Morf 6,
2007, p. 153-161
1
Times are changing. With
the times, man changes too. Generation after generation growing up under different
circumstances. Man himself largely causes the changes in his environment:
nature as a habitat is increasingly pushed into the background by an artificial
environment that is dominated by technology.
Every biologist knows that
the chances of survival of an organism in an environment that is subject to
change, depend on its ability to adapt. Man is quite capable of adapting. He
needs change, either as a side effect of his survival strategy, or not. But too
much change will exceed his flexibility and cause stress, so there are always,
in the individual as well as in society as a whole, counterbalancing forces
seeking to restore stability.
Biologically, animals lose
their flexibility as they grow older. We are best at adapting before we enter adulthood.
In some ways it seems that in recent decades, maturation is delayed, possibly
under the pressure of changes that have occurred over this period. If you look
at photographs of 30-year olds from the fifties, you see staid, old-looking men
and women. Nowadays, there is a strong desire to stay (or look) young as long
as possible.
What is certain is that
the influence of young people has increased enormously, from a social point of
view. It is also certain that the young people of successive generations have a
very different outlook on life, simply because they find themselves in very
different environments, not only in material terms but also in social, cultural
and psychological terms.
The American writer Douglas
Rushkoff has investigated the effects of new media on the youngest generations
of children, whom he calls ‘screenagers’.1 Although his claims are
speculative to some extent, at least he has attempted to identify specific
characteristics and skills within this group without prejudice.
A common criticism of ‘screenagers’
is that they are only able to concentrate on one thing for a short time.
According to Rushkoff, in our present environment this may very well be a
benefit. As a result, they may be better able to handle chaotic information and
cope with rapid changes in their environment. Another common criticism is that ‘young
people nowadays’ are superficial. Depth of knowledge can only be achieved through
specialization, where everyone has an assigned place and a well-defined role.
Specialists are only active within their own field; outside it they are helpless
or simply excluded. Today’s youth, however, does not like to be tied down and
constantly responds to opportunities. “They are selective, active,
participatory,” notes Rushkoff. “Whatever you loose in depth, you gain in breadth.”2
‘Screenagers’ have grown
up with TV, PC, Internet, e-mail, cell phones, digital cameras, etc., and are
therefore very familiar with these new media. Whereas older people usually have
some difficulty getting acquainted with these newfangled machines, ‘screenagers’
have an uncomplicated and natural relationship with them. Older people see TV
as radio with images, the computer as an exaggerated calculator or typewriter,
a smart phone as a portable telephone device. They ignore the impact of the
digital revolution, i.e. the convergence
of all media in a digital reality, enabling permanent interactive multimedia communication.
They tend to label this new reality as ‘virtual’ (and therefore not to be taken
seriously) because it takes place largely in a digital environment. But there
is nothing virtual about the interactions that occur. They are real contacts, subject
to similar laws as physical contacts.
In relation to the rise of
television, the computer and other new ‘electric’ media, Marshall McLuhan
observed in the 1960s, that a dramatic cultural conflict had emerged:
“Today’s
child is growing up absurd because he is suspended between two worlds and two
value systems, neither of which inclines him to maturity because he belongs wholly
to neither but exists in a hybrid limbo of constantly conflicting values. To
expect a “turned on” child of the electric age to respond to the old education
modes is rather like expecting an eagle to swim. It’s simply not within his
environment, and therefore incomprehensible.”3
Apart from some outdated words,
this analysis can be applied quite easily to our current situation. For
example, the prejudice that you can only really
learn something at school or from books, still prevails. All other
resources, especially new media such as television and the Internet, are mostly
seen as a threat to healthy child development in stead of a legitimate source
of valuable knowledge. In other words, the new world is judged by the standards
of the old world.
2
Old values are still
dominant also in design, and confronts the current generation of design
students with impossible challenges. This is more problematic still, because those
values are usually implicit.
Design is a specialism
that originated in the 19th century under the influence of the industrial
revolution: in the production of objects, designing was separated from making,
because the latter could now be done by machines. Handicraft production became
largely unnecessary.
