Differentiate

This word is a staple when design is discussed in the context of value-added theory. For example&sbquo "differentiation of product by design" is an often and crudely used phrase. I must suggest we gather the self-discipline to reflect on the fact this "design aimed at differentiation" is completely inadequate to express the essence of the method that embodies the idealism we call design. If it means to let the subject of design assert itself of its distinct presence&sbquo then the word "difference" should be used. When A is said to B we have to make a judgment between two conflicting concepts as to whether it is identical or different. With differentiation&sbquo however&sbquo the difference destroys the identify (sameness) when a conflict is evident or when it is compared to something else&sbquo and the word is used not only to distinguish class phase but also to emphasize discriminatory sense in degree and level. Therefore to differentiate products in particular with design&sbquo in terms of intent or expression&sbquo leads not only to categorization of the people who use or apply the design but also to the establishment of class differences. In other words&sbquo design for differentiation is only an act of differentiating the users of design. This is to abandon the idealism of design and destroy the identity and communality of human beings&sbquo society and groups. This differentiation is for a design that caters to an extreme from of mammonistic commercialism. In regards to design that supports commercial behavior&sbquo differentiation is certainly an ideal way to make design itself a theory of value. The approach of universal design is already and clearly a principle of fundamental thought to eliminate differentiation. The age in which design gains efficacy and effect through differentiation is gone. By comparing differentiation and difference&sbquo design that establishes identity may become clearly visible.

Copyright © 2009 Kazuo KAWASAKI All rights reserved.