Sustainable life needs to be re-invented.

"...the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet.". blueprint for survival


Professor Chris Ryan
Co-director of the Australian Centre for Science, Innovation and Society (ACSIS) and Director of the Victorian Eco-Innovation Lab (VEIL).
Why Design?

The role and practice of Design for Sustainability (ecodesign) is on the edge of a major transformation, as the world around us is about to be transformed. For close to two decades, designers have played a leading role in reconstructing the world to reduce the environmental impact of existing goods and services. Much of that work has been, appropriately, about building eco-desire – a task requiring designers’ skills every bit as significant as their ability to reduce the (life-cycle) impacts of products, buildings and services. New low-impact goods have to be more sexy, more desirable, than the high-impact one that they are seeking to replace.

Now, as we come to understand the implications of climate change, oil depletion, water shortages and resource insecurities it is suddenly clear that our world of products, buildings, services, systems of production and consumption and lifestyles, needs far greater change than can be achieved by making existing things more efficient. Sustainable life needs to be re-invented. Designers will be called on to re-organise systems, to redefine desirable life-styles, to revalue natural and social capital, rethink the satisfaction of human needs and to re-design business and zero-carbon products and services.

Electric bikes can be pretty cool too

http://www.gocycle.com/

Gaudi Stool

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIs this the coolest stool on earth?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxhttp://mocoloco.com/



If I can leave UNSW having designed something a fraction as good as this then I know it will have been time well spent.

sketches

in your dreams, girls

I hope I'm in some kind of dream or time warp and what I witnessed on the video is not a true reflection but rather, some antediluvian nightmare and not the real state of industrial design as practiced today.
The most obvious, glaring omission throughout the whole process of "designing the dream machines" is.... women. Russell Lloyd, Dick Powell, Nick Talbot, Neil Hurst, Adrian Caroen, David Fisher, Richard Seymour are the 7 directors of Seymour Powell. Why are there no women involved. They don't exist? They don't consume? They definitely don't design! So where are they? Throughout the entire process women are absent. The exception being at a brainstorming session where, the idea of a multi functional base for kitchen equipment was suggested by a woman and, adopted as one of the ideas to be pitched to their client, Tefal. Thereafter not a women in the place: not designing, not model making, not pitching, not anywhere. What does this tell us about industrial design? Who is it for? What is it about? The design process should, I think, be an inclusive, explorative, holistic experience. One through which the designer gains insight and inspiration and ultimately produces as complete and successful a product as possible. How can this possibly be the result when the process here is left entirely in the hands of white, middle aged (probably middle class) males? By virtue of their own experience, I suggest, they must simply reflect, reinforce and promote their own values and experiences. It seems to me this is an extraordinarily narrow and limiting path for the designer to follow.
I could suggest a couple of reasons why Tefal probably didn't manufacture the food processor, I could point to a major design factor that the boys didn't mention with reference to the scooter for the Indian market... both rooted in the fact that men and women not only use products differently but also perceive products differently but, I wonder if they are interested my input? I find the absence of the female voice very, very strange, here and now, in the 21st century. Women do represent the other 50% of the market and yet don't seem to have any place in the world of Seymour Powell. Is this simply symptomatic of this particular company or a fair representation of the industry in general? If the design team is either uninterested or unaware of this "other" voice how seriously should I consider their view of design, process and methodology etc. They apparently fail to see value in a fully integrated, non gender/ethnic specif design team? A failure which I think necessarily diminishes the quality of their products. (and depresses me beyond words ....)
Id Sketching makes this point oh, so well... It's the boys idea of a joke... They know they are stereotyping in the worst possible way but that's OK because we're "just kidding".... Guess what, harm done ... I know, heres' a good idea... lets all sit around and tell racist jokes then, tell the people it's aimed at THEY don't have a sense of humour because we think it's funny .... IT'S NOT OK it's never OK.... So we'll see the WOMENS sketching sometime soon, just not yet...

