Reading this article made me look at design in a way that I was certainly aware of but never wanted to use as a definition. Indeed design is a way of enticing the consumer or whoever is being communicated to, I agree with that. In fact I agree with all of Flusser’s statements but I don’t think of it all in such a negatively toned way like he does. And this idea of design as trickery is stronger in some areas than others. For example advertising can hold a great deal of showing off a product in a way that is a misconception to the consumer on the producers behalf. An unreliable product can be have an advertisement designed for it that makes the consumer believe it is a quality item. In this light, yes I can see design being flawed and a little ‘evil’ but I think it’s enough to justify it by saying it’s just the society and economy we live in to sell that way. In other ways, design is trickery on the other end of the spectrum in say branding a company. Branding will portray a company to be seen in a way that they want their consumer to understand them. For example, when I brand the textile line that I’m designing for seminar I want the branding to make the consumer understand my product as being quality, well designed, thoughtful, free, pure, optimistic, etc. And I know that this is okay because I truly do back my designs with all of these elements. Of course branding can go in the other direction and, like advertising, portray an image of a company that is very positive when really they are up to no good. It can all go either way. But I do agree with Flusser’s theory that design is trickery, I just like to think so in a better light.
No comments:
Post a Comment