DUNNE & RABY

S.O.C.D DUnne & Raby / Michael

Anastassiades
FICTIONAL FUNCTIONS AND FUNCTIONAL FICTIONS

TROIKA: HOW are artists and designers in this book pioneering a new approach to how
technology is thought about, its function and its role in our society.
D&R: At the time of writing, a design trend is emerging: design exhibitions of big
shapes; expensive shapes; impressive shapes. some people like them, some people
don?t. Sometimes they look like chairs or tables, but not always. They are
extensions of designers? egos. Often labelled 'Design Art', they are art without the
art. It feels like the end of something, the slow motion implosion of a fonnalist
approach to design that has dominated furniture design for the last part of the 20th
century.
These mute, autistic objects radiate ignorance of the world around us, they're
apolitical and content free.
But design/art doesn't have to be like this.
This book contains designs for the 21st century: embryonic, complex, challenging,
fresh. They move beyond obsessions with shape, form and material to embrace
behaviour, interactivity and our internal worlds on individual and mass-scales. They
are both art AND design and full of content.
products are the currency of today's consumer society, they surround us, shaping and
mediating our experiences, dreams, fantasies and desires. Five to ten years ago many
of the product ideas expressed in this book would have been fake products connected
by cables to a boxes of electronics sitting behind a nearby wall. Making
installations was the main option open to artists and designers exploring
technology's functional and aesthetic potential. NoW, at last, designers and artists
can prototype actual products even if only as one~ffs, narrowi ng the gap between
experimental design thinking and everyday life. This has become possible due to
recent technological developments that make prototyping more accessible and
affordable -- the availability of new prototyping systems like Arduino, coding
languages like processing, advances in wirelessness, 3D rapid prototyping and the
possibility of fabricating low cost PCBs in China.
But the most important thing about the projects in this book is that they are fully
engaged with the world around us -- socially, politically, culturally, and
technologically. They are deeply human, challenging, meaningful and reflective. They
are issue-based rather than purely fonnalistic. And they offer a refreshing
alternative to narrow corporate visions of the role technology could play in our
lives.
TROIKA: It seems to us that most of the designers and artists in this book follow an
experimental, subjective design process. HOW does this transpire in the end result?
D&R: Each project is a testament to the impossibility of the possible. They offer up
richer experiences and embody values far broader than those available in existing
mass-market products. Yet although nearly everything in this book could be
mass-manufactured, they are unlikely to be. They remind us that the reason many
experimental designs are not taken up for mass-production is less to do with
technical and economic feasibility and more to do with diffiCUlt content that
challenges the status quo.
TROIKA: Do you think they participate in creating richer, more complex products?
D&R: Absolutely.
TROIKA: what do you believe is their relevance?
D&R: They provide a space where new ideas about how we interact with each other,
technology and culture can be tested, presented, and communicated -- a parallel
design chanel or genre dedicated to ideas. In them, we catch glimpses of how things
could be if industry was a bit more imaginative and in tune with how people actually
are.
TROIKA: Designer as Author: HOW does it work?
D&R: Every product is authored. without design authorship product development is
driven purely by ecoOOftric and market forces. By assuming authorship designers can
subvert this process. Subjectivity is commonly understood as a bad thing in design,
understandably so when it so often results in self-expression and egomania. But
being an author is not about ego, that?s an old fashioned view of authorship, it?s
about a designer being involved in the definition of values that are _edded in an
object. Questioning the implications of ideas and ideologies locked into the
operation of a product. with electronics we are not simply talking about form and
visual aesthetics, but the function of the product, and what it allows us to do and
what it prevents us from doing.
Just like literature, authoring does not have to mean the reader assumes a passive
and uncreative role. As many of the projects in this book demonstrate, there are
lots of ways of designing that allow for interpretation and creative misuse: abuser­
friendliness rather than user-friendliness.
TROIKA: What is the benefit of it?
D&R: Humanisation. Authoring ensures human content. The designer as author is an
advocate for all that is human, messy, contradictory, and irrational. without it we
get pure technology, marketing and economics.
TROIKA: what is critical Design?
o&R: critical Design uses speculative design proposals to challenge narrow
assumptions, preconceptions and givens about the role products play in everyday
life. It is more of an attitude than anything else, a position rather than a method.
There are many people doing this who have never heard of the term critical design
and who have their own way of describing what they do. Naming it Critical Design is
simply a useful way of making this activity more visible and subject to discussion
and debate. Its opposite is affirmative design: design that reinforces the status
quo.
Design as critique has existed before under several guises. Italian Radical Design
of the 1970s for instance, was highly critical of prevailing social values and
design ideologies, critical design builds on this attitude and extends it into
today?s world. Some relatives are:
Activism
cautionary Tales
conceptual Design
Contestable Futures
Design Fictions
Interrogative Design
Radical Design
Sati re
social Fiction
Speculative Design
TROIKA: what questions does it raise?
o&R: It's not just about asking questions. It's main purpose is to make us think.
But also to raise awareness, expose assumptions, provoke action, spark debate, and
even entertain in an intellectual sort of way, like literature or film.
TROIKA: why today?
o&R: The world we live in today is incredibly complex, our social relations,
desires, fantasies, hopes and fears are very different from those at the beginning
of the 20th century. The role technology plays today in shaping our experience of
everyday life is unprecedented. Yet many key ideas underpinning contemporary design
practice stem form the early 20th century.

