Salon has an article today about a controversy that happened recently at Print magazine, when it published a critique of Apple.
The original critique is here:
http://printmag.com/Article/An-Anatomy-of-Uncriticism
And the Salon article on the dust-up is here:
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/design_critique_imprint/
One thing at stake is how people perceive the role of “critique” in design. Often, people assume that critique is saying bad things about something else. As the Salon article notes, the purpose of serious critique (including design criticism) is to illuminate, not to scold. The relevant quote is here:
If the criterion for what warrants design criticism is based on a level of social, cultural or political impact, then a particular work is fair game regardless of the age or virtuosity of its maker. Since criticism is not meant to be a scold, but is rather a means of illuminating — delving below the surface — finding aspects of work that benefits by explanation and analysis, nothing and no one should be exempt.
Design criticism has long been embedded in some design disciplines–fashion, architecture, and product design–but for whatever reason, interaction design has not had the same culture of critique. That needs to change, and it is changing.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 12, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Apple Above Critique? « Interaction Culture
[...] This post is based on an entry I posted earlier at the Interaction Culture Class blog. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
January 14, 2012 at 9:21 pm
altoombs
That Salon article focuses mostly on the critique of design critics, but I think it’s also interesting to think about the critique that an average person or end user might give, which can sometimes feel more limited than a critics critique. Depending on who I talk to, I often feel like I’m also not allowed to criticize Apple products in any way. I say something like “well that’s not actually as usable as it’s made out to be” and then I get back something like “Apple is the best, I dare you to find a better company or someone that can do X better.”
The idea that someone or some company could be above critique is really dangerous, both for that person or company and for society. If Apple was above critique in every way, then it would be harder for them to see where they’ve made mistakes and how to fix them. Worse, they might not view something as a mistake, even if it normally would be considered awful.
I guess those thoughts are pretty obvious (and are sort of the REASON for having criticism in the first place), but even worse than what I listed above: WE might not see a mistake as a mistake. If everything Apple did was thought of as perfect, then we would just buy whatever shit they decided to manufacture, even if it was terrible or even dangerous. (of course I’m just being really extreme right now, but I still think it’s interesting to think about).
The same thing happens in history and society too, and I think it can be even more dangerous. It took a long time for people to notice Oprah going a little bit strange, because for a long time she was “above criticism.” I think the same was true for Hitler for a little bit. If Mother Theresa decided that the world would be better without Jews, I wonder how many people would go along with it, even for a short time, because Mother Theresa is supremely selfless and would never think something horrible, right?
January 15, 2012 at 12:13 am
colinmgray
I think this idea of a culture of critique is incredibly important, especially if that field expects to have any ongoing intellectual growth. But I think in this example about Apple being critiqued harshly or falsely, it instead points out the “culture of critique” that most individuals are accustomed to. Rather than a rigorous, blind review that you would expect to find in most design disciplines, much of the so-called critique that happens in an online setting is set up in a way that makes it difficult for true critique to ever emerge. Many of these factors, I think, relate to the positioning of critique in a semi-democratic environment that often panders to the lowest common denominator of viewers, with an emphasis on sexy titles to drag in the masses and a tendency to fanboi-ism in one direction or another. In a critique of Apple (or any of the so-called “sacred cows” of technology), it is difficult to attempt a true critique, due to the ubiquity of the products and the marketing attachments these products have had on many of us over the years. While executing a rigorous critique on a formal, structural level might be possible, when the discussion moves to personal use and preferences, the conversation almost inevitably shifts to a fanboi mode and an attempt to get people “on your side.”
While I agree that a culture of critique is necessary in interaction design, I personally struggle with finding a level of critique from almost any twenty-first century user, scholar, or designer that can ignore the dramatic effect products in the IxD sphere of influence have had on our lives. And to this extent, we are all irrevocably biased about what experiences have been most significant to us, beyond the pure formal qualities of the interaction.
How do we move beyond a culture of personal preference to a culture of critique in this sense? Much like art movements stalled and sputtered (in terms of innovation) where groupthink was present, I feel like we could be facing the same type of barrier in the future of IxD if we can’t look beyond our own history of experience to some extent.