Reflections on Design Culture Salon 25: Design School Imaginaries in Neoliberal Times

This Salon came during the heady and feverish season of art and design degree shows in the UK. Once the display boards are dismantled, the degree results promulgated and we’ve swept up, there is often a feeling of summer ennui.

Was the degree show worth it? What are these graduates going to do out in the post-University world? What have we learnt?

And then the summer holidays pass, we relax a bit (perhaps) and then we get back to business as normal for the new academic year.

At the end of this Salon, our chair, Lucy Kimbell asked, ‘Have we reached peak design school?’

l. to r.: Joahanna Boenhert, Cameron Tonkinwise, Guy Julier, Jamie Brassett, Lucy Kimbell (photo: Naomi Bailey-Cooper)

All the panelists (including this one) agreed that we had – all for different reasons. Call us jaded if you like, but there was a unanimous feeling that there has been enough ‘training’ or ‘education’ of designers for a particular worldview (a predominantly neoliberal one) and that the only way to break this relentless cycle of disciplining individuals to be creative (in a very particular way) is to stop design schooling. Perhaps this could be basis of a new De.School…?

Certainly, with around three times more design graduates each year than there are design jobs for them, it has been time to reconsider what design schools are there for a long while. That’s if we are to view design schools in their current dominant state: as worker-mills that churn out neoliberal-compliant, ‘industry-ready’ individuals to fill out the precariat of interships or the barely-paid short-term contracts that make up the junior labour force of the creative industries.

But, perhaps, if we see the role of design schools to decouple design research, education and practice from the multiple vectors of neoliberalism then we can pull them back from this brink and rethink them. For me, and drawing a bit on the reflections of other panelists, Johanna Boehnert, Jamie Brassett and Cameron Tonkinwise, this requires a reframing of the output of design schools. By this, I don’t just mean the skills and knowledge that graduates leave with but also the way by which they are presented.

While degree shows provide a nice opportunity to celebrate material output, see old friends and have a glass of warm white wine, they largely reproduce the performative spectacle of design as told through the reified object. Of course, I’m not the first to say this, and, indeed, these Design Culture Salons are, in part, a way of coming at design in a different way from this, to open up its fissures and discourses.

So how do we align the important work of design in exploring and extending material realities in ways that confront, adjust and/or articulate the multiple crises (of capital, of environment, of equality, of representation, of identity etc.) that we are facing?

Before I answer this, let me add in a rejoinder. This is that we should be talking about design schools rather than the design school. We should resist all those totalising notions of design and the design school (which, by default, means ‘design in service mode to neoliberalism’). If I sound like a broken record then fine, but there are many models for design schools that provide starting points:  craft-based, business-oriented, user-centred, individual-focused, teamwork-developing, engineering-driven, sustainability-grounded and so on. The difficulty, though, is that they still currently come under a singular rubric of employment culture and politics. They are still pretty much about training for a very specific set of economic and political circumstances.

In recent years, we have seen increased spillage of design research and practice into other knowledge domains through approaches such as design thinking, social design, design anthropology, strategic design, design for policy, transition design, design culture as practice and several other specialisms. Design education has lagged behind these, though.

However, would it not be compelling to stop worrying about these in the design school, but to site design education outside its traditional settings? In social science departments, medical schools, healthcare settings, or community centres, for example? Can these be the kinds of places where design education can get reframed in powerful, informed and challenging ways?

Anyone who has visited the former Bauhaus school in Dessau will be struck by their majestic, utopian environment. This utopianism — of the hermetically sealed, creative environment — lingers on in most design schools.

Half a century ago, design students and tutors were talking about throwing bricks through the Bauhaus windows, but this was just the beginnings of a stylistic break with Modernism. Generally, they have been peering outward through these broken windows ever since. Few have climbed out of them to establish themselves elsewhere, though.