TROIKA: why is critical design interested in technology?

o&R: Society has moved on but design has not, Critical Design is one of many
mutations design is undergoing in an effort to remain relevant to the complex
technological, political, economic and social changes we are experiencing at the
beginning of the 21st century. Rather than speeding up the entry of technology into
everyday life, we need to reflect on its impact and ask if we even need it. critical
design is one way of doing this.
TROIKA: IS critical design only an academnc exercise or do you think its outcomes
could/should enter the mass-market? IS this important at all?
o&R: Although fundamentally academic, there's no reason its outCOllll!S cannot be mass
produced, it is not anti-industry nor anti-mass production, it's a strategy that
places emphasis on combining content and aesthetics, it can be issue-based,
awareness raising, or thought provoking. These can be a product's sole function or
they can be combined with other levels of use, purpose and meaning.
TROIKA: DO you think designers have to develop fully functioning prototypes or be
limited by available technology?
o&R: Dogma is the problem not prototyping.
If you are designing for now, for today, then it is essential you build your idea
and test it. If you are designing for the future, prototyping the future if you
like, then probably not, at least not in the way we think of usually, we can
simulate and fake experiences instead. It'S important to ask what needs to be
tested, and why, then think of the best way of achieving it. This could be by making
a fully working technical prototype, but not always. scenarios are prototypes too,
for testing a vision. SO are videos.
'Demo or Die' is a dog~. The belief that technical prototyping is the only way of
developing an idea quickly becomes a problem when it prevents designers from
engaging with technologies beyond their level of ability. budget or means. The
result of this dogma for people without the luxury of a lab will always be small
scale. craft-like objects: a form of digital craft. There's nothing wrong with this,
but sometimes we need to turn our attention to problems and ideas that are bigger
and more complex than we can handle individually or make ourselves, these skills are
important too.
Designers shouldn't let the fact we can't build working prototypes prevent us from
engaging with emerging technologies like bio- and nanotech. Just because we can't
get our hands on these technologies (yet) doesn't mean we shouldn't get involved
with them.
TROIKA: why do you think technology companies do not produce designer items, or hire
individual designers as much as furniture companies do?
D&R: Ahhough there seemed to be a IIIOIIIent in the 60s when electronic products -­
radios and TVs mainly -- were embraced by the furniture world and brieflY became
vehicles for aesthetic experimentation, today, electronics are not really viewed as
cultural artefacts in the way furniture and clothing are for instance, but as
disposable objects doomed to rapid obsolescence. This book is full of examples that
show this does not have to be the case.
TROIKA: In a world saturated by functional objects, and gadgets pretending
functionality. do you think that creating objects that address more psychological
needs, being intricate ones or mere entertainlllent, is the only way forward to
sustain production and ensure market leadership? In this case, could we witness a
systematic exploitation of psychological weaknesses of the consumers?
D&R: Addressing new-or neglected psychological needs is definitely one way forward.
Gadgets already do this and that's why they are so amusing and interesting. A look
through any gadget catalogue paints a fascinating portrait of modern life and what
it means to be human today. All our fears, anxieties and obsessions are manifest in
wonderfully strange products. Now if only they were beautifully designed!
-we're very interested in the difference between fictional functions and functional
fictions. The fonner is what we get everyday -- functional products that meet
fictional needs. The mobile phone is a perfect example, we don?t need half the
functions it offers us, They are pure fictions created to sell more bandwidth. on
the other hand, many of the projects in this book we would describe as functional
fi cti ons. They do not exi st as 'real' products, but as prototypes, semi - real,
fictiona1, but these fictions are highly functional and the needs they address,
although often intellectual, are real and genuine.
TROIKA: what challenges do you think face this type of art and design in the near
future?
o&R: To not get stuck in a 'digital art/design' ghetto, which could easily happen if
designers and artists continue to define their identity in relation to particular
technologies: new media design, digital design, computer art, bio art, nana art,
interactive art. Designers working in this area have excellent experience of dealing
with the trickiness of design for new technology and making it relevant and
meaningful to peoples? daily lives. we need to continue to embrace new technologies,
apply our learning to thein, and learn to feel comfortable moving across different
technological platforms. The end of the 20th century was a small- scale rehearsal
for more complex challenges facing us in the 21st century. The designers and artists
in this book are perfectly positioned to help achieve technological futures that
reflect the complex, troubled people we are, rather than the easily satisfied
conSumers and users we are supposed to be.
 DUNNE & RABY