In an industry being so dominated by men, it is interesting to get the point of view from some of the lovely women who work with us. It is estimated that the females make up aproximately 20 percent of the industrial design professionals. Many of these women in the industrial design community have unique perspectives and experiences that allow them to excel in situations where some of the rest of us (testosterone-fueled beastly males) have no clue. We hope to include the ladies here on the site and we definitely know many of them have some great sketching skills to share!

Look for an interview and sketch samples dropping soon from a veteran female designer!

UPDATE: just in case…take no offense with Barbie. I know she is the super-skinny doll that has been blamed for little girls’ insecurity about their image (which in turn leads to eating disorders) but no harm intended.

signs of life

For this project I decided to give a fun present. One which would arouse curiosity and create on-going interest for both adults and children alike.
The object of the present is to bring something green and living into an otherwise very ordinary idea.
A flat A4 piece of pre-cut, perforated and painted polypropylene is folded into a box with an opening back flap. An image is attached to the top. Holes are punched through the image using the pre-drilled perforation pattern on the box top. The holes can therefore be placed anywhere on the design. Perhaps along the edge of a photograph creating a border or, as in this case, amongst the foliage in the image.
The sign, slogan or photograph is now, quite literally, brought to life by the utilization of a very simple idea. The "ordinary" is given a new dimension one that, I hope, enhances the original concept.
The seeds, which are supplied in a convenient easy to insert "seed bar", will germinate in approx 3-5 days after they have been watered in the damp dark environment provided by the interior of the box. The resulting seedlings will grow towards the light. By punching holes through the image on the box top, the small green shoots will pop out through the holes and become an integral part of the design, changing it on a daily basis. Every day is a new experience for the viewer.
The idea can be expanded from the tiny box as show 5cm x 8cm, up to billboard size. There is really no limit to the size of the project or restriction as to the subject matter.

bad design

Stuff up

OK... How much truth can you take?
If you want the really ugly truth about our planet, it's resources, our use and abuse of it and, our seemingly inevitable annihilation Read this Book; A blue print for survival. Penguin books. Published in 1972. Only 144 pages get it, read it.
It really tells you how it is (without the up beat playschool approach that Annie for some reason, seems to think appropriate)
An extract from it is below: REMEBER this was written in 1972!!!!

This document has been drawn up by a small team of people, all of whom, in different capacities, are professionally involved in the study of global environmental problems.

Four considerations have prompted us to do this:

1. An examination of the relevant information available has impressed upon us the extreme gravity of the global situation today. For, if current trends are allowed to persist, the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of the century, certainly within the lifetimes of our children, are inevitable.
2. Governments, and ours is no exception, are either refusing to face the relevant facts, or are briefing their scientists in such a way that their seriousness is played down. Whatever the reasons, no corrective measures of any consequence are being undertaken.
3. This situation has already prompted the formation of the Club of Rome, a group of scientists and industrialists from many countries, which is currently trying to persuade governments, industrial leaders and trade unions throughout the world to face these facts and to take appropriate action while there is yet time. It must now give rise to a national movement to act at a national level, and if need be to assume political status and contest the next general election. It is hoped that such an example will be emulated in other countries, thereby giving rise to an international movement, complementing the invaluable work being done by the Club of Rome.
4. Such a movement cannot hope to succeed unless it has previously formulated a new philosophy of life, whose goals can be achieved without destroying the environment, and a precise and comprehensive programme for bringing about the sort of society in which it can be implemented.

This we have tried to do, and our Blueprint for Survival heralds the formation of the Movement for Survival and, it is hoped, the dawn of a new age in which Man will learn to live with the rest of Nature rather than against it.
The Ecologist
Edward Goldsmith, Robert Allen, Michael Allaby, John Davoll, Sam Lawrence.

If you want to know how governments and big business work the system to their benefit read this book (or any book) by Vance Packard The Waste Makers. Published in 1960 ...and guess what he said way back then "advertising is turning North Americans into emotional infants who expect instant gratification of all their desires" Annie is confirming this sentiment 50 years later. The media is controlling/driving our expectations and desires.

SO what to do about it? Well, make it personal. Take responsibility for your own actions and decisions. ie don't buy from the $2 dollar stores. You know that when you purchase an item for $2 someone somewhere is paying the real price... slave labour, indentured labour, sweats shops, a child some where in the world is going blind making tiny, pretty, delicate thing for you to buy cheaply when actually, you can easily afford the real price. Maybe always ask this question before you buy "WHAT IS THE COST AND WHO PAYS THE PRICE?" No more maybe, to misquote Nike who, by the way, are guilty of worker exploitation in their third world factories. "just don't do it" It's a start.

The Silver Screen

The phrase "The silver screen" instantly transports me to the Cinema. My most vivid image is that of the the ghostly silver/blue glow of the big screen as it casts it's shadows and flickering light across the audience as they enter the auditorium. The screen is at all times the the focus of attention and yet it is only the back drop to the real event.




This is how I view my product. It offers the viewer choices, in so far as, it can be viewed in one of two ways. That is; it can be either the main event or the back drop. As a kind of art "installation" piece, which can be viewed in the round and has, I hope, an interesting dynamic from all sides. Catching and reflecting light and images in ways that recall the light from the cinema screen. It can also be used in a purely functional way as an interesting piece of furniture acting as a room divider.

The material is recycled stainless steel. It is, in fact, the tray that remains after laser cutting. The objects have been removed and the metal lattice work is left behind. Using post industrial waste in this way adds a kind of cool urban aesthetic to the product. To hold onto the feeling of "urban cool' I had to get away from the conventional hinging together of flat room dividers so I created self supporting modules that could be clipped together to form a 3 dimensional screen.
The clipping pegs (made of recycled raw plug) allow the screen to be constructed and deconstructed to any number of configurations.
It offers the user flexibility of height, width and control of the overall shape and design. This makes it suitable for many different spaces. Primarily aimed at the funky loft/warehouse-dweller. It would be a suitable accompaniment to their life style.


peer comments
susanna Li
glenaldy janto
maria park
nick walker
jennifer widjaja

Redefining the future of design?

I foresee the future...
And the future is... a raging, bloody battle between the Bauhaus minimalists and the Lovegrove Organicists.



Ross Lovegrove is adamant that the only direction relevant design will be heading, in the future, is his way. The way of the organic form. Referring and deferring to the superiority of nature over man's imagination and ingenuity, as the sovereign designer. He has postulated a theory / view that good design is spare design, entirely stripped of all unnecessary elements, outside of the organic form. If they do not have an organic expression then, according to his precepts, they are (must be) redundant. Certainly the organic form, for the most part, is spectacular and by definition has a unity and "oneness" that designers seek. However, to maintain this position without leaving any space for other opinions leads, I think, to the de-democratising of design. In the same way as the wholehearted, unremitting embrace of Bauhaus' hard edge minimalism has lead to a kind of minimalist meltdown/overload. Everywhere and everything is minimal. Culminating in, I think, an unspoken but acknowledged presumption in the design world (particularly in Architecture) that, if it's not minimal then some how it's poor design. In my opinion not true of course. However, I have a feeling that there may be a similar result if we allow the singular rise of the "organic only" credo. We must ensure all voices are heard in the future debate about design supremacy.
I look forward to the forthcoming battle between, what I imagine will be seen as the "old school, fuddy-duddy" Minimalists vs New kids on the block Organicists. It will be interesting to see who sides with who in the future debate.

More than skins deep

You know, finally, I like Yves... more and more.
On first acquaintance I didn't understand what he was about. However, the more frequently I listened, the more I came to appreciate what I think he's saying. It's not necessarily about individual objects telling stories or about bringing one's own values to each design, per se. It seems to me to be more about understanding the nature and effect of design in it's entirety. Products and therefore design have consequences. Producing an end product is not the final and only objective. I think he's suggesting that "the sum of the whole is greater than its individual parts" so to speak. When each individual value/ideal coalesce they MAY reach critical mass and ultimately have a global or holistic effect. They may create a chain reaction effecting everything; from the very act of designing through to receiving and using the finished product. Everything might take on a new aesthetic... what we create, how we create, how we use and how we dispose... creating the desired ”new relationship with the world”, (which lets face it, is an absolute necessity if we wish to continue as a species.)
It's a nice idea (it could become a reality) and maybe we can change the world... one design(er) at a time.
Perhaps not with the worlds fastest electric motor bike though... On the other hand, why not, who knows?!?!?

Don Norman

Don Norman

Beautiful is better. More beautiful is best. This is particularly true if you need to conceal a poverty of design. I wonder how many designers have already embedded this idea into their conceptual thinking. “If it doesn’t work too well,that's OK, I’ll just make it blindingly attractive.” I don’t think Don is telling us anything we don’t already know... if only on an intuitive level. However beauty is mercurial. It often changes with time.
Is Don Norman's mantra simply the designer's ace up the sleeve. The party trick to wow the kids (clients). I should have thought it entirely self evident that beauty deflects a certain level of immediate critical thinking. One is first awed by beauty whether by that of a man or a woman, by a monumental piece of machinery or the smallest atomic particle. For example, the snowflake. It has an astonishingly complex and beautiful crystalline form. It has a texture of infinite mystery, ephemeral, here one moment gone the next. It flutters down quietly, settles on the ground and looks spectacularly beautiful. Is there anyone who's first reaction to a snow flake is... this thing is a killer? Usual critical thinking has been suspended simply because one has been seduced by beauty. If snow fell out of the sky filthy, black and noisy would we have the same reaction to it?
I don't agree with Don Norman when he suggests things work better when they are beautifully designed. However, I do agree that things appear to work better when they are beautifully designed. He has cleverly harnessed his theory to the nature of human conditioning i.e. we like, we actually prefer, things that look good. The point here is we are (conditioned)taught what looks good. And who teaches us this? the gurus of design and who are they …. ho ho ho the designers!!!.... So in a way Don Norman is his own self for filling prophesy. First I'll tell you what is beautiful, second, I'll design it for you and, third, you will love it because I have made it beautiful for you. This is very evident in Fashion/clothing design; what is initially a bizarre or even seemingly ridiculous style is introduced to us by the fashion houses/designers, it is then reviewed and hyped in the media by the denizons of fashion. Slowly we become less critical, (taught/conditioned/educated about the product) more accepting and finally' we love it, culminating in total surrender (acceptance as a thing of beauty) we wear it. Yesterday we were ignorant of it's beauty today we have been educated as to it's line, form and brilliance of concept etc.
Yes, beauty is good... beauty is desirable but we all knew that anyway Don! (as does the marketing dept... ) sadly, the idea of beauty... something to do with purity... has been distorted and drowned out by the noise and irresistible glitz of the of the marketing machine.

Redesign: Ironic Irons

To explain the title... "irons" is English slang for cutlery and ironic because, obviously, my cutlery is made of plastic. I have taken precision instruments such as the surgeons scalpel, watchmakers tools and dental instruments as the motif for the cutlery, in their general size and outline I have tried to recall precision instruments. The use of a removable blade in the knife finds it's genesis in the scalpel. The fork prongs are based on the different shapes found in watchmakers instruments.
With the advent of Australian Master Chef, Celebrity Chef, and super chef Gordon Ramsey on T.V., cooking and eating has now become the new, funky kid on the block. The product is aimed at this niche market; the stereotypical "DINKY'S" who are educated "thirty somethings", have good disposable income and enjoy spending to impress.
Ironic Irons is a different way to present cutlery. The utensils are held upright in their base, instead of the conventional flat presentation. When not in use they are a "conversation piece" either on the table or as decorative ornament.
The clean sweeping lines combine with a soft smooth surface making them pleasing both to look at and use. Ironic irons are a fusion of art object and utility object.

Peer comments
stanley darmawan
emily white
valerie el khouri
emily soares
maria park

David Kelly. Human centred design

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000006244 StartFragment:0000000454 EndFragment:0000006228

Video Relflection 4^th August 2009

David Kelly. Human centred design.

The most significant statement, for me, in this video is the last one... ”Designers are more integrated into the business strategy of companies.” Unhappily this statement informs most of the video. We see, with the exceptions of ApproTec projects and the Heart Stream Difibrulator, a succession of designs that place design, and hence the designer , at the heart of naked commercialism. This, in my opinion, renders the designer nothing more than a instrument of or an extension of the marketing process. The designer has abdicated his responsibility to the wider community in favour of the corporate community. I also find the concept of designing “behaviours and personality” into products a darkly Orwellian concept. Products are inanimate objects, by definition they cannot have personalities, so why would we want to assign them one? (v. scarry!)

If we look at the Prada store, New York. Custom technology in the form of RF tags (radio frequency tags: or simply “tags,” which are small electronics devices used for communications in a wide variety of tagging, tracking, and locating (TTL) applications. The common feature of all RF tags is the use of radio frequencies (kHz -> MHz -> GHz) over the air as an information-transport layer•) Each RF tag consists of the following:

RF transmitter, or transceiver

• Antenna(s)

• Internal battery and/or external power port

• Control and timekeeping electronics with embedded software and hardware

• Internal sensors (temperature, movement, GPS, etc.)

• External data I/O ports

• Efficient mechanical and environmental packaging

(I include this information to focus attention on the amount of energy consumed in the production of each tag unit.)

These tags are located all round the store so that any of the merchandise can be coded and stored as the customer (or should it be unit?) requires. Other parts of the store feature mirrors that have a 3 second delay so the customer may see what the clothing looks like from behind. Booths that opaque on demand, LED screens that bring up the previously coded product in variety of colours, sizes and textures etc. These are all incredibly exciting, interesting, innovative ideas. The products interface with the user at a high level i.e. the end user has a lot of control etc. but, the function of all this innovative design, technology and energy consumption is simply to sell another pair of jeans. So much skill,talent and technology utilised for such a trivial thing. This, in my opinion, is why the designer is culpable. He/she has become part of the problem not part of the solution. The problem, of course, is environmental degradation, due in no small part to over consumption. We are only just beginning to realise the enormity of the consequences of the issues surrounding sustainability, energy consumption etc. in both the production and disposal of products. It seems to me that encouraging any amount of unnecessary consumption is at best irresponsible, at worst hugely damaging to the planet. This is seemingly a rather grand sentiment but, there is a direct line between the designer and consumption, between consumption and disposal and disposal and waste and therefore finally, with the well being of the planet. Unlike David Kelly I find the prospect of designers climbing Maslows hierachy a very bad thing indeed, they have no place there at all.

However, on a brighter note, I do like the whole recycling project at the Millenium Dome. This is what I call positive, purposeful design. For me it has the twin virtues of a being a beautifully conceived idea expressed in an meaningful, fundamentally useful way.

As for the Spyfish, again brilliant thinking, great concept and the technology seems astonishingly sophisticated. The design issues seem to have been resolved very elegantly ie the hand unit that guides the camera. The camera itself and interface unit. However I do have deep reservations as to uses this product could be put. Is this the designer's concern? Should he /she just shut up and do what ever is asked of them and simply collect their pay at the end of the month or do they have a greater responsibility? Should the designer make personal/moral judgements regarding the use to which his design may be put or, what it will be made of or, how it will be disposed of ?

Anyway, unlikely as it may seem from my rantings above, I enjoyed the vid. It gave me a lot of things to think about... the good, the bad and the ugly sides of design!

I would really like to know what you guys think!