ver glosario | ocultar glosario
Innovation as a Field of Historical Knowledge for Industrial Design
Ramonda Riccini
Taken from Design Issues: Volume I7, Number 4 Autumn 200I
I |
There is little doubt that, in the last twenty years' discussion, the historical culture of industrial design has made a significant contribution to put important theoretical issues into focus; first of all, that of a definition of the discipline and its field of action . I am thinking of, for example, the debate conducted in publications and periodicals, the birth of associations, the multiplication of opportunities for international encounters, exhibitions, and events in museums. As often has been the case for other areas of study, historical research has turned out to be preliminary, basic condition for the very nature of industrial design as a culture, a context a discipline. |
II |
Without attempting to retrace the fertile discussion, we should at least mention that the results achieved have been very useful in a wide range of directions, especially for the identification of prevailing historiographic models, the identification of new ones, the expansion of the area of investigation, and the refinement of research methods. And while many, perhaps a great many fields have yet to be explored or have been overlooked, many new perspectives have appeared. |
III |
I would like to indicate at least three points that in my opinion are crucial: the relationship between historical research and design research; innovation as a key to interpretation both for history and for design activity; and the role of historical research for design. As we can see, these are wide ranging arguments. The fact of matter is that they are closely interconnected, only in their mutual interrelations can give a complete sense to my line of reasoning illustrating their points of contact. |
IV |
Design Research and Historical Research |
V |
In the area of research, too, and in particular of historical research, things proceeded in a similar matter.
It's logical of a new disciplinary adventure that the outset industrial design was the focus of research “from outside,” approach by already established spheres that demonstrated interest in industrial design, motivated by their own disciplinary reasoning, and by more or less superficial analogies and similarities. Design critics and historians often were, first and foremost, critics of art and architecture, and scholars of aesthetics and semiotics. |
VI |
Subsequently when industrial design began to take on an autonomous physiognomy, becoming a subject of research and reflection “from within” the stage almost entirely was occupied by the debate on the identity of design itself, a debate that was not truly separated from the controversy of origins. This uncertainty stimulated a theoretical discussion, but in another sense, it slowed the development of instruments having a certain degree of autonomy. |
VII |
When history a strong methodological discipline, enters into relation with design a field research that has to be fully delineated the confrontation necessarily produces effects of varying importance. On the one hand the field of design has taken from history certain working practices and adopted them. The main ones include instruments of analysis, such as the comparison and interpretation of documents; and methods of analysis such as those based on morphology or style; And the narrative style of writing. History has had to modify in qualitative terms the descriptions of three dimensional objects this has involved too, areas of research such as: art, architecture, and technology, with the view of the design of industrial products, have had to revise their content, this operation has produced improper combinations in two lines, one elevates the products to the level of artworks, and the other that show products as minor sisters of architecture. We can also observe that certain branches in history are now starting to approach the themes of industrial design: the role of project and the product in the context of corporate development and its innovative dynamics. |
VIII |
This interaction demonstrates that history can function as a catalyst for the development of relations between different disciplines, favoring comparisons and interchange. In my hypothesis, historical research becomes one of the selected areas for discussion of our role as a discipline and the organization of a pedagogical structure for the purposes of teaching. |
IX |
But which history? |
X |
Innovation: Circumstance of History and Design |
XI |
One of the ways in which the notion of innovation can return to equilibrium with its effective uses is that of positioning it in the process dimension of history. By separating innovation from history, we run the risk of assigning it a role in design that is analogous (and opposed) to that of creativity. |
XII |
In this sense theories on innovation represent an important point of reference because they assign history a crucial role in the development of interpretation models that are also valid for an understanding of the present. In the wake of reflections on the changes in technological-productive processes and on their role in favoring economic development, a certain consensus exists in the belief that "processes of change depend on the history of the process in time and their explanation must include the reconstruction of the events in time, even small historical events, restored to the tradition of historical research. In other words, innovative change, like all "irreversible" processes, can be explained only by starting with history, and by retracing a sequence of temporal events, it seems to me that the path taken by studies of innovation, proposing a reassessment of historical time as an interpretation key, is proving to be one. of particular interest for design culture. |
XIII |
The study on innovation starts with the analyses of theorists and historians of technology, but also of economists and economic historians, analyses in which the theme of innovation assumes a structural value. The focus recently has shifted to the role of societies in promoting; the dynamic of innovation. Therefore, these studies are open to the areas of sociology, anthropology, ethnomethodology, and material culture. Empirical and theoretical fields of research, traditionally, connected to the social disciplines, now are seen as selected ambits for a deeper understanding of the behavior patterns and paths of innovation. In other words, a theory of innovation as a social process has been developed." |