Such moves might not entirely remove design and design schools from the neoliberal order. I’m not sure if neoliberalism can ever be fully eradicated (pace Simon Springer). But we still have to come back to the original proposition of this Salon and talk about this connection and how it can be redirected. The first step is to reveal and explain the deep links between the two. The next step might be to explore how design can function, along with other fields, in new and different ways.

Photo: Naomi Bailey-Cooper

In a blog that followed the Salon, Johanna Boehnert neatly summed up what she was thinking – and probably all of us. Read the whole blog with attention, but here is an extract as the last word of this particular blog (but do join in the discussion):

Design schools sit at a pivotal place in enabling neoliberal assumptions, processes and institutions. Design is a practice involved with making new ways of living possible by inspiring particular feelings, attitudes and subjectivities. Neoliberalism depends on having its ideological premises accepted and internalised and thus one of the primary roles for design is to create an illusion of wholesomeness that masks exploitative dynamics. Designers are involved in constructing the subjective grip of the neoliberal orderbut we can do other things. Design schools need to make these options clear. The only way we can do this work is with a critical approach to the power. Design schools that want to enable…progressive futures that serve rather than exploit young people need to check their politics now.


(all opinions my own — although they are probably also owned by WordPress)
21 June 2017




Posted in design education, economies, neoliberalism | 1 Comment

The Performance of Protest: a panel on visual culture and aesthetics

Institute of Contemporary Arts
The Mall
London SW1Y 5AH

Cinema 1

Friday 9 June, 1600h

Free event:  Book Tickets

Professor Catherine Moriarty
, Curatorial Director of the University of Brighton Design Archives 

Pelin Basaran
, Programme Manager, Contact, Manchester
Isil Egrikavuk
, Performance Artist, Istanbul
Dr. Umut Korkut, Reader at Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University
Dr. Aidan McGarry, Lecturer in Politics, University of Brighton

This panel discussion focusses on the relationship between art, protest and performance. Recent years has witnessed a huge increase in the number of protests around the world which have challenged economic institutions and political practices, including the Arab Spring, Occupy movements, pro-women’s movements in the US and beyond, and anti- austerity movements across Europe. Protestors have a range of options open to them in order to get their voice heard and increasingly protestors use aesthetics in order to communicate their ideas to the public. The role of social media in amplifying the performance of protest is considered, especially the production and dissemination of visual imagery.

The aesthetics of protest may include visual, material, textual and performative elements of protest, such as images, symbols, graffiti, clothes, art, but also other elements such as forms of rhetoric, slang, humour, slogans, as well as the choreography of protest actions in public spaces. This panel brings together artists/practitioners and academics to discuss the performance of protest in contentious politics. Whilst panelists will discuss Turkey and the Gezi Park protests in particular it will other explore manifestations of the performance of protest around the world.

Supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the University of Brighton

This event is part of Crossings: Stories of Migration, an ICA-led UK-wide film and events programme organised in partnership with the Goethe-Institut and with support from the BFI, awarding funds from The National Lottery.


Free event:  Book Tickets

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Design School Imaginaries in Neoliberal Times

Tuesday 6 June 1730-1900
University of the Arts, 272 High Holborn


Dr Johanna Boehnert
, University of Westminster/EcoLabs
Dr Jamie Brassett, Reader and Course Leader, MA Innovation Management, Central Saint Martins, UAL
Professor Guy Julier, University of Brighton/Victoria and Albert Museum
Professor Lucy Kimbell, Director, Innovation Insights Hub, UAL
Professor Cameron Tonkinwise, University of New South Wales

University of the Arts London,
272 High Holborn,
London WC1V 7EY


What’s the future for design schools within neoliberal universities? Is design accelerating the neoliberalisation of universities or affording pathways to alternatives? Should design schools take the lead or take leave of universities?

