介绍 - 麻省理工学院人工智能研究专业

介绍

This issue of Design Issues opens with a discussion on design activ-
ism and the politics of designerly interventions. In this Sarah Fox,
Catherine Lim, Tad Hirsch, and Daniela K. Rosner highlight design-
ers’ collective responsibility to a broad range of stakeholders, 到
need of shifting alignments when designing across changing time
scales, 和, to the flexibility that is required to shift form and con-
tent when a change in either social, 政治的, or institutional circum-
stances occurs. Throughout this discussion they argue that, if de-
signers wish to go beyond the fulfilment of social needs or market
pressures, to incite social or political change, then an understand-
ing of the wider power structures their work may advance or en-
trench is essential. 尤其, the authors expose how designers’
perceived status is instrumental in refiguring the status quo. 他们的
discussion is located within a long rooted history of scholarship.
This casts reality as living inside rather than outside an observing
subject and, 所以, has spread across several fields including anthro-
pology and sociology as well as feminist conceptions of reflexivity
in design.

Made in Patriarchy II: Researching (or Re-Searching) Women and
Design Cheryl Buckley revisits Part I (first published in Design Issues
3, 不. 2 [1986]) to ask if the same questions are still relevant today,
或者, whether our preoccupations and needs have fundamentally
改变了. When first published more than 30 years ago Made in
Patriarchy helped to advance critical debate about the importance
of feminist politics in questioning the role of design. 这, inevi-
tably, came under scrutiny as feminists began to look at all areas
of women’s lives to assert that the “personal is political.” Buckley
points out that the title for both parts of her article (“Made” in
patriarchy, not “Designed” in patriarchy) is also an attempt to
question the ideologically loaded terminology of design. Accord-
ingly she addresses four areas: third-wave feminism and the
complexities of identity politics; what we mean by design and de-
signer and its role in the making of ordinary, everyday, 事物; 当地的
and global scale whereby the domestic and intimate are at the
periphery of designers’ interests, 和; the distortions caused by
an over reliance on over-arching narratives of the past—especially
accounting for women. Buckley suggests that, unlike gender, 这
question of women’s relationship to design has now slipped to the
margins of scholarship and research.

https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_e_00570

111

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
e
s
我
/

我

A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

F
/

3
6
1
1
1
7
1
6
1
5
2
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
5
7
0
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Much current public and political debate is concerned with
the twin saviours of innovation and interdisciplinarity. Often—so
the argument goes—if we are to solve some of the major challenges
facing society then this will not happen through past forms of
incremental development derived from the knowledge silos of
isolated disciplines. Our solutions to major social problems will
need the kinds of radical innovation made possible by co-operation
and partnership between a range of disciplines working in con-
sort. 而且, 设计, as a discipline with no subject, is increas-
ingly considered to be the fundamental agent of interdisciplinary,
or transdisciplinary, 思维. In his article How Transdisciplinary is
设计? Jonathan Lewis answers this question through an analysis
using citation networks. Through this he concludes that “the profes-
sional and academic design community would do well to spend less
time talking about what makes design unique and valuable and
instead to spend more time talking about how design can seamlessly
integrate with the strengths of other disciplines.”

Such a revolution—to the way in which we conduct our lives
or relate to the natural environment—has long been predicted
through a convergence of the digital and fiber sciences. In their ar-
ticle, Revolutionary Textiles: A Philosophical Inquiry on Electronic and
Reactive Textiles, Tincuta Heinzel and Juan Hinestroza observe that
electronic and reactive textiles promise to bring wide-ranging
changes to the ways we dress and communicate, and from the ways
we sense and are sensed to the ways we build and use textiles as
substrates for new applications. They go on to suggest, 然而, 那
such predictions are still a revolution in the waiting since electronic
textiles and wearable technologies, despite multiple research efforts,
have not yet made an entrance into our everyday lives. They go on
to conclude that “electronic and reactive textiles’ ubiquity—or
相当, their promise of ubiquity—allows us to posit that textiles (在
转型) offer an exemplary case study for the present state
of design as a discipline, forcing us to revisit design’s approaches
and to address issues ranging from science and technology, to eth-
ical and aesthetic ones.”

In recent years use of the term “participatory” has accrued
a diversity of meanings and interpretations when, essentially, 这是
critical to the relationship between design and politics. 起初
intended to represent a “social democratic belief” that workers
should be involved in decisions relating to their working environ-
ment “participation” is often now used, 例如, to promote con-
sumerist ideas of user innovation or the design of novelty products.
In their article entitled Politics of Participation in Design Research:
Learning from Participatory Art Thomas Markussen and Eva Knutz
set out to restore the socially engaged practices originally associated
with participatory design—through this undemocratic forces and
structures will be made visible through the design process itself.

设计问题: 体积 36, 数字 1 冬天 2020

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
e
s
我
/

我

A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

F
/

3
6
1
1
1
7
1
6
1
5
2
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
5
7
0
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

Without returning to “good old” participatory design practices they
emphasize, 反而, the politics of participation. 进一步来说
they argue “design-driven approaches to participation in some cases
might be preferred over user-driven approaches and even can en-
hance forms of democracy for users whose views would otherwise
be repressed. Not all people are able to participate. And designers
need, in some incidences, to consider whether it is ethically respon-
sible to let people participate. We always need to ask what participa-
tion is good for, who should participate, and when.”

