¶The word ‘design’ means plan, intention, or draft. Is the common use of the word better? Referring to the cosmetic look of industrial merchandise, their embellishments, that quality about the product which ‘communicates’ life styles and marketing strategies? ¶ There are certainly profits to be made, in all the various chains of the production line. We can freely choose and consume from these identity platforms and brands. We may feel free and mobile, we can combine the merchandise we buy, and it can improve our status. And if we acquaint ourselves with art history and the history of fashion and style, we can participate in various retro projects whose intention it is to make history accessible to us. ¶ In the whirlwind of confusion that follows in the aftermath of this transient consciousness of style, we are offered help by trend analytics, cultural journalism and consumer statistics. Our demands and needs are constantly analysed and reviewed, and new professions arise to take care of us [1].

Design and utility

The demands we put on the merchandise may be utilitarian ones. But the design it is more often than not of a cosmetic nature, or even anti utilitarian in nature. ¶ ‘Functionalism’ has patented the term ‘function’ in aesthetics. But objects made pre the functionalist era were hardly dysfunctional per se, and there have indeed been made many dysfunctional buildings, letters and everyday items under the flag of Functionalism. [2] ¶ It may seem as if a product is expensive, chances are it may be easier to get hold of something that is not ‘designed to death’. Perhaps the more expensive the product is, the less designed it looks, so that the essence of quality design is a sort of anti-design? Not that the brand is not visible, it may simply be more subtly present. 

Impossible protest

There are plenty of strategies we may use to avoid the concept of design, but none are unproblematic: If we should create a graphic protest, and choose a design that is connected to historical protest movements, like punk or communist propaganda, we would have to design, we would have to plan, for the protest to be efficient. So to protest against design and create anti-design we would need to design. ¶ Another, perhaps more effective strategy for anti-design, would be to use visual silence, so that the visual protest in a sense will be situated in the shadow of the object, refusing to show itself. A mystical quality can be created that in itself may seem attractive. But this is not really a protest, for design environments are absorptive, and may start profiting off this anti-design strategy, so that this mysterious and attractive quality is next to be found on, for instance, a perfume bottle. ¶ All in all it is hard to see any real possibility of creating anti-design. There is, of course, always the possibility of staying out of the design/anti-design business alltogether. But what if we need a sign for the toilet? Or we want to make an invitation, or a book page?

Space

I suspect there is a connection between good design and space, pauses, disposition of visual air. This would be self evident to a good musician. The typographic historian John Dreyfus was about to attend a seminar which I attended in Ditchling many years back [3]. He fell ill, and died shortly after. It seems meaningful that the article which he was about to read from, which in turn left an absence in the seminar, was called ‘Watch this space’. It dealt with the space between and around letters. ¶ From a historical point of view, I believe we may find examples of so called anti-design. From before this concept was conceived. W.R. Lethaby wrote: ‘Good design is inherent rather than applied’. Which implies that design is not a cosmetic matter. On the contrary it has to do with a reverance to materials and to the history of the object, which craftsmen have been doing at all times. Previous to the period much worshipped in art and design schools post 1920s. Looking back in time beyond the 1920s is seemingly less hip.  ¶ ‘It was an important observation of Lethaby’s when he noted, in his essay “Design and Industry” (1915), that “it has been extremely unfortunate that the Arts and Crafts movement in England coincided in time with the violent fashion for antiques of every kind”. This had led, he saw, to an obsession with design as a matter predominantly of style. This was simply “unreasonable”, and indeed untenable in an age having to cope with the increasing mechanization of production.’ [4]

The Arts & Crafts movement

William Morris, who came to represent the Arts & Crafts movement, criticised the inhumane exploitation of man in the aftermath of the industrial revolution. He objected to the superficiality of the Victorian age, where style more often than not was a matter of appearance. He was also responsible for initiating a reform and renewal of many craft disciplines. He printed textiles, made typefaces, printed books, and had a huge impact on other practitioners. Among these we find the ceramic craftsman / potter Bernard Leach and the calligrapher Edward Johnston. There is a letter from Edward Johnston to Bernard Leach, where Johnston thanks him for lending him the Tao Te Ching. A quote from it:

Thirty spokes share a wheel’s hub
Without empty space it is not useful.
Clay is moulded to a jar,
but empty space makes it useful.
Doors and windows make up a room –
Without their empty space it is useless.
So advantage brought by what is there
Totally relies on what is not there. [5]