Transforming Patterns

Anna Moldenhauer: What exactly is the Hightech Agenda Bavaria?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: A technology offensive and funding initiative with which Bavaria is investing approximately 5.5 billion euros in technology, AI, university innovation and transformation. The Faculty of Design at MUAS submitted four applications for research professorships and all of them were approved, which really surprised us. This helps us a lot with regard to the further development of teaching design in the context of transformation topics and, above all, for the expansion of research into design!

As part of your research professorship you will research the socio-cultural aspects of transformation and innovation processes as well as design as cultural production. What do you actually mean by this?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: Thanks to additional funding from the Bavarian state parliament for design research, I will now be able to establish an institute for applied design research as part of my Hightech Agenda professorship. My focus is on design cultures and innovation cultures. I will be joined by my colleague Professor Eileen Mandir, who was appointed to the newly created professorship for Systemic Design as part of the Hightech Agenda. She studied technical cybernetics and has worked in the field of mobility research, and thus, as someone has has worked in other areas, brings a completely new perspective to the industry. Two research assistants, Katrin Laville and Dr Silke Konsorski-Lang, will also be part of the core team.
At our institute, the main focus will be on the role that design plays in the development of new cultural patterns regarding transformation issues. Wilhelm Vossenkuhl stated that “Cultures are ways of making a world”. This is fascinating, as by cultures we naturally mean a more comprehensive cultural change through design and not the topic of high culture itself, as we don't necessarily categorise design according to “culture”, especially in Germany.

That's right, unfortunately it's often thought of as “style”, which doesn't even begin to do justice to the diversity of the subject of design.

Prof. Markus Frenzl: In Germany, funding and support for design is always the responsibility of ministries of economic affairs, which is not the case in many other countries. I believe that many members of the public as well as politicians are hardly aware of the cultural and identity-forming function design has. This value remains quite obscure if the only interest is in potential financial gain. Understanding the social relevance of design is unfortunately one of the great missed opportunities in Germany, because with our design history, i.e. the Bauhaus and the Ulm School of Design (HfG Ulm) – the two most important design schools of the 20th century – we should actually be a nation that has a tremendous understanding of design as a culture-shaping discipline. Instead, design is more of a cultural topic in France, Italy and Scandinavia. There's a more comprehensive understanding of design there, and the people who live in those countries are proud of their designers and their design history. In Germany few people today actually realise that the HfG Ulm was supposed to help usher in a new democratic beginning after the end of the Second World War, that its objective was to use design to contribute to democracy and the creation of a new society. Democracy is currently under threat again, but would a design school be founded today for this reason? It's hard to imagine that happening.

A few years ago, I did a research semester on the topic of “The Public Reception of Design” and came to the conclusion that the design of the 1980s and the criticism of functionalism had an extreme influence on the perception of design in Germany, and that these ideas still have an effect. In this context, I had a long conversation with the architect and designer Volker Albus, one of the most important protagonists of neues deutsches Design (New German Design). It gave me a much better understanding of how important subjectivity was to designers in the 1980s as a counter-movement to functionalism. They wanted to represent their own world of experience with deliberately different, challenging and sometimes flamboyant designs and thus bring subjectivity and emotionality back into design. I think the criticism of functionalism expressed through this subjective design was hardly recognised by the public, however, and instead the designs were often merely perceived as bizarre or provocative. Instead of recognising its social relevance, design is still often misunderstood today as a gimmick, a means of aestheticisation or of increasing sales. And this paradigm is reinforced in the media, where there is rarely a cultural reflection on design. Interestingly, other elements of popular culture such as music are often discussed in the feature pages. In the case of design, however, this either doesn't happen at all or only from a very distanced, often mocking position. I think that's a very sad state of affairs.

The discipline is sometimes reduced to superficial product design for a wealthy target group – even though every object we live with is a product of design. How would you like use the institute to communicate the great importance design has for our society?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: A core topic is “cultural patterns”, i.e. cultural patterns in the context of entrepreneurship, transformation, society, digitalisation and innovation. What are existing cultural patterns? Where is there potential to transform them and how can new cultural patterns be created or initiated while taking history into account? Design is very much in the tradition of modernism, with its basic idea of pushing aside that which exists, redesigning everything and thus redeveloping society along the way. Every design has a historical context. If people are merely presented with a radical transformation without showing them the connection to something they're familiar with, it'll only lead to rejection – the history of modernism has shown us this as well.

Limitations are percieved as a threat.

Prof. Markus Frenzl: Yes they are, and at this point it's important to let everyone know we can also pick up on those things that are tried and tested, especially against the backdrop of globalisation and digitalisation. You could also ask “What is beautiful, tried and tested and worth preserving? Let's choose this cultural pattern and see how we can transform it and make it viable for the future!” This is the meta-level that underlies the dci – exploring existing cultural patterns in order to develop them into new cultural patterns. In the teaching that we do, we want to bring together design, design futuring, design theory and entrepreneurship. Applied design research is to be anchored at MUAS in the form of the institute, but we also want to ensure that it gains greater relevance in Bavaria as a whole. As part of last year's mcbw (munich creative business week), for example, those of us at the Faculty of Design, together with the other Bavarian design faculties, demonstrated how much design research is already taking place in Bavaria, even if this diversity has not yet been communicated under the overarching term of design research.

