In the Barnard reading, he states that “Hadjinicolou tries to understand style and differences between styles in terms of social classes.  For him, style belongs to classes or sections of classes.”  For me, the relation I made was based on the user and the design or product they choose for personal use.  It kind of relates to what Brian had said in a comment on my last blog post.  Certain people choose certain products, and this in itself can reflect on their class or section of class.  If we take the cell phone for example, there has been a large increase in the development of smartphones.  Yet, some people still choose to use standard cellphones without touch capability.  Could we relate the types of technology people own to their social class?  I would say yes, in some cases.  However, I do realize this idea is flawed because choice of technology could also deal with generation gaps rather than social class.

Another way to use Hadjinicolou’s ideas is in relation to a design itself, rather than a user.  We can  see how designs can express the ideas and values of a social class.  Take smart phones again—they are wonderful because they grant us instant access to information and communication to loved ones.  This in a way shows that the class that the smartphone was designed for values information and communication.  This society values having a social aspect added into daily life.

Advertisements