the last place on earth you probably want to be

Some time ago I attended a lecture by Karim Rashid at OCAD. There’s no denying the innovation in Rashid’s work, and I was interested in hearing more about the philosophies behind his design. I found some contradictions in his beliefs and practices, and ultimately, listening to an optimist talk about the future of design when the whole world is in such an abysmal state was mildly depressing but somewhat inspiring.

Rashid discussed the issue of freedom and democracy, raising interesting questions about who “They” are, and why we’ve accepted certain visual forms as being the only way to represent an object. I agree with him here. He gave the perfect example — digital cameras. Why on earth are they designed to have the same form as a 35mm camera? Rashid argues that it is our obsession with the past, to a bygone era.

I agree with the designation, but I don’t necessarily agree with Rashid’s seeming desire to eradicate the present of the past and only think forward, toward the future, with new ideas, new forms, new approaches to design, life, existence. Why can’t we honour the forms of our past if they still make functional sense in our present? And here is where the debate about objectivity in art come into play; here is where taste becomes an issue. What makes a concrete or wood structure any less beautiful than one made of glass and steel? Is this not a matter of personal taste?

Rashid is correct in correlating our apprehension toward future forms being rooted in our obsession with the past. This part makes perfect sense. However, I got the sense that Rashid is something of a hedonist. He spoke about a desire for the world to be more “free”, for people to be able to do as they please. He was annoyed that the auditorium was filled to “capacity” — a measure made by the Fire Department — even though there was plenty of standing room for the line-up outside. Rashid’s ideas of freedom and democracy, however, seem to apply only to his own incarnations of what makes design sense and what is beautiful.

I believe there are ways to make utilitarian items more beautiful (roads, lamp posts, newspaper boxes) but our lack of aesthetics in the design of these objects is borne out of a negating philosophy: how do we create a form that doesn’t piss anyone off? The questions of design are no longer a matter of pleasing some individuals; it’s a matter of avoiding the complaints.

The fact that aesthetics have turned into a bureaucratic operation is disheartening. I wonder why Canadians have become turned off by decoration. While Rashid’s work is in itself minimalist, it still carries punch through its colour and form. And yet, when I look at his work, I understand that it appeals to a certain demographic.

The bottom line is that more designers should be considering new ways to form known objects, in the same way that Rashid has. Until then, the concrete world will remain as is, but maybe more of our homes and offices will be cleaned with Method products. If we are to change the shape of our visual world, more designers need to take Rashid’s lead and ask themselves why we’ve married ourselves to forms that are no longer practical in our lives or in our world.

_________