| Key
Issues Discussed in the Workshop
1. Suitability of the Word
'Charter'
An argument went that either 'agenda' or 'manifesto'
could better describe the characters of the project,
instead of 'charter'. According to the reasoning, 'charter'
means the code of conducts which are sets of rules applicable
to the industrial design circle. To the contrary, 'manifesto'
has the connotation that it wants to interact with other
fields outside the design world. It automatically leads
to another question: who are the would-be audience.
It was the shared view in the workshop that the charter
should play a significant role in providing opportunities
of view exchanges between the inside and the outside
world of industrial design.
Conclusion:
First of all, the research team for the Charter preparation
set up their new interpretation of the Charter (The
21st century model of the charter) before even delving
into the project. Therefore, they came to the conclusion
that anyone, who understands new charter's intention
to go beyond the existing meaning, would care less about
the word choice between charter and manifesto. However,
considering the semantic aspect that language is a social
commitment among society members, the nominal issue
can't be totally disregarded. From this perspective,
the research team should take follow-up measures in
an attempt to work out an optimal substitute for charter,
which can best describe its unique meaning.
2. Validity of the Term ID
There was a protracted discussion over whether the
term ID should continue to be utilized within the Charter.
Some stressed that although it must be a novel word
at first time, it is no longer the case. ID should be
abolished because it is outdated and does not fully
reflect the changed roles of ID. On the flip side, it
was contended that it is quite dangerous to replace
ID with 'Design', when 'Design' is only the second best.
In the midst of close arguments, agreement can't be
reached until the end of the workshop, reminding all
participants that it is a very thorny issue. The more
detailed reasoning of both parties is as follows:
For the advocators of abolishing ID, the term ID itself
limits the boundary, making the industrial design circle
more inward-oriented, and consequently showing symptoms
of autism. Since the beginning of the industrial society,
ID has been widely used and become a household name.
The trouble is, however, that it is still used in the
information society where totally different paradigm
is applied. It is as if adults forcefully try to wear
their childhood clothes. This is why 'I' in ID should
be taken off and ID should be replaced by 'Design'.
Major international design organizations, such as ICSID,
ICOGRADA, and IFI have already kicked off their endeavor
toward integration. To keep up with the trend, '2001
SEOUL Designer's Charter' should utilize 'Design', instead
of 'ID'. It is also a strategic method to help the charter
last longer.
Meanwhile, the opponents struck back, stressing that
the usage of more vague term 'Design' is not a panacea
to the current controversy. As suggested, ID can be
renamed as 'Design'. Nevertheless, the industrial design
circle will continue to exist, and industrial designers
are not willing to let go of their field. In this circumstance,
the renaming would be nothing more than a stopgap measure
to avoid the situation.
Even in the height of IT boom and faced with the advent
of knowledge-based society, hardware is still needed
to operate them. That is, someone should make hardware
gears (probably through chimney industry). Fostering
industrial designer responsible for hardware design
and production is a long-term process. It can't be obtained
overnight. At least 10 years of hard training is required
to become a qualifying and well-trained industrial designer.
Likewise, ID is a highly professional job.
As for digital technology, it should be kept in mind
that it is only a tool for convenience. It can't be
more agreed that applying digital technologies to the
field of industrial design would expand the horizon
of industrial design. Still, the possibility exists
that the specialized sector of industrial design would
evaporate overnight with the replacement of ID with
the ambiguous term 'Design'. Unfortunately, signs are
more apparent that young design student who will lead
the future of industrial design, easily turn to digital
tools. They don't want to undergo painstaking process.
If the trend continues unchanged, ID could disappear
forever after being renamed as design. With the passage
of time, ID could face the same destiny of dinosaur.
If the worst-case scenario is any guide, the circle
of industrial design attempt to strive to rename ID
as 'Design' is a mystery.
