#livetheory

Initial Ideas:

Life Size Pin Art Board made from ply board and dowel, painted in bright colours.

Creation of a large black and white piece of wall art that can be built onto and coloured in by viewers.

In as many circumstances as appropriate and possible, designers should strive to create, provoke and demand joy. Designers have a responsibility to consider the wellbeing of the people we design for, and the effect that the products of their creativity have on the lives of their consumers. “We should explicitly think about the happiness of the people for which we design. Not as a vague concept but as a core part of our responsibilities to support people’s wellbeing and their ability to participate in society” (Donovan, 2012).

Designers should consider the positive emotions that they can instil in their process, designs and aftereffect. For in the reflection of Donald Norman’s expression, “emotion assigns value” (Norman, 1998), the higher the level of positive emotion, the more value a consumer will place on a design, and the more successful it will be. 

Two emotions that are specifically successful in improving the wellbeing and morale of individuals include joy, and amusement. “Joy is the experience of being pleased about (or taking pleasure in) something or some desirable event”, while amusement is “the enjoyment of a high-spirited state of playfulness, humour or entertainment” (Desmet, 2012).

Amusement and joy can be provoked through the playfulness of a product’s aesthetics or function, when the physical interaction with the product is pleasurable, or facilitates or represents a past joyful or amusing activity or memory. Using these notions as a starting point, designers need to consider how their concepts can express, provoke and sustain these emotions.

Design should encourage happy thoughts, expressions and behaviour amongst as many people as possible. In our structured and repetitive day to day world, design should provide a light hearted and welcome escape, even if for a short moment in time. Design should encourage play and playful thoughts, in the lives of anyone at any age. It should bring out the inner child in those who have aged past the innocent days of blissful ignorance. Design should encourage joyous laughter, and be created with a high priority towards the intention of making people smile for one reason or another. 

Design should be fun and novel, it should entertain and excite. Design should pleasantly surprise and impart a sense of wonderment and awe. Design should be used to improve morale and to spread happiness through family, friends, colleagues and strangers. Design should promote exuberant conversation, and remove the social barriers that restrict human interaction. Design should provide a platform to share and enjoy in sharing, it should be beautiful and pleasing to the eye, and should capture and express cheerfulness. 

Design should offer a sense of delight, and should be created with the intention of leaving a positive and memorable impression on the user. It should spark curiosity. Design should be freeing, and enrich the spirit. Ultimately design should be formed to elate and enchant the user, to create a sense of joy and delight in everyday life.

Bruce Mau stated that “joy is the engine for growth” (Mau, 2010-2014). Therefore as designers we need to consider that the more joy that we feel, subsequently the more we will grow as individuals and as a collective.

Therefore, it would be highly beneficial for us as designers not only to design products that delight our consumers, but that bring us joy throughout the process of conceptualising, producing and distributing the outcome.

References:

I believe that design should not harm, or provide the opportunity for harm. I believe that in as many circumstances as appropriate and possible, that design should create, provoke and demand joy. For as Bruce Mau stated, “joy is the engine for growth” (Mau, 2010-2014). Designers have a responsibility to consider the wellbeing of the people we design for, “we should explicitly think about the happiness of the people for which we design. Not as a vague concept but as a core part of our responsibilities to support people’s wellbeing and their ability to participate in society” (Donovan, 2012).

Design should encourage happy thoughts, expressions and behaviour amongst as many people as possible. In our structured and repetitive day to day world, design should provide a light hearted and welcome escape, even if for a short moment in time. Design should encourage play and playful thoughts, in the lives of anyone at any age. It should bring out the inner child in those who have aged past the innocent days of blissful ignorance. Design should encourage joyous laughter, and be created with a high priority towards the intention of making people smile.

Design should be fun and novel, it should entertain and excite. Design should pleasantly surprise and impart a sense of wonderment and awe. Design should be used to improve morale and to spread happiness through family, friends, colleagues and strangers. Design should promote exuberant conversation, and remove the social barriers that restrict human interaction. Design should provide a platform to share and enjoy in sharing, it should be beautiful and pleasing to the eye, and should capture and express cheerfulness. Design should offer a sense of delight, and should be created with the intention of leaving a positive and memorable impression on the user. It should spark curiosity. Design should be freeing, and enrich the spirit. Ultimately design should be formed to elate and enchant the user, to create a sense of joy and delight in everyday life.

 References:

Mau, B. (2010-2014). An Incomplete Manifesto for Growth. Retrieved from: http://www.manifesto project.it/bruce-mau/

1. World Famous in New Zealand: How New Zealand’s Leading Firms Became World Class Competitors, by Colin Campbell-Hunt, posed the question ‘how do you grow world-class competitive capability?’ The findings of Hunt’s research and collaboration with ten of New Zealand’s finest companies on the world scale, proved that the answers to that question in a New Zealand context are unique to those that would be expected from anywhere else in the world. As Campbell-Hunt explains, these outcomes are likely due to New Zealand’s position as a small nation at the edge of the world, therefore the answers given by a nation in the Northern Hemisphere would not suit the state and nature of the New Zealand economy. This source is important in understanding why New Zealand needs to have a different stance on design than our much larger counterparts, and may go a way to help shape what New Zealand’s design DNA is, could be or should be.

2. Johnson Witehira’s article: ‘What is New Zealand’s Design DNA?’ explores the notion that New Zealand doesn’t necessarily have a unique standpoint on design, such as the likes of Sweden or Italy. Witehira argues that many will believe that our standpoint on design is linked to our national identity, such as ‘clean and green’ and ‘100% pure New Zealand’ or our presence as a bicultural nation. However, Witehira argues that the likelihood of this being the case is unlikely as the majority of New Zealand’s designer population is likely made up of male Pākehā designers, who are taught in our design schools of the principles of Euro-American design, such as the Bauhaus and so on. And the question stands, is New Zealand design sustainably focused? Or do we just like to believe it is because it fits the image we have created for our nation of ‘clean and green’? This article is an important factor in breaking down the differences between our national identity and our design identity, and whether the two need to be related at all.

3. Judy Hopkinson’s article ‘Kiwi Ingenuity’, tells the story of a group of Victoria University Students and Staff’s entry into the United State’s Department of Energy Solar Decathlon, which showcases energy innovation in action. Teams needed to construct a ‘one bedroom, solar powered house featuring cost-effective, energy-efficient construction, incorporating energy-saving appliances and renewable energy systems’ however in the case of the Kiwi entry, Hopkinson notes that the design and construction were worth a closer look. The team was designing the building in order for it to be transported back to New Zealand after the competition, therefore they added the extra constraints of the home needing to be wind and earthquake resistant. In regards to the building and problem solving process, Guy Marriage, Head of Building Science at Victoria University said that  “[The students] were testing ideas which some people with more experience would have said ‘No, no, you can’t do that’, but the students I think, were prepared to try more things.” This is an example reflective of the can do Kiwi attitude and Kiwi Ingenuity, exampled again in the team’s decision to design their own foundation system, as current designed systems would have required compromise to the design and construction. This project is an example of New Zealand design that encompasses all of the elements that many New Zealander’s would believe represent our design identity, including Kiwi Ingenuity, the can do DIY attitude and sustainable ‘clean and green’ design.

Bibliography:

Colin Campbell-Hunt. (2013). World Famous in New Zealand: How New Zealand’s Leading Firms Became World Class Competitors. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

Johnson Witehira. (2015). What is New Zealand’s Design DNA? Retrieved from: http://www.designassembly.org.nz/articles/new-zealands-design-dna