RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS A DESIGN DEFECT

Using atomic energy to generate electricity violates fundamental design common sense. Common sense says if you have alternative ways to accomplish a result, use the safest one. Or, if you can't use the safest one, certainly do not use the most dangerous one of all.
Nuclear power produces the deadliest waste in the universe, radioactive elements that can kill or injure for hundreds of thousands of years.
I can't think of anything more frightening than the chart below, showing the lifetime of the radioactive elements found in nuclear waste. Without getting involved in complexities, it is enough to note that the scale on the bottom goes up to ONE MILLION YEARS. Believe it or not, I found this chart on an informative albeit misguided pro-nuclear power site set up by young nuclear engineers.

Let us call the period during which radioactive wastes are dangerous "The Danger Period." Here are three strikes against nuclear energy stated in terms of that period.


STRIKE ONE - There is no method known to shorten the Danger Period of radioactive waste.


STRIKE TWO - There is no method known to safely store radioactive waste for the Danger Period.


STRIKE THREE - There is no method known to insure that future generations will know where we have stored radioactive waste during our tiny fraction of the Danger Period.

The insanity of planning to "safely" store radioactive wastes is best illustrated by a mad Department of Energy design competition asking for warning designs which would last 10,000 years ( itself a crazy and arbitrary shortening of the true Danger Period.) Those who want to see more about this impossible and absurd project can examine a report prepared by Sandia Laboratories.

Another creatively demented "warning" proposal was made in 1991. The title says it all. "Oslo Conference Suggests that World Religions Carry Nuclear Waste Danger Warnings into the Far Future."


Future generations will look back on our use of nuclear reactions to generate electricity as one of the great follies of human history. Designers should have no part in it. If anything, they should be sounding a warning and doing everything they can to both encourage energy conservation and safer methods of generating electricity.

MIT LOGO ALGORITHM GENERATES MEANINGLESS INDIVIDUALITY

A logo serves the purpose of identifying an entity in the interactions it has with the outside world.  If people associated with the entity are allowed to use the logo, its purpose is to communicate their connection to the entity. It follows that a lack of uniformity in the logo is at odds with its fundamental purpose. In other words, an institutional or  organizational logo is not a form in which to express personal individuality. That is done, simply and effectively, by placing the name of an individual in association with the logo. The logo itself should not change.


MIT Media Lab has entirely subverted the basic function of a logo by turning it into a logo-generating system. Instead of using a single logo for all those associated with the media Lab its new creation generates up to 40,000 unique variations of the "logo," using three basic shapes. This may be an enjoyable medium of personal expression for students and faculty but it does not produce a logo. A logo would give the world a single, powerful image expressing the mission or philosophy or philosophy of the Media Lab. This so-called "logo" offers a hodge-podge of shape and color which quickly become meaningless decorations. Variety and color do not substitute for selectivity and precision when it comes to logos. The following 12 out of the purported 40,000 variations are sufficient to show the silliness of this muddle.

The logo is the last place where a designer would want countless permutations. It may have seemed like a clever artistic conceit to introduce algorithmic variation into the logo of an organization where algorithms are so revered. But it was not focused on the true purpose of a logo. Generating 40,000 variations is simply antithetical to the idea of a logo.


What better indication of the mistaken focus of this algorithm than the fact it is praised as being "as personal as a Social Security number." Would anyone accept a social security number as a logo for the entity known as the United States? Would the barcode of a soap powder product be recognized as the logo of a supermarket chain?


One of the beauties of great logo design is its economy and elegance. It is not necessary to generate endless variations once the powerful, unitary and evocative symbol has been chosen. The individual who uses such a powerful logo does not need the ego boost of generating a customized mutation. The pride of association should attach to the symbol not to the individual's personal modification of it. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. A "logo" that panders to the individual's importance to the extent of designing itself out of existence points to a collection of selfish and needy individuals, not a real organization.

ADOLF HITLER AS A DESIGNER

Design has no inherent morality. In this it is exactly like most other human pursuits such as art, business and politics.


A prime example is Adolf Hitler, generally considered one of the great monsters of human history. Although he was not trained as a designer, Hitler was deeply involved in design matters during his political career. His ability as a designing mind should not be underestimated. It is always a big mistake to think of villains and enemies as caricatures or buffoons. This sets us up to be victimized by the next ingenious and talented villain.
In other words, beware of designers and artists who dabble in politics.


I am indebted to Frederic Spott's Hitler and The Power of Aesthetics (Overlook Press 2003) for the material covered in this ramble.


Hitler was particularly interested in the design aspects of graphics (especially logos and symbols,) architecture, theater,  and automobiles.


Graphics - Hitler chose the right-facing position of the swastika and selected the color combination of a black swastika in a white circle against a red background. He sketched out (with precise measurements) the Nazi Party standard, a flag-like square with separate party initials, swastika and eagle at the top of a pole. Hitler designed the Nazi party badge, stationery, official rubber stamp and the masthead of its newspaper. He designed the eagle motif used in all the preceding paraphernalia.There is no question his concepts were refined and executed by professionals. But it would be inaccurate to deny him an important role in the original conception.