In the UK, change is afoot in multiple domains – not just the future of the country, its relation to Europe and its constitutional make-up, but also the ways it enables teaching and learning and does research. Like universities in general, UK design schools in particular face a number of challenges including: falling numbers of student applications, limitations on non-UK students studying and remaining in the UK after graduation, reduced academic autonomy, changes in public funding and the valuing of STEM above STEAM (eg, even while the creative and cultural industries grow at a higher rate than other economic sectors. Current emphasis on teaching excellence, graduate employability, audit culture and demonstrating research impact mask a deeper problem – uncertainty about the roles and capacities of design’s higher educational institutions to produce people equipped to deal with lives of change and disruptions to the nature of work, place, well-being and belonging.

Attempts to articulate the specificity and contribution of design higher education are undermined by ignoring its location within institutions that are increasingly expected to reproduce, rather than question, dominant economic models and thinking. Market models of design education such as Hyper Island, Kaos Pilots and General Assembly, online initiatives such as IDEO U, alongside more critical exploratory approaches such as The University of the Underground or the Free University Brighton indicate emerging futures for design schools – which may not be in universities.

Taking an oblique angle to consider these topics, this panel discussion will share insights on higher education in design informed by innovation studies, design activism, philosophy and social design.

Free event but booking is essential

To book a place please email:

Organised by the UAL Innovation Insights Hub and Design Culture Salon







Posted in design education, design practice, innovation | 2 Comments

Reflections on Beyond Neoliberalism: how might we conceive and reconceive the relationships of contemporary design and economics?

There is always the danger in heated debate that positions get polarised. Clear lines of attack and defence can be useful. But I often wonder if we are exploring the grey areas sufficiently.

When it comes to considering the interweaving of design culture and neoliberalism there are lots of grey areas. Where do we extract the good, the bad and the ugly in this but also acknowledge the compromises and confusions? Can we live with the liminality that design so often produces? In design culture’s constant processes of becoming, is it possible to draw distinct lines of politics and intention within economies?

I don’t have clear answers to these questions. Perhaps all we can do is observe and analyse what is going on in this interweaving and build an anticipatory form of design politics that no longer condemns design to an on-going reactive state.

Design and neoliberalism are both processes of transformation. Indeed, it is probably more accurate to talk of neoliberalisation in this respect, rather than neoliberalism. Rather than think of it as an unchanging, inflexible aim we might read it as a mutable, dodging-and-weaving practice. In bringing a discussion of design and neoliberalisation together, then, we have to acknowledge their multiple possibilities and realities.

l. to r.: Jamie Brassett, Guy Julier, Liz Moor, Louis Moreno, Rosario Hurtado, Roberto Feo. Central St Martins, University of Arts London (picture: Jocelyn Bailey)

Liz Moor described this relationship more viscerally:  design is brought into the firefight of capitalism. It works both to produce asset value while plugging the leaks of the welfare state. In the first of these, it is hoping to make something worth more in the future, either in its use or exchange value. In the second, it is basically there to save money as the state shrinks while attempting to continue to provide some semblance of traditional state provision (education, health etc.).

Roberto Feo and Rosario Hurtado extended the notion of design moving into capitalism’s many spaces suggesting that its seepage everywhere means that it ends up always being about context rather than itself. This forces design practice into a constant state of service rather than into a propositional mode. Even where it is ‘propositional’ this may still be provisional and subaltern to whoever is paying. This service mode continues to be the dominant paradigm for design education — merely producing ‘industry ready’ graduates.

Louis Moreno placed design’s complicity with the commercial marketplace in the framework of Karl Polanyi’s 1944 book, The Great Transformation. Here, Polanyi spoke of the ways by which nature, labour and money get turned into fictitious commodities. These are things that are not specifically created for the market but are turned into commodities. Indeed, they are embedded into social relationships that were, hitherto to capitalism, part of moral control outside the market. Subsequently, however, out of nature, labour and money we get design highly active in turning these into assets: land banks, cultural capital, funds and so on. As a reactive field, design is constrained into the micro-economic whose sense of futurity is compressed into the near present.