Famous photographer, Evidence 00115.

200S

EM sniffer DOg, spymaker, 2007

INTERPRETATION, COLLABORATION, AND CRITIQUE

In the weeks followring Anthony DUnne's Stephen weiss lecture, Design + Management
faculty member Raoul Rickenberg conducted the following interview with DUnne, in
which they expand several themes that arose in the lecture itself. Among the topics
discussed are the hermeneutical context within which DUnne situates his body of
work-wnich spans domains of art, science, and politics-and the nature of DUnne's
collaboration with Fiona Raby and his colleagues and students at the Design
Interactions Department at the Royal college of Art.

RR: when reflecting on commonalities in the work that you presented in your talk,
it's difficult to miss the fact that many of the projects directly address the
contextual environment in which design occurs. More specifically, it seems that they
challenge the immutability of this context. The resonance of The COft1lass Table, for
example, stems from dynamics in the exogenous electronic environment and the manner
in which it obliges one to account for such dynamics. Like¥rise, The EVidence DOlls
are animated by the' various and varying social mores of those that use (or view) the
dolls. In both cases, engagement with the work inherently extends to the
environment(s) in which it is situated, and this forces one to address context as an
active force in the design process. such interaction, it seems to me, extends well
beyond the sort of reflection that is typically generated by site-specific art or
the forms of inquiry that are embodied in "contextual design." That said, I'm
wondering how you would describe your approach to context and the role of contextual
dynamics in the process of design. How do you conceive the role of environment? And
how is the designer situated in this formulation?
AD: The things we design are usually not intended for the world as it is today, so
context plays a very important and dual role. Firstly, there's the imagined context
where the work could or should exist, and secondly, there's the context in which the
work is actually shown-or sometimes, encountered.
Much of today's design derives its cultural value and meaning from "narratives of
production." How it was made and how the designer exploited new materials and
processes drives everything. The stories told about many objects stop at the point
the object actually comes into being. with our work, that's exactly when the story
begins. we're far more interested in "narratives of consumption": how objects enter
people's lives and the meanings that arise from their interactions with those
objects. But as we are not interested in designing for how the world is today. that
part of our work is highly speculative. And that's where context enters, imagined
contexts of use and interaction.
The context in which our work is shown is also important. when we started out we
were absolutely against showing work in white cube galleries and we experimented
with all sorts of different settings: shop windows, cafes, streets, abandoned shops,
gardens, homes, historical museum collections; but the work started to become about
the context itself and this is not what we are interested in. Later we accepted that
galleries are more like reporting spaces-places we can show the results of our
research and experimentation. SO over the last few years we have shown mainly in
museums and galleries, and accepted that these places are quite good for presenting
work as long as it is clear it is research rather than art objects. In fact, museums
are very interesting as they are more public than galleries and in some cases, MaMA
for eXaJnPle, many thousands of people get to see the work and it is almost a form of
mass media.
Finally, there is another aspect of our work that connects with context, and that is
the role we see for design: a questioning and critical process rather than one that
solves problems and provides answers. once you tum your back on mainstream design
there are few places to go. we have found academia to be a natura' home for what we
do. It provides a context where conceptual and critical design can take on a
usefulness; it can generate insights and understanding that can be used in teaching,
developing new research methods, and possibly influencing commercial practices too.
That doesn't mean it is escapist and turning its back on the real world, simply that
the usefulness of our work is in generating knowledge, methods and insights.
As I was writing this I realised that there is also the intellectual context our
work sits within, which is quite complex. Part design, part art, part social
science. This messy space influences how we work and present our ideas. I t helps us
develop new working methods and approaches and puts us under a lot of pressure to
make sure our ideas are understandable and relevant to other fields beyond design.
RR: with regard to the imagined, encountered, and intellectual contexts in which
