Designing for a Better Tomorrow in a Culture of Overconsumption
The design industry's influence on environmental degradation.
Article for Design Culture & Theory, BDES 1201. Week 11: March 25th, 2021. Total word count: 598
This week’s readings focus on environmental sustainability in design. Both authors, Stuart Walker and Victor Margolin, seek to find solutions to combat the increasingly dire problem which is environmental degradation.
Stuart Walker, author of “The Environment, Product Aesthetics and Surface,” highlights that the key factors which make a product environmentally sustainable are the product’s durability and longevity. For this to occur, the product must be made of hard wearing materials and have the ability to be maintained and repaired over time. Walker also states that “if products are to have a long life, their aesthetic qualities must also have a long life.” He gives the fashion market as an example of the antithesis of this principle. He states that products aimed at the fashion market exhibit extravagant aesthetic qualities that quickly go out of style. He notes that it would be self-defeating to craft a product with durable components when combined with short-term aesthetic appeal. He affirms that as new products begin to incorporate these considerations, our aesthetic preferences will evolve to be more consistent with environmental stewardship.
Victor Margolin, author of “Design for a Sustainable World,” begins by mapping out how the new “culture of sustainability” developed over the past century (1920). Despite this new “culture of sustainability,” Margolin states that most designers remained locked in their ways, placing client demands as the deciding factor of their actions. Margolin reminds designers that the profession is a contingent practice as opposed to one based on necessity. He states that “design will change through a coming to consciousness of its individual practitioners.” He acknowledges the barriers to initiating this process, citing “a crisis of will” amongst designers. He urges designers to confront the reality of their work in order to determine how it contributes to the degradation of the environment and until that takes place, there is little incentive to change.
While both authors focus on the impacts the design industry has on the environment, they differ in their proposed solutions. Walker focuses heavily on the idea of developing new aesthetic preferences which honour the environment. In contrast, Margolin believes that this is not possible until designers recognize their own role in the problem. He states that “if the will exists among designers, it will surely be possible to reinvent industrial design.” Although both author’s solutions have merit, Margolin’s proposition is bolder and I appreciate his stance because of that. Taking personal accountability is the only way we will be able to combat environmental degradation and the smallest changes will make a difference. To hold a mirror up to your peers is something to be admired, especially in the 90s. Walker simply does not propose such radical changes in his writing and therefore could not achieve the same impact on the industry which I believe Margolin did.
Walker affirms that the two factors to consider when designing for environmental sustainability are the longevity and durability of the product. It is clear that these principles did not make a great impact on designers and Ikea furniture is the perfect example of this. Ikea uses wood-plastic components because they are cheaper to produce. This shows that in today’s society, quality has taken a back seat to profits. When products like furniture are made to last, they are able to be passed down through generations of people, as opposed to the furniture produced by Ikea which most often goes to the landfill after a few years of use. We as consumers must demand a higher calibre of production if we want to become part of the change, not complacent in the problem.
1. How can we as design students be more environmentally conscious Now and in our future careers.
2. Do you believe it is important for individuals in the design community to recognize the damage they have done to the environment? Why or why not?
3. Which solution posed by the authors do you believe had the greatest impact on the community?