LOCATING DESIGN IN A CULTURAL FLUX

FEW DESIGNERS CONTEST THE IDEA that we cannot measure the
success or failure of any design until the context in which it was
created is fully understood. Understanding context, however,
requires a knowledge of the culture in which the design in ques-
tion is situated.

In his essay, “Culture is Ordinary”, Raymond Williams asserts
that ideas of culture are insinuated in all aspects of everyday
life: “Culture is ordinary...A culture has two aspects: the known
meanings and directions, which its members are trained to [and]
the new observations and meanings, which are offered and tested”
(2009, p. 93). For Williams, the idea of culture means everyday
life and the hegemonic values that go hand-in-hand with the ordi-
nary, combined with more concrete and experiential forms of
culture, such as novels, films, and advertising. To pose the ques-
tion, “what were they thinking?” about any society is to inquire
about ideas and issues of economics, politics, ritual, technology,
and culture. Design emerges as an intersection of these factors,
with the nature of this intersection ever-shifting.

Charles Eames explained design as the overlap between the
interests of the designer, the client, and of society as a whole.
Eames considers design as a professional practice, with primary
responsibility toward the client, and resulting benefits to society.
He does not, however, examine what happens when the inter-
ests of society do not correspond with the interests of designers
and their clients. When we begin to question the interests of
society and its corresponding cultural systems, we increase
“our understanding of the way [contemporary] design works to
reflect or create values” (Drucker, 2008, p. xxi). To further illus-
trate this relationship between design and cultural shifts, I offer
two assertions:

THE MEANING OF DESIGN CHANGES WHEN ITS SURROUNDING
POLITICAL AND CULTURAL IDEOLOGY CHANGES.

The swastika has been known for thousands of years as a positive
icon of good fortune and prosperity:

The swastika also symbolized light or the god of light, forked
lightning, rain and water. It represents Brahma, Vishnu, and
Siva — Creator, Preserver, Destroyer. It appears in the footprints
of Buddha...represents Jupiter to the Latins, [and] Thor to the
Scandinavians...The swastika was similar to the ancient Hebrew
letter tau, the sign of life...(Heller, 2000, p. 6-7).

Given these meanings of universal good, non-religious groups
and consumer culture eventually adopted it as their own. Dur-
ing the early 20th century, swastikas could be seen on North
American hockey sweaters, Carlsberg® Beer labels, Coca-Cola™
trinkets, and as Rudyard Kipling’s personal insignia. By the time
Adolf Hitler became head of the German state, the swastika had
also become the symbol for German nationalism. Expropriating
the swastika allowed the Nazi party to corrupt the optimistic mean-

Author: Bonne Zabolotney, Dean of Design + Dynamic Media

ing of the symbol for their own cause. By 1940, Germans saw it as
a sign of strength and solidarity while North Americans and
Allied Europe viewed it as a sign of aggression — something iden-
tifiable to fight against. Although the shape has not changed for
millennia, today the swastika is interpreted as “a vivid reminder of
a mournful history, [and] an instrument of its depravity” (Heller,
2000, p. 12) due to the political and cultural ideologies associated
with this symbol.

THE VALUE OF DESIGN CHANGES WHEN AVAILABILITY

OF MATERIALS, TECHNOLOGIES AND ECONOMICS SHIFT.
Various types of lace have been made since ancient history, but it
became widespread and very popular in Europe during the early
Renaissance. Lace was hand-made; it took much time, energy,
and skill to produce small amounts, and was consequently highly
valued. The textile industry, which developed during the Indus-
trial Revolution, greatly changed this perception of value. By the
mid-to late-1800s, most lace was machine-made by a new thriving
commercial industry. Improvements to equipment allowed cot-
ton to replace the original silk thread, and the scale of production
allowed various laces to be cheaply produced. A growth in trans-
port, colonization and trade further expanded the marketing of lace.
Chemical Lace, developed in the early 2oth century, changed the
method of lace-making altogether: cotton thread is embroidered
on a base fabric, which is later chemically dissolved, leaving the
lace pattern behind. By the mid-zoth century, Polyvinyl Chlorine
became a material was used to make lace-trimmed vinyl tablecloths.
To achieve the visual aesthetic of lace we no longer require hand-
crocheting of natural threads, we merely require a lace-like pat-
tern to be stamped in plastic. The design and visual aesthetic of
lace hasn’t changed much over 500 years, but its value has. It is no
longer exclusive, expensive, nor difficult to obtain.

In both of these examples, design can be interpreted “as a cul-
tural practice, as a cultural phenomenon” (Drucker, 2008, p. xxi).
While the visual essence of the designs did not change, the way in
which they are perceived and therefore valued, shifted throughout
history. Fully understanding the factors leading to shifts in perc-
eption of design allows us to assess and anticipate contemporary
design practice. We are able to situate design practice as a cognitive
process — as social behaviour — fully embedded in ordinary and
everyday culture. +

REFERENCES//

1. Williams, Raymond. (1958). Culture is Ordinary. The Everyday Life
Reader. Ed. Ben Highmore. New York: Routledge, 2002. 91-100.

2. Heller, Steven. (2000). The Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? New
York: Allworth Press, 12.

3. Drucker, Johanna and McVarish, Emily. (2008). Graphic Design History:
A Critical Guide. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. xxi.

BRANDING + IDENTITY 7