In 2004, John Heskett became a professor of design at the Design School of the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong. It’s a decision that Heskett, whose authoritative books on the history of design have been translated in many languages, has not regretted since.
Last week he was in Delft to lecture at the TU’s Faculty of Industrial Design.
According to British designer John Heskett, the ability to design is one of the key activities that defines us as human beings. “Penguins don’t wake up one day and say, ‘I’m sick of this black and white thing, I’m going to think up something else,'” Heskett told a large student audience last Friday.
In your last book, ‘Toothpicks and Logos: design in everyday life‘, you wrote that many designers are more interested in their own artistic vision than in the users’ needs.
“Yes, there are still a lot of designers who consider themselves artists.”
Is that a bad thing?
“I think so. An artist primarily produces something for himself or herself, and I have no problem with that. When I look at a painting and I don’t like it, I can walk away. You can’t do that with a car seat that is so badly designed that it hurts your back.”
But some of the designs you criticize in your book are commercially successful.
“Well, they may be profitable, and I don’t want to prevent any designer from doing what he likes to do most. But it’s a shame that so many designers are only designing for the wealthiest ten percent of the world population. What about the rest of the world? Those people don’t need cutting edge technology, but rather cheap, well-proven design, adapted creatively to their needs. I really think there are huge business opportunities there.”
You stress in your book that there is no such thing as a globally successful design, because cultural values can be so different.
“There’s the example of the company that tried to introduce their washing machines to India. Unfortunately, they had not taken into account that in India, the electricity and the water supply are sometimes cut off. Their washing machines were useless there. As a designer in a global market, you have to be aware of such differences.”
Why did you leave the United States in 2004 for Hong Kong?
“When you make a big change like that, there’s always a push and a pull. The push was an increasing sense of unhappiness of being in the United States. It had a lot to with the Bush administration – that whole stream of nationalism and neo-conservative ideology. My wife is an American, and even she said: we have to get out of here.
The Institute for Design in Chicago is part of a private university and there was no money for development and research. I didn’t see myself working there for the rest of my life.
But why Hong Kong?
“I have a connection with Hong Kong, going back to 1982. I went there the first time to advise on a degree course in design at the polytechnic. It’s a dynamic place. And Hong Kong is free, compared to the mainland. It’s not a democracy, but the people there are very protective of their liberties. There have been big demonstrations against some of the [Chinese government’s] new policies, and it’s mainly young professionals who are demonstrating: teachers, doctors, lawyers. Some of those people told me they were taking their children to the demonstration. When I asked: ‘Isn’t that a bit dangerous?’, they said: ‘No, it’s a chance for us to show to our children what it means to have these freedoms and how to protect them.'”
Do you think China is moving slowly towards democracy?
“Not necessarily. I don’t even know whether the Chinese have the capacity to structure a democracy in the same sense as the West. A substantial part of the Chinese economy is privatized, but even now the government has enormous influence on the industry. I think 30 percent of the workforce is still working for the state. And the control of the communist party is not going to be being given away quickly or easily. But they’re facing a dilemma. How do you get greater economic effectiveness, which, in the end, depends on an ability to think differently, when you do not allow anybody to think differently in the political or social sphere? Can you say: ‘Ok, guys, let’s be innovative, but let’s not ask any questions that could change society or politics?’ I don’t know how they are going to solve that one.”
Is the design school in Hong Kong very different from its western counterparts?
“Not really: I’ve got colleagues from the United States, Italy, France, Germany, Australia…. We still greatly rely on Chinese students at the moment, but our aim is to recruit more international students. There is traditionally a huge respect for education in China, and yes, there is some difficulty in getting students to loosen up, to be prepared to ask more questions. Because to question a teacher is impolite, presumptuous. As a chairman professor, which in Chinese translates as master professor, I get enormous respect. But the pressure is upon me to deserve that respect. You can be quite relaxed with the students, but you have to maintain a standard of professional behavior.”
You’re not planning to leave Hong Kong any time soon?
