Do We Have a Choice In Technology’s Control Over Us?: An Interview With Agata Nowotny

agata-nowotny-mat_pras-arena-design_4n2a3031.jpg, default, Agata Nowotny, photo: Arena Design Press Materials, Do We Have a Choice In Technology’s Control Over Us?: An Interview With Agata Nowotny

#design

Sociologist and design scholar, curator as well as designer explains the impact of technology on design, points out why printing toothbrushes is superfluous and tells us about sensitive producers as well as the second life of plastic.

Anna Cymer: A new apartment block was recently built near the place I live. As the ad has it, the building is ‘smart’ – everything in it is controlled electrically: windows, air conditioning, light; one can even start a coffee machine with a phone. Household goods will likely include refrigerators, which automatically make shopping lists and order groceries for their owners, and hoovers that clean when they find it necessary. Does technology own the things we use and thus takes control over us?

Agata Nowotny: Smart technologies did become popular – it’s true. However, it’s a phenomenon peculiar to a certain group of consumers and part of designers only. We can discuss whether this type of technology enhances class or social differences, but it’s purely utopian to assume that they will be widespread and present in every household. All the more so, because alongside the ‘smart’ house trend arises another, completely opposite one: giving up on technology. Users who understand the negative consequences of the dominance of technology continue to grow; consequently, there are more deliberate technology users, who are more careful in regard to sharing their personal data on the Internet and being online in general. Even today it seems more luxurious to disconnect from technology rather than to use it indiscriminately.

Picture display

standardowy (864px desktop)

photo: Arena Design Press Materials

Picture image

mat_pras-arena-design_4n2a3252.jpg

Discussion about technology shouldn’t then be reduced to wondering whether just anything will be smart, it’s too much of a simplification. Technology should be helping, rather than dominating us. 3D printing is a decent example from the world of design. Not long ago the world was amazed by the possibilities of 3D printing. We wondered if everyone will soon own a 3D printer to make just any object with it, a toothbrush for example. Obviously, this will not happen – it most likely can be done from a technological point of view, but seems completely unnecessary. 3D printing is a great invention, it’s evolving, it serves important and useful purposes, but would we really want to use it on an everyday basis?

AC: The 19th century was the era of steam and electricity – inventions made then completely changed the way we live and work, and, consequently, the world economy and social relations. Will our digital era make history as the one that’s changed the world again?

AN: No doubt we are witnessing a digital revolution. It’s a new era during which social relations and economic phenomena clearly keep on changing, and so is the system of values and the ways of communication and relationship building (in private life, but also on employee to employer and citizen to state levels). Furthermore, it’s difficult to analyse these changes, since they continue to advance, new phenomena keep on coming up too. Take a look at the way that working spaces are organised. At the beginning of the 21st century, we thought a model of the modern office was established – a model that aids professional relations as well as shapes working methods and functioning of a company or business. Now, from the pandemic, we can see that this model will most likely need to be refurbished, we must consider rearranging offices in a new way. What’s important – this doesn’t apply to furnishing only, but also employer to employee and business relations in general, means of cooperation and communication. And, it will all revolve around technologies, the use of which has increased even more since we started working remotely.

AC: It seems as though the evolution that technological progress causes in our lives is so rapid that we don’t even notice it.

AN: I worked with students by conducting lectures and workshops for many years. I gave each of my groups a seemingly easy exercise: every student was to refrain from using digital technologies for a day. It turned out unimaginably difficult; moreover, this exercise required some preparations, for example, one would need to notify family and friends that they won’t be using their phone or social media accounts. Entering the ‘analogue’ world, if only for a while, involved anxiety and difficulties. The experiment was a humbling experience for everyone who took part and revealed surprising conclusions. For example, some of the students had issues with dressing up in the morning, as without checking the forecast on their phones they couldn’t tell if it was going to be warm or cold outside!

Picture display

standardowy (864px desktop)

Exhibition ‘Resources 2. Slow materials’, photo: Arena Design Press Materials

Picture image

mat_pras-arena-design_4n2a2306.jpg

AC: Everyday objects based on technology are often criticised for being addictive, exempting us from thinking, detaching us from ‘the real world’. Is it true, that nothing good results from them and we’re caught in a technological trap? Or are there some advantages after all?

AN: Technology is part of an infrastructure that in itself is neutral – it’s up to us to decide how and why we will use it, what role it’s going to have, or on what scale it will be applied. We should watch ourselves and avoid getting lost in it – although it’s not always easy or apparent. Let me give you another recent example. The pandemic triggered discussions about the limits of control over citizens: about the possibility of tracking them with digital tools and gathering information about them. We ask ourselves: is public health and the well-being of society as a whole more important than individual liberty? Numerous countries collect personal data of any individual that carries out an activity in public spaces, as they enter a restaurant, for example. There are obvious benefits – in case of an outbreak it’s much easier to identify people who were in the area. At the same time, privacy is taken away from us, data about our consumer choices, activities and contacts is collected and may as well be used for less noble causes. But the problem isn’t the technology itself – its inappropriate application is.

AC: The digital revolution has influenced not only users, it has also changed the way designers work, who also gained various helpful tools. To what extent did it change the appearance of items and maybe the designers' imagination?

AN: Indeed, digital tools did help and slightly changed the way designers work, but let’s keep in mind that their job isn’t limited to sketching. It’s equally important that their projects have a connection to reality and can be produced in a fairly simple, rational way.