What's currently on offer?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: There are five independent Bavarian design faculties with a wide range of priorities and areas of specialisation and research, and there are also several individual research institutes. Normally, within a federal state, design schools are in competition with one another. This networking of Bavarian design faculties was therefore an enormously important step for us, which, if considered alone through the large combined number of students and lecturers, gives us more self-confidence and allows us to have a much greater impact. It was also interesting to be able to internally compare what research means at other universities and faculties. A distinction is generally made between research for design, research on design, research through design and research of design. As a faculty at a university of applied sciences, our focus is primarily on research through design. With this in mind, and in the name of the dci, we've deliberately chosen the term “applied design research”. We also recently renamed our master's programme at the MUAS, of which I am the programme director, to emphasise our focus on applied design research.

Design research doesn't mean the development of academic theory that's far removed from practice. We're also interested in showing that design is a cultural driver of transformation issues, and that it can be meaningful. It's important to communicate this to the business world, and in this context, there's a quote from design theorist, lecturer and designer Gui Bonsiepe from 1994 that I particularly like: “While the work of the scientist is aimed at cognitive innovation and the work of the engineer at operational innovation, the work of the designer is centred on socio-cultural innovation. Design integrates the strange and alienating aspects of technology into an everyday social situation by means of the social institution known as the company”. Socio-cultural innovation – I think that's great! It's about innovation in culture, companies and society. And that's what's really at the heart of design work.

People are the focus of design.

Prof. Markus Frenzl: The benefits design research has for society are still not sufficiently recognised, and our profession often has to justify itself. Are you even real scientists? Are you real engineers? And my answer is no, we are real designers! We have our own way of doing research, and it's not worse or better, it's just different. That's the way it is in every discipline. Applied design research is primarily research through design. In our design discipline, knowledge is generated through the process of research, experimenting and prototyping. This can involve many more iterations, and many more rejections and new beginnings. This is not the case in other disciplines, where the concept of research is more focussed on exploring irrefutable findings. Claudia Mareis, Professor of Design and the History of Knowledge at the Humboldt University of Berlin, describes design as an independent knowledge culture, as an epistemic practice in its own right. In other words, the very act of designing and making something tangible generates knowledge that takes the discipline a step further each time.

What's the objective of the new institute?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: To summarise our mission statement: "The design cultures institute for applied design research (dci) understands design as an identity- and culture-forming practice with its own knowledge and research culture. Through design, it researches cultures of perception, knowledge, action, innovation and corporate culture. It identifies familiar cultural patterns, adapts them and develops them further in order to make them culturally compatible and to provide impulses for social, ecological, technological and entrepreneurial futures."

Our methodological fields lie in culture and design studies, cultural anthropology and design futuring. Our formats are primarily participative formats, interventions and speculative projects, but we also use mediation and transfer formats such as symposia, workshops, exhibitions and experiments. It's also about creatively dealing with the conflicting goals of different system logics that give rise to culture: politics, law, business, democracy, science and civil society. This may also lead to an impetus for entrepreneurship. The following are the general subject areas we've defined for the dci so far: Urbanity and Mobility, Digitalism and Digital Cultures, Craftsmanship and Craft Cultures, Health and Wellbeing, and finally, Transformation and Participation.

Each one of these is a very large subject area.

Prof. Markus Frenzl: These are indeed huge subject areas, and you could set up a separate institute for each of them in order to increase specialisation. Our aim at the dci, however, is to identify cultural patterns in different fields and to benefit from different content-related perspectives for their further development. This is the specific expertise we have at our institute, in the faculty and at the university as a whole. Thanks to our network, we're also able to work on joint projects, for example in cooperation with the Strascheg Center for Entrepreneurship (SCE), the internationally renowned entrepreneurship center here at MUAS. We supervise dissertations in the field of digital ethics or on the topic of car-free neighbourhoods. For HM:UniverCity, our university's innovation network, which is very active in the field of co-creation, participation and urbanity topics, we've contributed to accompanying research with regard to the topic of urbanity and participation for the New European Bauhaus project "Creating NEBourhoods Together". Current research proposals include topics such as "AI in X-ray diagnostics" and "Participation in the context of democracy".

Are there other research topics as well?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: In terms of content, I think it would be an exciting challenge to explore new cultural patterns for the furniture industry. Many manufacturers are now looking at sustainability, circular products and recyclable materials, but the standard business model is still mostly based on producing larger quantities and having more and more products on offer. The environmental problems associated with this are still being passed on to the next generation. Many years ago BMW developed the principle of “not selling cars, but mobility” instead. And of course, BMW still sells cars, but they've formulated a view of the future that shifts the focus from their products to an overall perspective, and asks the question of what is actually at stake concerning their use. Along these lines, furniture manufacturers would have to say "We don't sell chairs, we sell living and the culture that surrounds it". This gives rise to some interesting research questions: What could sufficiency really mean for manufacturers in this context? What could new cultural patterns for furniture companies look like under this premise? How could companies continue to be profitable?

Another particularly exciting topic for me is researching the potential of Bavarian craftsmanship cultures that still exist. I think it's wrong that in Germany we don't support traditional craftsmanship when it's not considered to be economically viable. In Japan, for example, this knowledge is protected as a "National Treasure" and outstanding craftspeople are funded as "Living National Treasures" in order to keep centuries-old craftsmanship cultures, material and processing expertise alive for future generations.

It's valued as part of the culture.

Prof. Markus Frenzl: Exactly. When a craft disappears in this country, it always means that we lose knowledge and may have to start all over again at a later date. A good example is the durable concrete used in ancient Rome 2000 years ago, which compacted when exposed to moisture, whereas the steel rebar in modern concrete rusts when exposed to moisture. The knowledge about this material existed long ago but was then lost, and as a result scientists first had to rediscover the idea that burnt lime and pozzolana give ancient concrete this property. Who decided a few hundred years ago that this knowledge was no longer needed?

With particular regard to sustainability, there are material and processing skills that we shouldn't lose, even if their value is not yet clear to us. For example, can elements from the traditional production of fences be transferred to a new context, for instance for the sustainable cladding of walls? Could skills from glass painting perhaps play a role in liquid crystal and solar technology, or in the digital world? We don't yet know what skills from yesterday we'll need tomorrow. Ultimately, this is also the dilemma of the modern age: In a discipline that invents and shapes the future, we nonetheless find it difficult to establish a link to the past. Since digitalisation, however, design has also taken on the new role of preserving the culture of the present. We want to transfer existing cultural patterns into new areas where they can be of use. This kind of transfer is a particular strength designers have.

What else are you currently involved in?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: With participation, co-creation and future skills with regard to the context of mobility, i.e. what skills need to be promoted among people so that they are willing to change their mobility behaviour, and what formats should be developed for this? There was a recent project in Munich as part of the MCube cluster on the topic of car-free neighbourhoods, where alternative uses for parking spaces were tested on a few streets for several weeks. This project led to heated discussions in the city: Many people were sceptical as to whether the campaigns were really temporary and felt that politicians were instead trying to impose something on them. In response to the term “real laboratory”, which is a common term in the research context, residents replied that they didn't want to be treated like lab rats. This shows us that experimentation, a natural tool for the design industry, is not always welcome in society and that our culture is not intrinsically open to experimentation. And this is especially true when it comes to mobility or cars. The temporary introduction of the 9-euro ticket, on the other hand, was a welcome experiment as well as an exception.

You can't think a transformation process through to the end in advance; you have to try it out in an experiment. We have to therefore communicate the value of experimentation to society in a new way. In projects, this also extends to communication: For each project, individual ideas about the desired approach, that have positive connotations, need to be found in dialogue with participants. After all, a real-world laboratory ideally involves a joint experiment about the future; it's all about participation and co-creation. This only works if everyone is involved on an equal footing.

What do you have planned for the future?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: The research opportunities within the framework of the HTA research professorships are initially set up for five years, but of course we're thinking more long-term with the design cultures institute (dci). Our aim is to stabilise the institute and to ensure that the project results do not fizzle out at the university level. The dci is about cultural patterns for major transformation issues – design is the ideal interface for this – as a transfer and mediation discipline in society that offers participative formats, symposia, documentation and book publications.

Change creates opportunities. As a society, we've learnt during the pandemic that our understanding of how things work can disappear overnight and that we need to find a new approach. We learned that change is needed, and that it's urgent. Perhaps this realisation will also help improve both design and design research. Our task is to show that this transformation affects everyone and to ensure that it doesn't just take place “from the top down”, but that every person in society contributes to it with the decisions they make.

You've been working in teaching for many years as a professor of design and media theory, as Vice Dean of the Faculty of Design at the MUAS and as head of your Master's programme. How do you address the students' questions at the institute?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: The students immediately understand what “applied design research” means regarding the Master's degree programme and that this conveys the focus of the degree programme more clearly. That it involves application-oriented research rather than research that has little practical relevance, and that's not contextualised in everyday phenomena. And that it can also involve social movements ranging, for example, from the appropriation of public space to new forms of mobility. It doesn't always have to be about the design of a particular object. Many of the students have high aspirations for their work when it comes to social and sustainability-related aspects. Transformation, changing the status quo, participation and equality are also core design themes for younger generations.

Also concerning a search for meaning?

Prof. Markus Frenzl: Yes, even if in my opinion it's essential to look at history, because the search for meaning didn't just start today. Many movements, such as the quest for greater sustainability and equality, have their roots in previous generations. Of course, the new generation has a desire to do everything differently and not to just build on what happened before, but it's helpful to know about what already exists and what can be built on, as this increases the chances of an idea being socially acceptable. We can't answer a general research question such as “How do we save the world?”, but we can improve a small part of that which exists, which then contributes to a larger change. Many Master's theses currently revolve around socially relevant issues, aspects of transformation, new uses and changes in behaviour, and deal with visualisations of gender identities or aspects of identity in the digital world. I think it's great that budding designers are tackling these issues and not just saying “I want to design a cool new type of light".