Victor Papanek was a designer and educator who worked tirelessly to promote socially, economically and ecologically sustainable design. In 1975, he wrote an essay entitled "Edugraphology—The Myths of Design and the Design of Myths" which analyzed what he viewed as a corruption of the concept of design, the role of designers in society and how he thought educators were promoting design's perversion.
Papanek outlined six "discernible directions" to which graphic design and design education seemed to be dedicated and several myths which these directions perpetuated. Not being resigned to the demise of design, which Papanek views as a natural expression of human creativity when manifested in its true form, he also enumerated ten ways through which design could be brought back to mainstream life.
Looking back, now, over the 30 years since Victor Papanek originally wrote this piece, do you think design is still dedicated to the same "discernible directions?" Do you think his Myths still apply? How do you think we are succeeding or failing at the ten ways to save design? How would he have responded to economic collapse that we have recently experienced? If Victor Papanek were still alive today, how do you think he would respond to Web 2.0, the availability and accessibility of technology to the masses?
Please read "Edugraphology—The Myths of Design and the Design of Myths," pages 251-255 of this Google Book and respond through the comments section on this post to contribute to the conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Roll
About DMA 250
This blog is maintained for the students enrolled in MCCC's Digital Media Art's Digital Portfolio class. All posts on this blog are written by the instructor, Meg McGrath, but all are invited to participate in active discussion through the comments.
19 comments:
I think all of Victors myths still apply to every day use!! how ever I believe that it is much easier for some one to convey design do to all of the resent advances in technology. If anything design has gotten stronger and more in demand with web pages at an all time high and corprate logos.
I think Papanek would be very happy to see the emergence of technology like Web 2.0. He encouraged the integration of the user and the designer, and believed everyday people should be a part of the design process. However, it has not had the impact he believed is a necessity to design. The economic crisis our country is enduring was caused by a large number of people in our society feeling obligated to live above their means. Some could speculate this was a designer's idea behind a marketing strategy. Also, another issue affecting this country is global warming and the environment. This is another topic in which Papanek felt designers could play a role. So, I think he would enjoy Web 2.0, but say we have a long way to go.
I don't really understand what Papanek is complaining about. I am all for the concept of Web 2.0 and all of the new forms of "design" and how we use it in our industries today. Maybe I'm just not understanding his passage that much, but it seems to me like he is against all of the growth of design. If only he could see how successful people have become through today's technology of the Web and others. Disregarding the economic crisis that we have now, if you look back to the internet boom in the 90s, I think he would have a better understanding of the advanced forms of design that we have today.
I don't really understand what this article is about. I am having a hard time reading through it. What I got out of it however is about design changing and and becoming less useful? I am probably far off, but I just can't follow along and understand it.
I agree with almost everything he said. I found it interesting how he was very concerned about the environment and how to conserve our resources since this was written 30 years ago and this is an issue that really has only been brought to public's attention recently. (besides hippies.) I agree with his idea about spending our efforts developing things we actually need rather then on things we only think we do. I think Web 2.0 has greatly improved the way we access information but at the same time if people were a little more focused we wouldn't have to sift through all the garbage on the internet to find substantial information. As far as design coming far I do not agree with that either. People are just reusing and combining elements of art from different time periods. I believe design has become too saturated.
I'm also having trouble understanding the article. Is Papanek's issue with design is that it's becoming too 'corporate'? While reading the article I kind of got the feeling that he was just being bitter and airing some grivences he had at the time.
Victor Papanek suggests the design industry and design professionals have mischievously removed themselves from addressing their audience’s legitimate needs – stimulating a demand for semi-useless products and dialoging with other professionals: ‘Design for Design Sake’. When, in reality, everyone’s a designer, they just don’t know it.
His proposed solution – greater sensitivity to consumer needs – merely sounds like a reworking of early 20th century manifestos (i.e. Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus.) There’s nothing new here. However, I will agree that that the advertising/design machine seems to have strayed from its original ‘proletarian’ course.
the view that designers are an elitist group is what I think he was against. Design is something that everyone has the ability to do but needs to be taught in a way where there is no agenda in the end. design for advertising, design for architecture should be results of the artists vision, not the goal.
Papanek says, "A well designed technology must be one of self reliance." I think his view on Web 2.0 would be that it will be a logical progression to the original web.
I think he had a big influnice on design, I don't totally undererstand evwerything the aritcle is talking about.
Papaneks ideas are somewhat of extinct in the fact that technology is changing everyday. So many programs are out there specifically for the reason of designing somthing whether it be a simple graph or a 3-d model of a building. His ideas were good for his time but are every changing in today's society.
I feel that Papanek's myths still apply to today. However, it was also hard for me to comprehend this article, in my own personal opinion I felt that it skipped around alot, and made it a little confusing. I may understand this article better when we discuss it in class.
I also do agree with some of the points Victor Papanek wrote about. However I do think that some of the aspects he touches on are a little old, which is understandable being that this was written 30 years ago. A lot of the subjects in this reading still have there place today. Like the point he made about "To undo with one hand with the other has done" and the Myths he listed.
I am having trouble understanding what most of the article is about. However, what little bit I did understand did make sense. I do do agree that designers don't always always have the publics needs at heart.
I find Victor Papanek to be have a humorous and somewhat offensive style of writing at the same time. Yes, I agree Graphic Design, Advertising Design, Commercial Design, or whatever you want to label it confuses people's understanding of basic needs and wants. I need food, water and air. But, for example, deodorant ads have made it so unexceptionable to sweat that the want for social acceptance turns into a need for a specific deodorant. And yes, I wear deodorant. ;) But I do realize the paradox.
