categories
archives
rss

Shock and Awe: the politics of production

It has been six years since 9/11 and ten since the publication of the right-wing thesis ‘Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance’. This is the book that acted as a conceptual sound-bite for framing the technique and technology needed for bombing people – a lot. In the aftermath of 9/11, the off-the-peg response in design consumption was a proliferation of Khaki, camouflage and an upturn in the sale of Humvees and SUV’s in general. Now, the shock and awe mantra has fed into an ‘age of anxiety’ and a ‘culture of fear’ in the psyche of much of the West.

Design’s response has been the creation of an aesthetic of shock and awe – witnessed in a wide range of design from Philip Stark’s machine gun lamp, through Front Design’s bomb blast chair, to advertising like the ad for Audi in which a car explodes in a western financial district. As the fragments of the blast hit the side of the skyscapers they reform into the words Vorsprung durch Technik (progress through technology)- a tag line as relevant to the advert’s creation by CGI as the zeitgeist of shock and awe. (This add had its darker doppelganger in the viral advertisement depicting a ‘terrorist’ detonating a bomb whilst sitting inside a Volkeswagon Polo).

Clearly, design and designers have had time to reflect and synthesis the cultural maelstrome since 9/11. CGI, Rapid Prototyping and ingenuity have allowed designers to quickly respond to any cultural situation. The original Shock and Awe essay states four characteristics are needed for its implication: ‘total knowledge, control of the environment, rapidity, and brilliance in execution.’ An example of this, in its most corporate form, is the mp3 phenomena and design’s response – an invasion spearheaded by the hardware of the ipod but backed up by an infantry of advertising, graphic design and moving image whilst co-ordinated with itunes software. It was a classic shock and awe scenario.

There are, however, other examples that might sit more comfortably with a traditional leftist cultural critique. Philippe Stark created a range of lighting for Flos based around gold plated guns. The most oft cited is the one which uses a Kalashnikov as its up-stand but the fall range includes a Beretta bedside lamp and a M16 table lamp. The lighting range can be seen as a bizarre Stark media event until you understand the inspiration for his idea – a cache of arms found in a Saddam Hussein Palace where each weapon was gold plated. In this context Stark’s lamps, with their black lampshades representing death, reflect the world back to us - now through the prism of the commodified object. Front Design, a product design practice based in Stockholm, in Design made in 0.4 seconds have produced a soft lounge chair: cast from a crater created by a literal explosion orchestrated by the designers themselves. Based at the Sandburg Institute, Remco Swart has designed wall tiles which perform a simple decorative function whilst their kaleidoscopic motif is made up of war imagery; men in gas masks, a woman holding a baby – itself a stock image that could be from Iraq, Palestine or any other war-torn news event. Dutch design partnership Viktor & Rolf have, in conjunction with l’Oréal, produced the perfume Flowerbomb which is presented in a bottle shaped like a hand grenade, replete with PIN. The duo have been quoted as saying their intention was to produce a scent both ‘romantic and aggressive’ whilst remaining ‘explosive but also kind of innocent’.

Suck:UK have made a gun-shaped white vase with the barrel acting as a flute, complete with red rose. However irreverent, this can’t be separated from the anti-war photograph of a young woman confronting a Home Guard soldier during the Vietnam protests by inserting a flower into the barrel of his gun. The original image is now either on museum walls or in coffee-table books and has arguably lost its critical power. What the gun vase might do is re-invigorate some of the issues the gun/flower image raises, but in a personal context. In contrast to the more didactic dialogues of, say, a political poster that simplifies things to right and wrong, Suck:UK’s design leaves the emphasis on the individual’s interpretation. For instance, in America, most people buying it are parents with children who are rediscovering Guns’n’Roses music. This illustrates how prescriptive readings of the vase’s ‘meaning’ are of limited use for understanding design in a live environment. So, shock and awe can manifest itself in the pimped Humvee and in designer eulogies to the sixties. These may be consumed politically and not.

A world of designs inspired by shock and awe may, to some, appear to reinforce the message of irreverent, sanitised, glamorised violence or muscular right-wing thinking. It’s assumed that this ‘criticality’ would need to come from a position outside (and a bit to the left) of consumer culture. We argue that when designers reflect our culture back to us like this, this visual re-interpretation allows discussion – not in the Oval office, but starting in the consumer’s living room.