In his article The Emergence of Chinese-Influenced Design as an
International Automotive Design Language Brendan Donnelly observes
that China’s historically lax attitude toward intellectual property—
an attitude that once filled markets with plagiarized designs and
foreign imitations—has now given way to the growing confidence
of a younger generation of automobile designers using Chinese aes-
thetics to create a unique design language. One such designer, 彼得
Horbury (working in his Shanghai studio), explains that ever since
the days of the Spice and Silk Routes, international markets have de-
sired the exotic products of China. 因此, his forms “look as
if they were not drawn with a marker but with a calligraphy brush.”
In one such instance influence of Chinese architecture can be seen
in the design of an instrument panel—its curved shape being in-
spired by an ancient bridge in Hangzhou called the Broken Bridge.
Horbury describes it this way: “The bridge is in stories of legend. 它
is very typically Chinese, with a long, 长的, very soft curve that goes
down and out…It’s a unique shape.” This example, alongside many
其他的, causes Donnelly to conclude that a new generation of auto-
mobile designers in China have created an authentic language that
explores China’s unique cultural heritage.

The influence of the Staatliches Bauhaus, on the practices and
teaching of art and design and on technical innovation, continues
to resound a century after its 1919 foundation in Weimar, by Ger-
man architect Walter Gropius. The Bauhaus operated in Germany
for fourteen years and, to mark the centenary of its foundation, 这
Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, 鹿特丹, mounted a landmark
exhibition entitled Netherlands Bauhaus – Pioneers of a New World,
as reviewed in this issue by Chamutal Leket. With almost 800
objects on display the exhibition was accompanied by a 308-page
catalog edited by Mienke Simon Thomas and design historian
Yvonne Brentjens, and translated into Dutch and English. The exhi-
bition underlined the argument that Dutch artists and architects
were exceedingly fruitful in spreading and gradually changing con-
cepts and systems at the Bauhaus. 换句话说, Dutch teachers
and students shaped the Bauhaus and its legacy.

From October 11, 2018 to January 27, 2019, the Tate Modern in
London mounted a major retrospective of Anni Albers’ weaving and
fiber art accompanied by a catalog published in association with

设计问题: 体积 36, 数字 1 冬天 2020

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
e
s
我
/

我

A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

F
/

3
6
1
1
1
7
1
6
1
5
2
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
5
7
0
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3

耶鲁大学出版社. In her review of these works Larissa Nowicki
emphasizes the relationship between art and life in the work of
Albers. After registering at the Staatliches Bauhaus in Weimar,
德国, 在 1922, Albers fled the Hitler regime which would have
considered her Jewish despite being baptized Protestant. This led to
a journey in Northern America through Black Mountain College,
then to the ruins of South American civilizations and finally settling
in Connecticut where she and Josef Albers made their home. 这
exhibition and its associated publication demonstrate Albers’ influ-
ence as a pioneer of twentieth century modernism. Of this Nowicki
observes “Anni Albers’s work certainly continues to inform prac-
titioners of all disciplines today. 几乎 100 years after she enrolled
at the Bauhaus, we find ourselves hanging in the balance between
two eras—the material and the digital. New technologies are
encroaching on our lives daily, absorbing the material elements
of our lived experiences and transmitting them as invisible data to
invisible clouds.”

Hannah Pivo reviews African American Designers in Chicago:
Art, Commerce and the Politics of Race (Chicago Cultural Center, Oc-
tober 27, 2018–March 3, 2019). Of this she writes that the documents,
图片, and products on display “provide a vivid portrait of near-
ly a century of design history, largely overlooked until recent
years.” She goes on to add they “illustrate the argument that design
exists at the crossroads of creative and economic interests and is
thus a potent site for political engagement and a battleground for ra-
cial equality.” This exhibition demonstrates that, rather than being
a peripheral strand of design history, black designers have long
served a central role in shaping Chicago’s industrial, 政治的, 和
creative communities.

This issue concludes with Justin Powell’s book review of
Designing Disability: 符号, Space and Society by Elizabeth Guffey.

Bruce Brown
理查德·布坎南
卡尔·迪萨尔沃
Dennis Doordan
Kipum Lee
维克多·马戈林
拉米亚·马泽

Errata
Some footers in the previous issue (体积 35, 数字 4 秋天
2019) were erroneously identified as “Volume 35, 数字 3 Sum-
mer 2019.”

设计问题: 体积 36, 数字 1 冬天 2020

我

D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d

F
r
哦
米
H

t
t

:
/
/

d
我
r
e
C
t
.

米

我
t
.

e
d
你
d
e
s
我
/

我

A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d

F
/

3
6
1
1
1
7
1
6
1
5
2
d
e
s
_
e
_
0
0
5
7
0
p
d

我

乙
y
G
你
e
s
t

哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf