David and Satyendra talks about design
This is the first of five editions of a conversation between myself and Satyendra Pakhalé about various concerns on creation, ideas, point of views and processes surrounding design. We hope that we will be able to bring forward ideas that could lead to development of better and more desirous creation. Design that creates difference and meaning for companies, organisations and for the individual. Design that can reshape our ideas. Please feel free to comment everything we are talking about. We believe in mind sharing and would love to get your insights.
As it looks today the five different editions (first one starts today) of the conversation will touch the following topics:
1. humanistic and cultural values
2. sustainability
3. sensorial products
4. material innovation
5. iconic design
First I would like to make a short introduction of my conversation partner Satyendra Pakhalé:
Satyendra Pakhalé is an international designer and cultural nomad based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. After completing his Bachelor of Engineering, Master of Design in India and Advanced Product Design in Switzerland, he worked at Philips Design - creating new products and scenarios for new business creations, among others in the areas of digital communication and transportation.
In 1998 he set up his own design practice in Amsterdam. Since then he has been working on his own projects and on projects for diverse industries in many different countries. Renowned companies such as Alessi, Italy; Bosa, Italy; Cappellini, Italy; Colombo Design, Italy; C-Sam, USA/UK; CorUnum, The Netherlands; Curvet, Italy; De Vecchi, Italy; Erreti, Italy; Offecct, Sweden; Magis, Italy; Moroso, Italy; RSVP, Italy; SCA, Sweden; Tubes, Italy; Väveriet, Sweden; and organizations like Material ConneXion (USA) rank among his clients.
The design work of Satyendra Pakhalé are in several public collections, among others Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam and Centre Pompidou, Paris. Recently he has been invited to art-direct and head the Master programme in Design for Humanity and Sustainable Living at Design Academy Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Since 2005 Satyendra Pakhalé has been advisor on the Board of Directors of the Ambassadors Board, Design & Technology community chain mission, Eindhoven, NL.
OK - let’s start the conversation:
David Carlson (DC)
Satyendra, please let me know a little more about your recent invitation to art-direct and Head the Master of Design for Humanity and Sustainable Living at the Design Academy Eindhoven.
Satyendra Pakhalé (SP)
Almost two years ago I was asked by Li Edelkoort, Board of Director and Chair woman of Design Academy Eindhoven to consider to head the Masters programme in Design for Humanity.
Then I was not so sure as I was extremely busy with several projects with my practice and perhaps the time was not so right for me. Then, a bit more than a year later, the education director along with Li Edelkoort suggested me again, and that made me think. After considerable deliberation over last summer vacation, I decided to accept to Art-direct and head the Masters of Design for Humanity. The nice thing about it is that it has been organized in a new way- that means I do not have any conventional responsibilities with the institution. It’s all being taken care by the programme coordinator along with the department coordinator. This situation makes the best use of my time and tries to get the best possible results in a given time. I am like a consultant to give a creative vision on design faced towards a humanistic and hopeful stance, which will help, build a fresh approach to sustainable living. These issues are dear to my heart and I have been working on these issues for a while. Besides, my practice consists of professional practice, design education and consistent research. Somehow this situation allows me to work in all these fields without loosing my main core focus on my design practice.
(DC)
Looking at your own designs they all have a strong humanistic and cultural touch. Do you think this is an important component in modern design?
(SP)
Yes indeed it is certainly an important issue, in today’s context we need it more and more than before – as the real human cross cultural issues come to the surface in all the societies around the world in general and specially European context in particular.
We still really need to understand in industrial cultures and learn how to refocus our attention to humanistic and cultural aspects in industry rather than the technological focus that we predominantly have right now.
As we all know, technology for the sake of technology does not mean much, unless it delivers. Besides, we also know that almost everybody has access to almost all kinds of technologies around the world, therefore to refocus on a culture of creation is the utmost need.
I have been concern about these issues for a long time.
(DC)
I do also see your design as very personal. I could probably spot one of your designs without knowing them in beforehand. Do you find a lack of personality in the design community today?
(SP)
Recently Mr. Rolf Fehlbaum of VITRA said there are many designers and very few authors. I agree with that. I would say to negate personality in any creative filed of work is an error; however to remain satisfied with personality alone is yet a greater error.
In the case of a really great individual the greatness lies in his/her having gone beyond his/her individualism. I feel design should not be impeded by individualism. Stress upon individualism alone is totally unsatisfactory, even though we all designers get benefited by it sometimes. On the other hand where do we find true creation without individualism!!! So having no individuality and transcending it- these two issues must not be confused.
(DC)
Design can answer the important question WHAT. What kinds of demand will a certain product create, what kind of problem is it solving? Technology will only answer the question HOW. How do we deliver this solution? Despite of this a lot of companies are still trying to make their products into the category equivalence of the Swiss Army Knife. Why do you think we see this behavior over and over all the time?
(SP)
It is perhaps not being able to take a position- a creative strong point of view, or may be a lack of confidence or trust in their own abilities or perhaps almost no trust in the people by and large who are end users or combination of many things of that sort. One could observe this in many companies driven by so-called marketing experts. We will certainly continue our conversation further on these issues.
———-
Stay tuned for the next part of the conversation between David Carlson and Satyendra Pakhalé concerning sustainability. Soon at a computer near you…
To be sure of not missing any of the conversations, subscription of the David Report blog is possible via RSS or e-mail at the top left hand side of the blog.
Andra bloggar om: design, satyendra pakhale, intervju, hållbart samhälle, innovation
Wednesday 11 April 2007, 14:46
You started off saying, “Looking at your own designs they all have a strong humanistic and cultural touch”.
I’m wondering if you could expand on what you mean by “humanistic design”?
(P.S. Love the pictures. Can you tell us more about these images?)
Wednesday 11 April 2007, 15:51
David and Satyendra talks about design…
This is the first of five editions of a conversation between David Carlson (founder of David Design) and Satyendra Pakhal (international designer) concerning strategies and processes surrounding design….
Wednesday 11 April 2007, 16:40
On the subject of How and What the following is my opinion and a probale answer to the excellent and important question that David asked:
a lot of companies are still trying to make their products into the category equivalence of the Swiss Army Knife. Why do you think we see this behavior over and over all the time?
A lot of companies still use their designers only to create forms & surfaces so in reality what happens is that marketeers decide on the features needed and then send it to R&D to develop the How part and then at the end of the process give it to designers to package it ! That process will almost always lead to the phenomena that David has indicated in his questions and will end up in products that will try to solve all problems and answer all questions! This is a poor utilisation of the designers who should be involved from the beginning and act as the creative force that would take the marketeers input combine it with R&D possibilities and come up with scenarios and solutions up front ! This multi functional process would eliminate the phenomena of a product that is trying to solve all problems and answer all questions and instead you will have a product that is more appealing more wholistic that will communicate directly to the target customer on a deeper and more emotional level! It is time for companies to realise that their creative work force is their best liaiason with their customers and their future needs and this why it is important to involve them already from the begining! Just my opinion.
Wednesday 11 April 2007, 17:47
Hi SusanA,
It’s a good question, there are several issues that we are planning to discuss and I hope eventually all those ideas will express what humanistic design is all about. But I do not have any definition or a standard answer to your question what is “humanistic design”.
In my professional practice and also with the new Master programme on Design for Humanity that I am responsible for at the Design Academy Eindhoven, NL, we are researching, questioning and challenging all these issues related to humanistic design. Soon the ideas, concepts and concerns will be clear as we continue our conversation further with David.
In the next issues I will also explain one or two projects as a case study to make this point clear.
talk to you soon
best regards,
Satyen
Wednesday 11 April 2007, 22:09
Michel, thank you very much for your insights concerning my question about products driven by technology and sales/marketing people. The sales people would like to fill the products with as many features as possible because they think it will sell better. As you are saying, it is uttermost important to involve the designers in the (design)process which should start already when the first rough product ideas are decided upon. There are still a lot of work to be done concerning the old school behaviour that unfortunately still exists in many companies.
Thursday 12 April 2007, 08:39
This may be a bit ‘off brief’ as they say but my feeling is that simplicity must remain one of the key issues for product and industrial designers over the next few years (something that’s not been lost on Philips I understand). It’s also a big issue for graphics simply because there is perfect storm going on right now where too much information is meeting too little time.
With regard to sustainability it is obviously a huge issue but sometimes I feel that we’ve been here before. I remember working with a design agency in about 1990 and there was a big debate going on about sustainabilty following on from various EU laws, specifically packaging waste. The issue just died.
I’m not for a second suggesting that it will die again this time but unless sustainability is easy for people there is a danger of people just doing what they have always done.
Friday 13 April 2007, 09:06
Richard, I think you are right on spot concerning simplicity. The world is crowded and we need space for our minds.
Concerning sustainability, it is a very hyped issue at the moment. A lot of companies that suddenly mark themselves as “responsible” probably are doing it out of marketing reasons. But even if it is not out of believes and honest reasons (I mean, I hope they ARE doing what they are talking about) maybe it affect further people and inspire them do something good. So, let’s hope that thoughts and acts concerning sustainability will come from the inside this time and not from different laws etc as in the early 90s.
Friday 13 April 2007, 13:54
I have always been a big fan of Satyendra Pakhale’s work, especially after reading about him in the recent issue of Dwell. I, similar to him, am very interested in the application of craft within a mass manufacturing context.
Furthermore in my role as a design manager in a consumer electronics company focusing on luxury products, we have realized that craftsmanship is the key to luxury.
Thus I was hoping in that Dwell article that you would have explored craft within an industrial design context instead of a furniture mass manufacturing context. More of a high tech environment instead of low tech one.
1) So I like to ask, have you (SP) ever considered merging your experience with Philips and consumer electronics with craft applications?
2) Is there any reason you moved away form consumer electronics?
3) How were you able to bridge the gap between electronics and furniture?
On a personal level I am now exploring this notion of craft within a consumer electronics context on my own personal projects. I find craft is the means to bring life to the many soulless consumer electronics out there. I think it makes them appear “haptic” to the mind instead of touch. I realize I am going off tangent, and perhaps we can take this off line as I would love to hear more about your thoughts on this. If you are interested and can spare the time please emai me at dt [at] desginsojourn.com? I would really appreciate this opportunity. Thanks.
Friday 13 April 2007, 16:49
Hi DT,
Thanks for your questions, I will try and answer here briefly and then we can continue our discussion a bit later.
1) So I like to ask, have you (SP) ever considered merging your experience with Philips and consumer electronics with craft applications?
Yes, we did do that in several projects, one that I can mention here is the concept car- Pangea 1997. Right now we are working on more technological projects with a blend of craft and technology and we will certainly continue to do more of these kind of projects.
2) Is there any reason you moved away from consumer electronics?
I did not move away from electronics products, I am still keenly interested in technological digital electronics products, objects and transportation systems.
3) How were you able to bridge the gap between electronics and furniture?
It is not necessary to put electronics in everything around us; we are already too contaminated by electromagnetic waves in our environment. But if appropriate, it could be done.
But I am certainly interested in craftsmanship as the key to smart luxury. We are exploring craft within an industrial design context in the high tech environment as well.
We will continue our conversation further.
Saturday 14 April 2007, 04:37
Hi SP,
Thanks for your reply. I can now understand where you are coming from much better. Yes I love to continue this conversation when you get back from Milan.
Sunday 15 April 2007, 22:11
David and Satyendra,
Thanks for initiating this conversation.
Satyendra, being an engineer myself and some one who appreciates beauty in design, I think what you have achieved is commendable.
Since I was not familiar with Satyendra’s work I did some research on the web.
In trying to understand Satyendra’s design philosophy, I found an article titled Democracy of Design (http://www.biz-community.com/Article/196/13/9460.html), the essence of which is that he believes how all of design is equal, since they all solve problems and because they all have human value. While it is true that (good) designs solve problems and have human value, it is well-known that there is a hierarchy of human needs (think Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs pyramid) and hence a hierarchy of the human value of a design. Since design is about solving problems for unaddressed or inadequately addressed needs, I was wondering what your response is, Satyendra.
