Dieses Unbehagen kann uns motivieren, genauer hinzuschauen, Fragen zu stellen und nach Lösungen zu suchen. Unbehagen ist somit unweigerlich auch ein verlässlicher Motor für Gestaltungsprozesse, die, wie wir seit Herbert Simon (The Sciences of the Artificial) wissen, stets mit der Herausforderung verbunden sind, bestehende Situation in bevorzugte zu überführen. In Bezug auf unser Weltverständnis kann Unbe hagen dazu beitragen, dass wir uns mit Themen auseinandersetzen, die uns verwirren oder herausfordern. Es kann uns dazu antreiben, Unbekanntes zu erforschen, alternative Standpunkte zu erwägen und unsere eigene Sichtweise zu überdenken.

Indem wir uns mit unserem Unbehagen auseinandersetzen, können wir auch mehr über uns selbst lernen und unsere eigenen Werte, Überzeugungen und Vorurteile besser verstehen. Überdies kann Unbehagen dazu beitragen, dass wir uns in der Welt besser zurechtfinden, indem es uns dazu drängt, Probleme anzugehen und uns persönlich weiterzuentwickeln.

Wenn wir uns unwohl fühlen oder etwas nicht richtig erscheint, können wir versuchen, die Ursachen zu verstehen und versuchen, Veränderungen in die Wege zu leiten. Dieser Prozess des Hinterfragens und der Justierung kann uns helfen, uns besser an verschiedene Situationen anzupassen und diese bewusster zu gestalten. Unbehagen ist also nicht nur ein Meilenstein der Transformation, sondern auch ein Halbzeug der Resilienz.

Die Wechselwirkung aus beidem – Komfort und Unbehagen – ist somit ein ständiges Spiel, welches die Dynamik unseres Lebens beflügelt und es aufregend und unterhaltsam macht. Etwas, das uns wachsen lässt und uns ermöglicht, uns weiterzuentwickeln.

Produktivität des Unbehagens

Unbehagen kann auf verschiedene Arten dazu beitragen, die Welt besser zu verstehen, sei es auf physikalischer, politischer, sozialer oder kultureller Ebene. Unbehagen trägt somit auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen dazu bei, unser Bewusstsein zu schärfen, bestehende Annahmen zu hinterfragen, Missstände aufzudecken und Veränderungen zu bewirken. Es ermöglicht uns, tiefer in die Funktionsweise der Welt einzudringen und die komplexen Kräfte zu verstehen, die sie beeinflussen. Nicht zuletzt kann Unbehagen auch dazu beitragen, Fortschritte in Wissenschaft, Technologie und Gestaltung voranzutreiben, indem bestehende Grenzen und Normen in Frage gestellt werden.

Um den Begriff Unbehagen besser einordnen und somit besser verstehen zu können, mag es helfen, sich vor Augen zu führen, was – neben Komfort und Behagen – eigentlich das Gegenteil von Unbehagen ist. Man denke an Begriffe wie Wohlbefinden, Zufriedenheit, Harmonie und Gemütlichkeit. Man denke an Entspanntheit, Frieden, Ruhe und Gelassenheit. Man denke an Gefühle der Leichtigkeit, der Sicherheit oder auch Geborgenheit. Aus der Auseinandersetzung mit den angenommenen oder tatsächlichen Gegensätzen von Unbehagen, schärft sich ein Verständnis dahingehend, was Unbehagen ausmacht.

Die Tatsache, dass Design unweigerlich in gesellschaftliche Prozesse eingreift, impliziert, dass es bewusst oder unbewusst dazu beiträgt, tradierte Wege, Werte und Normen aufrechtzuerhalten oder aber zu überdenken und zu revidieren. Letzteres tut es insbesondere auch dann, wenn es unbehaglich daherkommt, Empörung verursacht, Identitäten und vermeintliche Wahrheiten in Frage stellt, und eben genau nicht die bestehenden Regeln und Bedingungen festigt, sondern ins Wanken bringt. Unbehaglichkeit ließe sich in diesem Sinne als Qualität auffassen, die produktiv ist.

Unbehagen als Forschungsobjekt und Mittel der Gestaltung

Unbehagen lässt sich also auch als Gestaltungsmotor begreifen. Die Auseinandersetzung mit Unbehagen kann wichtige Impulse für Forschung und Gestaltung geben, da es ein Signal oder Anzeichen für potenzielle Probleme, Schwächen oder Bedenken in einem System, Produkt oder einer Idee sein kann. Indem wir uns bewusst mit dem Unbehagen auseinandersetzen, können wir tiefergehende Fragen stellen, neue Perspektiven einnehmen und uns stärker auf potenzielle Risiken oder unerwünschte Auswirkungen konzentrieren. Dieses Unbehagen kann als Katalysator dienen, um kritisch zu reflektieren, was verbessert oder neu gestaltet werden muss.