There are institutions that lie or attempt to lie outside the neoliberal order. The National Health Service is one of them. I would hazard that the majority of its 1.7million employees and the UK public understand an inviolability of the concept that it exists not to be an active agent within capitalist systems but to do something else. Perhaps we should ask the same of education. To what extent should it function to produce social goods rather than in service to a particular view of the economy? And what would it mean for this emphasis to be revived? Can it do both?




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Beyond Neoliberalism: how might we conceive and reconceive the relationships of contemporary design and economics?

Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts, London
Friday, 17 March 2017
18:30 to 20:00

Granary Square, Granary Building,
Kings Cross, London N1C 4AA


In orthodox circles, design is understood to ‘add value’ within capitalist economies, making goods more saleable and spaces more attractive. But is this too reductive?

In what other ways does contemporary design take part in the making of neoliberal economic, cultural and social processes? How can design reveal and critique its own economic practices? And can alternative economic futures be designed, or is design destined to be eternally co-opted into dominant business models?

Chair:  Jamie Brassett, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London

Robert Feo and Rosario Hurtado, El Ultimo Grito/Goldsmiths University of London
Guy Julier, University of Brighton/Victoria & Albert Museum                        
Liz Moor, Goldsmiths, University of London
Louis Moreno, Goldsmiths, University of London

This event is part of the Victoria and Albert Museum & University of Brighton’s ‘Design Culture Salon’, which has been on tour lately, notably in Vienna and Shenzhen. It coincides with the launch of Guy Julier’s new book Economies of Design (Sage Publications).

This event is free, but if you are not a student or staff at Central St Martins you must book here.



Jamie Brassett is Reader in Philosophy, Design & Innovation at Central Saint Martins, where he has been Course Leader for MA Innovation Management since its inception in 2008. Recently, Jamie co-edited with Betti Marenko the Deleuze & Design collection for Edinburgh University Press as part of their ‘Deleuze Connections’ series. He is currently working on a book with Richard Reynolds on Superheroes & Excess, as well as articles on smart design, a creative philosophy of anticipation, the ontological ethics of design & uncertain futures.

Roberto Feo and Rosario Hurtado are the Post Disciplinary studio El Ultimo Grito. Founded in 1997, their studio is currently based in London. El Ultimo Grito’s work continuously researches our relationships with objects and culture. They teach and research in design at Goldsmiths, University of London. Rosario Hurtado read Economics at Alcala de Henares University in Madrid, before moving to London in1989 where she studied Cabinet Making at the London College of Furniture and completed her BA in Industrial Design at Kingston University. Roberto Feo read Sociology and Social Anthropology at Complutense University in Madrid, before moving to London in 1990. He studied Furniture Design at the London College of Furniture followed by an MA in Furniture Design at The Royal College of Art. He currently co-runs the Space and Communication at HEAD-Genève.

Guy Julier is Professor of Design Culture at the University of Brighton. His books include The Culture of Design, 3rd Revised Edition (2014) and Economies of Design (2017). He has researched and written on design and political transition in Spain and Hungary, design activism, social design and theories of design culture.

Liz Moor is Senior Lecturer in Media & Communications at Goldsmiths, University of London. She is author of The Rise of Brands (2007) and co-editor with Guy Julier of Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice (2009). She is currently writing a book entitled ‘Money and Communication’ for Polity Press.

Louis Moreno’s research, teaching and writing explores the spatial relationships and political economic forces that shape the social and cultural forms of everyday life. Specialising in urbanism and spatial theory, Louis’s academic background spans literature and philosophy, architectural history, urban geography and political theory. Louis’s PhD research examined the urban incubation and architectural effects of financialised capitalism in post-industrial Britain. His current research examines the urban processes and cultural logic of financialised capitalism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reflections on Brexit design: how will it function in and out of Europe?

Twenty-five years ago, I ran a series of talks at the Leeds City Art Gallery called ‘Design into Europe’. 1992 was the watershed year of the Maastricht Treaty that would lead to the creation of the Euro. And on 1 January 1993 the single market and its four freedoms were established: the free movement of goods, services, people and money.

