ContentsThe wrong framing
When I think about the history of sustainable design, I see marketing everywhere. Whether you consider Enzo Mari’s communist ‘Autoprogettazione’ (1974) or Victor Papanek’s Nomadic Furniture (1971) (the better looking cousins to IKEA (first store in 1958)), it doesn’t matter. “DIY” remains a niche experience that is more wasteful than buying vintage furniture.
If you’re really concerned about plastic waste, buying a Frank Green reusable cup doesn’t actually beat sitting down at a café and using their cutlery.
And no matter what we think of electric vehicles (2.2M sold in a market of 1.4B cars), the answer to reducing pollution and traffic is still less cars.
These three examples have something in common: less design, not more. Less physical solutions to interminable problems that require very simple, powerful changes in attitude.
There’s also a framing problem in design: every question starts with the assumption of a ‘thing’.
There’s also a framing problem in design: every question starts with the assumption of a ‘thing’. The thing and the need for a thing is never really questioned because that would mean a deeper exercise in self-reflection. After all, without the thing, there is no project, no client, no budget and no designer. So once all those things have been put in place, I would argue it’s already too late. Whatever design work should have happened was in convincing the client not to make a thing at all. That’s not the kind of design that pays the bills. It’s also not entirely design, it’s culture. If there is a cultural shift away from pointless design, capitalism will usually follow. Capitalism isn’t excited after all by the prospect of early adoption—it’s about mass adoption. So how can design in the 21st century make mass adoption of new behaviours the new black?