your work operates: how do you address the differing demands that such contexts
place on your work (the plasticity that is necessary to absorb people's narratives
and the rigor that is required of a critical statement, for example, or the ability
to engage in individual-level interactions while operating in the realm of mass
media)?
AD: we don't have any systems for this. once a project is complete we evaluate it,
informally, and discuss what we think worked and what didn't; what went as we
anticipated and what didn't. OVer time you develop a sense of what works. That's not
a very sa1:isfying answer, but in operating as we do, in a fuzzy in-between space,
there aren't really any guidelines; you have to improvise, make it up as you go
along, and be alert to the peculiarities of each context.
In whatever we do, though, there are four key elements that we try to keep balanced:
rigour, imagination, tangibility, and relevance. There has to be a rigour behind the
work; this usually emerges through a constant questioning and doubting of what we
are doing, searching for holes, contradictions, weaknesses, etc. we address this as
we develop the project, through discussion. It's a bit painful, as you are always
Questioning the validity of your own work, and obviously, there are times when all
you can see are the weaknesses. Imagination is tricky too. For us, it means trying
to find ideas and ways of thinking that will lead to unusual and surprising
outcomes-not for novelty's sake, but because it's important to appeal to people's
imaginations as well as engaging their intellects. TO charm and seduce through
imaginative combinations of theory, methods, interactions, forms, and so on.
Tangibility is Quite obvious I guess, especially for designers. It is essential that
our ideas make their way into the material world in some way; it's not enough that
they end up as pure thoughts. They must be embodied in object typologies that we
understand: furniture, products, clothing, buildings .... And finally, relevance.
This is the one we struggle with most: how to ensure our work has relevance and
value beyond itself. I t could be that it introduces new methods for other people
working in this area, or it could get people to think about relationships between
technology and everyday life they may not have considered before, or it might just
simply inspire.
RR: IS your work instantiated in all of these contexts (or discourses) at the same
time? Or does the work undergo transformative processes across time, as it is
consumed and/or mediated?
AD: Across time. But it always carries traces of the original context it was
conceived for.
RR: How as researchers/designers/artists do you exert control over the ways in which
your work is contextualized?
AD: well, we can't always do that, and we don't always want to. once the work leaves
the studio it is out of our control. unless we are working very closely with a
curator or publisher, we accept that our work will often be contextualised in
relation to thei r own agenda. AS long as we agree with the agenda then we are happy
to let go.
RR: How do you situate your work in such a way that it can serve as a meaningful
provocation without being over-deterwrined?
AD: Ambiguity and openness are the keys. we don't view the object as a transmitter
of meaning to be decoded by a viewer, but as a prompt, a thing to be engaged with.
we think about the experience of physically encountering the work: its size, scale,
materiality, degrees of perfection, mass, relationship to the body, etc., and how
these might make a person feel and what associations they might trigger. Then we
spend Quite a lot of time seeking out wrongness. Things have to be not-quite-right;
this awkwardness is a way into the object, an invitation to explain why it is the
way it is, why it's not Quite right. If it was too correct and as expected, they
would glance once and move on. If the object is too open-ended in tems of meaning,
then it can seem empty. One thing that we have noticed over time is that compared to
artworks, our idea of provocation is pretty mild. I think this is because if we make
things too wild they alienate and end up being categorised as whacky and irrelevant.
we hope that people believe our pieces could be part of this world, and that their
subtle strangeness intrigues rather than repels.
RR: DOeS such subtle intrigue occur when the work is exhibited in the context of a
gallery or when it is discussed in an editorial context?
AD: BOth ideally, and sometimes in lectures.
RR: If 50, how do you address the shift from intrigue to polemic? At what point does
the work become an over-determined history?
AD: As soon as it leaves the studio, even in the form of a digital image for a
magazine. From that point on it is history and open to use, misuse and abuse by
others. Lectures are very important for us; they allow us to present our work in
relation to its intended context. Making our own publications is something we don't
do as much as we'd like to, but they too ensure that the original intellectual
