all from:
The language of objects
Krippendorf, Klaus;
Vakeva, SeppoBlueprint, no. 58, pp. 52, Jun 1989 (email or comment if you'd like the full article)
Object-centredness manifests itself in explanations of human experiences in terms of external causes, in efforts to accurately describe objects by their measurable properties and in privileging technological performance criteria, including evaluating designs by their compliance with intended and unquestionable functions. Objectivity in the natural sciences is a close relative of object-centredness. The word ‘objective’ is the attribute used by certified experts to claim that their accounts are uncontaminated by human involvement, judgement or observation. Technological determinism, the belief in the autonomy of technological progress and its superiority over human shortcomings is another manifestation of object-centredness. Already, the word ‘product’ ties artifacts to manufacture—to engineering—and limits the attention of research and design to what leaves a factory. It was natural, therefore, that early product design concerned itself with how the industry wanted its products to be recognized in the market place, as exciting automobiles, elegant tableware, expensive furniture, fashionable clothes, effective instructions and persuasive advertisements. In the industrial era, users were necessary industrial targets, not partners. The casually used word ‘function’ is another example of object-centredness. A function describes the role that a part is to play in order to sustain its larger and unquestioned whole. Unlike in natural systems, where functions are explanatory— think of the role of the heart in the human body—in the practice of design, functions are normative. They occur in design specifications. They anticipate how an artifact is to be used, when, where and by whom. And they provide the yardstick by which the performance of a design is to be measured. While humans may well be needed to assess whether a technology works as intended, users become subjects of the imposition of functions (Krippendorff and Butter 1993). Sustaining functional criteria always invokes authority. In the design of cockpits for airplanes, for example, or of control rooms for atomic energy plants, these are employers, professional organizations, unions. Here, designers can work in the expectation that institutionalized authorities will instruct users in the proper use of their design. Thus, the notion of function puts artifacts into the service of larger wholes whose ‘objectivity’ results from not reflecting on who decided on what these functions are, what interests their definitions serve and in whose terms they are assessed. In the design of consumer products and informational artifacts, among which users can choose more freely, functions are no longer so enforceable. Users can invent them as needed.
Human-centredness takes seriously the premise that human understanding and behavior goes hand-in-glove; that what artifacts are is inseparably linked to how their users perceive them, can imagine interfacing with them, use them and talk about their stake in them with others. Human-centred design is concerned less with assuring that artifacts work as intended (by their producers, designers, or other cultural authorities) than with enabling many individual or cultural conceptions to unfold into uninterrupted interfaces with technology. User-friendliness, an increasingly important design criterion, can be achieved only when attention shifts from objects to processes of human involvement.
designers talk with clients, potential users, other designers, team members and competitors. They also consult with researchers, read literature on the subject and, while thus languaging, a design comes to fruition. Then, there comes the need to present a proposal to those who matter—the stakeholders who want to have their say as well. This is what I mean by artifacts being languaged into being. All technologies require negotiated commitments to create them, disseminate them, use them and maintain them. However, research too is shaped by using language in planning experiments, interviewing subjects, coding responses and interpreting statistical findings. There can be no doubt that the available vocabulary and metaphors have much, if not everything, to do with what emerges from these conversations, how an artifact comes to be, what it means to various stakeholders and how it could be used and by whom. This is not to exclude the visual.
krippendorf then talks about language as the prime communicator of desires in a human centred product. He identifies a trust which is in the brief, and this is contained within the communcation between the designer and the human around which the object is deisgned. Behind this trust is a 'motivation' a desire for the object or experience, but we must define the experience as extrinscal (a mean to some end) or intrinsical (for the hell/fun of the actual object or experience)
It is easier to justify an activity than to describe it and easier to describe it than to engage in it. This is especially true for what we call emotions. Since intrinsic motivations invoke emotions, it is important to consider how we can access the emotions of others. The conventional answer is by empathy. However, how could we empathize with someone else’s emotions when we have no sense of the biological processes that underlie our own? My short answer is that ‘empathy’ is part of a situation-specific vocabulary whose use draws attention to bodily happenings that we are expected to have in a particular situation—without knowledge of what these are for others. All we have are words. We cannot possibly empathize with others in situations we have no experience with.
i really like this form study. It has the folds of the person (male or female) arising in the morning, and this image is especially prevalent when the light is shone from within the lamp (as it would be)
its a try with polypop and panshape i think its called. its this layer of stuff that can be ironed on and provides for a laminated strength effect. these lamps are quite stiff and would only need a little more ironing to become totally stable. by using panshape (i cant rememebr the name but its something like this) i can avoid using resin.
i thought about redesign. whats the point in redesigning a lamp that already exists? there are millions of them, lamps that people use when they are intimate, and the best ones are either candles or ones they make themselves (the paper bag lamp). so why bother getting a similar effect to that of a candle? perhaps i want some similar themes and feelings shown by a candle, but not completely the same. i'm not amking an elecctric candle.
