PIVOT COLLECTIVE A MANIFESTO
Mission statement: To establish global balance by promoting the questioning and understanding of individual balances with all designs and by all as designers. (Thackara, 2005) We believe global design has reached a tipping point. A Pivot point. There are two options available to us- to continue producing, designing, living as we are or to reconsider, evaluate and change the ways we design and think about design. Sustainability, and an environmental consideration are at the core of our beliefs, they are not a trendy facade. We believe there is a way we can sustain our qualities of life, continuing to design, create, as well as bettering the world. We have established a series of balances, pairs to consider when approaching design- be it as the creator or the consumer. Each side has a value, and it is about discovering the point within each, and with relevance to your design, where these balance- for the good of the design and the greater good of the world. Our logo embodies this sense of a critical point, as well as a sense for the evolution and growth of design. The circle represents the world we are all in; the triangles balanced and converging represent the information and considerations within the design (central point) and again expanding as the user imparts themselves upon the design and the design upon the world.
REVOLUTIONARY / EVOLUTIONARY The history of design shows numerous examples of design revolutions such as Minimilism, postmodernism, Dada and sub genres such as Steampunk and Slowfood movements. As society grows accustomed to each new style of design it inevitably begins to become overwhelmed by it and at some point will fight against it in favour of opposing styles, thus creating a new design revolution and a continuing curve of design (Coffin, 2008) .This can be seen in post-modernist designer, Robert Venturi’s quote, “less is a bore” a direct reaction of the style that preceded it exemplified by Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe’s famous modernist statement, “less is more.” (Goldberger, 1971) A design must be as powerful as a revolution but as constant and multi-directional as an evolutionary process. It is not only possible to be both but it is a necessity to be both. Current climate change theories point to a global tipping point, it is at the tip of this point we have the opportunity to change an is some ways force design to become evolutionary in an revolutionary way. This is an opportunity we as a species cannot afford to miss.
ANSWERING / QUESTIONING Dunne and Raby’s work into highly critical and conceptual design is exemplary of the ways in which design can be used to ask questions (Dunne & Raby, 2001). As designers we must strive to better our understand of people, objects and systems, we can only truly achieve this through constantly formulating and asking questions. Perhaps the most poignant question of all is “why”? A designer should be able to justify every decision in a relevant context; justified questions can then begin create relevant answers and in turn justified designs. Using design to answer questions should not imply a final answer and should encourage others to continue to question not only the design itself but the context within which it lies. In this way a continuous cycle of questioning and answering is achieved. Answers cannot exist without questions, while this is a very simple concept it is often forgotten. This concept is not always true in reverse and indeed the most provocative questions are those for which no answer exists. (Meyer, 1988) Too often is design initiated and orientated around solving one problem, sacrificing vital opportunities for questioning. As a society we must position ourselves in a mind set that is focused on questioning as well as answering.
GLOBAL / LOCAL The world is at a point now where we need to consider where and how the things we consume are made. (Cameron & Elliot, 1994) Sustainability has become a key word of the times, and holds particular relevance to design. The balance needs to be found between thinking global, and acting local. (Aldersey-Williams, 1992) We can balance and compare the two when thinking about travel. Raw materials often travel 1000’s of kilometres to get here (this is especially the case with electronics, all containing very specific minerals), and whilst this allows us greater diversity in our material choices, it comes at a high environmental cost. Local materials cost less to transport, economically and environmentally, and provide a) a cultural point of relevance and familiarity and b) employment and economic ‘joy’ to the community’s designs are produced and used in (Chen, Goupers, Kouner, & Lerver, 2009). The balance we have to consider in this case is the diversity in ideas that globalism brings . Open source thinking, different cultural perspectives. With the technology existing today, we can remain connected to the global ideas pool, thinking globally, and designing and producing for those around us, acting locally. (Diehl, 2006)
HOMOGENOUS/ DIVERSE Evolution is diversity. (Delanda, 2004) The base of this point is that diversity in nature survive, a homogenous community does not. Consider this- if there’s a large group of the same animal/ organism hunting the same food source, competition will be high and eventually the food source will be consumed and the group left to starve. This is why, when thinking about natural eco systems, there is who diversity, a lot of creatures sharing different food sources. In the design world this applies (Thackara, 2005). The manufacturer or the design is the predator, the main group, the audience is the food source. If the market is flooded with all the same, consumption will drop. Diversity brings commercial prosperity, and also interest. The flip side to this is production costs. Homogeneity and mass production go hand in hand. If you’re producing a lot of the same thing your machine fitting costs decrease, the opposite applying to a diverse production range. Diversity brings interest, and a high production cost. Homogeneity brings economically more sustainable production, but a less interesting and commercially sustainable consuming environment.
SOLITARY / SOCIAL ‘The designer,’ a term that is used frequently throughout design theory and literature. This term encourages us as designers to think, create, and produce design as an individual. (Goldschmidt, 1995) How can we find a balance to work collectively as designers so that we can share knowledge and information to enable design to shift from being exclusive to design in a more holistic way it the very definition lends itself to a solitary ideology? We must redefine society’s preconception around the term ‘designer’ and begin to celebrate it as a social process. Just as the seed contains hereditary information of it’s ancestors each new design contains a vast collection of references to designs and other influences that have come before it. John Thackara’s concept of us all being “In the bubble” helps us to visualise and understand that we need to consider all stages of design as we all live in this world together. (Thackara, 2005)
RESTRICT / ENABLE Though it may seem obvious that design should enable, we must ask ourselves how design can restrict, and why? Indeed many people argue that design should never restrict we consider some level of restriction to be beneficial (Bekker, Johnson, Johnson, & Wilson, 1997). We believe for restrictive design to exist if must maintain a justified reason examples could be for the users safety, economic reasons, to challenge an idea or even challenge the user of the product. One such project that demonstrates this is Handschuhfinger by Rebecca Horn in 1972. This project featured beautifully crafted white "extended" fingers or fingernails each several feet in length, as the user interacted with objects and spaces the ‘fingers’ creating a unique restrictive experience. (Horn, 1977)
Often through restriction of one particular element or idea of a project we can open up other areas to be explored and experienced. At first glance restriction and enabling seem to be complete contradictions, projects from designers and artists such as Rebecca’s show that in fact the two actually complement one another.
