1.How did we get here?
1.1 Design in crisis?
Contemporary design, as an activity, profession and materialisedoutcomes, appears ill-equipped to deal with issues of pressingimportance. New questions are being asked of design as societies andcultures confront a globalised political, corporate and environmentalagenda, encompassing global warming, pollution, scarcity of water andenergy resources, poverty, social malaise and health scares. Candesign rise to the challenge or is it a victim of its own success inservice to industry, consumerism and a politicised global economicagenda? Has design lost its way? Rachel Cooper, editorial chair of theDesign Journal, asked ‘Is design undergoing a philosophicalcrisis?’(Cooper, 2002) and, in the same issue, Walker (2002) examined‘the cage of aesthetic convention’ controlling design culture.Against the background of these questions it seems that currentperceptions of design and designers are rather negative.Manufacturers perceive designers as providers of competitiveadvantage in product value, market share and lower unit productioncosts, rather than as professionals who play an overall integrativedesign role in the organisation and its strategic objectives (Bohemia,2002). Fuad-Luke (2002a) referred to the debasement of the adjective‘designer’ as it was applied to shallow political ambition, in the phrase‘designer diplomacy’.Today, the general public often perceives designers as mere stylists toa (rampant) consumer economy. Designers have successfullyconverted financial, natural, human and social capital into a newanthropocentric focus of consumerism. In doing so they have beendirectly responsible for a catalogue of adverse environmental andsocial impacts and have assisted in encouraging new consumer habits.Shopping has successfully supplanted the old faiths. In the 1980s theartist Barbara Kruger’s astute commentary “I shop therefore Iam” (Kruger, 1987 untitled (Fig. 1)) revealed a sea-change in ideas ofidentity in the ‘developed’, Western world. Self-identity has a new set ofreferences in the consumer world. Even art was susceptible to theforces of consumerism, as writer and critic Suzi Gablik noted in theearly 1990s: ‘Our thinking about art [has become conditioned] to thepoint where we have become incredibly addicted to certain kinds ofexperience at the expense of others, such as community, for example,or ritual….Not only does the particular way of life for which we havebeen programmed lack any cosmic, or transpersonal dimension, but itsunderlying principles [have become] manic production andconsumption, maximum energy flow, mind-less waste andgreed’ (Cline, 1997). Subsitute ‘design’ for ‘art’ in Gablik’s commentaryand the critique outlines core problems with the current designparadigm. Designers, and all those who call their efforts ‘design’,