Complex Numbers

What's Good for the Propaganda

https://www.fastcompany.com/90304574/the-secret-history-of-midcentury-modern-des...

At the intersection of art and functionality lies "design."

I have to admit, most of it is opaque to me. I have no artistic talent, and only a very rudimentary aesthetic sense, so I tend to choose products for their functionality rather than their looks.

Or do I?

It's quite possible that I make unconscious choices based on what something looks like. That would make me a target, not a conscious consumer.

Good design is largely unnoticeable - I do know that. In my field, this concept relied on hiding stuff rather than making it look a certain way. The "looks" part was the domain of architects and landscape architects; all I had to do was make sure things like storm drains were buried. And while a road is largely visible, no one notices anything about the road unless, like me, they design the things, or if something's dysfunctional about it.

Buildings, they notice.

And sometimes I notice things too. Cartoon mascots, for breakfast cereal and the like, are almost always depicted with their mouths open. I don't know the reason for this; I'm guessing it makes people want to put the product into their own mouths. Also, large swaths of "green" or environmentally friendly design - as well as products marketed as "healthy" - possess an aesthetic that says something like "Here is something that is good for you and/or the environment. We're making it ugly so you can feel like you're doing penance for past overconsumption or enjoyment."

That last tide seems to be turning, now, thanks to Elon Musk making electric cars that people might actually not be embarrassed to be seen in, as opposed to the pug-ugly "Smart Car."

That's a subjective observation, of course; there's no One True Aesthetic, or else nothing would ever change.

So, back to the article's premise: design as propaganda.

I never really gave that much thought, although in retrospect I probably should have. We know that grocery stores, for example, do extensive research into human psychology to help them determine a layout that extracts the maximum profit from a shopper. Casinos, too, rely heavily on psychology; my first experience with one was that you had to walk through a gauntlet of flashing and beeping slot machines just to get to registration (this is not as common as it used to be). And just the other day, a friend of mine got lost in an Ikea store; she couldn't find the exit. I told her, "the trick is to buy something, and then the exit magically appears." And behold, she bought something, and the exit magically appeared. (Her attempts to put said something together later led to her having to go back to the Ikea to return it, after which she texted me: "Never. Again.")

Point is, these places don't hire someone like me to do their layout; I'd be trying for the most efficient layout from the point of view of a shopper, just like I used to design roads that were as straight as possible given constraints of terrain and other externalities. No, they employ people who think of design from the viewpoint of maximizing profit.

There's nothing wrong with that, intrinsically. A business exists to make profit. But I think it's important to know that these things are working on you on some level. Go grocery shopping with a list and stick to the list, and you're not swayed by prominent displays of, say, Oreos. Avoid slot machines (generally good advice anyway). And for the sake of everything that's right and pure in the world, stay the hell away from Ikea.

Likely, other people have considered this way more than I have. I don't usually think about it, which makes me a sucker. But I'm going to work on it.