My major is Advertising Design so I feel a certain amount of loyalty to the idea that only designers can design. But upon selecting a major I had serious doubts because I considered the same ideas Papenek brought up: "To persuade people to buy things they don't need with money they don't have to impress others who don't care." I am 100% in agreement with Papenek that this is the main purpose of advertising and originally I didn't want to be a part of it.
But there was only one of the 10 myths I agreed with. Design does not satisfy needs at all. It will give me a job, which will buy me food. But as for those who make nothing off of things looking appealing, it only satisfies those "needs" (which are really wants) we are told we need.
I do not think design needs to be saved. I think people only have to become less self absorbed. We do have to consider nonrenewable resources for the planet's sake. Designers should consider using their skills for charity, even if only a few side jobs a year. I think this next generation of designers is going to do that. People in general are becoming more socially aware and as long as the older generations do not try to make their mentality ours, things will change. So maybe design doesn't need saving; maybe people do, and design will follow.
As for the internet, I have a feeling Papenek would have a few more self-contradictions to say.
Pros: Web saves paper. Ads are paperless and better for the environment. Web has also made DIY more appealing, more mainstream. Kids are designing web pages all the time. That definatly would excite Papenek with his "every man is a designer" thoughts. It also opens our eyes to different ways of thinking, leaving us less dependent on educators, bosses, communities, etc.
Cons: the constant stream of ads. Every page has an ad on it. We've learned to ignore them for the most part, but those weight loss ads and the like sneak into our subconscious and change our wants to needs. Web 2.0 is also sleeker, more manufactured and stream line looking. I'm sure Papenek would have something witty to say about sleekness hiding something. And finally, the never ending abyss that is the internet can suck up time that could be used for doing something productive. Who hasn't at least once spent hours surfing YouTube?
(that was way long. :) sorry. I really liked the article.)
I'll try my shot on this one...
What I think he's arguing is that nowadays, design is being incorporated into so many processes of production that its lost its sacredness to designers as a "post production process" step. In other words, he labels in his essay the various types of design oriented positions, "advertising, graphic, visual, industrial, social, intermediate, advocacy, etc, and perhaps this is eluding to what he feels as an oversaturation in the market with positions and needs for design?
This was way over my head. However, after reading Robert's comment I began to understand it a little better. I found it interesting that the designers kind of set the standard in their industry and not the consumers. Instead of designing for the consumer the designer designs to design. It has both its positives and negatives in that sometimes design serves no purpose and other times it can play a big role in how we interpret things. I'm not exactly sure how far off I am on this subject, but that's my take. Good talk I'll cya out there.
also, the title I found to be interesting, "myths" of design. i never realized there were concrete rules to design that could be labeled with yes or no, and not just in that of bad taste. in the end, design is art, and art, can mean many things to many people, but i never see art as wrong or right.
Strikingly, I must agree with Papanek's "discernable directions" as still applicable. I'm against over-consumption and don't understand how others fall prey to this hideous goal of dying with more toys than the next person. One important aspect of design I don't consider negative is sharing information. Design is imperative for people to access and enjoy research.
I do not think all the myths apply today. I understand the importance of thinking ahead when it comes to environmental consciousness and realizing the outcome of creating unnecessary, environmentally hazardous products.
Design may not be a profession alone, still there are jobs that concentrate on design. I also think design can be for people. Many people think visually and learn more from diagrams than from Math or English. Effective design can help people learn what they're interested in knowing, or have access to what they need. Design can satisfy people's needs. As some people think more visually, successful design can lead someone to available help they're entitled to from the government. Also, through brochures at doctor's offices explaining sign and symptoms of potential illnesses.
Ironically, most of the myths do apply today. Everyone's an artist, it's just that some people use their skills. In the same way everyone's a designer, even if they're simply designing an outfit to wear for a specific occasion. Designing does not define creativity. Mr. Lion's commented, "artists ask a question, then answer it, designers answer a question that's been presented." It sounds more like solving a problem.
I think Papanek was aware the industrial revolution had devastating effects on the environment, subsequently, quality of life. What he is not aware of in this book is the widespread interest in saving our environment today. Design can be used when informing and safeguarding the masses.
I do think we are successful in saving design. People do work together, such as coalitions. I think designers do work with people to accommodate their wishes. Also, there a many people I know who would like to use design to promote justice, and will work for the state or non-profit organizations.
Unfortunately the job market does not necessarily reflect this area of interest. Certainly products designed and sold, require more and more products to get the best use of the first product or clean up after it. I have to buy expensive scented candles to clear up the smell of cigarettes, when cigarettes are only putting me in my grave sooner.
I think Papanek would be disgusted by the economic crisis today. The people in power haven't listened to people like him. I think they disrespect the general public as ignorant. In order to stay in power politically, or financially, they promote overconsumption to stay on top. I expect he would challenge designer's to build networks to inform, educate, and therefore empower the general public.
It was very hard for me to read and totally understand what this article is about. I was trying to find on the dictionary words I could not understand but some of them I couldn’t find. From what I understood reading this five pages, Victor Papanek is trying to say that we must not use design to harm our society but to make good and create a better world for us to live in. He talked about different aspects of using design and how people mislead the way we should use it. If I understood correctly, then I totally agree with Victor Papanek’s beliefs. I believe that his myths not only still apply today but today’s society is much worse concerning every aspect of design he has talked about. I hope I'm not far off the subject and that you understand what I write above! :)
Post a Comment