Helfand & Drenttel

What's Helfand & Drenttel's main message?

Helfand & Drenttel’s message was to put an end to preconceived notions of  the ignorance of designers. It is that design is actually a huge ingredient in the concoction of life we call society. Design heavily influences culture and at the same time culture heavily influences design. In order for this vice versa of culture and design to exist, both have to pay especially close attention to the other. Design must reflect and embody a culture in order for its people to pick up on it. If this society of people do not pick up on this design than their culture will not reflect the design. Whereas the designs they support inevitably become associated and therefor a poster child for the culture. An example is Ferrari and Lamborghini associated with Italy and Italians. 

A statement I agree with and why:

Yet for designers, the Periodic Table, like other areas of science, is often just a genre that’s ripe for appropriation, offering an easy visual metaphor and a ready source for imagery: 

As a designer I agree with an element of this. I agree that designers see this template of a highly recognizably symbol. This is a symbol of knowledge and organization. Perfect. Of course this highly regarded symbol civilized society can and should be turned on its head, mocked, and completely redesigned. Wether this is to “generate value” or not is beside the point. The point is that designers look at something think how can I make this better? How can I make this more interesting, or humorous?

A statement I disagree with and why:

Regrettably, the current state of design education does little to refute this notion: our curricula primarily support the strengthening of formal skills and the cultivation of conceptual abilities. Intellectual diversity — and by extension, an understanding of cultural diversity — is less encouraged, but why? 

In most design schools, for instance, we discourage learning a second language because it requires too much time in the language lab and therefore away from the studio. Along the way, our young designers aren’t expected to really study science or math; history or anthropology; economics; music theory or literature. They’re not even really required to learn to write. 

As a designer I disagree with this wholeheartedly. I feel that as a designer we hold the capacity to retain and utilize bits of knowledge held in all aspects of life. Designs have to relate to humans and therefor they must be designed with human behavior and different areas of human interaction in mind. Design can focus merely on form and aesthetics, which even so differs from culture to culture. Culture is relative to the society, geographically or socially. Science, history, psychology, sociology, writing, and literature are all components which could be used in a deadly arsenal of a designer. Elements of this could be used for metaphors, ideations, and obtaining sub conscience human relation. 

How do you think Drenttel & Helfand would define 'innovation'?

I think they would define innovation as creating a new “look” or “culture” by bringing together elements of preexisting cultures and situations surrounding the environment of the product or design.