In the second part of the 19th
century liberal and socialist politicians, each with their own motives, tried
to improve the conditions of the lower classes through education. They thought they
could boost the bad taste of the lower classes by introducing them to ‘good
design’. The proletarians would then better be able to organize their own environment,
which would have a beneficial effect on their physical and mental condition.
Initially, leftist artists
groups tried to achieve this through arts and crafts. Machine production was
rejected because machines were not able to make products ‘with a soul’. The crafts
were elevated to ‘applied arts’, but never managed to effectively reach the
lower classes because high-quality handicraft products were unaffordable for
them. At the end of his career, William Morris, the patriarch of modern design
and convinced socialist, sighed in despondence: “I spend my life in ministering
to the swinish luxury of the rich.”4
At the beginning of the 20th
century, hope was placed on machine production, as it can make products cheap.
In a remarkable reversal of values, mechanized production was glorified from
now on, including its limitations and so-called limitations. Applying simple
reasoning, it was proclaimed that objects produced by machines should look like
machines: businesslike, functional and without unnecessary additions. This change
marked the birth of modernism in design.
Meanwhile, artists still organized
themselves in groups that were inclined to sectarianism and who emphatically placed
themselves outside (and above) conventional society with a ‘progressive’
ideology and provocative manifestations. When the limited vocabulary of
modernism failed in the 1960s and 1970s, in view of the altered social
conditions, postmodernism made sure it was stretched well beyond its limits. In
stead of the seriousness and dogmas of modernism, came humor and relativism.
However, it was merely cosmetic, because even though the term ‘postmodernism’
suggests that this movement relieved modernism, some of the main tenets of
modernism were never abandoned.5
Design is a relatively
young profession that still strives for social recognition with much dedication
and faith in its own abilities. The propaganda that is used by the design profession
– which the designers themselves firmly believe in – conceals the inner
contradictions that have emerged from its complicated history. The first
generations of designers saw their profession as a vocation and passed their prejudices
on to their successors as the dogmas of a religious belief.
Now, these outdated
beliefs create an impossible situation for the current young generation of
designers. The collision of the old and the new world has created a hybrid
environment, a state of confusion, where no one feels at home.6
Design students are expected to analyze their own situation using outdated
theories, and to conform to social expectations that scarcely have any
relationship with their own life ideals at all.
3
The outside world sees
design as a strange bird within high culture, at best. I think it is necessary
to break open the closed system of design and to start looking at it as part of
the much broader context of popular culture. Popular culture arises from the
interaction between the industries that produce cultural products and the people
who consume them. This includes products such as pop music, film, television,
radio, video games, books, comics and the Internet. Design as a stand-alone
product only has a modest place in it, but as a supporting element it is omnipresent.
Postmodernism questioned the
difference between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture, but the underlying social
mechanisms remained out of reach, as well as the corresponding institutional
infrastructure of museums and other cultural palaces. ‘High’ culture is only
one segment within the totality of cultural production. To deny its existence
is makes no sense, but then so is the so-called superiority to other cultural
expressions that the naming implies. At most, it is more expensive and more
exclusive, and therefore only accessible to a privileged elite (which is precisely
what it’s supposed to be). The traditional image is that ‘high’ culture pioneers
and paves the way for ‘low’ culture. Perhaps this may have been the case at
some time in the past, but today it is undoubtedly the other way other around
because of the instant dissemination of cultural production that has become possible
by the new media. This creates a velocity of turnover that can never be reached
using the old media.
Only a small segment of design
can be seen as a part of ‘high’ culture. Taking only this into consideration, design
as a whole is greatly wronged. A wider frame of reference can only enrich the view
of design. Design contains references to almost all other expressions of
popular culture, is influenced by them, derives meaning from them, and adds meaning
to them. Compared to the context of popular culture, ‘high’ culture is decidedly
claustrophobic.
Design is part of a much
larger and more complex cultural whole than most design critics and the profession
itself have been willing to admit so far. Also, due to the influence of new
media and technological developments, this whole is constantly changing.
