In many ways, an "artificial" genome is created by the many products that are in the market at one time. Looking back at the history of man-made products is in a way like tracing our genetic makeup.
This analogy came from reviewing my timelines. I noticed that I had an interest in trying to connect natural examples to man-made objects. And throughout my explorations, many questions arose.
Where does the history of Industrial Design begin? How did man come up with the idea of mass production? Why did efficiency become the ideal so many now work towards? Should good design be affordable to all?
Therefore, to answer these questions I look to nature for analogies and perhaps some answers. First, mass production has existed with the very first living beings. DNA and the duplication and replication of any living organism's genome are very similar to the artificial methods of making products. Nature's methods of reproduction are varied and sophisticated.
While I could go into the details about the workings of DNA and RNA, the gist of the whole process is that DNA and RNA act like molds in creating multiple copies of one shape or unit of something. The units of DNA go on to create proteins or other traits that are components to what would become living organisms. Likewise, molds are tools used to mass produce particular parts which could be assembled into products.
What causes organisms to evolve is a process of natural selection. Factors like chance, competition, and context determine the survival and fitness of each organism over time. Different animals compete in a setting over food and resources. Depending on the context, one organism might be more fit than another. The fitness of the organism reflects on the species. Once a species can no longer survive in a given context, it becomes extinct. Similarly, the survival of a type of product is like the survival of a species. I'd like to think of vacuums as one species whereas chairs are another. Each brand or type of vacuum might be considered an organism, even though there might be multiples made of that type of vacuum. The survival of a brand of vacuum depends very much on how it performs versus its competition and how it performs in its context. The context for these artificial organisms is made up of factors like the economy, the industry, the consumers, the technology, etc. Independent of competition and context is chance. In nature, every once awhile in the process of duplication, random mutations occur. Mutations are often considered errors in the copying process, but help to generate variation in a gene pool. The beneficial mutations which help an organism survive go on to proliferate. The less favorable mutations become more rare because they don't aid in the organism's fitness. In design, I consider the really innovative or "blue sky" or just out-of the-box concepts to be analogous to mutations. There are ones that are more useful than others, as decided by the environment. They could have been discovered by mistake but could lead to a major change to the general trend of thought.
Looking at the history of industrial design in relation to the theories of evolution and natural selection helps me make sense of the questions raised in class. Industrialization and mass production came about in history because humans desired a more efficient method of creating products. Mass production led to these objects becoming more affordable to a greater portion of the population. Mass production is a logical progression of technological evolution if it is compared to the evolutionary goal of continuing a specific gene. Being able to make a large quantity of a particular product ensures the survival of the company as well as the survival of the product. While this method works well because it ensures a higher profit, it also leads to a homogenized population of products.
As successful as this method of production has been, there was the arts and crafts movement in the early part of the 20th century which went against industrialization. Artisans and craftsmen considered manufactured goods to be soulless and mundane. On the other hand, handcrafted objects are less affordable, less time efficient, and a lot less available than manufactured objects. Despite this, arts and crafts continue to exist on a smaller and more local scale. Last year, I worked for a local crafts center and have met and spoke to the artisans there. The craftsmen there created designs based on personal styles and interests. They were involved in every aspect of the making of what they sold. Their designs took on whatever forms the artisan dreams of instead of a form able to be machine-made. Each object they made can be considered unique. They sold what they made in craft fairs to the local community and rarely to a large population. In many ways, modern-day artisans practice the ideals set out by John Ruskin. Why do these small communities still exist? I think it's because the spirit of the process of handcrafting objects is still appreciated and desired by those able to afford it. Tourists who travel to other places like to purchase crafts infused by the local culture and made by the local people. And in the evolutionary sense, it adds diversity to the gene pool of existing products.
Also contributing to diversity are the random mutations of the product gene pool. I consider these mutations to be the innovative concepts that we see in design competitions or design labs or in student projects or purely as sketches or renderings in online blogs. They are ideas for products that might challenge the status quo or conventions of efficiency or user-friendliness. They are sometimes considered useless and might not ever make it into production. Last class in the appliance studio, I got to see a video of a toaster that launches toast like a cannon. Is the design useful or adding value to existing toasters? Not really. But the fact that these new concepts and designs exist despite their apparent "uselessness" is crucial to the evolution of industrial design. Even if an individual concept doesn't become manufactured, it doesn't mean that it was a waste of time and effort. The development of new ways of looking at design and objects shapes the direction of the evolution of products.
Basically, my point of view comes down to a very simple point. Just as genetic diversity makes for a fit population, diversity in the market of products is ultimately the best. There can't be one solution that addresses everyone or every problem. If all the designers ever cared about was affordability or efficiency, then the objects they designed might be a lot less interesting or valuable.
No comments:
Post a Comment