Week 1 (2/3/21–2/10/21) — Theories of Media & Technology
The issue at hand this week was related to the role and impact of design, particularly how design can influence and change human behavior and perceptions. We talked about the influences of design on society and society on design, the other underlying component of the discussion dealt with design’s ethical implications.
As designers, are we to think about the impact and influence our design can have on society? Should we research those potential implications and aim to address them — or do we ignore them and design for pleasure, or without any meaning? The meaning and influence of design had changed from its original intention, when things were designed to be helpful, of course, beautiful, but with functionality while being an object of cultural production. Whereas, now, we focus mostly on efficiency, with this idea that things are created that amount to little to no use and are not necessarily rooted in culture. The notion of something being useless and not rooted in culture does beg the question of whether design in the modern age negatively impacts society and humans. And for me personally, it highlights an issue I see with design in the modern age as well — this idea that things are purposeless, and make no real impact or difference in people’s lives, and are simply art for art sake, rather than art for impact, or change-making, or differences.
here isn’t much debate that the designs of this modern age have led to the destruction of the land. In class, the idea mentioned discussed the difference between a windmill and a dam. On the one hand, we have a picture of a dam made by humans to control the way water flows to streamline the flow of water for our benefit. And on the other hand, we have a windmill that is subjected to the flow of the wind, something that’s not necessarily controlled by humans, to produce energy. The example depicted here highlights this concern of this need for humans to master and control the land on which we live and design it to dominate even the most crucial ecosystems that allow us to even breathe. And I could agree with Heidegger on this point that our need for domination and control contributes negatively, not only to the planet but to humans as well — making us more machine-like, among other things as well. And I also agree that as designers, we must realize the nature of technology and how it can change us negatively along with our society.
Closely related, we discussed another reading from Arendt, which went through the notions of labor, work, and actions. Essentially, there are certain needs that humans have in order to allow us to live. Those include the human body’s biological process — the need to eat, drink, sleep, and do it all over again, or better yet. Labor is an act of survival, while working is close to meaning-making. Work is not necessarily required for survival, but it does allow for this idea of meaning-making.
“We’re most human when we are able to be creative.”
This type of work is not necessarily seen within labor, which is for survival, maybe in the tools, we used to make labor more manageable, but not within the action itself. Instead, it is in work that were able to be creative and express ourselves. The other domain mentioned discussing actions, which is the basis of political life or communication. Language enables one to communicate, share ideas, persuade people, start a movement, etc.
Lastly, we discussed another reading by Sloterdijk, which was also closely related to this notion of domination. By design, we are creating and altering worlds but also allowing technology to make us. Like Heidegger, Sloterdijk believes that technology in the modern-day is geared towards eliminating worries, thus changing the way we act. In a sense, we’re creating a safe and comfortable world for us, and only us, without regard to anything else that might suffer as a result of our designs. It begs the question of how we will evolve as humans since we’ve become so reliant on technology and how our future looks like with this reliance on technology, not only for humans but also for society itself.
All articles again aimed to draw out this notion that whatever you make is changing you, society, and the world. As such, designers need to be thoughtful and recognize the impact that design can have on the world. In my opinion, our relationship with technology shouldn’t be purely art for art’s sake or useless, but made to be thoughtful, impactful, and make a positive difference in the lives of those they affect.