“(laughs) Well, I’m 68 years old, and that’s a bit old to be starting a new chapter. But I think one day we will go back to Europe.”
Professor John Heskett.
According to British designer John Heskett, the ability to design is one of the key activities that defines us as human beings. “Penguins don’t wake up one day and say, ‘I’m sick of this black and white thing, I’m going to think up something else,'” Heskett told a large student audience last Friday.
In your last book, ‘Toothpicks and Logos: design in everyday life‘, you wrote that many designers are more interested in their own artistic vision than in the users’ needs.
“Yes, there are still a lot of designers who consider themselves artists.”
Is that a bad thing?
“I think so. An artist primarily produces something for himself or herself, and I have no problem with that. When I look at a painting and I don’t like it, I can walk away. You can’t do that with a car seat that is so badly designed that it hurts your back.”
But some of the designs you criticize in your book are commercially successful.
“Well, they may be profitable, and I don’t want to prevent any designer from doing what he likes to do most. But it’s a shame that so many designers are only designing for the wealthiest ten percent of the world population. What about the rest of the world? Those people don’t need cutting edge technology, but rather cheap, well-proven design, adapted creatively to their needs. I really think there are huge business opportunities there.”
You stress in your book that there is no such thing as a globally successful design, because cultural values can be so different.
“There’s the example of the company that tried to introduce their washing machines to India. Unfortunately, they had not taken into account that in India, the electricity and the water supply are sometimes cut off. Their washing machines were useless there. As a designer in a global market, you have to be aware of such differences.”
Why did you leave the United States in 2004 for Hong Kong?
“When you make a big change like that, there’s always a push and a pull. The push was an increasing sense of unhappiness of being in the United States. It had a lot to with the Bush administration – that whole stream of nationalism and neo-conservative ideology. My wife is an American, and even she said: we have to get out of here.
The Institute for Design in Chicago is part of a private university and there was no money for development and research. I didn’t see myself working there for the rest of my life.
But why Hong Kong?
“I have a connection with Hong Kong, going back to 1982. I went there the first time to advise on a degree course in design at the polytechnic. It’s a dynamic place. And Hong Kong is free, compared to the mainland. It’s not a democracy, but the people there are very protective of their liberties. There have been big demonstrations against some of the [Chinese government’s] new policies, and it’s mainly young professionals who are demonstrating: teachers, doctors, lawyers. Some of those people told me they were taking their children to the demonstration. When I asked: ‘Isn’t that a bit dangerous?’, they said: ‘No, it’s a chance for us to show to our children what it means to have these freedoms and how to protect them.'”
Do you think China is moving slowly towards democracy?
“Not necessarily. I don’t even know whether the Chinese have the capacity to structure a democracy in the same sense as the West. A substantial part of the Chinese economy is privatized, but even now the government has enormous influence on the industry. I think 30 percent of the workforce is still working for the state. And the control of the communist party is not going to be being given away quickly or easily. But they’re facing a dilemma. How do you get greater economic effectiveness, which, in the end, depends on an ability to think differently, when you do not allow anybody to think differently in the political or social sphere? Can you say: ‘Ok, guys, let’s be innovative, but let’s not ask any questions that could change society or politics?’ I don’t know how they are going to solve that one.”
Is the design school in Hong Kong very different from its western counterparts?
“Not really: I’ve got colleagues from the United States, Italy, France, Germany, Australia…. We still greatly rely on Chinese students at the moment, but our aim is to recruit more international students. There is traditionally a huge respect for education in China, and yes, there is some difficulty in getting students to loosen up, to be prepared to ask more questions. Because to question a teacher is impolite, presumptuous. As a chairman professor, which in Chinese translates as master professor, I get enormous respect. But the pressure is upon me to deserve that respect. You can be quite relaxed with the students, but you have to maintain a standard of professional behavior.”
You’re not planning to leave Hong Kong any time soon?
“(laughs) Well, I’m 68 years old, and that’s a bit old to be starting a new chapter. But I think one day we will go back to Europe.”
Professor John Heskett.
Comments are closed.