In Rick Poynor’s “Where Are the Design Critics?”, the author discusses several panels and literature related to design criticism – the role of criticism in design education is explored in depth. In essence, Poynor argues that there is absolutely room for design criticism, especially in written form, despite the protestations of others. Looking at this blog entry and the subsequent comments, it is clear that this is a divisive issue with many different perspectives, some presented more eloquently and even-handed than others.
According to Poynor, there is a divide between the purpose of design and the need for criticism from an aesthetic perspective: “Adamson observed that design writing was so deeply entrenched within the design field, so closely tied to its professional goals, that the writing's ultimate effect would always be promotional rather than critical” (Poynor, 2005). This indicates, to Poynor, a fundamental lack of understanding as to the nature of criticism, as people’s distaste for it dealt with their own prejudices toward the word ‘criticism’: “But criticismwas oppositional and it was often identified with the left. It took issue with capitalism and sought the transformation of society” (Poynor, 2005). To that end, design criticism is looked down upon by those who do not follow such liberal tacks.
Despite these obstacles, Poynor believes “it is still possible to take an oppositional stance in regard to design” (Poynor, 2005). This is accomplished through visual communication, the expression of the designs themselves, which play with consumer expectations and express capitalism most sincerely. This demonstrates a powerful ability to influence the consumer, and Poynor thinks this is something that should be explored. “There is no reason why design criticism should not take a critical view of design's instrumental uses and its wider social role, or the lack of it, but there seems to be little motivation to produce this kind of criticism” (Poynor, 2005). The implication from Poynor is that designers are too interested in the commercial applications of their art or designs to want to question the morality or ethics of what they do.
The lack of design criticism in Britain and elsewhere disturbs Poynor: “How are designers going to become critical in any serious way if they are not exposed to sustained critical thinking about design in the form of ambitious, intellectually penetrating criticism?” (Poynor, 2005). He fears that this lack of exposure to criticism does not allow artists to know how to be critical, and as a result they are unable to reflexively view their works through any other lenses than they already have. Poynor’s overall thesis is that “There has to be a coherent basis for critical thinking, a considered position according to which a piece of criticism can be understood, and writing remains the best medium in which to develop this” (Poynor, 2005). Poynor feels this is missing, and this article effectively calls for this kind of criticism to be put forth.
Considering such a controversial and potentially inflammatory article, the comments are not surprising. One of the biggest issues that seems to be present within the conversation is the fear that many of these calls for criticism as these panels are somewhat incestuous, as that is what the design critics themselves do. They all know each other so well, it can be easy for these panels and blog posts to become echo chambers for similar opinions without considering a greater “breadth and depth of critical positions” (Miss Representation, 2005). Some perspectives are more hostile than others, calling the conference and panels “10-15 names voicing their opinions over and over again, in their well-meaning or self-promoting self-indulgence”; in essence, they believe that this call for design criticism simply comes from a bunch of people agreeing with each other to further inflate their own importance (Andre, 2005).
Another issue relates to Poynor’s questions related to definitions of criticism, as people seem to recognize that a) some people conflate criticism with negativity and b) many recognize that design criticism is not as laudable or understandable a goal to the public as being an art critic or a film critic. At the same time, many comments highlight the implication that engaging in “criticism” involves “being elitist and pompous,” and that many critics (including Poynor himself) are dismissive and holier-than-thou in their assumptions that there are no design critics (Marcus Fairs, 2005). Questions are also raised about whether or not designers can be critics, and the influence of their own practice on their ability to engage in critical analysis of other works. Even further, the significance of those critics who do exist are discussed in detail, as there is a perspective in the comments (and in Poynor’s article) that written design criticism simply acts as a promotional piece instead of a piece of criticism. These thoughts about critical writing and thought reveal a confluence of opinions, from hostility at the potential ‘pretentiousness’ of critics to umbrage that those design critics who exist aren’t mentioned already in this kind of discourse.
Works Cited
Poynor, Rick. “Where Are the Design Critics?” Observatory, September 25, 2005.
<http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=3767>.