PERFECTION / IMPERFECTION Achieving beauty, both aesthetic and conceptual, is a dream for us all as designers. We strive to find balance between form and function, expression, efficiency and purpose. However we must realize that what we judge as perfect is subjective. No designed artefact that surrounds us is perfect. From a drinking glass that is heavy, vulnerable to breaking and must be down-cycled to less pure material if it makes it that far...to the personal computer that consumes too much electricity, crashes just before you save and comes to rest as highly toxic waste. (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) Natalia Ilyin sees this as a fear of uncertainty as a direct result of the world war (one) that directly preceded the International style movement and gave definition to modernist design as it still exists today (Ilyin, 2006). Within imperfections of each artefact lie possibilities for.... opportunities for adaptation to its environment. Perfection must come in the form of perfectly fitting not perfectly finished.
EXCLUSIVE / HOLISTIC We see evidence of holistically structured designs from organisations such as IDEO who utilise a method based upon in-depth research into every aspect of a product’s relating elements - from the people and other products the design interacts throughout its entire life cycle. (Stoddard, 2010) In essence they treat each product as a social entity and explore the complex relationships in order to drive the design process. They consider, before designing, where, who, what, how and why. They do not consider only the product itself, but understand that this product forms part of a service and exists in a wider community (of users as well as designs). This approach holds its merits in its relevance to the user, and in its considerations beyond the product user interactions, strengthening the design. Designing in an exclusive way, however, is not always bad. There are times when we must realise that all of us are different, and in this age of personal manufacturing, we are all designing exclusively for ourselves. (Heskett, 2002) Two Victoria university graduates have started a small company that utilises this exclusivity. Users can design, customise their own chair and have it manufactured especially for them. (Saul, Lau, Mitami, & Igarashi, 2011) It is in this way design can become simultaneously both holistic and exclusive.
FINISHED/ PERPERTUAL Pivot believes that design must never stop. We are beginning to see the short sightedness of industrial design with so many artefacts of our generation coming rest in landfills. (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) It is the final stage for so products but is the completion the designer envisioned. We do not see this one way process in nature. In nature the end of one life helps to extend that of another, we as designers and as people must adopt characteristics from this phenomenon and apply it to our design production ideology. Whether natural or manufactured all processes must become self-perpetuating for can a finalised design every be classified as truly finished and no improvements could ever be made to it? Timeless design is a term used far too lightly. (Cid, 2011) Used to describe things that sit outside the current aesthetic fads or trends. Timelessness in design should mean that the artefact, physically, aesthetically and theoretically is free from a defined beginning and end. The physical form (if one exists) is but one phase in the life of that design, while in that phase yes it can be said that it is finished but what happens when that phase ends and a new one begins?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aldersey-Williams, H. (1992). Aldersey-Williams, H.Nationalism and Globalism in Design. New York: Rizzoli International Publications Ltd. Bekker, M., Johnson, H., Johnson, P., & Wilson, S. (1997). Helping and Hindering- A Tale of Everyday Design. SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. London: HCI Group, Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary and Westfield College. Cameron, R., & Elliot, G. (1994). Consumer Perception of Product Quality and the Country-of-origin Effect. Journal of Internation Marketing , 49- 62. Chen, H., Goupers, P., Kouner, A., & Lerver, J. (2009). Buy Local? The Geography of Successful and Unsuccessful. Venture Capital Expansion. NBER Working Paper, No. 15102 . Cid, S. K. (2011). Timeless Design: Beyond Decorating Trends. Bloomington: Balboa Press. Coffin, S. (2008). Rococo: The Continuing Curve. New York: Cooper-Hewitt Museum. Delanda, M. (2004, April 9). Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture. New York: Columbia Uuniversity: Art and Technology Lecture Series. Diehl, J. (2006). Globilisation and Cross Cultural Product Design. 9th Internationa Design Conference: Design Projects and Processes, (pp. 503- 510). Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Berlin: Birkhäuser. Goldberger, P. (1971). Less is More—Mies van der Rohe; Less is a Bore—Robert Venturi. New York Times Magazine, October 17 . Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies , 16 (2), 189-209. Heskett, J. (2002). Toothpicks and logos: Design in everyday life. New York: Oxford University press Inc. Horn, R. (1977). Zeichnungen/Drawings, Objekte/Objects, Video/Video, Filme/Films. Berlin: Haus am Waldsee. Ilyin, N. (2006). Chasing the Perfect: Thoughts on Modernist Design in Our Time . New York: Bellerophon. McDonough, W., & Braungart, W. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press. Meyer, M. (1988). Questions and questioning. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Saul, G., Lau, M., Mitami, J., & Igarashi, T. (2011). Sketch Chair: An All-in-one Chair Design System for End Users. Tokyo: JST ERATO IGARASHI. Stoddard, J. (2010, May 20). Can designers help create better service? [Video]. Gothenburg, Sweden: ADA and Business & Design Lab. Thackara, J. (2005). In the bubble: designing in a complex world. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
“To establish global balance by promoting the questioning and understanding of Individual balances.” By Richard Clarkson, Tui Harrington, Micah Sargisson and Brooke Bowers