Theater - I treat Hitler's theatrical designs as covering everything from his meticulous rehearsal of poses for his political speeches to specification of the lighting effects, banners, music, crowd and spatial arrangements at rallies all the way to his invention of a variety of special ceremonies. Objective witnesses to his performances testify that the result had hypnotic, quasi-religious fascination.

Architecture - Hitler loved doing architectural drawings, had grandiose plans for major buildings, arenas and public places in cities such as Berlin. In the final days of the war he spent hours in his bunker studying an architectural model of his home town of Linz, for which he had especially elaborate plans.

Automobile - Hitler sketched out the concept of the Volkswagen in 1932, set a low market price for it, arranged for Ferdinand Porsche to make it and presided at the ceremony of the car's debut.

The lesson to be drawn from all this? We must be constantly vigilant with respect to the larger moral, philosophical and political implications of the work presented to us by designers, particularly when it is sponsored by powerful governmental or business entities. For that matter, we must exercise the same caution with respect to all types of artists and their political activity. As for ordinary politicians, we already know not to trust them.

DESIGN PRICED OUT OF REACH

When I first saw the name Design Within Reach (DWR) used for a furniture store I thought "within reach" meant affordable.  I was hopeful it was going to offer good design at a price within the reach of the people for whom modern design was intended from at least the time of the Bauhaus - the solid working class. Alas, I didn't realize the meaning of "within reach" was much more literal and physical. According to the "About" section of DWR's website it means you can buy design objects from them without knowing a secret handshake or waiting months for delivery. According to the site, that used to be the big problem in getting the works of designers. The site adds that "within reach" also means you can actually touch them in the store. 


DWR sums up its philosophy as follows: "By giving customers access to these items, which are brilliantly conceived, simply executed and consistent with the enduring principles of modernism, we made design within reach."

I have a big problem with DWR's self-serving definition of what it means to bring design within reach. I believe that, when it comes to design objects, one of the surest signs of brilliant design conception, simple design execution and consistency with the enduring principles of modernism is affordability. I think it is a perversion of those attributes to price "designer" furniture at multiples of the cost of production totally out of proportion to the standards for pricing useful objects. Obviously, businesses want to get the best price they can for what they sell. But it is particularly reprehensible to use the designer as an accomplice because that person should be aiming for precisely the opposite objective: to produce an object at the lowest possible price consistent with proper function.


Let's go shopping. I arbitrarily choose George Nelson because I look at one of his clocks every morning. He's dead. He's considered a major figure in modern design. And, most importantly I don't think there are any patents or copyrights or other contractual legalities which make payments to his estate a factor in the production of his designs.

In 1955 Nelson designed the "Coconut" Chair. It's a typical modern simplification of the chair form and I have nothing to say at the moment about its design except that it cannot be too expensive to manufacture. 

Design Within Reach has priced this chair at $4,499 with estimated shipping of $292.44. If we assume the store is doubling its cost then the manufacturer of the chair is selling it for $2,250. If the manufacturer is selling the chair at double its production cost then it cost $1,125 to make this chair. Wow! I can understand that cost for a prototype but not for a model in normal production. (I'm guessing the manufacturer, Herman Miller,  has no financial obligations to Nelson's heirs.)

Here's a puzzle. One site is selling what appears to be this chair for $659. 

Yet another site is selling a chair under the name of the "Papaya" which they claim is "is completely true to George Nelson's original design, materials, and detailing." for $395 plus $199 shipping. 

 












These prices looks much closer to reality and far more consistent with the conception, execution and modern design principles embodied in Nelson's chair. Assuming there is nothing illegal about the lower priced object and further assuming the quality is good I would conclude that it makes the chair much more genuinely "within reach" of the person who finds it attractive.

DESIGNER CHAIRS ARE A WORLD THREAT

Sometimes a serious threat creeps up on the world because nobody is paying attention. My duty as a design rambler requires me to issue a warning that the world is becoming overchaired.

My research reveals that the world faces a distinct danger to floor space from the proliferation of designer chairs. Apparently, designers have come to the conclusion they must each design at least one chair as a demonstration of their ability to design a chair. As designers multiply (and this is proceeding apace as, aided by computers, everybody is becoming a designer) the number of chairs has increased to the danger point. I have three proofs.


The first one I call the MOMA Proof. I came to realize this when I searched MOMA's Design Collection and found that it contains about 500 chairs. Since it is common knowledge that MOMA collects only the very best examples of designs and since we may safely assume that the best of anything can never be more than one in a thousand (some would say one in a million, else why the popular phrase?) we can conclude that there are at least 500,000 types of chairs in the world. Some of these may exist in hundreds if not thousands, possibly tens of thousands of copies. By extrapolation we therefore conclude that there are presently almost as many chairs as there are people in the world and that in a few years chairs will outnumber people to the point where people will either have to sit or lie on beds. There will be no walking room.


