Abstract
This paper advances a motion that ‘usefulness’ is a regularity (Foucault) that haunts the programme of design and severely restricts it. It will highlight the way design practice is, in the main, constrained by narrow determination of its use(s), generally, and notions of ‘usefulness’ in particular. It will move to explain the way that design(ing) is flattened ontologically by embedded notions of ‘usefulness’ and that these embedded notions have set for design and its discourse a deontic straitjacket. That is, a set of obligations and duties that set a regular delimitation of design and thus rigid intentions for outcomes in a programme of designing; in so doing severely reducing design’s scope and possibilities. The paper argues against the austerity – worthiness – of a number of current ideological positions that infuse design theory and practice and reduce design to 'exclusively that which is useful (necessary)'. It suggests that design discourse and practice should begin to evolve the idea of a responsible practice beyond what is 'merely necessary'. Equally, it is critical of a program of design that creates gadgetry, gimmick and prosthetics for living with abandon. It proposes that design needs to engage with surplus and understand that these excesses (ala Bataille) are what produce an art of living (living as ‘ouevre’ [Lefebvre]). This paper then seeks to create some frame of reference for discussions as to what may constitute a ‘positive’ programme of design. Designers clearly need to be aware of their responsibilities – the concomitance of their designing. But, this paper argues against that desperation to be good that moves designers to determinations reduced to an accounting built on notions of usefulness; an accounting that produces worthy rather than worthwhile designs. It is incontestable that design(ing) is delineated from other practices and discourses in the understanding that it attends in some manner to use. This paper will advance that ‘use’ should not only be constituted in the idea of building supports for living but also in the way it can build ways of living – and more especially an art of living i.e. living as ‘ouevre’. In many respects, what is being constructed in the argument is a more complex and richer idea, than is currently entertained, of the way design can meet its responsibilities and opportunities in building society and its cultures – moving beyond the limitations of utility to build a practice that is both poetic and ethical.
Citation
Rosenberg, T. (2004) Beyond Regularity: Questions Concerning Usefulness., in Redmond, J., Durling, D. and de Bono, A (eds.), Futureground - DRS International Conference 2004, 17-21 November, Melbourne, Australia. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2004/researchpapers/19
Beyond Regularity: Questions Concerning Usefulness.
This paper advances a motion that ‘usefulness’ is a regularity (Foucault) that haunts the programme of design and severely restricts it. It will highlight the way design practice is, in the main, constrained by narrow determination of its use(s), generally, and notions of ‘usefulness’ in particular. It will move to explain the way that design(ing) is flattened ontologically by embedded notions of ‘usefulness’ and that these embedded notions have set for design and its discourse a deontic straitjacket. That is, a set of obligations and duties that set a regular delimitation of design and thus rigid intentions for outcomes in a programme of designing; in so doing severely reducing design’s scope and possibilities. The paper argues against the austerity – worthiness – of a number of current ideological positions that infuse design theory and practice and reduce design to 'exclusively that which is useful (necessary)'. It suggests that design discourse and practice should begin to evolve the idea of a responsible practice beyond what is 'merely necessary'. Equally, it is critical of a program of design that creates gadgetry, gimmick and prosthetics for living with abandon. It proposes that design needs to engage with surplus and understand that these excesses (ala Bataille) are what produce an art of living (living as ‘ouevre’ [Lefebvre]). This paper then seeks to create some frame of reference for discussions as to what may constitute a ‘positive’ programme of design. Designers clearly need to be aware of their responsibilities – the concomitance of their designing. But, this paper argues against that desperation to be good that moves designers to determinations reduced to an accounting built on notions of usefulness; an accounting that produces worthy rather than worthwhile designs. It is incontestable that design(ing) is delineated from other practices and discourses in the understanding that it attends in some manner to use. This paper will advance that ‘use’ should not only be constituted in the idea of building supports for living but also in the way it can build ways of living – and more especially an art of living i.e. living as ‘ouevre’. In many respects, what is being constructed in the argument is a more complex and richer idea, than is currently entertained, of the way design can meet its responsibilities and opportunities in building society and its cultures – moving beyond the limitations of utility to build a practice that is both poetic and ethical.