What is Critical About Critical Design? (Essay Sample)

What is Critical about Critical Design?
Institution
Name
Critical design can be defined as research by use of design methodologies that are pillars of design practice ethics. Critical design can also be used to reveal hidden agendas, and find alternative design solutions (Disalvo, 2012). Even with achievements made in Human Computer Interaction (HCI), there is slow adoption of critical design. The slow implementation rate could be partially attributed to the complex nature of some of its ideas. Understanding the original ideas and some of the traditional ideas could help understanding and increased advocation for increased use of critical design. Proper understanding could help researchers develop concepts that aid in critical design by use of HCI.
Technological advancements of modern times have a large impact on the social-cultural aspect of human life (Jeffrey). These improvements do not only affect this aspect but nearly all aspects of daily life. HCI has experienced the largest influence and consequently has also experienced very many changes. The development of a social-cultural perspective that was of little interest prior to the technological changes has fastened. Sluggish development has created the need to modify the electronic world to suit man values and the needs. The underlying principles are based on people’s philosophical nature as well as desire for technological enhancement.
Constructive design has also emerged as a new trend that epitomizes objects as tools of learning. Critical design as a form of research aims at leveraging designs with the goal of making consumers critical about mediation of life by assumption, ideologies, and values inscribed in designs (Stevenson, 2002). From a broad view, critical design appears to be in support of HCI research. Some of the concepts advocated in HCI lead to the creation of devices that can potentially threaten the future of planet earth. There is widespread misconception about critical design forcing its founders Raby and Dunne to write articles correcting these misunderstandings (Jeffrey). The extent to which design has been featured in HCI is also another source of confusion.
This paper seeks to show the unutilized potential in critical design by the use of HCI. Attempts are also made to show how much available literature can be obtained about critical design and whether it is sufficient to offer support for its own development. In order to develop critical designs, researchers should try to develop solutions based on what the consumers want, but focusing too much on trying to understand what the creators of critical design meant with their theory. This evaluation aims at contributing to the above by listing the problems that can be noted from the original theory of critical design, giving better insight to help in the understanding and evaluating the personal perspective with the aim of creating critical thought in mind. In doing that, attempts are being made to provide accessible concepts that design researchers can apply in their daily work.
Origins and roles of critical design
Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse developed the first concepts of critical thinking (Jeffrey). They argued that results of consumer culture and mass media were politically regressive. Their argument was based on the way a society organizes and produces things, the way these things are produced which according to them was natural. The conclusion of this theory was that dominant social classes maintain their status quo by disseminating myths that alienate the working class by encouraging the working class to buy into ideas that work against their own preferences. This theory relies heavily on consumer culture. Dunne and Raby (2001) developed theory about critical design from a totally different view. The argued there two types of designs; affirmative and critical. To differentiate the two, affirmative design conforms to expectations while critical rejects things as they are by providing a critique of the current situation through alternative designs in economic, technological, and social-cultural practices (Malpass, 2009). Dunne and Raby explained critical design further as a form of social research. The earlier theories were entirely based on philosophical, and social scientific combination. Dunne’s and Raby’s is widely accepted because of it uses design in creating critical sensibility and, therefore, bringing about critical attitudes among the consumers and critical thinking among designers. However, Dunne and Raby do not specify how this is achieved. The only thing that can give a methodological approach in their explanation is a mere use of words such as regression (Dunne and Raby, 2001).
The theory advocated for by Dunne and Raby is best tailored for designers (Malpass, 2009). It exposes design as a profession to accounting of its complicity with ideas such alienation and capitalism. The outline is that the design values of capitalism ideologies are realized. It challenges both consumers and designers to demand, and envision products that are human-needs oriented.
Critiquing Critical Design
Regardless of the desire to pursue concepts advocated for, in critical design, its weak and limited HCI is very discouraging. It is valid to argue that critical design can emerge as HCI program with increased research. Overreliance on Dunne’s and Raby’s view should be avoided as it leads to little or no development of the existing concepts. A keen critic of critical design can be key to identifying any possible opportunities to improve the current achievements.
Critical designs oppose affirmative design. Dunne’s and Raby’s (2013) thinking has an opposition between critical design and affirmative. Even though this view has attracted support, its present formulation has more political view than professional view. This is because the two make the distinction and also make the judgments attached to the distinction. Affirmative design is a common practice and, therefore; it is a dupe for capitalists while critical designers are referred to as moral agents whose main role is to change the change the society for the better. According to Dunne and Raby, critical design is honorific while affirmative design is pejorative. This leaves the question, what and who determines whether a design is critical or affirmative? Another big question is that of identification of critical design. The status quo is disputable among many designs. What may be viewed as unfamiliar and challenging in one part of the part is a norm elsewhere. This is due to cultural differences (Highmore, 2009).
The overlapping between affirmative and critical oppositions cannot compete with capitalism, which is extremely fast in determining countercultural identifiers and commercializing them. Capitalism is quick in adopting new ideas to the mean stream and drawing the support of the significant views. In brief, the relationship between differences between critical and affirmative is complicated judging from the designs, and yet the way these guidelines judge a designer's work has a significant influence on the designer. Critical design needs rich vocabulary explicitly to have reflexive critical stance on people rather than the present time where critical design remains a cult of personality.
In several attempts to explain the validity of critical design as an art, Dunne and Raby (2001, 2013) have emphatically asserted that the design is not an art. However it is widely misconceived to be an art. Critical design is art like due to experienced incidences of its artifacts to cause criticality. Dunne and Raby use vocabulary in some of their concepts that is associated with art. In addition, Dunne and Raby argue that art is different from design in that design is a part of daily life unlike art that is simply assumed as just simple objects. Another distinction between art and design is that critical design needs to be close every day, and that explains its ability to disturb whereas art is extreme and shocking. In reality, art is a compulsory part of every day. Music, movie theaters and graffiti are just inevitable. It is impossible to assume art messages and, therefore, the notion that art is extreme and shocking is too narrow to explain the nature of art.
The main difference between critical design and another design is its ability to its criticality. Despite this fact, Dunne and Raby (2001) do not explain what is meant by this criticality. The simplest definition given as quoted "the critical sensibility, at its most basic, is simply about not taking things for granted, to question and beneath the surface." (The class blog). This statement leads to more questions than it answers the already existing questions. Dunne and Raby are yet to respond to some of these questions. A person will easily wonder what to look for, what to expect from underneath, etc. in numerous attempts to answer these questions Dunne and Raby have given examples of designs that are supposed to have a critical function. Dunne contradicts some of the concepts in their thinking, by arguing that user-friendliness should be discouraged since it leads to a passive society even though yet he introduced the term usability (Dunne, 2008).
Understanding criticality in criticality, in critical designs could have been easier if the two founders had given the critical outcomes as a result of critical designs. The repetitive and narrow articles that they have written have little for people to familiarize with ideas of critical designs. After reading Dunne’s and Raby’s ideologies (2013), it is easy to wonder whether defamiliarization is the core of critical designs.
Given the issues raised above, a critical contributor would try change the already existing accord by removing what is unhelpful an...