Colin + Monika

Originally published in Blueprint Magazine 2005

 

12 comments

What has all this got to do with design? Have you considered joining the Socialist Workers’party? It all sounds a bit 1970s. Do try to see the major exhibition at the Pearson Gallery: Breaking the rules: the printed face of the European Avant Garde 1900-1937. British Library 9 Nov 07 to Mar 30 08. There have been some very good ‘right-wing’ artists and designers even if you do not like their politics. Can’t think of any more to make up the 200 words.

/Alan Beardmore 24/09/2007

 

No one is in doubt that there are some ‘right-wing’ artists and designers who are massively important …even if that’s not how they would necessarily choose to define themselves. I haven’t seen Breaking the Rules yet, but the dates 1900-1937 promise important Italian Futurist work, the frisson of which comes from muscular and mechanised war.

Instead, the remit of product and furniture design been somewhat softer, more cushioned if you like, with its emphasis on aesthetics not provocation - which is why the shock and awe aesthetic is worth remarking on. With this kind of design, what’s particularly interesting isn’t just what’s intended – thoughtful and self-conscious practice isn’t the whole story, let alone the preserve of any particular group – but the use/effect that design might have in an everyday – ‘live’ – environment. Here, as we try to show, the way people use and experience design often has little or nothing to do with original intentions. In this realm, as is suggested in the article, prescribed ideas about what is ‘right/wrong’ or what things might mean’ aren’t helpful.

**

An argument I often hear is that war drives technological development, so whilst people (particularly those that are anti-war) might decry war we are all very comfortable with its innovations be it the Jeep, Humvee, snorkel or anaesthetic. This summer I came across another one as my daughter’s cut foot was being ‘super-glued’ together in A&E. I kept wondering if it was the type we have in our cupboard at home with ‘BONDS SKIN AND EYES IN SECONDS: KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN’ in capital letters. I later heard that super-glue, indeed, was invented during the Vietnam War so soldiers could literally be glued together on the battlefield – vital seconds in a man’s life if you think of them waiting for stitches.

At one level, there is obviously a difference between a gun designed to be light, ergonomic and comfortable, and anaesthetic developed for another kind of ‘comfort’. However, what they have in common is the stripped-down methodology that is driven by conflict.

Professor Ezri Tarazi, a designer and theorist practicing in Telaviv has called this ‘right design’. He was talking at the conference Loaded Design: Militarism and warfare reality and its effects on the design world in Israel last year which Colin and I attended - after the Shock and Awe article - and wrote some of these thoughts on, later. ‘Right-design’ has nothing to do with ‘right wing’ – or ‘left wing’ for that matter. For Tarzi, a classic example of right-design is the jeep which is built around need – a ‘form follows function’ methodology.

In another talk on the same day, an affirmative translation of military design principles into the everyday was brilliantly demonstrated by ex-military designer Efi Hogesta. His XMART motorcycle disc lock turned the approach of the battlefield - improvisation, economy of means - to the pragmatics of fighting crime. Here, the owner removes the pedal and clicks it, as a lock, into the bike’s wheel - immobilising the bike twice over.

It’s the form-follows-function methodology that Tarazi argues – and this is a crucial difference - is lost in the cycle of design aesthetics that takes a Hummer from the battle fields to 5th Avenue …and the aesthetic of Shock and Awe we speak of.

/Monika 28/09/2007

 

Alan, I am not sure what you are trying to say here – what exactly is your point? Are you addressing the article or some perceived notion of a ‘leftist’ designer? Quoting the Socialist Workers Party is a jibe used by both the Right and Left in the UK. If I am reading the article correctly – and this seems to be the gist of Monika’s comments above – the political aspect is pretty immaterial. What is worth discussing, and this article goes some way to address this, is how design can reflect cultural mores and the warp and weft of the political/cultural landscape. Art has a tradition of avant-gardism (the politics of which is usually inconsequential – it is its oppositional stance which is most important). A tradition, which is less easily definable in a wider design/craft/applied-arts context but this article, seems to point up areas where there might be a shift in position, where a conscious attempt by ‘designers’ to address the culture they work within in a more complex, and investigative manner. Opposition, from this perspective, is created via a mirroring of the day-to-day of our lives in the material outcomes of design – lampshades, vases etc. The validity of this observation (and the work itself) is perhaps a moot point and I think you could argue the authors provide a pretty idealistic snapshot of the reality of contemporary product design. But, calling upon the disenfranchised ultra-left as way of criticising the piece is, I think, a petty cheap shot. Furthermore, calling upon posters from the 1930s as relevant to today I find bizarre or at least inconsequential to the piece.