The second proof is called the "Look Around" proof. If people will look around their homes and offices and count the number of chairs versus the number of people they will quickly realize they are outnumbered by chairs.

The third proof uses classical mathematics and is relatively easy to grasp for those who have advanced degrees in that subject.

Let "t0" represent the human posterior. Let "de" equal the number of designers. Let "a" equal a material highly amenable to human manipulation (such as plastic). Let the remaining factors express the number of possible ways the material "a" can be manipulated to support "t0."  If we factor in the number of materials "dt'" which can be combined in various proportions with each other (like plastic and leather) and "tmax" for the future expansion of posteriors, the formula is complete.


With this formula we can express the number of possible chairs designers can theoretically design in the remainder of the Twenty-First Century. As you can see, the number can easily surpass the number of atoms in the universe. Another formula, for which there is no room here, proves that the universe is not expanding as rapidly as the production of designer chairs.


Fortunately, at present there are many places known as dumps or landfills where designer chairs may be deposited. However, as chairs begin to outnumber the asses available to sit in them we may run into a problem with available space. It is unlikely that the proposal by NASA that they be given a new mission of transporting designer chairs to the sun in robot spaceships will be cost effective.

A number of solutions exist, none of them consistent with freedom of design. Laws may require stackability or foldability of some chairs. This may buy time. Governments may institute a licensing process whereby designers will have to apply for permission to design a chair. It may even reach the point where the authorities will make chair design a crime and pay a bounty for the destruction of chairs.  I will return to this topic. Due to time and space limitations I must yield the chair now.

I ADOPT CANONS OF ETHICS FOR MY DESIGN CRITICISM

I couldn't think of a better model for the ethical code of a design critic than the Canons of Ethics proposed for judges by the American Bar Association. I present them here in their original form and as I have modified them to suit the needs of design critics and their audience.


ORIGINAL FOR JUDGES

CANON 1
A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

CANON 2
A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
CANON 3
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.
CANON 4
A judge shall so conduct the judge’s extra-judicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
CANON 5
A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate political activity.


Except for Canon 5, all of these can be adapted to the conduct of a design critic. As modified below, I hereby adopt them for my conduct in this blog. I add a new Canon 5 which I think is  relevant in criticism but not in judicial conduct. This also interacts with Canon 3. Unlike a judge, I think a design critic can "rule" on a subject with which he or she has a personal connection and may have some partiality so long as the nature of that connection is disclosed. A judge, on the other hand, in deciding between adversarial parties cannot have the same leeway.


MY CODE OF CRITICAL CONDUCT


CANON 1
A design critic shall uphold the integrity and independence of the critical profession.
CANON 2
A design critic shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the design critic’s activities.
CANON 3
A design critic shall perform the duties of design criticism impartially and diligently.
CANON 4
A design critic shall so conduct the design critic’s extra-critical activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with professional obligations.
CANON 5
A design critic shall disclose all connections the critic has to the subject under consideration.


Sworn to this 27th day of April, 2011.
Daniel Young

GLOBAL DESIGN VAULTS

I have been reading about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a back-up storage facility for the seeds of the world. It is located on a remote Norwegian island about 810 miles from the North Pole.

It made me think something similar is needed for the world's most important design objects. For example, in the event of world-wide catastrophe, (nuclear, climatic, geological etc.) it would be good to have places where examples of the wheel were securely stored to save future societies the trouble of inventing it. 

The only problem, in the event of total social disorder, would be maintaining and communicating knowledge of the locations of the Design Vaults and the importance of their contents.


For a number of reasons, existing "design" collections such as the one in MOMA (New York's Museum of Modern Art) will not be good for the purpose I have in mind. First of all, large urban areas such as New York City are likely to be uninhabitable and perhaps inaccessible. Second, a collection such as MOMA's is much too voluminous and frivolous. For example, it has 413 tables, 564 chairs, 94 stools and 77 ashtrays. It seems to be oriented more towards preserving fashion and idiosyncratic design proliferation than towards preserving knowledge of making essential design objects. 

I suppose there is some small benefit in knowing that at some point humans began to use bent wood for chairs and later progressed to bent metal and then to totally malleable plastic and anything else they could form into the shape of a chair. But I, for one, would find the design history of wheels from their probable origin as potter's wheels through their use for transportation up to such extravagances as the Ferris wheel much more interesting. 

In any event, the focus of a really useful design vault would be to enable people to produce and use those designs most needed to conduct a healthy civilized life. It would be much more instructive than the design exhibits aimed at informing shoppers about fashionable "design" objects.

My choice for the location of a design repository would be something like Piz Gloria, the mountain-top restaurant at Murren, Switzerland. 

I would choose it for its height above sea level, geological stability and the likelihood the Swiss will be in good shape even when the rest of the world is in chaos.