I'm sitting with a friend at the campus CCD in IIT Kanpur. The discussion, as usual is an existential one. It revolves around the subject of what we are doing, stuck with a whimsical, almost fantastical ideal of ‘product design’ in a country that has little to spend on ‘form-givers’ when it could do better with ‘problem solvers’. What is it we are trying to do, when we aspire to do ‘product design”? Particularly in a capitalist- third-world-Indian Context? The most prevalent of aspirations  we  see when we enter design schools is, as product designers, we want to be the ‘form givers’  who want to make a living by creating iconic looking objects, products; we want to be artists, sculptors with a salary.  

Where do we pick up these ideals? From foreign schools in foreign contexts; developed countries whose middle class have money to spend on whimsical artistic forms. The question is this: Is the ‘product design ‘of schools like the  Art Centre College of Design, Rhode Island College of Design, Royal College of Art and Apple, of course, obviously the kind every Product Design student would want to do all their life, one that India needs? Or one that we (designers) want. This reflects the general sentiment among students of product design, that the market for product design as we imagine it, does not exist in India. This may be largely true, as we see very few design studios or designers who maintain a strong identity in their work. The work we see in India is largely market driven. With very few sticking to consistent aesthetic or design values.

The definition of product design is a very, very broad one. The methods taught in Indian design schools today largely reflect the need-based product design model, where we develop products to suit user’s needs, etc., etc. This is the ‘design as problem solving” approach. This model is especially compatible with the IITs as these the scope of these type of projects encompasses various engineering disciplines. Sometimes these projects are so technical and engineering heavy, they cross into the domain of the engineer; Here, what is sometimes known as ‘engineering design’ is already no longer the romantic ‘form giving’ we idealise ‘product design’ to be. And yet, this is the kind of product design that the country desperately needs; the kind that will make lives better. Interesting paradox.

Some Schools like the National Institute of Design propagate a form-based approach that is drawing and modelling intensive; the stuff that we see in foreign design schools and that every Product Design student wants to do. The reality is that the ‘form giving’ ends up serving premium consumers; or alternatively only premium products and companies can afford form-givers in the Indian context.

The question, remains: Is India ready for aesthetics and styling driven product design, does the Indian market have a place for it?  Doesn’t iconic styling improve the marketability of products? Isn’t delight an intrinsic quality of all great products? Or is it possible that we are stuck with the wrong ideal in the wrong country?

In a country that has far greater needs than wants, the significance of “function” in product design increases. Design must solve problems. Do ‘forms’ solve problems?  Can we be ‘form-givers’ and still solve problems and create delightful products? Dieter Rams says form should only serve the functionality of the product. It should make clear the product’s use, not distract. So we can still be form givers in India, provided, we keep our forms rooted in functionality, ergonomics and everything else that helps solve the problem; nothing whimsical.