Interview with by Binna Choi

What does social design mean to you?
Perhaps it is the term comparable to political art, that has been much discussed in the field of contemporary art, particularly during the last twenty years, and the debate still goes on. It emerged with a critical awareness to rethink the possible roles of design in our society which is inflated with a design that only contributes to increasing surplus value and serving the society of consumerism and class separation. In the field of art, the notions of autonomy and aesthetics appear to be a very debatable factor in the discussion of political art, but it seems only too easy and facile to accept the social and the political in the field of design. If this acceptance is made too readily, it becomes a moralist gesture that becomes converted into ‘good but expensive’ commodities. For example, social design in some contexts seems to be all about sustainability and environmentalist propaganda. It certainly is important to clarify the agenda in order to act, but it is risky to make things too simple and to stick to simplistic objectives, instead of looking at the complex situation in which a problem occurs. For example, Victor Papanek, the Austrian designer who is often quoted for attempting to explain the notion of social design, had a very broad notion of ecological design!

The buzzword without the substantial or articulated meaning is annoying since we feel it obscures the true meaning. Although there might be no true meaning as such, I think it is still productive when we recognize a word as a buzzword and try to articulate it. This recognition signals a momentum where collective energy can gather to critically think and discuss together.

Could you give some direction to how you would define social design?
I think the key for understanding the term is criticality as well as the production of subjects (users) of criticality in relation to objects (products). Here I would like to distinguish criticality from criticism and critique as argued by theorist and curator Irit Rogoff. According to her, critique as an act of excavating the hidden structure and logic in truth claims is problematic because it supposes that we uncover what lies beneath the manifest as immanent. Criticism, a ‘form of finding fault and of exercising judgment according to a consensus of value’ is already a practice that has been superseded by critique. On the basis of an understanding of contemporary culture as performative or taking place, Rogoff thinks we should move away from criticism to critique and toward criticality ‘which is operating from an uncertain ground of actual embeddedness’ in the critical object. This proposition should not be understood to exclude the value of critique. As she clearly states, criticality is built on critique but brings a higher value to a mode of engagement as inhabiting culture in a relation and endless connectedness instead of ‘critical distance’. This seems to be highly suggestive for critical design practice. Especially the emphasis on embodiment, on living the problems out, allows a proposal for imaginative alternatives applied in actuality to be tested and (re)adjusted. Functionality and actuality of imagination can be performed without being just pragmatic.

Also I believe that criticality affirms a more expanded notion of design that enables the design’s communicative ability with other disciplines. When there is uncertainty – over its own ontological boundary or foundation – but critical embodiment in situations, the need for others comes naturally.

As for specific examples of design of criticality, I find these working theses by architect and theorist Jesko Fezer and ifau [institut für angewandte urbanistik], who also designed the Casco space, really compelling. These are the ones that they renew every year to roughly structure their work. They are different from a modernist form of manifesto. It is concrete, plural, containing modesty and much room for contingency, which is almost close to the unbuilding or undesigning principle. It shows very well how criticality can operate:

1 Non-Solution
Do not try to solve social problems with architectural means. Take them as potentials.

2 Re-Publication
Be generous towards the public space.

3 Informalism
Do not design things you do not have to.