context for the work is clear.
RR: with respect to the specific relationship(s) of your work to social science:
while many artists and designers attempt to position their work in the realm of the
sciences, such efforts rarely extend beyond simplistic appropriations of scientific
methodology (as in the context of "ethnographic" approaches to market segmentation
and product testing). perhaps this fact reflects a fundamental difference between
the practice of science and those of art and design: to paraphrase [Richard]
Buchanan, the sciences concern ways of revealing existing structure while design
concerns the construction of that which does not yet exist-but if this is true, it
is a fundamental difference that you have navigated successfully nonetheless. How do
you reconcile the practice of design (or art) with that of social science? In what
ways does your work address the di fferences between these practi cas?
AD: I'm glad you think we are successfully navigating this fundamental difference!
This is something we are wrestling with right now. You might want to ask Fiona about
this. she is currently a visiting scholar at Lancaster university, where she is
working with a small group of our recent graduates and the Institute for Advanced
studies on a project called NeW sciences of protection: Designing Safe Living.
They've been using the graduate projects as platforms to explore how designers,
political and social scientists can work together. And the issue that causes most
confusion and misunderstanding is the difference pointed out by Buchanan in your
question. The Institute for Advanced Studies approached us over a year ago and are
very interested in what, if anything, can be learnt from critical design in relation
to designing social policy. And we're interested in speculative politics and how to
develop design-driven future scenarios that embrace political and economic
complexity, how design might connect with social scientists, and who the audience
for such scenarios might be. The project consists of several workshops leading to a
conference in July; there's a blog as well. It's a very exciting project and full of
interesting challenges.
we are absolutely committed to speculative design. But we are painfully aware of the
pitfalls: on the one hand, escapist utopias that mayor may not be entertainingly
satirical and on the other, design thinking being hijacked for social engineering
projects.
RR: I'd like to learn more about Fiona's thoughts on the intersection(s) of design
and the sciences; the fact that she is working on the New Sciences of protection
project raises a·number of questions pertaining to cross-disciplinary collaboration,
and the role that you would like to play in such efforts. But before addressing
this, I'd like to focus on the nature of your collaboration with Fiona. You have
been responding to most of my questions in the first-person plural; I'm wondering
how interaction with Fiona informs your work. Do the two of you approach your work
from substantively different perspectives? In what ways do your interests,
knowledges, and competencies differ? Is the degree of difference decreasing as your
collaboration matures and, if so, how is this affecting your work?
AD: we do have different skills and interests. Fiona's background is in
architecture, mine is in industrial design, and both of us drifted into interaction
design later via eRD (computer Related Design) at the RCA where we both did research
degrees (Fiona an MPhil and me, a Ph.D.), and then worked as Senior Research
Fellows. I would say that Fiona is more interested in the big picture: narrative.
systems. networks and scenarios. Although I'm interested in these too, my main focus
is on objects, things, products. I'm probably more interested in theory while Fiona
keeps her eye on what's happening in the real world via TV and newspapers. I'd say
she is more of a collaborator than I am; I like to hide away in the studio (when I
can!) while she loves getting out and about and meeting people. we both lOve ideas
and teaching, find the narrowness of mainstream design practice and thinking
oppressive and frustrating, and we are both non-technical and very idealistic.
Every project we do is a collaboration between us; this doesn't mean we both design
everything, however. we spend a lot of time talking and discussing ideas, and the
tangible outcome can be just the tip of the iceberg. But we have found that one of
us always has to be the boss of a project-lllanage it, have the final say, liaise with
the client, and so on. This usually happens once the project is underway and in the
practical phase. The other person acts as a sort of consultant.
I would say the degree of difference is increasing. I think as we get better at
working together, we free each other up to do the bits we enjoy.
RR: HOW do the roles that the two of you play differ over the course of a project?
AD: I think I answered that above.