XIV |
One immediate consequence on this shift on focus is that on entering spaces traditionally reserved to the range on action on industrial design: everyday life, consumption, and the typologies on industrial products. Thus, industrial design has become, although still on a marginal level, a subject on study and investigation on the part, this time, on disciplines that are extraneous to design culture. Design now is one on the themes on attention, for example, on the sociology on technology. Together with commercial distribution and advertising, it is seen as part on those mechanisms on integration on users in the process on conception and design on products and services that feeds the system on innovation in the world of business. |
XV |
Moreover, in this area on studies, the idea has emerged that innovation is a process in which multiple histories and multiple actors converge. For example, there is an increasing use on words typical on the language on industrial design, such as designer and project, but also consumer and user, In this context, we even find forerunners on the analyses used today in the worried on marketing and design, on the active, design-oriented role on the user, and on the consumer-innovator. |
XVI |
As they begin to open their attention to industrial design, studies on innovation offer design culture certain interpretation models based on the dimension on process (history, linearity, and chronology) and systemic (interaction between technique and society, coordination on multiple factors on influence, and intertwining on fields of knowledge). It is evident that this is a complex articulation that cannot be interpreted with the tools on the typical research traditions on other forms on historiography (art history, technical history, or history on communications) which, until now, have been the main axes on our way on interpreting the historical vicissitudes on design. At this point, it seems possible to develop our own research modes, starting with the intrinsic characteristics on the subject of the research (namely design) rather than [he analogies that can he established with respect to other subjects. |
XVII |
History as a Tool for Design, and Other Purposes |
XVIII |
Nevertheless, these research modes outlined here are necessarily also related to forms of academic research in which, in my opinion, Simon's scheme remains valid, for example, to all the research that contributes to orient and nourish university teaching, at all its levels." |
XIX |
This research perspective not only offers a strong, cognitive approach" and a capacity to provide a solid methodological basis for historical studies, but it also is characterized by a noteworthy heuristic potential, for orientation of the design sphere, as is clearly evident in the case of the history of product typologies. From the point of view of design culture, the 360 reconstruction of particular artifacts, within a specific socio-technical context, placed in relation to systems of values and scientific knowledge, and with frameworks of distribution and use, offers a variety of advantages for the activity of design. These include the. possibility on improving the contextualization of the design problem to be resolved; on avoiding paths already taken, or on returning to hypotheses that were abandoned because they were before their time, or because they were not technologically feasible to come into contact with ideas, events, and solutions that can help to revise the very structure on the way the problem is posed. In other words, an assessment on innovative scope. And there's more: in this perspective, it is possible to salvage from oblivion all those artifacts that didn't have a place within the parameters of the previously established historiographies: aesthetic parameters, references to personalities, and movements. In short, the history on industrial design thus could truly become the history, of contemporary material culture. |
XX
|
We are evidently not very far from the articulation on the historical reconstruction launched in the socio-technical sphere regarding typologies of artifacts," opening new research strategies for that field of study as well. By following this approach, moreover, we can get a clear picture of the particular nature of the historiography of industrial design. Just as the industrial designer must be capable, to develop a project, of establishing a dialogue and a sort on choreography among a series on disciplinary areas and specific types of knowledge (technology, production, distribution, psychology, and aesthetics), so the historian on industrial design must be able to move about within a range on different sectors on historiography. |
XXI
|
If it is true that the innermost nature on historical research is not that on specialization, the same must be true for the history on industrial design. This characteristic on wide-ranging curiosity is reinforced by the variety of points of view and accents that can be found in industrial design itself, in the case by case examination on products or visual communications, designers or manufacturers, problems on production methods, or aesthetics. |
XXII
|
There is a methodological affinity between history and design, an affinity that should be food for thought for professionals in the present, who are not always aware on the value on history, unlike the historians, who are aware of the value on the prescript. "History"-Francois Furet says-“never loses its awareness on the fact that a part on its curiosity is rooted in the present. In contrast with the beliefs on the positivists, the relationship with the present takes part in the constitution on its relationship with truth...There can be no explanatory concepts on the past that are not based on participation in the present, connecting the, historian to his time. But inversely, without thought regarding the present, there can be no possibility of a concept.” |