DESIGN FOR UTOPIASA method evaluation

Before a response to designing for utopias can be made I would first compartmentalise how I think the notion of utopia should be approached. Utopias can be divided into these subgroups; Fictitious utopias, reality utopias, potential utopias, personal utopias, societal utopias, political utopias, and cultural utopias. They are all respectively utopias in their intended outcome, however their intentions, direc-tions and outcomes differ to accommodate their motive. in essence they are the manifestation of their individual personal, societal or hedonistic motivations.

FICTITIOUS UTOPIASSegregating the utopias into individual desires allows us to deconstruct the reasoning behind them. The more in-spe-cific the inclination the more interesting the prospective manifesto. A fictitious utopia needs no physical realisation, it can merely be the notion, intention and will of a desire that can be used as the proposed perfection. The futur-ist manifesto1 was a written piece of polemic, vicious and persuasive, that could not be taken seriously to the gen-eral populace but to garner momentum, progression and cultural evolution. A proposal needs to be exaggerated to have worth in garnering support or appeal towards the intended goal, whereby the intention is not what is asked, but actually the ability to conceive of such a reality. This use of hyperbole and polemic encourages motivation through non literal means.

Within the futurist movement, plans were made, and these acted as schematic representations that fuelled interest. Antonia Sant’elia produced Città Nuova (New City) a col-lection of works that excite and provoke. Prampolini of the futurist movement remarked “everything they declare in their manifestos and express in their work is false.. because it is not of their making…” 1 but that would not hold them back, designing for a future didn’t require the absence of publicity.

The metaphorical paradigm of architecture works more or less on every level in relation to its application to other devices. Within the constructs of a linear and finite drawing,

a planned haven can be accommodated for, measured and mathematically accounted for. The best example for the indulgent use of the schematic in design terms is Archigram2, the obsolete, futurist, avant-garde architec-tural group formed in the 1960’s. Their aim was not to formulate a working model for society, something argu-ably impossible by a single group but to focus on the pro-gression ideas in a solipsistic manner, to place full intention on the outcome in it’s gravity. It worked as an art form, from their drawings one could envisage their intent, from the gratuity of glamorous outcomes one could relate the evocative notion that was being hinted to.

Enrst Bloch’s “objective’ from ‘The spirit of utopia’ is unmatched in its simplicity and truncated penetration to the heart of the matter and a paragon of fictitious written schematic. Opening with ‘I am. We are. that is enough, Now we have to begin. Life has been put into our hands.’3

He writes rousingly, acting on grounds of egalitarianism, compassion and rendering of humanity as a whole. Like the futurist manifesto he speaks of ‘the vitally formative consciousness of the future , of the city, of the collective’.4

Looking at Janis Rucins’ a roof is a roof is a roof5, one can envisage the potential for over indulgence in the notion of designing for a time when anything is possible due to limitless materials yet nothing is required to be actualised. It works as a utopia by deferring the hindrances imposed by the brief and accounting for the needs of a future, specialised class. In the project the idea of a proposed in-verted world is designed for, accounting for the needs of the new populace, and mocked to allow a visualisation of what might be. The notion of a utopia is not only hinted at, it is preordained in its presentation.

There are arguments for and against the designing for utopias. If you design for a confined utopia there is the possibility of an idealised outcome. For a non-confined base there is a need for responses in intervention that allow for a higher society to arise. The assumption of alternate utopias is confirmed by the utopian paradox “to appeal to everyone on the basis of universal principles is to appeal to no one in particular”6 thus a need for a confinement, or a focus on a certain type of person, or a removal of a part of the populace. This last notion is referred to in Foucaults heterotopia principle7, as the ele-ment of society removed or marginalised to make way for a proposed ideal society to arise.

REALITY UTOPIAS“The transformation of a physical environment is the out-ward sign of an inner transformation of a social structure” - Le corbusier

The ideals of the early urban pioneers; Corbusier, Howard and Wright were summed up by their collective hopes. Although they’re outcomes were dispersed and encour-aged yet limited by personal involvement, they all had a dream of a physicality that would dispel problems and symbolise a change. When creating tangible fabrications it is necessary to think big, even if the actions were minimal.

Realities come as impressions of utopia, or hints at. They can be fully fledged complete examples such as Brasila, or Ebenezer Howard’s garden cities of Letchworth and Wel-wyn. Or they can be seen as small displays with intention; look at the use of skyscrapers as metaphors for wealth and success, Le Corbusier referring to them as a ‘street in the air which would permit intensive urban densities while eliminating the soulless streets of the old city’8 - not a utopia in itself, merely a building - but a devise for inciting utopian thought or action. Giving the impression of change and progression was implemented highly in the futurist regime and relates back to the previous category of fictitious utopias.

