#designdiscourse

Material as Climate Response | Studio of Earthen Architecture

Our discussion contained many interesting insights and helped in understanding the read texts in context: the context of today’s society, taking into consideration the policies, economic activities as well as values embedded and ultimately determining the direction of development.

One interesting topic that we discussed was whether designers ought to choose between being authors and being facilitators. Considering that the text called Design as Author was written in 1996, we assumed that the emphasis on authorship was quite evident. In other words, many of the star-designers known today, probably established themselves as designers 20-30 years ago if not further in the past, and therefore, created the illusion that success is to have a legacy. The famous Finnish design names we tend to refer to, have in common that they have all passed away. There are only a few contemporary designers that I can think of. Is Finnish design, because of its lack of names in a crisis? Or has the culture of design perhaps changed, where the desire to have authorship has evaporated?

The emphasis of Finnish design of today is increasingly on services. Whether that is to increase efficiency, speed and growth in terms of actions that contribute to the capitalist and globalized society that we find ourselves in or that it is to truly increase the well-being through human-centeredness is an important question that deserves consideration and discussion. It is also a question that will help in understanding the role that i.e. Aalto University plays in educating becoming designers. As a design student of the M.A. major called Collaborative and Industrial Design, I do not consider myself an author, instead am merely the facilitator in countless situations, that have been chosen for me. The clients and projects completed as part of my studies have been for the most part selected prior and the room for questioning our role as designers and consequently our daily activities has remained slim. In the hopes of having a choice of clients when graduating, we in our discussion concluded that the ‘choice’ itself leaves a mark eventually and could be considered a form of authority. Thus, choosing clients or a work based on our values does tell about our identity and the role of designers we want to represent.

Although authorship among designers in the Finnish context has in some way disappeared, it can, however, be identified in the context of institutions. Therefore, authorship is perhaps no longer the desire of the individual but that of the institution. It is a shift that has taken place from the authority of an individual to that of corporations or institutions. There are many monopolies that determine ways of living, working and consuming and self-evidently not just the ways in which these are performed but also the content and outcome of these. The act of companies providing the possibility of showers, bedrooms or restrooms, and entertainment is a strategic move to tangle the employee ever-more into the corporation and producing an employee with no individuality or authority that is immediately replaceable.

The chapter called Authority, Ownership and Originality established a connection between the author and originality. The question of whether authors are only authors if they are the inventors or first to bring up an idea, was argued through numerous examples, such as poems, songs, and other forms of speech. It seemed that authorship emerges from originality; something new and yet unseen or unheard of. Therefore, citations or references to earlier work, whether literature or music would be considered not authentic or original and thus, not carry with them the title of ‘author’. A distinction was made between written and oral speech, which shed light onto what is original and thus could be considered the trace of an author. Whilst an author’s written speech is (or back in the times of the examples mentioned in the text) unique and only once documented, oral speech can be reiterated by multiple performers. The following question was posed:  Is only the first performer of an oral speech the author or will the author be re-defined with each performance? Or does perhaps each performance enable its own author?

Individuals considered authors, as was discussed, have had to be geniuses, culturally and perhaps politically marginalized and in touch with higher, non-human wisdom to be able to come up with authentic and original work. Whereas their circumstances enabled them to see things from a different perspective, there was the risk of them crossing the boundaries of morality and social norms and thus, even be considered irresponsible.

Authorship, as said underwent a re-definition when technologies emerged that enabled printing and copying. When i.e. texts started to be mass-printed they themselves became standardized and uniformed. Industrialization then increased the desire to stand out as an individual and gain authenticity and therefore, the necessity to re-define what makes an author.

The article called Designer as Author discussed the role of designers as authors. In here, authorship was not considered a position only from which to create content, but rather a ‘tool’ that designers should use in rethinking their process and to expand their methods.

Authorship was discussed by drawing onto what the previous text called originality. In this text it was a form of ‘truth’ that was referred to. Comparing the fields of science and literature it was made clear in how far their ‘practitioner’ could embody authorship. Whilst scientist would re-iterate scientific findings and test them through experiments, in literature writers would invent new content such as through ideas. Therefore, in the 18th century literature gained pre-dominantly the right to authorship. Citing Foucault, “literature was authored, and science became the product of anonymous objectivity.”

This article drew onto the notion of designers as authors. It was said that designers should consider themselves authors. However, as multifaceted and complex the role of the designer is, the more difficult it seems to state whether a designer is an author or has the capabilities to deserve authorship. In many circumstances, designers, I would claim are a combination of authors and facilitators. Often, employed and working in multidisciplinary teams, designers have a clear framework within which they can operate. Designers, whether graphic, service or product oriented, are wished to be creative and innovative and ideally disrupt the industry with revolutionary ideas, yet all their action should conform to the given environment. The environment would most often be considered the office or the target audience. Referencing to the article called Authority, Ownership and Originality, as long as designers are ‘only’ recognized as value-adders, no originality can be expected nor delivered. In reverse, this way designers are exempt from the responsibility of their actions as they are not fully in charge of their contribution. Whether that is a relief, or a constraint is up to the reader, however from the perspective of designers it is a question of power, and thus, a constraint.

It is evident that designers often stay superficial and float from one subject to the next, “scattering fragments of quotations across the surface of their “authored” posters and book covers” (Designer as Author), as their skills are considered exactly and only that: problem solving. With a generic job title and skill set called ‘problem solving’, designers do not distinguish themselves from other professions. Because how many professions do not solve problems? In other words, designers are in a way neutral until they are assigned a task to untangle. Whether a designer is employed or runs their own office, they tackle issues based on the demand. Therefore, more often than not the client determines the tasks of the designer and above all the necessity and essence of a designer’s significance.