Discussion questions/keywords/summary from/of:
"Is Design Political?" by Jennie Winhall
1.) The main focus of this article is based on discussing how design is, in fact, political. What are some arguments that could be made against this statement?
2.) This question was brought up by the reading, but never fully answered: "Are designers responsible for the consequences of their designs?" What do you think?
1.) "designers as facilitators" - In this article, they describe designers as facilitators or enablers of design. This illustrates the concept of design projects being done with and by users instead of strictly by specialists dictating what the people want to do.
2.) consequence - It is the result of action or effect. As used here, the presence of consequence is a key element to making something "political."
The center of this article is on how design in our world is always political. As the text claims, "Design is political because it has consequences, and sometimes serious ones." It illustrated that the two subjects are greatly interwoven. Politics challenges the "status quo" and seeks to make the world a better place. Many designers claim the same motive. Politics is about values. Design is ultimately a means of embodying values and ideology. Designers, like politicians, have the power to help shape society in both negative and positive ways.