that particular product. A disposable cutlery from an airline is in some ways considered as a regularly usable cutlery which is stylish in the context of some Indians due to their fascination of products from the west or which they call “yeh toh foreign ka hai”. For such consumers or let us say users the context of a good design simply doesn’t apply because it clearly fails to follow the idea of Papanek’s good design because these designs are neither solving the purpose of functionality to the optimum but also introduces materials which are not readily available for further production of such goods. These products do not fall under the context of Indian Design but culturally speaking they are now a part of the new global Indian culture. So if there are products floating in the consumer market which might have emerged as good designs in a foreign context but are merely created necessities in the Indian context how can I‐mark really solve its purpose as certifying a product to be a good design? And even if it does authenticate a product to be good design then under what context is that product a good design. To think of the overflowing western or foreign designs in the country another question that quickly grabs attention is the design process. If these products were never designed specifically for Indians with an Indian context then should that design process really be considered by the consumer. Shifting back to automobiles; if you decide to visit a city called Ahmedabad you can see a mix of the modern concrete and western style architecture along with an older part of the city with the more Indian style of architecture. This goes same for most cities in India today. In the more modern part Ahmedabad one can see European and American cars in abundance. You can see how the rich flaunt off their Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, Volkswagens and other such so called premium brands of cars as a status symbol. You can even find racing cars like the Lamborghinis and the Ferraris. To think about these cars technically and aesthetically some say these companies have given birth to designs that are far superior and far more efficient than their predecessors. It is true but is it really true in the Indian context? These cars are very expensive and totally inefficient in terms of fuel if compared the car that was designed for India like the WagonR. These big 4
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
brand cars may have done some modifications to suit better on Indian conditions but then again the context here is money and market and probably not design. Here we clearly cannot argue or consider good or bad design because the context here is status and power in the Indian social culture. As put forth by Balram about the Indian Designer or the need for an Indian Designer: As the Indian population is massive and diverse there will be a need for designer who can come up with not one solution but diverse solutions for problem solving. He also further says in his book how the rural population keeps shifting to urban areas and also how education itself is not designed for the rural population. So if we take into consideration such points of diversity in the people of the country and the vastness in the population do we really have a market or a product line that is focused on the Design process for India? If not then it definitely can be criticized how I‐mark does not speak about the design process at all. It can be a mere marketing move to promote certain products to give them an edge over other products. The marking may serve well to give an indication to the upper class of the Indian society about the product being a good design but does the vast population of the country really consider good design in their day to day use of products? There may be some exceptions in the market but I am basing this not on the basis of the design process of making the product but rather modifying the product to make it more adaptable. Here we can take the example of the mobile phone. Nokia currently since the last two or three years has been coming up phones that are really easy to adapt by the Indian rural population. Mobile phones today are just like an identity card. From the cleaning maid to the nearby vegetable hawker everyone carries a mobile phone in this country. But again is it because of the splendid design of the phone or is it again a cultural obligation to have a mobile phone as a personal number to be contacted that propagated the design of the Nokia or other similar mobile phones which are proudly owned by every category of people? One might say that the in the Indian context or the general context of usability the mobile phones of Nokia are an example of good design but yet here again can we really consider them to be good designs based on their functional use other than receiving phone calls? We clearly know and see how optimum functionality of the mobile phone is not achieved everywhere and hence a majority of its features are rendered useless for the common man in India. Balram states in his book how Indians value systems based on their faith and belief and most of the art and culture is actually the outcome of their myths and beliefs. So for a population driven by such things would the design of this mobile phone fall under the pretext of good design? On the other hand people themselves reinvent or restyle their products based on their needs or myths or belief systems. You will find how some people have the picture of their Gods and Goddesses as their wall paper on their mobile phone. Their ring tones will be chants and hymns to their Gods and they will even keep the mobile phone in their pockets where there will also be a picture of their Deity. Thus the existing design is redesigned by the consumer in accordance with his/her belief
5
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
systems or cultural practices. Again we can conclude how I‐mark does not really relate to the design process or speak about it. After looking at the context and the idea of the design process let us also take a brief look as to what exactly is I‐mark all about. The I‐mark is the Indian Design Mark and it was recently announced or launched saying that it is a big step forward for India. The chairman of the Indian Design Counsil(IDC) at the launch in his speech said how India needs to promote not just its design but also its design thinking. Another article in the Times of India states how there were a few products which had registered for the I‐mark and by May this year they will be evaluated based on their design process and given the I‐mark marking certifying it as good design. In the articles and also based on the given statement in the beginning and the examples I presented above without knowing the kind of products that are registered and also without knowing the basis or context in which these products are evaluated one can always criticize how I‐mark is either not related to design process or it is in the inappropriate context of design thinking. 6
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001
Explorations in Design Anthropology
Bibliography 1. Thinking Design, Author: S Balaram, Chp1 and Chp2 2. Design for the Real World, Author: Victor Papanek, Chp1, Chp2, Chp7, Chp8 3. Article Published in the Times of India Ahmedabad Edition dated 8th March, written by Dayananda Yumlembam Title : Now I‐mark for good Design 4. http://www.cadcamnews.in/2011/03/i‐mark‐india‐design‐mark‐launched.html
7
Manu Kamath MDes 201114001