Therefore it is also necessary to picture the impact of new media and
technology on design and the designer himself. On his behavior, his skills, his
sensibility, his experience, and his ideals. What does it mean to be a multi-tasking, job-hopping, role-switching,
zapping, gaming, visually literate, practical-idealistic designer, just to
name some of the terms commonly used in this context.
For the younger
generations of designers, design is a natural part of their world. They take
pleasure in design just as they are entertained by other expressions of popular
culture. At the same time they are also aware of the dubious aspects of their
profession, which is a natural accomplice to consumerism.
In an environment where
everything is flowing and fusing into each other, being a designer can no
longer be as sharply defined as before. It is no longer the specialism that
emerged as a result of the division of labor in the industrial process,
exclusively reserved for professionals.
An essential
characteristic of design is to exercise control. The designer forms a very
precise image of what the finished product should look like and how it should be
used. The design is a detailed instruction that must be followed strictly in the
production process. Control of all the details of the design and the production
reveals the master; all confounding factors should be eliminated.
Some designers even have
difficulty giving up control over the product when it is ready for use. Architects
and product designers prefer to have their designs photographed as if they are
on an uninhabited planet, and tend to see the user as a disturbing element.
There are also designers who expect that there will come a time that the new
media will be designed in the same way as the old media. They see the
uncontrollability of the layout of web pages as a temporary problem, of which
mankind will be set free once there is software that allows the same amount of control
as is possible in the layout of printed documents. In other words, they are
waiting for the computer to become a book. That’s going to be a long wait.
In the design of the new
media, we recognize the same pattern of old values being imposed on the new.
Perhaps this is desirable for specific applications, but essentially, it is
nonsensical. Like someone who is used to cuneiform complaining about the lack
of relief that can be achieved with a pen on paper and then decides to attack
it with a spatula.
The new media have
qualities that are entirely different from those of the old media and should
therefore be approached accordingly. They are multimedial and complex. The way
in which something is displayed in the digital world at any given time, is
determined by a vibrant combination of design, technology and use. However, its
appearance is not fixed at a certain moment in time, as is usually the case in the
old media. The desire to control, which is so characteristic for design, is therefore
inconsistent with the way the new media should be approached. This connects seamlessly
to a change in mentality that Douglas Rushkoff observed in ‘screenagers’: they resist
control and manipulation, and are able to surrender to unpredictability and
chaos.7 Loss of control hits design in the heart.
4
To think that when the
smoke lifts, the old way of doing things can take its course again, is a
mistake. To think that changes are limited to the digital environment is a
misconception. To think that design can confront the new world with a few minor
changes in thought and action is an illusion.
People adapt to their
environment. If in a new system there is less need for concentration, depth or
control, and more need for flexibility, versatility and improvisation, then it’s
clear what properties will prevail. To condemn them because they were less
important or less highly regarded in the past, is absurd.
“Resenting a new
technology will not halt its progress.” (Marshall McLuhan)
Notes
1 Douglas Rushkoff
introduced this term in his book Playing
the Future. What We Can Learn from Digital Kids, 1997.
2 Quote from ‘We worden
niet dommer maar slimmer’ (We are not becoming dumber but smarter), an
interview with Douglas Rushkoff by Sandra Küpfer in NRC Handelsblad, February 27, 1998 (in Dutch).
3 Quote from Eric Norden, ‘Marshall
McLuhan: A Candid Conversation with the High Priest of Popcult and Metaphysician
of the Media’, in: Playboy 16 (3),
1969. The full text of this interview is available on the Internet.
4 William Morris, quoted
in W.R. Lethaby, Philip Webb and His Work,
Oxford University Press, London, 1935, p. 94.
5 See: Tom Wolfe, From Bauhaus to Our House, New York,
1982, p. 116.
6 See the article ‘Het
machteloze geluk van de generatie 70-80’ door Thijs Middeldorp on the website
www.generatie7080.nl for an attempt from this generation to describe themselves
(in Dutch).
7 See ‘Tijd voor
screenagers’, an interview with Douglas Rushkoff by Jim Painter in De Groene Amsterdammer, June 11, 1997 (in
Dutch).
No comments:
Post a Comment