Conclusion:
After the workshop, the Charter team decided to call
'ID' as 'Postid' and 'Industrial Designer' as 'Postider'
on a tentative basis. It was a desperate move in search
of the best alternative. The feasibility of the newly
coined term will be put to test and approved via the
online discussions participated by domestic and overseas
advisory committee members, organizing committee members,
representatives and other related figures.
3. The Charter Based on Elemental
Categorization and Its Efficiency
There was an argument that dividing the charter into
category of elements, such as definition of ID, value
of ID and role of industrial designer, could pose a
real threat. With most elements overlapping in their
meaning, defining them individually and clearly is virtually
impossible.
Conclusion:
The concern was also shared with the research team from
the very beginning. Hence, they dropped the option of
charter compilation based on element description.
4. The Insertion of the Concept
of 'Oullim' into the Charter
Some seemed to believe if the main theme of 'ICSID
Seoul 2001' Congress is 'Oullim' in Korean or 'the great
harmony,' the core value of the Charter is supposed
to be consistent with it. However, they were hesitant
in using the same word for both master theme and the
core value. It would be effective to choose a more commonly
expressive word for 'Oullim' in order to enhance the
understanding of not so familiar meaning of it. For
instance, 'balance,' 'harmony,' 'coexistence' or 'symbiosis'
has the similar connotation with 'Oullim'. Whichever
the final word choice is, there would be no changes
in the Korean ICSID members attempt to send the message
to their counterparts around the globe.
Besides, there was another group of people sponsoring
the idea of inserting the concept of 'Oullim' to the
Charter, but for different reasons. According to them,
it marks a milestone event in human civilization that
Asian nations present future design paradigm on their
own. It is virtually the first time in 150 years. Considerable
portion of Asia's traditional values have been lost
amid the blind pursuit of economic development. Against
the backdrop, it is welcoming news that they found the
moment of reflection to look back on themselves. In
a time characterized by material wealth and loss of
happiness as a trade-off, it is a great joy to see the
Korea's efforts to present a new vision to the design
arena, by tapping into the rich East Asian sensibility.
These efforts are comparable to the resurrection of
Silk Road, a road of cultural exchange, where East Asia
played a significant role.
Conclusion:
To be sure, extra caution should be exercised in mentioning
the restoration of Silk Road. Otherwise, it is easy
to fall into the trap of 'orientalism' or the belief
that Asian perspectives are the only way to reach the
ultimate understanding of design. Or it can be simply
disregarded as a romantic escapism, as it is trying
to find inspiration for future design in the past.
However, it is still worth taking a risk of including
the concept of 'Oullim' to the Charter for several reasons.
First, the East and the West have emphasized their difference
inventing 'exotic other,' while failing to share their
values based on mutual understanding. Second, future
design paradigm demands creative alternatives, which
transcend pro-materialism and anti-materialism as well.
From this point of view, 'Oullim' is not simply an extended
notion of East Asian hegemony. Furthermore, it will
help us depart from a micro concept of the 20th century
design, which features analytic and instrumental perspectives,
to move into a holistic design identity of the 21st
century.
5. Consideration of Expected
Consequences
Another view raised in the workshop was that we needed
to forecast ripple effects the Charter declaration could
bring to the design world. It was widely agreed that
'2001 SEOUL Designer's Charter' would not give participants
exact answers (how possible it could be to give the
right answers on what is design?). It is more aimed
to let known to the world a position of the Charter
organizing committee to pending issues and willingness
to explore future paradigm of ID. As a result, participants
will have to develop their own vision of design after
the Charter declaration ceremony. In order words, the
Charter would award them thinking points to be reconsidered
by the arrival of the next congress. It is what '2001
Seoul Design Charter' is all about.
Lastly, some suggested that to get the message of the
charter better crossed, the charter shall be written
in clearer and easier English for non-native English
speakers.
Conclusion:
'2001SEOUL Designer's Charter' is not a final solution,
but just a beginning. The workshop offered the valuable
opportunity to reaffirm that the Charter should serve
as a beachhead where industrial designers can talk about
their dreams and hopes for the future industrial design.
|