Meanwhile, regrettably, designers rarely visit producers or manufacturing plants. They don’t expand their knowledge of available production technologies nor about the technical potential of producers. Design isn’t just about invention of an object and giving it a certain visual form. It’s about creating something with regard to technological possibilities, costs and means of production, environmental impact.

New technologies are truly inspiring, but they can’t only serve fantasy. They should be understood in a wider context and used wisely, with benefit for the environment.

AC: The designer-manufacturer relationship is crucial in design, but I get the impression that each party accuses the other of incomprehension and reluctance in cooperation. There is still a lot of work to be done here.

AN: Both designers and producers need inspiration, support, and mutual education. But a change on a deeper, legal, legislative level would also come in handy. There are many enlightened producers and bright designers operating in Poland. They understand present challenges and are responsible in their actions, but unfortunately there are still plenty of companies that produce low quality products, that instantly end up as environment damaging rubbish. If responsible producers were offered lower taxes, perhaps the number of such companies would increase and at the same time more aware designers could have their say. It’s important to support those creators, who are willing to change their mode of operation for the greater good.

AC: Right, abundance of technology results in yet another threat: ecological. We’re fascinated by new electronic devices and we keep on replacing them with even newer ones. Meanwhile, their production and utilisation is an extreme burden for the environment.

Picture display

standardowy (864px desktop)

Exhibition ‘Resources 2. Slow materials’, photo: Arena Design Press Materials

Picture image

mat_pras-arena-design_4n2a3806.jpg

AN: Let me repeat myself: it’s only up to us to decide how we will use those objects. Take the 3D printers for example – just like any other technological device, it can be used in both smart and dumb ways. One can produce tonnes of useless plastic gadgets, which quickly lose their aesthetic value and can’t be recycled, but at the same time, those printers can make revolutionary, exceptionally precise medical implants, which until now couldn’t be produced – not by hand, not by any other machine. It’s all up to us!

Education is particularly important to better understand the possibilities and threats that technology brings. And I don’t even mean the users alone. Changes in the world should be followed by adjustments in the education system for future designers; some producers could also use a different perspective. It’s worth emphasising that they have a magnificent impact on our consumer choices, and their actions can go beyond production and sales. More and more companies have this kind of awareness and decide to imply a complex mode of operation, by combining production and services. Patagonia, producer of outdoor clothing, is a terrific example here. For some time now, the company keeps educating their customers about consumption habits. One of their tag lines goes: ‘Don’t buy this jacket’, which in case of jacket producers, it may appear odd. But the aim is to encourage consumers to take good care of their clothing so it can be used for as long as possible. If, however, anything should happen to the jacket it can be sent to the producer, who will fix and return the same jacket, thus reducing the need of buying another. Furthermore, the company analysed its carbon footprint caused by the sending and resending of jackets. It turned out to be lower than what the manufacturing of a new item would cause.

The meaning of the word ‘design’ is changing before our eyes. It’s no longer about designing and producing newer and newer objects. Those days are gone. It’s now equally important to create services, respect already existing objects and understand their origin, history and way of production.

AC: You focused on ‘the backstage’ of the creation process in your exhibition cycle ‘Resources’, presented during the Arena Design fair in Poznań and during the Łódź Design Festival. The exhibition had two editions so far.

AN: I believe that it’s incredibly important to know how things are made, what materials are used, in what way, at what cost, but so is understanding what happens to things when we no longer want to use them; it may help us live in a slightly better world.

During the first edition of Resources, presented in 2019, we showed basic materials and the way certain things are made out of them. It was particularly valuable that the exhibition was carried out on a design fair, where the final product – object – is principal. We’ve managed to place the booths and their displays in a context and show how those attractive articles are made. Vetting things has always been interesting to me – I’m a sociologist, I like to analyse and crack reality, and for years I’ve been inspecting products, trying to find out the time it takes to make them, what they’re made of, whether they are machine or man-made, how time and cost-consuming production is, what competences are required to make them. Each object can give away a lot of such details, it’s worth training ourselves to notice those details. I believe it’s an important consumer competence, particularly critical nowadays when we should act to protect our planet. We can learn to assess things we’d like to buy. Be guided not only by their beauty, but also durability and quality, also take into account how much water was used during production, how labour-consuming production was, how many different materials were used, whether this object could be easily recycled.

Picture display

standardowy (864px desktop)

Agata Nowotny, photo: Arena Design Press Materials

Picture image

mat_pras-arena-design_4n2a2645.jpg

In fact, the second edition of Resources evolved around the second life of things. We showed the production of plastic from recycled materials, from the leftovers of other products. Because recycling is possible and doesn’t need to be difficult, given that we aid it a little, for example, by buying products made from the least amount of materials. Because only then packaging and the object itself can be processed again. The lower the number of materials, the easier it is to separate them and thus the higher the chance for actual recycling.

This sensitivity towards materials and production processes can be a hobby, but it can also serve a greater cause – positive environmental impact. It would be handy if products had labels, just like clothes do, with information about fabric composition, proper care instructions. Objects could be tagged with information like source and composition of materials, production costs. It would be great if we could learn, for example, how much water was used during production of a particular object and whether it could be recycled. We should be aware of the fact that the life of an object doesn’t start when we take it off a shelf and doesn’t end when we throw it into a bin.

Translated from Polish by Agata Dudek-Woyke.

Language English

agata nowotny

new technologies

polish design

Culture.pl Interviews