All four of these would set the scene for UK design which was and is very much an export-oriented service industry. For my part, around the time I was also busy springboarding off my first book, New Spanish Design (now available on eBay for £2.80!) in helping UK design consultancies and other creative industries exponents to find their way into the Iberian marketplace. New markets and relationships were promised. And a new aesthetic palette of Europeaneity was coming to hand.

Now, with Brexit, it seems that some designers – but not all – are staring into the abyss of living and working without those taken-for-granted pillars…. and without a certain European ‘look’.

Transition is always painful. It involves processes of grieving and loss that are characterised by those oft-cited five-stages of denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance. All five were at work in the Salon and at times it felt more like a group therapy session.

View from the Chair, l. to r.: Franco Bianchini, Alastair Donald, Michael Thomson, Sarah Mann, Robert Mull

View from the Chair, l. to r.: Franco Bianchini, Alastair Donald, Michael Thomson, Sarah Mann, Robert Mull

Franco Bianchini usefully sketched out a cultural history of the UK creative class for us that helped to contexualise the discussion going forwards. He noted how the ‘creative class’ of the 1970s was engaged in trying to look out how cultural practice could address the growing crises of the autonomous working class. Deindustrialisation and economic recession (yes, folks, they’ve been around for quite a while!) were dismantling traditional workerist roles. Then, under New Labour from 1997, the creative industries became instrumentalised as a disciplining system, Franco suggested. Be creative, or face the doldrums was/is the message. The City of Hull, Franco’s adopted home-town, now faces the contradictions and opportunities of both these options, made even more urgent by the vacuum of austerity. As City of Culture for 2017, Hull has the possibility of re-forming itself as an international centre of architecture, design and the arts. Meanwhile, the Brexit Referendum had 68% of its population vote Leave.

Alastair Donald reminded us that Brexit is really happening. The Salon took place just two days after Parliament had voted to allow the government to get Brexit negotiations underway. So, the challenge for design and architecture is to understand how to minimize its worst impacts and maximize the advantages of leaving the EU. Alastair claimed that the malaise of the creative industries sectors in particular, and the UK in general, had gone unnoticed. He argued that Fortress Europe had produced a tick-box approach to the approval of design and planning and that this had also led to a slow down in innovation. His view was decidedly upbeat: Brexit would allow for some radical re-thinking on the role of creativity and open up opportunities for it to reach into new audiences. It seemed that those ambitions of the 1970s, as Franco had sketched out, might have their day still.

Sarah Mann reminded us that her organization, the British Council, pre-dates the EU by a long way. Founded in 1934, its primary aim has always been to promote mutual understanding across borders. Art, craft and design provide ways of both presenting a positive national image and reaching out internationally. With the decline of making and hand-skills, nonetheless other opportunities are available for creative thinking and practice to be active. For example, design in ageing, the circular economy and open source are just three areas for radical re-framing not just of design, but of economic processes. At the same time, these are quite dependent on the free movement of ideas, expertise and people to flourish. Will Brexit close these down? And, more broadly, how does the UK project itself as a creative economy in the new circumstances – whatever these may be?

Speaking from an educator’s perspective, Robert Mull noted how Brexit had already put a brake on applications from European students to come to the UK to study. One result of this would be a loss of diversity amongst the student population. After decades of openness, design education was at risk at falling into a ‘Little Britain’ mentality, losing its outward-orientation. From a personal point of view, Robert was concerned about the impact of Brexit leading to a decreased sense of the social value of design. The scrabble for global market share may dominate the discourse for years to come at the expense of humanitarian values that have built up over decades.

Michael Thomson saw the Brexit vote as a failure of imagination on the part of the Remain camp. Brexit supporters had a very powerful brand strategy. (Even the word ‘Brexit’ is on a par with Persil as a memorable sound.) The Remain campaign had nothing approaching such a strong brand. (Note: this could have been a great student design brief!) In preparation for the Salon, Michael had phoned some of his counterparts in the Bureau of European Design Associations. It seemed that there was very much a ‘wait and see’ attitude in mainland Europe. Panic or, even, planning for post-Brext didn’t seem to be coursing through these countries. The design industry has a long history of dodging and weaving, of adapting to and even thriving in new circumstances. So on both sides of the English Channel, the Irish Sea and the North Sea there will be adjustments. But that is as it ever was.

