‘Beyond their instrumental functions,’ writes Rivka Oxman in an article about design, creativity and innovation, ‘advanced digital and computational environments are also becoming tools for thinking design’. At the leading edge of creativity and innovation design does not only speculate the plausible, possible or potential, but pragmatically inserts such futures into the present must). Using concepts mainly from Deleuze, Guattari, Spinoza and Simondon, I will position such design speculation as pragmatic, divergent, complex and emergent. That is, as manifesting the technical (...) mentalities that provide the milieu in which we can show what we ‘might be capable of’. (shrink)

This paper will examine how innovation should respond to intellectual traditions outside of its normal purview, in order to keep the creative engine of its activities vibrant. Drawing mainly from philosophy, but revolving around a single sentence from Arujun Appadurai’s ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’ – in which he asks refugees “not to let their imaginations rest too long” – this paper will argue for a theory and practice of innovation to be ‘restless’. A ‘restless’ innovation will (...) have a number of particular characteristics, and this paper will note especially those that relate to its space. Not simply because the refugee noted by Appadurai is determined as such by its relation to space, but also because innovation will be determined by the spaces it creates and by which it is created. A ‘restless innovation’ will therefore be one that is topologically complex and ontogenic. (shrink)

'And ecstasy is the way out! Harmony! Perhaps, but heart-rending. The way out? It suffices that I look for it: I fall back again, inert, pitiful: the way out from project, from the will for a way out! For project is the prison from which I wish to escape : I formed the project to escape from project!' Georges Bataille Inner Experience, p. 59 The most notable feature of the last ten years of going to Milan to visit design companies, (...) studios, manufacturers and the Salone di Mobili, has been the lack of change in outlook on the part of the Milanese Design community. The focus of any discussion centred around what has made Milanese design so special and always seemed to be focussed on the past. We revisited the 1960s and 1980s mainly—the Pop and the Postmodern, the bright colours and sensual shapes attesting to the stereotype of Milanese Design as energetic and desirous. The 1990s revisiting of a Scandinavian Modernist æsthetic particularly in furniture and kitchen appliance design seemed only to reinforce such a stereotype: “we can engage with this styling,” they seemed to say, “but it will always have our signature elegance and sophistication, that demands display and passion rather than objective appreciation.” Only Studio Mendini seemed to have no truck with the vagaries of fashion. Asked in Spring 2002 whether the studio’s playful style—so reminiscient of Design’s Postmodern turn of the 1980s as well as Pop’s 1960s exuberance—was still relevant in a world experiencing suicide terrorist attacks in many of the world’s cities, our guide told us that Signore Mendini believed that now, as much as ever, was it necessary to have some joy in people’s lives. And that is all.1 This is design as frippery, as an escape from the everyday, from the dirtiness of culture, of society and of politics. This is design which ignores the everyday experiences and concerns of people. This is design which has turned in on itself. This is not good enough. (shrink)

The ethics of designing has often been organised according to moral imperatives, and social design not only aligns with such moralities, but perpetuates them without providing a clear critique of the systems to which they adhere. To rid itself of such reactive ideologies, and so to create other conditions for the possibility of its creativity, social design might occupy itself with a different account of ethics altogether. This paper will seek to elucidate such a different ethics along the lines Baruch (...) Spinoza proposed and Gilles Deleuze championed. That is, it will therefore call for an affective designing that operates by creating ethical ontologies. This article will bring an affective, ethical, ontological design to bear on a social entity that emerges from the relations affectivity requires insofar as it is one that is designed. (shrink)