The Difficulties of Practicing Experimental Design by Lisa Smith

Let's be Honest: The Difficulties of Practicing Experimental Design in Chicago

 

Last week, I attended the How Chicago Are You? discussion at the Graham Foundation. Ten panelists were invited to show five "likes" and "dislikes" related to their experience of the city. Though Bob Somol's talk on the academic instution as a disciplinary embassy was a high point, the rest of the discussion felt overly personal and undirected. The moderator wondered, "How important is a sense of place to creative production?" but the more specific question of the current state of Chicago's creative output, as a whole, was left unaddressed.

Our friends over at Golden Age felt similarly:

As most boldly titled, openly structured explorative endeavors, it was almost entirely inconclusive. The only real consensus from the panel (which consisted of 40% diehard Chicagoans, 50% cultural workers who believed place was unimportant and 10% insecure people who were waiting to move to a coast but scared about their impending decision) was that Chicago as a place is what you make it and comprised solely of the places and people you visit there.

In response, they listed a few spots they regularly visit. I was honored that ODL was included among them, and started thinking about how the "place" question relates to our budding designed objects scene, specifically. Chicago is a nice city for living and working, but what are we making?

The design community here is small enough that cohorts are often competitors and colleagues are also close personal friends. This produces a nurturing, supportive atmosphere, but at the same time, one that's too comfortable. For instance, even when mindfully critical of others' work, deep down I'm cheerleading—sincere but, ultimately, biased. It's easier to like the work when you know the person and the effort behind it. Because we're so invested in each other's success, we miss out on the opportunity to judge and be judged.

Over the past two years, it's become clear that we have a strong experimental design community in Chicago. Now, it's increasingly important that we treat Chicago as a home base to make works that play on an international register. Frankly, I don't think we're there. We pat ourselves on the back for being able to pull it together, but that's a baseline requirement. We should expect more, pushing each other in the relevance and resolution of our endeavors.

Like any city, Chicago comes with baggage. In my experience co-managing Object Design League for the past two years, the primary challenges this city poses for experimental designers are:

The stickiness of our mid-century modern legacy

Eastern Michigan is an epicenter of furniture production, but companies based there (such as Herman Miller) are incredibly risk-averse, churning out more or less the same thing every year. Mid-century modernism is not a bad thing, but our undying faithfulness to its values feels stiff and anachronistic. The Chicago (and American) market does not demand a new perspective, even while they demand new chairs.

The aesthetic conservatism of consumers and clients

Clients and consumers are resting on their laurels when it comes to setting themselves apart or considering their domestic space. Why investigate independent design when one can walk into CB2 or IKEA and buy a neo-modernist knockoff? There's a wide world of formal, material, and philosophical approaches to everyday objects, but the market is dominated by efficient companies with great distribution channels and bad products. Availability impacts taste, but how can we compete with the wide reach of Target? How can we combat the lack of pluralism in the design goods market and get our work into the world?

It is no coincidence that our largest design fairs—NeoCon, SOFA, and the International Home and Housewares Show—are off the map as far as contemporary furniture and object design goes. We don't need an ICFF or Salone del Mobile, but it may be up to us to cultivate new attitudes towards consumption, commissions, and design work in the Midwest.

Lack of solid design writing and criticism

Chicago has its share of talented designers and thinkers, but no platform for their voices. Where is our Apartamento Magazine, Pin-Up, T Magazine, or Mike Meiré? We need a force to bring our best voices together and challenge the way we think as makers and consumers of objects. Local weeklies like Time Out do their part, but we can't expect them to carry the weight of the experimental design discussion.

To rise to these challenges, there is much that we, as designers, should work on. I've tried to isolate a few things that I've noticed across the board from thesis shows to professional exhibitions (Object Design League events included).

Polish and completeness

Despite considerable potential, experimental design in Chicago is hindered from garnering the attention it deserves because of a lack of polish and completeness. Perhaps because of the comfort provided by our supportive community, projects tend more towards first drafts, when, to compete at an international level, details should be ironed out and sensibilities and concepts deeply explored. By polish, I don't mean "slickness," but granularity of resolution and sophistication of concept. In Chicago, we can win the approval of local supporters by doing something "good enough," but to make a big impact, we need to work it all the way out, even if it means risking more, planning better, failing often, and working longer.

Proactiveness

Why aren't the top notch design lectures and exhibitions always full? It's disappointing and embarrassing when talks by Matali Crasset and Jurgen Bey are sparsely attended, not to mention smaller events like Jonathan Muecke at the Graham Foundation or the Objects of Desire panel discussion at the Architecture Film Festival this past month. It's a basic step in establishing a rich dialogue and set of voices coming out of Chicago. If we want more events, we have to support them.

Accessibility and originality

Unless we want to preach only to the choir, we should focus on making work that captures the attention and imagination of non-designers as well as designers. It's a line to walk any way we want, but a careful negotiation between accessibility and radicalism could result in brilliant, original work that appeals to many. It's equally lazy to make things that are opaque and non-working as it is to produce visual puns or ipod cases. We should strive for a mix of idiosyncratic, original, relevant, legible, and resolved. This doesn't meant that we can't be enigmatic or definitionless, just that we do it convincingly.

The solution is not to draw lines, build silos, and make enemies, but it is important to provide and seek real criticism, demand grounding, participate, and ask questions. At the same time, we should approach our work as an offering to the international design community, not to our already captive local audience. This will help us develop a wide, outward-facing perspective and impact.