Power and timeliness combine often to present a form of implied social change. Ecclesiastical architecture of the middle ages operated under omnipotence of form, intending unity. It symbolised the gestures echoed within the buildings, that of solidarity through communion.

Designing for a domestic utopia could be likened to designing for a luxury class, seeing as products in such a place would be utilitarian, unglamorous and universal. Why design for a domestic utopia if the result will be seen as opulence and defy the class which it fits into? When unnecessary commodities are introduced the po-tency and validity of the argument are lessened. Philippe Starck’s ‘juicy salif ’9 transcended the notion of functionality and at once encompassed an idea of implied symbolism whilst echoing redundancy. Starck himself admitting “My juicer is not meant to squeeze lemons; it is meant to start conversations” the use of the device is lost to the aesthet-ics, whereby the comfort of domesticity can allow for

purely indulgent design, unremarkable in other contexts, visionary with an intention.

In Orwell’s 198410, power was used to control the media and the timing was (although faked and manipulated) implied to garner fear and resolution from the populace. The city was realised and - in this case dystopia - was invoked by designing of simplified symbols. The towering ministries acting as totems of control, designed not for beauty of particularly functionality but for presence, and to be at stark odds to the rest of the skyline. The branded food and gin, insidious in its basic nature, resembling mod-ern value ranges, cold and without comfort, and bereft of choice the decision was always to endure it, rendering the user aware of his/her conscious participation in the morale diminishing act.

Perhaps then, it must be easier to design for oppression, for the dystopian future. For when designing for control it is much easier to know what people don’t want. The futurists, the modernists, the city beautiful movement all wanted to create something everyone wanted. Socialists, marxists et al, wanted the same thing, perhaps with less tangible physicalisation of the proposed outcome. An example of a cinematographic reality (a fictitious reality) utopia is ‘It’s a wonderful life’11 The context is a veritable utopia; idealised characters, warm and comfort-ing family circumstances, and a over-reliance on morality within a fairly uncorrupt infrastructure. Even thought the presence of evil in the character of Henry Potter it serves only to encourage the morality of George Bailey and cement his position as a model of honest accomplish-ment, acting as a sort of socialist metaphor, each character holding a position of determination and preventing a alternate outcome (that is explored in the notion of Bailey’s psuedo-death). For this to exist not only fair and logical but evil and greedy must be in place to nurture the requirements for stability.

POTENTIAL UTOPIASPotential utopias present themselves as isolated spaces, advertised havens and dreamlike glories, intended to seem as perfected as plausible and manipulated to garner the perception of grandeur whilst removed from the problems of the the masses. Through the ages this paradigm has been used. Early air travel was replete with the implied removal and ostracisation of the passenger, or user, from the outside world. It befitted the context of that form (and subsequent forms) of mass public transportation to exacerbate the notion of detachment from problems. In a design sense it was designed to be perceived as a abstraction, desired exactly because of its incomprehensibility. Similarly airships, helicopters and such have been treated in similar ways. Symbolically, there is proof discerned in the act of being above all, in looking down, in being in a metal fuselage far from the earth. Metaphorically the act of throwing oneself into the air and skipping over the ground is a figurative semiology feast, abundant with ideas of elevation, intellectualism and esotericism.

PERSONAL, POLITICAL, SOCIETAL, CULTURAL.Groups and communities isolated from the mainstream have always appeared in social conscious. Hippie collec-tives, spiritual groups, eco-communities, truth camps even, all have triggered a sense of separation, of unenlightened and forward thinking. Where once thinking ecologically was a mere hindrance to the progression in development of industry, of garnering most attention to a great feat or achievement like as examples of industrialisation.

Political allegiances can influence the individuals ability to comprehend or account for the existence of utopias, and the need to plan for it. Whilst a conservative might not see progressively to a time when a need to prepare and design (in a political sense) a liberal might always be wait-ing, and mentally accounted for in such a case. Slavoj Zizek argues that the utopia is in all liberals to an extent in his study “the liberal utopia” he supposes that the notion of utopias is linked to the liberal’s manifesto that “there is an element to liberalism that contains utopias” 12 however this becomes a negative when he explains “the wish to submit people to an ethical ideal which is supposed to be

universal is a crime… it amounts to the brutal imposition of ones view onto others, and it causes civil disorder.” 12 Although a necessity to the ideal, it becomes clouded in oppression. To design in a time when an ethical ideal is imposed on the populace (the fictitious utopia of liberal-ism, as it were) would be intensely limited and regulated to that of Orwell’s 1984.