RR: And how does this impact your ability to reflect on work in process (as distinct
frOlll the post hoc evaluations that you have already mentioned)?
AD: well, as we constantly discuss everything this happens fairly naturally. And the
fact that one of us will always be leading a project means the other can provide a
slightly more objective viewpoint, or sometimes even take on the role of devil's
advocate.
RR: HOW does this change when you bring additional collaborators, even students,
into the fold?
AD: usually when we collaborate with others they have very different and quite
specific skills that we don't: programnnng, electronics, graphics, photography,
music, video. our roles are quite clearly defined from the start. The amount of
creative input varies, and we try to ensure that we are clear about the edges of our
authorship in relation to what others bring to the mix. Fiona and I usually have the
idea and know what we want in terms of main concept before we start working with
others; but once others are on board we're fairly open to how that idea manifests
itself in other media. we always brief the people we work with. The exception is
with Michael Anastassiades, who is also a designer, where all three of us come up
with the idea together and even most of the objects. I t takes a lot of trust, as we
don't define precise roles for one another. It can get messy at times, but
ultimately, it is more satisfying to just be yourself and do what you enjoy doing. I
don't think any of us could pinpoint exactly which bit of what idea is whose, or who
had the idea for a particular form or material. we sit around talking and passing
each other sketches that we all work on and modify.
Recently, as I mentioned before, we have started to collaborate with people from
other academic disciplines like social science. The biggest hurdles here seem to
concern language, terminology and methodology. I think it is much harder to
collaborate across academic disciplines; the aim is to create strangely beautiful
chimeras, but it can so easily result in grotesque moniters. In art and design,
collaboration is all about authorship; in academia it seems to be about territories.
with students it is different. In that case I guess we are more like curators or
editors: we set out a general space, establish loose criteria, and then step back.
RR: In addition to satisfying my curiosity about the particular dynamics of the
collaboration that you've forged with Fiona, I'm asking these questions in the hope
that they will provide further insight into broader issues of cross-disciplinary
collaboration. You've mentioned that you operate "in a fuzzy in-between space" where
"you have to improvise" and, while I would assume that the form of such
improvisation has much to do with the character of that which you are between, I'm
wondering how you define and maintain the space for such investigation.
AD: we don't define it at all. It's not by choice that we find ourselves operating
in this space, but because of the role for design that we are interested in
pursuing. we believe design can be used as a reflective and critical medium, which
is at odds with the current understanding of design as a way of making things sexy
and consumeable, at least in relation to new technology. Once you decouple design
from the marketplace it has nowhere to go. A lot of our career so far has been about
finding a home, or context, for this kind of design, on every level: economic,
intellectual, physical, cultural, academic, commercial ....
RR: How do you know when you are escaping into the realm of utopia? How do you avoid
being "hijacked" by social engineers? HOW do you maintain your critical sensibility
when your workspace is defined by the dynamics of collaborative improvisation?
AD: we spend quite a bit of time discussing fiction, utopias, and futurology. But I
think what we are interested in more is the idea of thought experiments-imaginative
exercises that help us understand something, expose assumptions, and challenge us to
think differently about what is possible. AS long as we use projects as tools for
exploring an idea and not as ends in themselves, we feel happy that we are not
proposing utopias. The critical sensibility, at its most basic, is simply about not
taking things for granted, to question and look beneath the surface. This is not new
and is COlllllOl1 in other fields; what is new is trying to use design as a tool for
doing this.
when I mentioned social engineering earlier, it was not in relation to our own work;
I don't think anyone is interested in hijacking us! what I meant was that "design
thinking" seems to be drifting that way, at least in the UK. There's a lot of talk
about how design can be used to engage with and re-design existing organisations as
opposed to thinking up new but possibly utopian ones. I think it has been called
Transformation Design. when people talk about applying it to government institutions
like the National Health service or prison service, I wonder if design isn't being
used to make social engineering more user-friendly and acceptable.
RR: I'm interested in your use of the term "user-friendly" in the context of social
engineering. This term is often used to describe designs that require little but
connon sense in order to be of use and, by extension, it connotes an association
between the agency of design and egalitarian values. Rarely are questions asked
about the ways in which user-friendly design may impact common sense itself or
perspectives that deviate from this norm. Clearly, your work poses SUch questions.
But in doing so, does it impugn the alignment of user-friendly design with an
egalitarian agenda per se?
AD: I think user-friendliness is a valid goal for design, but mainly in highly
functional situations. clearly, if you are designing controls they should be
user-friendly, or an everyday product where we just need to be able to use it. In
reality, very few digital products are user-friendly so there is lots of work to be
done there; mobile phones are a classic example. For all the rhetoric and hype, most
people still struggle to use technology. I don't think this is a design issue: the
knowledge is there-all good designers are taught how to make things
user-friendly-[the problem] is that their power is so minimal in reality that their
role is limited to designing appearances.
I think user-centered design is different, and may be what you are referring to in
your question. This I have problems with, especially when it concerns content.
cinl!lllil has long gone that way; we get user-centered films these days, often tweaked
and changed in response to focus group testi ng. The problem I have wi th it i s that
we simply see ourselves reflected back. when it becomes a doctrine, which I believe
it has, it encourages an extremely narrow view of the possibilities for new
experiences. It is related to the cult of the anateur. I compare it to cooking: just
because we can cook a nice meal at home for our friends does not mean we no longer
need highly skilled chefs who can produce a truly special meal that surprises and
thrills us. somehow, people who support the cult of the amateur argue as though all
specialists and experts will no longer be required. In my opinion, this is a highly
functional and sad view of life and culture, where we want to do everything
ourselves and dismiss the efforts of highly trained specialists, whether
journalists, film-makers, designers or artists. I am not interested in
user-centeredness at all. Resonance and relevance are far more interesting: how do
you design something that isn't just an expression of your own interests and ego,
but resonates with others, and has relevance to their lives?
Just the existence of terms like "user-centered" or "user-friendly" tells us a lot
about our view of people. If people are reduced to being "users," then we definitely
need to remind ourselves that things should be friendly and people should be at the
center; maybe these terms are for engineers. Designers, who view "users" as people,
do not need to be reminded. Apple is a good example of this. They are not
user-centered, but they do understand people.
RR: Or is it the tacit manner in which social relations are engineered by design
that is of concern? And, if the latter, are there attributes of this dynamic that
you find particularly intriguing or difficult to unpack when using design as your
tool?
AD: ~en I did my BA in Industrial Design in the 80s ergonomics was big. we had to
do endless exercises exploring how the body physically fitted the environment; it
was all about physiology. DUring the 90s user-friendliness emerged, and everyone was
more concerned with cognitive models and the fit between the mind and the designed
envi ronment. These days I think we are II10re concerned with the sense of what it
means to be human and how these ideas manifest themselves, or don't, in large
systems. I think this is closer to ethics. I can see a development from ergonomics
through user-friendliness to ethics, especially 1n relation to design for
technology. The mechanical age gave rise to ergonomics, the information age to
user-friendliness, and emerging technologies like bio- and nanotech, to ethics. GOOd
design today ensures that products embody an ethic, a view of what it means to be
human. It's all about values. On a slightly banal level, iTunes does this well. It
isn't just about user-friendliness, but embodying a specific idea of human nature-a
recognition of haw we like to live, what we like to do, how we really are.
I think that today; designers are MOre aware that products can be political, and can
shape and influence our behaviour. But we are only beginning to explore new methods
and conceptual tools that allow us to address these complexities. critical Design is
one way of doing this, but I am sure there are other ways. we're moving from
designing a better fit between body and technology, and mind and technology, to a
better fit between humanity and technology. we're zoomnng out.
 DUNNE & RABY

I
-~~ ~-~~~ ~
CRITICAL DESIGN FAQ

Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby

1. What is Critical Design?

Critical Design uses speculative design proposals to challenge narrow assumptions,
preconceptions and givens about the role products play in everyday life. It is more
of an attitude than anything else, a position rather than a method. There are many
people doing this who have never heard of the term critical design and who have
their own way of describing what they do. Naming it critical Design is simply a
useful way of making this activity more visible and subject to discussion and
debate.
Its opposite is affirmative design: design that reinforces the status quo.
2. Where did it come from?

Design as critique has existed before under several guises. Italian Radical Design

of the 19705 was highly critical of prevailing social values and design ideologies,

critical design builds on this attitude and extends it into today's world.

DUring the 1990s there was a general move towards conceptual design which made it
easier fOr noncommercial forms of design like critical design to exist, this
happened mainly in the furniture world, product design is still conservative and
closely linked to the mass market.
The term Critical Design was first used in Anthony Dunne's book Hertzian Tales
(1999) and later in Design Noir (2001). Since then many other people have developed
their own variations.
3. Who does it?

Dunne & Raby and thei r graduate students from the Royal college of Art (RCA) such as

James AUger, E110 caccavale and NOam Toran, are probably the most well known, but

there are other designers working in a Similar way who would not describe what they

do as critical design: Krzysztof wodiczko, Natalie Jeremijenko, Jurgen Bey, Marti

Guixe ...

4. What is it for?

Mainly to make us think. But also ralslng awareness, exposing assumptions, provoking

action, sparking debate, even entertaining in an intellectual sort of way, like

literature or film.

5. Why is it happening now?

The world we live in today is incredibly complex, our social relations, desires.

fantasies, hopes and fears are very different from those at the beginning of the

20c. vet many key ideas informing mainstream design steAl form the early 2Oe.

Society has moved on but design has not, Critical Design is one of many mutations
design is undergoing in an effort to remain relevant to the complex technological,
political, economic and social changes we are experiencing at the beginning of the
2lc.
6. What role does humour play?
Humour is important but often misused. Satire is the goal. But often only parody and
pastiche are achieved. These reduce the effectiveness in a mMllber of ways. They are
lazy and borrow existing formats. and they signal too clearly that it is ironic and
so relieve some burden from the viewer. The viewer should experience a dilemma. is
it serious or not? Real or not? For critical design to be successful they need to
make up their own mind.
Also, it would be very easy to preach, a skilful use of satire and irony can engage
the audience in a more constructive away by appealing to its imagination as well as
engaging the intellect. Good political comedians achieve this well. Deadpan and
black humour work best.
7. IS it a movement?

No. It's not really a field that can be neatly defined. It's more about values and

an attitude. a way of looking at design and imagining its possibilities beyond the

narrow definitions of what is presented through media and in the shops.

8. What are its main relatives?

ACtivism

Cautionary Tales

Conceptual Design

contestable Futures

Design Fiction

Interrogative Design

Radical Design

satire

Social Fiction

speculative Design

9. What are the biggest misconceptions?

That it is negative and anti-everything.

That it is only commentary and cannot change anything

That it is jokey

That it is not concerned with aesthetics

That it is against mass-production

 That t s pessimistic
That t s not real
That t s art
10. But isn't it art?
~~ It is definitely not art. I t might borrow heavily from art in terms of methods and
approaches but that's it. we expect art to be shocking and extreme. Critical Design
needs to be closer to the everyday, that's where its power to disturb comes from.
Too weird and it will be dismissed as art, too nonnal and it will be effortlessly
assimilated. If it is regarded as art it is easier to deal with, but if it remains
as design it is more disturbing, it suggests that the everyday as we know it could
be different, that things could change.
11. Isn?t it a bit dark?
Yes, but not for the sake of it. Dark, complex emotions are ignored in design,
nearly every other area of culture accepts people are complex, contradictory and
even neurotic, but not design, we view people as obedient and predictable users and
consumers. ­
one of critical Design's roles is to question the limited range of emotional and
psychological experiences offered through designed products. Design is assumed to
only make things nice, it's as though all designers have taken an unspoken
Hippocratic oath, this limits and prevents us from fully engaging with and designing
for the complexities of human nature which of course is not always nice. It is more
about the positive use of negativity, not negativity for its own sake, but to draw
attention to a scary possibility in the form of a cautionary tale.
12. And its future?
A danger for critical design is that it ends up as a form of sophisticated design
entertainment: 9~ humour 1~ critique. It needs to avoid this situation by
identifying and engaging with complex and challenging issues. Areas like Future
Forecasting would benefit from its more gritty view of human nature and ability to
make abstract issues tangible. It could also playa role in public debates about the
social, cultural and ethical impact on everyday life of emerging and future
technologies.