Excluded

Our lecturers don't directly tell us to follow western design-traditions, but they also don't encourage us to reflect around the fact that almost everything we're exposed to is heavily rooted in western design-history and aesthetics. We have put on critical glasses of our own education, and we set requirements to our own practice. Have we, as Norwegian students, an underlying bias to what "good" design is? We look to our own studies, and exemplify our own curriculum, lectures and other academic relevant material that support our reflection: is western¹ design-principles dominating our education?

 

It's important to note that we're not against western design-influence. We as students are also critical to our own biases and subconscious norms, how our own practices and opinions are formed and expressed. Concern is clearly necessary when other references and influences are excluded from our education. When we look at how non-western examples are spoken about in an academic context, these examples are shown as less important, despite a big part of the design-world being non-western design.

​

When non-western design is finally mentioned, it's often used as historical references or shown as examples of "primitive influence" that later have developed into a "modern" expression. A clear example of this is found in our lecture about written language in our first semester, where we see the evolution of letters and such - from simple, hand-drawn symbols to what today is considered to be "modern" written language. This evolution is often presented as linear and western-centric, something that overlooks the importance of concurrent, non-western written languages and design-traditions.

​​

This excerpt from the textbook Tyografi og skrift (Typography and font) (2005) by Øyvin Rannem, that is used in our first semester of our education. Already on page 17 he writes: "Det kinesiske skriftspråket er et høyt utviklet bildespråk, med omkring 60 000 tegn. Mange tror at kineserne har et primitivt skriftspråk og at det nærmest er et utviklingsmessig sidespor som kineserne ikke har klart å komme seg ut av. Men forklaringen ligger nok snarere i noen spesielle egenskaper ved det kinesiske talespråket." ("The Chinese written language is a highly developed imagery, with about 60 000 symbols. Many believe that the Chinese have a primitive written language, and that it is practically a developmental sidetrack that the Cinese haven't managed to get out of. But the explanation is much more likely in the special characteristics of the Chinese spoken language." translated by Silje Stomperudhaugen) (Rannem 2005, 17) Even if this excerpt is meant as an explanation and a rendering of a prejudice, it comes across as problematic in the way it's presented. Who are "many"? Where does this claim come from? The next two sentences in the same paragraph makes it more problematic.

​

​"Svært mange kinesiske stavelser består kun av én lyd, ett fonem – kineserne uttrykker svært mange av sine begreper med bare én lyd, altså tilsvarende våre fonemer. Det høres bokstavelig talt halsbrekkende ut – det er umulig å skape like mange ulike lydnyanser som man har begreper." ("Very many Chinese syllables consists of just one sound, a phoneme - the Chinese express a lot of their terms with just one sound, i.e. equivalent to our phonemes. It literally sounds neck breaking - it's impossible to create as many different sound-nuances as we have terms." translated by Silje Stomperudhaugen)  (Rannem 2005, 17). It's important to note we're not against Rannem, but we react to the use of such language in our curriculum, especially when it's unnecessary to understand the subject and theme. To meet these kinds of statements early in our education can be experienced as excluding, especially for students with a Chinese background. For Chinese people the Chinese written- and spoken language is an important part of their identity, in the same way a lot of Norwegians are proud of their dialects. When such statements are presented in curriculum without any references, it affects what we as students learns to appreciate, and what we subconsciously learn to ignore. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

We have gone through lectures from past subjects and mapped out who has been credited. Out of those credited, 458 are western designers/studios², while only six are non-western designers, and out of these four are Japanese. Half of these non-western designers were used in a historical context, and often used as a segue for the development of western design. This points to an underlying structure in our education, where non-western design gets a marginal role. When there's this scarce representation of non-western designers/design and in such a narrow context, it's experienced not as a real integration of diverse perspectives, but rather like a forgotten point on a checklist. This statistic amplifies our statement: Western design-principles are not just dominating, they are the norm, while everything else appears as deviations or supplementary material.

​

In the book Design Struggles there's an excerpt that builds on exactly this. It says: "Historically, western design as a professional and academic field has been a narrow and exclusive domain that often imagines itself as universal.” (Maries og Paim 2021, 11). This excerpt refers to the fact that western design has had the power to decide what has been seen as "right" and "universal" design, because it has, throughout history, been able to establish itself as the norm. Other cultures contributions have been ignored and seen as sources of inspiration, instead of being equated in the design-field. The book mentions further that if we're going to challenge this power-dynamic, history needs to be changed. History has to be re-written to make space for diversity and non-western perspectives.

​

After reviewing this critique vi feel it's necessary to point how homogenous much of what we learn is. There's little representation in our education, and we feel in hindsight that we have been poorly informed about what styles of design we learn about at school. Vi have been shaped to believe that western design is the only right thing, because we haven't been taught anything else. Because of this we believe we should have the opportunity to think critically earlier, so that we can be conscious of our own biases in design. We have been too little exposed to other design-angles/-practices and vi believe this can lead to a bias for what "good" design actually is. We wish that those who study the same as us get the chance to expand their knowledge, to get a more diverse perspective on design, and develop a greater understanding on the design-world. ​We believe this will create more and better possibilities for every designer.

​

Footnotes: 1. In this text we define western design as design-styles, directions and traditions that derives from Europe and North America. Especially design that focuses on functionalism and minimalism. 2. For this statistic we have checked every designer/studio, and checked both their origin and design-style. We have counted all those with a western design-style, and/or those whos origin is Europe, USA, Canada and Australia.

​​

 

Sources:

• Maries, Claudia and Nina Paim. 2021. Design struggles: intersecting histories, pedagogies, and perspectives. Amsterdam: Valiz.

• Rannem, Øyvin. 2005. Typografi og skrift. Oslo: abstrakt forl.