The rise of design since the 1980s has run in parallel with the steady move towards managerial politics in Europe. Decision-making has become about pragmatic moves to ensure economic growth and social cohesion rather than being driven by explicit ideological programmes. Another way of saying this is that the neoliberal marketplace has come to dominate. (For more on this relationship with design, see my new book Economies of Design.) Design has benefitted in some ways and not in others. The opportunity, at least for Alastair Donald, here is in forging a new narrative for design that is liberated from its service-to-the-market mode.

Not all panelists or audience participants could rise to such optimism, though. One characterization of post-Brexit design and society was that they could be like Berlin after the fall of the wall. There would be a cultural release as new possibilities arise. Another was that they could be more like Eastern Berlin before the wall was taken apart. Isolation and the rise of petty nationalism may close down not just physical borders but also imaginative ones.

Business parlance in past decades has told us to get used to uncertainty. The current uncertainty in the UK was matched by the uncertainty of panelists and participants.

To get psychoanalytic about this and return to group-therapy mode, it seems necessary, in dealing with this uncertainty, to invoke the Freudian trio of the superego, the ego and the id. The superego is that big societal narrative of reason. The design industry’s institutional apparatus seems to be asking us to be grown-up and mature – speak with one voice, show its strong resolve. Meanwhile, the id – the unconscious force of our desire to be creative, violent, angry and many other things – is in a state of rage. Design practitioners want to do stuff but are bewildered as to where to direct this rage, however. Meanwhile, design’s ego is stuck in the middle, trying to mediate between these.

It’s a classic service-role that the ego of British design has been so good at. For a long time. Most crises come to resolution. But it’ll take a lot more honest talk for us to get there.



Posted in design education, design practice, economies, Europe, recession | Leave a comment

Reflections on Alternative Exchange: how does design create alternative economies in contemporary culture?

Within the cool interior of the Angewandte Innovation Laboratory in Vienna (26 January 2017), this Salon unfolded in multilayered ways. This reflects the multiple sites, publics and processes through which alternative exchange systems take place, making them often allusive but always challenging to behold.

Bitcoin and blockchain. Localised hard-currencies. Timebanks. Informal systems of non-currency based reciprocality. Grey economies. Local Exchange Trading Systems. These are just some of the alternative exchange systems that have come to greater prominence in the West.

But beyond the West, it must be remembered that economies that exist outside the mainstream, registered and tax-paying systems occupy their major part. They represent around one-third of GDP in Latin America, the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and Central Asia. They account for two-thirds of employment in South and South East Asia and half in Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa. And it is here that we find various versions of entrepreneuralism that includes tinkering and hacking, and the use of informal social networks. In Brazil this is called gambiarra, in China its zizhu chuangxin, Kenya’s version is jua kali and francophone Africa calls it système D. All of these involve conscious design or design-like decisions. (There’s more on this in my book Economies of Design.)

Whether in these latter practices or among more self-consciously designed systems, other forms of ownership, knowledge circulation and expressions of value are at play.

l. to r.: Guy Julier, Alison Clarke, Matthias Tarasiewicz, Martina Grünewald, Özlem Savas (hidden)

l. to r.: Guy Julier, Alison Clarke, Matthias Tarasiewicz, Martina Grünewald, Özlem Savas (hidden). Photo: Leah Armstrong

Alison Clarke began by briefly referring to her past research on second-hand clothing and how it circulated with alternative economies to produce other forms of value. She reminded us that design had always been closely aligned with attempts to think about the world in terms of non-monetary value. Die Angewandte (Vienna University of Applied Arts) itself was founded 150 years ago on attempts to align material culture with social wellbeing rather than industrialism. She then invoked some of the design thinking of the 1970s by reference to Andre Gorz’s 1982 work Fairwell to the Working Class: An Essay on Postindustrial Socialism — that looked to the possibility of a post-consumer culture. The reflection, here, was that with automation and information technology to undermining traditional notions of labour, how do we have meaningful lives outside work? Following on, alternative economies therefore provide ways by which traditional notions of labour may be reframed around new values.