In response to the question of why companies seem to manufacture products that fall into the “Swiss Army Knife” category, I believe this happens due to two reasons:
One, is an improper assessment of the needs i.e. the problem that the design is supposed to solve. Keen observation of the end-user and immersion in the end-user environment is some thing companies such as IDEO have used to great effect.
I believe the other cause is bias. As humans we tend to gravitate towards what we know and understand and attempt to fit any new problem into some thing we have seen before and try to find solutions for the problem from our knowledge base. Learning to distinguish between problems and identifying knowledge gaps become critical in the design problem solving situation. Companies and teams too can exhibit bias - talent and strength in an area such as marketing or industrial design or engineering may bias solution that are skewed towards those strengths. Diego Rodriguez and Ryan Jacoby from IDEO have an interesting article (http://www.ideo.com/pdf/DMI_winter-2007.pdf) in Design Management Review where they talk about how companies can determine their “innovation bias”.
- Noel.
Monday 16 April 2007, 14:34
Noel, thank you very much for your insights concerning the subject. And thanks for the link to the IDEO article. Satyendra is off for Milan but he will try to answer your question above a.s.a.p!
Friday 20 April 2007, 09:46
Good morning everybody!
I live in Milan and in these days the Salone and the other collateral events dominate the city.
Well, nothing new. Fashionable shapes for old ideas.
People say there is a big crossroads due to economic reasons. I think there is a worse problem: nor companies nor designers take the responsibility upon themselves.
But there are some exceptions, of course.
I met Satyendra during an Alessi’s Workshop a couple of years ago. It was wonderful discovering simple projects with a great idea. Projects that go beyond trends. Projects that talk about the culture of their author.
Well I guess this is the right way: projects and not gadgets. Cultural ideas and not imitations. Responsability and not attempts to become the “star” of the moment…
And finally: optimism.
Friday 20 April 2007, 15:25
Hallo,
I think there are two, kind of tactics that have evolved concerning design.
they are both, in some sort of universal way, claiming to justify any design project. In a most seductive way, they grant justification to the client, to the viewer and none the least, to the author.
The first tactic offers legitimation through the use of construction and formal principles that derive from nature. These Principles, no matter how superficially translated or misplaced, seemingly equal succesful design or in even ecological design.
The second tactic offers legitimation through the implementation or attachment of a functional asset. Virtually regardless whether this asset has a substantiated motive concirning formal, functional, ecological, cultural or humanistic logic.
Both principles, of course have a natural driving force and can lead to success if used in a responsible way. But if they are not differentiated, if they derrive from cowardness or lack of imagination they become detached from humanistic needs and in extension, this becomes to be dangerous.
- Philipp
Saturday 21 April 2007, 21:55
What is design if not a human activity concerned with solving human problems?
Somehow along the way human creation may have lost its purpose. Ever since we have more than enough calories tu burn and survive, and we dont have to worry about our daily meal (at least not in the pre-historic sense), we have been concerned with finding purpose and meaning as humans. So human creation began to take place, for some reason, maybe at thre begiing it was just an impulse, but then maybe we realized that we could do amazing things with our minds.
So we started to come up with ways to make our lives simpler and better, we started designing, creating with a purpose. But somewhere along the way we got lost, we did not realise that we where hurting our selves and our environment, and then we did realize but where (are) too cought up in it ($) to stop.
It is a great thing that the world is gaining awareness about the human and environmental chalenges that we face, i feel lucky to be living at this moment in time and very proud to be part of this conversation. “Design for Humanity” it´s a great concept…. but maybe it should sound “redundant”.
Monday 14 May 2007, 22:04
Teo, Philipp and Michael.
I’m very sorry that I have not been able to give you any feedback on your very insightful comments. This was in the middle of the tumbling Milan fair and then I went to Mallorca on the “future luxury” field trip and suddenly it was deep down.
Anyway - Teo, I will bring your optimism with me. Philipp - differentiation is the word! Michael - we are happy that you are joining the conversation.
Tomorrow I will post next edition of the talk and all of you will have a chance to be part in the discussion about sustainable design.
Tuesday 15 May 2007, 08:24
[...] Earlier talk on design with the topic “humanistic and cultural values” by David Carlson …. [...]