#ccdn331p4

[tom-walls]

Make Less, But Better

Final Manifesto We, as humans, as society, need less shit. We produce unnecessarily large amount of useless, wasteful, and ill-informed products which contributes to consumerism - now a fundamental aspect of modern society -  the devaluation of personal possessions, and the pollution of the environment and needless consumption of resources (Stearns, 2012).

Products can be put on a spectrum ranging from cherished, sentimental, and precious items down to well designed, valued and looked after items, utilitarian products which fulfil their job and nothing more, and finally useless tat, trash, and waste which is intended to be disposed of after its initial use only to spend the rest of its life in a landfill while the consumer keeps on consuming and disposing endlessly.

This final category of products needs to be eliminated. It is of no use. It devalues personal possessions, encourages consumerism, and harms the environment. People have come to accept the ability to dispose of their undesirable items and have them disappear forever as a right (Bozak, 2012). These products were designed to be used, but never to be disposed of in a world which could never decompose such an object. The cost to the environment of many of these products, still today, is not a dominant issue (Smith, 1998).

Humanity needs to look to the past and re-adopt the “built to last” philosophy. Not only were many older products built to last, but they were also built simply enough to be repaired, often by the owner, and these objects today are some of which we cherish the most – not just because they’re old, but because they’re solid. Reliable, dependable, honest, and not frivolous. This connection to objects, on an emotional level, needs to be strived for in design. Creating objects which people value and cherish encourages a society which takes care of its possessions, a society which won’t throw away a perfectly good product save for one fixable defect. A society which has less, but better.

Bibliography

Bozak, N. (2012). Lights, Camera, Natural Resources. In N. Bozak, The Cinematic Footprint (pp. 155-188). New Brunswik: Rutgers University Press.

Smith, T. N. (1998). Tending Our Goats at the Edge of Apocalypse. In T. N. Smith, The Myth of Green Marketing (pp. 65-87). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Stearns, P. N. (2012). Dilemmas of Progrss in Modern Society. In P. N. Stearns, Satisfaction Not Guarenteed (pp. 213-253). New York: NYU Press.

[tom-walls]

Manifesto - second draft “Make Less Stuff, But Better”

A re-focussed manifesto, concentrating on one aspect of my original draft Make less stuff, but better

We, as humans, as society, need less shit. We produce unnecessarily large amount of useless, wasteful, and ill-informed products which contributes to consumerism, the devaluation of personal possessions, and the pollution of the environment and needless consumption of resources.

Products can be put on a spectrum ranging from cherished, sentimental, and precious items down to well designed, valued and looked after items, utilitarian products which fulfil their job and nothing more, and finally useless tat, trash, and waste which is intended to be disposed of after its initial use only to spend the rest of its life in a landfill while the consumer keeps on consuming and disposing endlessly.

This final category of products needs to be eliminated. It is of no use. It devalues personal possessions, encourages consumerism, and harms the environment, all because the product is intended to be disposed of in a world, in nature, which could never decompose such an object.

Humanity needs to look to the past and re-adopt the “built to last” philosophy. Not only were many older products built to last, but they were also built simply enough to be repaired, often by the owner, and these objects today are some of which we cherish the most – not just because they’re old, but because they’re solid. Reliable, dependable, honest, and not frivolous. This connection to objects, on an emotional level, needs to be strived for in design. Creating objects which people value and cherish encourages a society which takes care of its possessions, a society which won’t throw away a perfectly good product save for one fixable defect. A society which has less, but better.

[tom-walls]

Idea for the creative output for my manifesto in the form of extremely over-packaged promotional material to highlight wastage, excess, and unnecessary production in product design and manufacture

[tom-walls]

CCDN331

The Case for Useful Design

It is not enough for a design simply to look good. This is a widely accepted view which I indeed support. Design must serve its function in the most effective, simple, and understandable manner too. But, even if a design fulfils these criteria, it still is not enough. A design must have a purpose, as well as a function. The purpose in the design lies not only in its intended function, but also in its innovation value. Designers must ask themselves what their design is contributing to the world, not just tangibly, but also emotionally, culturally, and environmentally. Designers must ask “does the world really need a new…or another…?” when designing a mass-userbase product. True, the world may not need a new guitar design or another necklace, but these are objects which users form bonds to, and not mass-consumed, semi-disposable items of convenience. Pure usefulness does not necessarily make a good design; a good design is made when the design has an emotional impact on the user, something which the user becomes attached to, and which doesn’t simply satisfy a fad.

I believe that products can be placed along a linear progression, from purely functional, semi- or completely throwaway items, like the torch in your glove box or plastic lighter in your pocket, to cherished possessions like your uncle’s Mustang or your vintage Fender Strat. The problem in design lies in these low-end products, and in the consumer-driven first world which treats these objects with little to no value.  These objects not only encourage consumerism by devaluing their own worth and thereby the value people place on their possessions, but also, and more importantly, having a massive impact on the environment. When an object becomes so worthless that it is better to throw it away than donate or sell it, the design has failed. A good design must consider the end of the lifecycle of the product. If a product is designed to be disposed of, like a Bic lighter or pen, then the designer and producer must consider the object impact on the environment when it is inevitably disposed of, and at the moment the vast majority of products do not consider this, which is reflected in the material choices and degradability of materials employed in most of these low-end designs.

The technology to mass produce items has far surpassed the technology of bio- and environmentally friendly products. Products produced when the world’s manufacturing technologies were more primitive have had a much lower impact on the environment in terms of littering than products today (hazardous chemicals employed frequently in the past aside). These products were built to last, with sturdy materials and an intrinsic value to the products which meant they were not thrown away so wantonly as today.