There it is implicit that Zizek is calling for moderation. He continues to talk about the extrapolation of the ideal of liberalism “we just need laws that limit or regulate our interaction. laws should be as neutral ethically as possible.” giving a brief for which an interpretation could be made. This gives way to a more lenient design aspect where conditions are such that minimal alteration can be used. In this kind of future a culture of slight intervention and reserved modification could be the equivalent great achievements of the age, as industrialised wonders of the 19th century were to that society. It is reminiscent of the book ‘company’ by Maxx Barry. A fictitious company is borne out of the need to perfect the strategy of a perfect business, therefore shifting the purpose of the company not to that of a money making endeavour but to that of a subtle scientific observation; the intent being not fiscal worth (at least not in the short term) but small revi-sions of functionality, leading to a more efficient and fully realised working model.

Foucault writes about ‘heterotopia’ as an alternate description of a utopia, acting as either a perceived ren-dering for an idea of a utopia or the satellite reactions of a programme to allow a utopia to occur, a transgression to a universal. For example, in a model society certain elements cannot plausibly be included else the idealistic canon should not be believed in by its patrons. Thus these outcast entities are realised as the compromise to ready utopia, a comprehension of the value of perfection. In Orwell’s Animal Farm (an appropriate example of the downfall of an idealistic programme) to allow the oligar-chical legion of rulers to take place, the lesser members need to be removed or re-appropriated.

IN OPPOSITIONNegative arguments against designing for utopian prin-ciples are what prevent the inception of utopian plans in universal constructs. For example a rousing vitriol of incitement such as the futurist manifesto could be taken to heart, held with overbearing, resulting in a chaotic manifestation of the opposite of outcomes. The reliance on the individual in the paradigm belies the difficulty in unifying the collective. Whilst designing for a group that have already assumed their principles (forward thinkers) can be taken as a successive movement, trying to rally a disparate assembly requires more volatile methods and as such harder to control.

The danger of designing for a utopia is then the pressure it puts on a collective conscious to understand and co-operate in the running and advancement of procedures. There is always a focus on the instigator, and this becomes easy for that individual or group to either take advantage of the situation or be taken advantage of. Freidrich Engels said ‘how can the isolated individual hope to impose his idea on history’13 questioning the ability of a motive and the subsequent reasoning needed to continue it. To have so much responsibility is to make mistakes and to make mistakes is to not succeed in so much of a way. The cycle is again the dilemma of utopias.14

CONCLUSIONDesigning for a utopia is a inherently subjective topic, contrived from inception to outcome; although ultimately viable as a process it is eminently fraught with technicali-ties and deviations that can affect its outcome. Fictitious utopias act as incentives and although schematics have been drawn they await ideal times for them to be imple-mented into, others seek advancement now and satisfy the desire to believe in perfect futures. Artistic movements incite them, whilst consumers expect them. The middle ground in this equation is the designer and the physicalisa-tion of a theme for the world to believe in. However as proved in the countless episodes of artist modernisation, the need for an outcome is not warranted by merely the desire of the population, for it is something that needs to be believed in.

But as the demand for the new is endless, and the supply of revolutionary ideas are quickly evaporating. Now it is time for a subtle transformation; that of modifications, interventions and observations, to garner the best results for perfection.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1 The work of Antonio Sant’Elia : retreat into the future, 1995.2 http://www.archigram.net/ Concerning archigram, (editor) Dennis Crompton.3 Enrst Bloch, The spirit of utopia: objective.4Robert Fishman: Urban Utopias of the twentieth century5 http://archinect.com/features/article. php?id=99880_0_23_0_M 6 Robert Fishman: Urban Utopias of the twentieth cen-tury7 Kevin Hetherington, The badlands of modernity, Hetero-topia and social ordering8 Robert Fishman: Urban Utopias of the twentieth cen-tury,9 http://www.starck.com/10 George Orwell, 198411 It’s a wonderful life: 195712 Slavoj Zizek: The liberal Utopia.13 Robert Fishman: Urban Utopias of the twentieth century: 1914 Robert Fishman: Urban Utopias of the twentieth century: 18

Also referred to;Utopia deferred: Baudrillard, JeanRoland Barthes, Empire of signs: 30Blade runner.futurist manifesto, 1913.design for micro utopias