/Nicky 29/09/2007

 

Oh dear. You shouldn’t write about ‘the disenfranchised ultra-left, Nicky. I think the disenfranchised left disenfranchised itself! All those dreary decades: worker detainees, empty shops, ‘heroic’ art and sculpture, ‘fascist’ architecture - I could go on. Anyonr for a Trabbant!?? Posters and graphics from the ‘thirties are absolutely relevant today. They say more than just wordsmithing. Aircraft, or for that matter guns, are a good example of form following function and always example elegance if you view it from a non-political standpoint. This is one area where the ultra-left were able to continue a dynamic aesthetic. Don’t forget that we all owe our jobs ( and standard of living) to ‘consumerist’ activities. Art and design cannot flourish in totalitarian regimes.

/Alan Beardmore 06/10/2007

 

At the show ‘Art and Power’ years ago at the Hayward gallery in London, it was shown that art and poster design - if not product design? - has been precisely at some of its most powerful under totalitarian regimes. Here, it is often the friction of opposition which generates heat (Picasso’s Guernica for example) or the passion of revolution (early Russian Constructivism). In the first, there is something to fight against, in the second there is the need to find a new language. Both demand/generate not only powerful messages but creative forms. Later Russian work, forced into the Soviet Realism mode, lost any sense of either.

It’s this condition of the self-conscious search for new languages/new forms that is really at the heart of what seems to run through this whole thread - be it the original discussion of guns as upstand lamps or the return to the Avant-garde.

In Eastern Europe animation has always been a political tool precisely because its generally held status as ‘cartoons for kids’ allowed for the metaphorical stories within it to bypass the censor’s pen. In Western Europe and America in particular, in this same period, animation is generally agreed to have stagnated - its potential strangled by the totalitarian hold on it that the marque of ultra-consumerism that is Disney - has had. It is only in the last ten years that, arguably, animation has re-emerged again in the West as an important and dynamic art form.

/Ruth Ellery 10/10/2007

 

Ruth, Picasso, the constructivists and of course many of the composers and writers all fled the dictators to operate in more hedonistic ‘consumerist’ regimes - so they don’t count in this debate. As far as Disney is concerned, you seem to mention him with a pejorative undertone but perhaps that is because he is American? Some of Disney’s early hand-drawn work was quite brilliant; and please remember that Disney has brought a great deal of pleasure to generations of children, no mean feat. How much pleasure do pickled sharks and plantinum skulls bring to anyone except the ‘artist’? No new language or forms there!

/Alan Beardmore 13/10/2007

 

Hmmm…“discussion…in the consumer’s living room”…is not really discussion, but rather market research.

/Marcus 24/10/2007

 

If you have not already seen and you are in the area…
Weapons of Mass Communication: War Posters
http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/posters/default.htm

/Marcus 24/10/2007

 

Is there anyone here that can tell me in which edition of Blueprint Magazine in 2005 this article was published? I went through all editions of 2005 but couldn’t find anything….

/Yvette 19/06/2008

 

Sorry to take so long…
‘Shocking or Awesome?’ in Blueprint, February 2006, p82 and a longer version was published as ‘Design Under the Gun’ in ID magazine, February 2006, pp92-99.

/Monika and Colin 05/11/2008

 

In November 2009 we released the book ‘Limited Language: Rewriting Design: Responding to a feedback culture’ which re-engaged with this original post.

For more on the book as a whole: http://bit.ly/bookcomments

/Colin + Monika 15/11/2009

 

And Design Magazine reports on rings made from bullets in an Israel design school: http://www.dezeen.com/2010/04/02/rings-by-adi-zaffran-weisler/

/Monika 12/04/2010

 

write a comment

we encourage people to recycle your comments in their own research as we may collage them into our own writing with the aim to publish the resulting articles (any post eventually used will be credited). We encourage comments to be 200 words or more.

line and paragraph breaks automatic. e-mail address will never be displayed. html allowed: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>