Martina Grünewald picked up from Alison Clarke’s observation that a challenge, however, lies in how many alternative economies are double-edged. While they may appear to have autonomy, they are always producing data that can get used in the mainstream economy which, in turn, can affect systems of value in the former. Drawing on her work with auctions and second-hand goods, Martina illustrated how these participate in the formation of design value elsewhere, pointing to trends and interests, for example. Alternative economies may weave in and out of mainstream economies and vice versa.

Özlem Savas drew from her research on Facebook groups involved in the exchange of knitting patterns. Here, participants create digital patterns and photo essays to share their skills. As such they are hybrids of producers and consumer (or, as Alvin Toffler had it, prosumers). New understandings of creative citizenship can emerge through such practices as cultural rights are freely circulated. In this context, there emerges a challenge to design expertise as all participants become designers, rather than it being confined to an exclusive ‘club’ of professionals. It isn’t all knitting, though. Such platforms for sharing design, making and repair proliferate through a range of applications and practice.

Matthias Tarasiewicz valiantly made blockchain appear reasonably simple. We have yet to see if the claim that blockchain will be bigger than the internet in terms of social, economic and political change. But it’s looking that way. With its 5,000+ alternative coins, used at both local and global levels, it suggests a radical disembedding of economic practices from those neoliberal ones we are mostly living with — controlled by macro-interests of the global financial systems and nation-states. And once its systems of value get decoupled from dominant financial modes, they enter into other embedded systems of value — social, communitarian, ecological and others. The extent to which these can actually be ‘designed’ — as in configured around new socialities and economic practices — or to which they will emerge with their own straight or twisted logics is still up for speculation.

The view from the Chair, l. to r: Alison Clarke, Matthias Tarasiewicz, Martina Grünewald, Özlem Savas (not hidden this time)

The view from the Chair, l. to r: Alison Clarke, Matthias Tarasiewicz, Martina Grünewald, Özlem Savas (not hidden this time)

Part of the challenge here may be in the anonymity of blockchain. Alison Clarke referred back to the brilliant work of W.F.Haug who wrote of design being a mediator of false values. Do some alternative economies do this still? Blockchain sets value through an alignment of multiple nodes communicating with each other. This may not be far from the social processes of the stock exchange or auctions with the big difference that the algorithms of blockchain do not play transparently into everyday life. Matthias Tarasiewicz would probably disagree here…

A key issue in alternative economies is in their different temporal rhythms and their entanglement networks in everyday life, perhaps. We heard about open source knitting patterns which may be slow-moving (writing and testing the pattern, digitizing etc.) but far-reaching (once uploaded it can move from localised knitting groups to global information flows). Meanwhile, in China the use of the WeChat app speeds transactions up and enfolds a number of different social practices (social media, ordering and payment for goods and services, wayfinding etc.). These weave digital and analogue space in and out of each other. In each of these examples, new geographies of exchange are created, though.

The financial crisis of 2008 has coincided with another hyper-wave of technological development. The invention of digital processes may be going quicker than we can deal with them. Sometimes these may exceed or supersede our ordinary abilities of creative action, as, possibly, in the case of Google Deepdream. Salon participants asked whether a backwash of this tendency would be a return to craft skills of making and deep creative action. It seems like we needed William Morris or John Ruskin in the room. Or to get closer to home, Rudolf Steiner…

Ultimately, design in itself may not produce alternative economies, but there are increasing opportunities for it to be engaged in these and for these to become part of the discourses in design culture.




Posted in activism, citizenship, economies, innovation, social innovation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment