Friday, October 23, 2009

Bring back the art in design

In the recent week, I saw a couple of movies on design from the TED conferences (the D stands for Design) and one got me specifically thinking about the change that design has lived through in the recent decades. Obviously technology has shaped our homes and public spaces in an immense manner, look at the mass spread of computers just in the last 5 years, but what is less noticeable and people rarely care is the design of the small details and appearance of the objects around us. We live in the 21st century, and as with those science fiction stories from the last century about people traveling in the future, we can also assume that if someone comes from as near as the 1920s (less than a hundred years ago), he would be stumbled and shocked by the futuristic world we have created. It is quite significant how we have managed to reshape our environment as if waiting for a visitor from the past, to solidify the doctrine that the future must necessarily look futuristic in comparison with the present. But is it really modern art that has influenced us to that point, or is it merely a superstitious desire to prove that we have advanced technologically?

With the end of the Second World War and the rise of consumer technology, the multitude of objects that surrounds us, and that we see and use every day, has changed globally. With plastic replacing metal and wood for its lighter weight and cheaper price, and with glass being more predominant and left naked in buildings with the frames hidden behind, we're moving on from one era into another that's highly influenced by the art of futurism. In case you are not familiar with this art, futurism was an artistic movement created in the early 20th century in Italy. Its main dictum was that art should clean itself completely from the old and classical tradition and embrace emblems of the future such as speed, technology, cars, airplanes and the industrial city. Its main inspiration came from the industrial society and the dynamism of modern life, and even if it seemed a bit far fetching at the time, it progressed quickly due to the scientific and economic progress of the 20th century. And even if looking at our cities today we see a mix of all arts, not only of futurism, the influence of futurism on the general design of everyday objects has been quite noticeable. There are less and less furniture and decorative objects that feature classical elements and engravings on them, if you go to a modern furniture store like IKEA you would see that predominance is given to the simplicity of forms and joints. And while I approve of the modern feel and functionality of the IKEA homes, I cannot but stumble with incomprehension at the total negligence of artistic form around us. If you walk on the streets, go to a public mall or a restaurant, or simply look at most of the homes today, you would see that the influence of Neoclassicism, Baroque and Rococo is almost forgotten, and we don't have any furniture or decoration any more that can presents us with some artistic reflection and make us feel good in our environment. If in the old era people used objects that have no use even rather than sitting on a shelf (like an old clock, or some vases with no flowers in them) now we tend to give advantage to functionality rather than beauty. Bookshelves are designed to carry the most books possible and even possible some CDs and DVDs, desks are produced with the expectation that there is going to be some computer sitting on them, and so on. And that's not everything, if we look at the general design on street lamps, highway barriers, obsessive road signs and things as simple as edifice windows and walls, you will see that we live in cities that are just plain simple in terms of these elements that we take for granted. True, this is not real art, but then again art is our expression of nature, and if we cannot find it when we look out at the street albeit spotting a couple of street artists, then we should ask ourselves what has gone wrong. I am a supporter of moderate use of technology, and I'm proud we live in a technologically advanced era, but I can't help myself but feel the loss of the details and the knowledge they bring to us just by being in our plain of view.

When I watched the video of Tim Brown criticizing the obsession of today's designer with functionality, I was startled that someone expresses my thoughts exactly to the point. He proposed as a solution a collaborative thinking in design projects, but I see as a bigger problem the artistic expression of today's design, and while I do not think that a return to the classical art is necessary, I believe that a greater engagement of the artist with the object is absolutely necessary. This engagement must pass through the view of the designer of what they are creating as art and it must be trying to break the boundaries of conventionality by giving the object a distinct artistic detail from a similar object while incorporating the author's feelings and thoughts. I understand far well that is not possible at this point in time to completely redesign every small detail in our cities, since it's an economical matter also, but we should encourage diversity and experimentation in design as much as it is possible. We should try and change our environment in a manner that not only is the easiest to built, but is also the most valuable in terms of quality of life. Because at the end the beautiful and the artistic challenging is much more rewarding for our daily life hardships than the neutral and futuristic. Let's life in the present, the world is changing but humanity still rests on the same principles.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The state of our society through the lens of Pro Choice

I stumbled across some recent development in my university's social scene. The anti-abortion club Pro Choice, which was created last year and receives subsidies from the student organization, has stirred the blood of the socially engaged students once again. The club had a very bumpy start last year, when there was a heated discussion as to whether such a club should be even inscribed as an official university club, but right now they seem to have finally crossed the line as everyone expected them to do soon or later. Inviting a guest speaker, Jose Ruba from the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, to give a lecture entitled "Echoes of the Holocaust" and compare the Holocaust to abortion, the group has succeded in alienating even their long time supporters. What's even more probable is that there is a good chance that, if not now, on the next embarrassment which the club will deliver for sure, they will be cut off from any funding even if they still insist they don't use any of it. (yeah, right!)

There is nothing much to say here, looking at Pro Choice groups, and specifically this one, I just don't see any real arguments. Maybe if they allowed some exceptions of allowable aborts in cases like a father raping his daughter and some other atrocities, but just blindly reiterating some naive believe that abortions should be banned is beyond any reason. What's more, obliging someone not to abort and live with their misery and unhappiness, this is the real assault of human rights.

Where have we come in our society with groups like that naively following their goals without actually considering the people themselves?! Wish it or not, with the advent of creationism and similar teachings, the advent of Pro Choice groups is a direct consequence. But while there is some foundation and emotional arguments in support of their views, generally more care should be put for the socially responsible side of the matter. We live in a society of independent individuals and groups, rather than trying to create more and more antagonism among individuals, people who share a different view from the mainstream should try to work their arguments with respect to the people. This could be done by helping the women across the globe who have abortions, and trying to find and understand their reasons, comforting them, but at the same time understanding them and making sure they know you value and respect their decision. You cannot create a group that is detached from our society, from the fundamental human values such as liberty, privacy and respect for personal choice, and try to implement this group to work for the society. I think that Pro Choice (which I write capitalized for a reason) is a fact of our society, and they could contribute with valid arguments because we all know how horrible an abortion can be. But in its current status, those groups resemble very much a cult, and they need to undestand that their demands can bring some sensibilisation and help but cannot be the rule and the hand of law. This questions is almost as open to different answers as religion, so how can one view be taken as the general rule and imposed on people? Democracy is a complex network of self-contradicting and opposing choices, and yet we need to find a way for it work for all of us. This means that tolerance and communications should be the principal agents of our society.