Paola Antonelli
RCA, Design Interactions Course, Introduction:
By its most commonplace descriptions, design should solve problems, match form with function, produce artifacts, and make people secure and comfortable.
Conceptual design does not share the same immediate goals. Like good classic design, it cuts to the core of the issue at hand, wipes away excess hype, zeroes in on claims of innovation, provides a healthy dose of reality check, and uses vision to marry new ideas and old behaviours. However, it is not always warm and fuzzy or ergonomically reassuring, it is pointed and critical, sometimes even dark, awkward and pessimistic. It does not always come under the form of a traditional object, but because conceptual designers need to communicate concepts — and being designers, they want to make sure that these concepts are approachable and understandable — their work often makes for outstanding, visually arresting art.
Many are uncomfortable with the mere idea of conceptual design. Some artists are wary of a territorial invasion. Nothing to do with mediums, such as designers’ skilful use of video and performance. Rather, artists see designers taking over the role of social commentators and thorns-in-the-side that they, together with some writers and architects, used to fill.
The most compelling debate is nonetheless happening within the design community, pitching old-school practitioners, who still revel in describing design as problem solving and form follows function, against the new explorers, the hunter-gatherers who look for cracks in the system that provide opportunities to launch interdisciplinary quests.