Unbehagen kann aber auch bewusst als gestalterisches Mittel eingesetzt werden, etwa um emotionale Reaktionen hervorzurufen, die zur Reflexion anregen. Durch gezielte Provokation von Reaktionsmustern der Unbehaglichkeit (auf Rezipient:innenseite) können Designer:innen bewusst Spannungen erzeugen. Unter Umständen führt dies dazu, dass Menschen aus dem Erfahrungswissen des Unbequemen heraus, sich dadurch motiviert fühlen, alternative Sichtweisen in Erwägung zu ziehen oder anders zu handeln.

Als Beispiele hierfür können das sogenannte Critical bzw. Speculative Design herhalten, bei denen Unbehagen immer schon als elementarer Bestandteil des gestalterischen Schaffens gelten kann, indem es auf Seiten der Rezipient:innen absichtlich Unbehagen hervorruft.

Mit den Beiträgen des vorliegenden Themenheftes wollen wir der Frage nachgehen, was eigentlich das Unbehagliche am Design ist und im gleichen Zug herausfinden, inwiefern sich Unbehagen tatsächlich designen lässt. In der Politik des Materials erkundet John BinghamHall die politische Rolle von Material im Design. Er vergleicht das Versagen der gläsernen Kuppel des Berliner Reichstags, die symbolische Transparenz verspricht, aber keine wirkliche politische Teilhabe ermöglicht, mit dem Campo de Cebada in Madrid. Letzterer nutzt recyceltes Holz für Basisdemokratie und Peer-to-Peer Aktivitäten. Hier offenbart das Material nicht nur pragmatische Eigenschaften, sondern auch eine symbolische Ästhetik der Intimität. Holz wird als symbolisch intim und unmittelbar im Gegensatz zu Glas betrachtet, das einerseits Distanz und andererseits Öffentlichkeitswirksamkeit repräsentiert.

Die Frage, ob diese Symbolik eine breitere politische Bewegung (und deren Herausforderungen, Ziele und Probleme) einschränkt oder erweitert, bleibt dabei zentral. Probleme sind komplex. Geahnt haben wir das schon immer, doch einen Namen dafür haben wir erst durch Horst Rittel bekommen. Mit Melvin Webber prägte der den Begriff der Wicked Problems. Der Beitrag Wicked Problems mehr denn je?! von Tom Bieling beleuchtet die Komplexität von Problemen, die sich nicht aus einer einzelnen Perspektive lösen lassen. Diese Probleme sind ineinander verflochten, von verschiedenen Blickwinkeln abhängig und involvieren zahlreiche Interessengruppen. Sie sind schwer zu messen und haben keine eindeutigen Lösungen. Zusätzlich thematisiert der Beitrag die Frage, wie Design allein schon dadurch Macht ausübt, indem es das Leben anderer beeinflusst, und betont die daraus ableitbare Verantwortung von Designer:innen.

In Punktkarten und Inventarspaziergänge setzt sich Wim Cuyvers intensiv mit alternativen pädagogischen Ansätzen auseinander, insbesondere mit der Idee, Studierende aus ihren gewohnten Lernumgebungen herauszubringen. Hierzu legt er ein ausgiebig erprobtes Workshop Konzept dar, bei dem Studierende in Gruppen außerhalb ihrer Lehrinstitution Spaziergänge machen und urbane Umgebungen analysieren. Cuyvers betont die Wichtigkeit des direkten Kontakts mit dem öffentlichen Raum und schlägt vor, dass unvorbereitete, ungefilterte Erfahrungen oft die lehrreichsten sind. Spaziergänge sollen dabei nicht als touristische Ausflüge missverstanden werden, sondern Möglichkeiten bieten, das Wesen des öffentlichen Raums und individueller Anforderungen und Bedürfnisse zu erforschen. Diese Art des Gehens wird in diesem Zusammenhang jedoch nicht als Methode verstanden, da das, was bei diesen Wanderungen passiert außerhalb der Kontrolle der Teilnehmenden liegt. (Es gibt keine Methode für Bildung).

In Blicke, Likes und Klicks erforscht Klaus Schwarzfischer, wie soziale Medien und Influencer:innen funktionieren, indem er verhaltensbiologische Konzepte auf heutige OnlineInteraktionen überträgt. Er erklärt, dass Aufmerksamkeit und Anerkennung in sozialen Gruppen, ähnlich wie bei Tiergesellschaften, einen sozialen Status definieren. Likes und Klicks in sozialen Medien sind moderne Äquivalente zu Blicken und signalisieren sozialen Status. Influencer:innen agieren als digitale Alphatiere, während ihre Follower:innen Vorteile aus dieser Beziehung ziehen. Der Beitrag betont die Relevanz dieser Konzepte für Design, Marketing und das Verständnis der dynamischen Interaktionen in der digitalen Welt und schließt mit einem Gedanken über die Bedeutung von Blickzuwendungen und -abwendungen für ästhetische Erfahrungen und deren Berücksichtigung in Handlungstheorien.

In Zeichen des Friedens reflektiert Tom Bieling über die Bedeutung von Symbolen am Beispiel des Peace-Zeichens, welches im vergangenen Jahr seinen 65. Geburtstag feierte. Der Beitrag hebt die identitätsstiftende Rolle von Zeichen und Symbolen in sozialen Bewegungen und politischen Gruppierungen hervor und beschreibt, wie sie Beziehungen und Zugehörigkeit formen. Dabei diskutiert er auch, wie das Peace-Zeichen seinen ursprünglichen politischen Kontext verlor und dennoch weltweit bekannt wurde. Hieraus geht hervor, wie stark Symbole unterschiedlich interpretiert und für verschiedene Zwecke genutzt werden können, wodurch sie ihre Bedeutung wandeln, aber nicht selten auch deswegen ihre Popularität potenzieren.

Moniek Wiese setzt sich mit der Verwendung von Satire als kritische Methode im Spekulativen Design auseinander. Ihr Beitrag erläutert, wie Satire in verschiedenen Ausprägungen – horazische und juvenalische Satire – genutzt wird, um Artefakte zu gestalten, die den gesellschaftlichen Status quo hinterfragen. Anhand von Beispielen zeigt sie, wie diese Satireformen eingesetzt werden, um Kritik zu üben und Reflexionen über Technologie, soziale Strukturen und zukünftige Entwicklungen anzuregen. Am Beispiel der von ihr so genannten Behörde für geistiges digitales Nicht-Ableben zeigt Wiese mit einem eigenen Projekt auf, wie Satire als Methode im digitalen Raum eingesetzt werden kann.

Kira Pawlewski beschäftigt sich mit der Anwendung psychogeografischer Spekulation als Gestaltungs- und Forschungsmethode anhand des filmischen Werks The City & The City der Künstlerin Mariam Ghani. Der Beitrag beleuchtet die Verwendung psychogeografischer Konzepte und Methoden in Ghanis Arbeit, die sich mit den spatial and racial politics amerikanischer Städte auseinandersetzt. Dabei wird die Verbindung zwischen psychogeografischer Theorie und Ghanis künstlerischer Umsetzung analysiert und mit eigenen experimentellen Erfahrungen in einer ähnlichen Thematik verglichen. Pawlewski untersucht, wie Ghani psychogeografische Elemente nutzt, um eine spekulative Dystopie zu schaffen, die aufzeigt, wie das Unseeing – das bewusste Nicht-Wahrnehmen bestimmter Aspekte der Stadt – die Realität beeinflusst und die sozialen Strukturen widerspiegelt. Durch visuelle und auditive Mittel schafft Ghani eine Desorientierung, die zur Entwicklung von Empathie anregen soll und eine kritische Reflexion über die Wahrnehmung von Städten und Gesellschaft ermöglicht.

Born in 1933 in Wrocław, Selle studied German studies, art history, and art education in Frankfurt and Kassel. His early career as an art teacher in Frankfurt (1960–1967) gave him firsthand insight into the challenges of aesthetic education, an experience that would later inform his academic writings. His transition to academia began in 1967 with a position at the Werkkunstschule Darmstadt, and in 1973, he became a professor at the Technical University of Braunschweig. From 1981 until his retirement in 1999, Selle held a professorship at the University of Oldenburg, where he developed and refined his ideas on the theory, didactics, and practice of aesthetic education.

Yet, Selle was not just an academic in the traditional sense. His work was political, critical, and always engaged with the social realities of design. He questioned the dominant narratives of design history, challenged the instrumentalization of aesthetic education, and advocated for a more experience-driven, human-centered approach to design practice.

Selle’s writings reflect his keen analytical mind and his commitment to exposing the ideological underpinnings of design. His seminal work “Ideologie und Utopie des Designs” (1973) critically examined industrial design from a socio-political perspective, arguing that design serves a set of ideological and economic interests. He saw modern design as both a tool of capitalist rationalization and, potentially, a medium for change. Another major contribution came with “Jugendstil und Kunstindustrie. Zur Ökonomie und Ästhetik des Kunstgewerbes um 1900” (1974), where he explored the complex relationship between aesthetics and industrial production around 1900. In this work, Selle challenged the romanticized view of the Jugendstil movement by demonstrating how it was deeply embedded in the economic and technological conditions of its time. He argued that even seemingly revolutionary artistic movements could be co-opted by market forces—a theme that remained central to his later critiques of contemporary design culture.

His most widely recognized book, “Die Geschichte des Design in Deutschland von 1870 bis heute”, remains a cornerstone in German design historiography. Unlike traditional design histories that celebrated progress and innovation, Selle took a more critical stance. He analyzed how design evolved alongside industrialization, consumer culture, and shifts in production methods, highlighting the tensions between artistic aspirations and economic constraints. His approach to design history was never purely chronological but always interrogative—seeking to understand the power dynamics at play.

Beyond historical critique, Selle was invested in questions of education. In works like “Entwürfe zur ästhetischen Bildung” (1988), he argued against a didactic, overly structured approach to art and design education. Instead, he championed a form of aesthetic learning that was rooted in personal experience, sensory perception, and critical reflection. He saw creativity not as something that could be “taught” in a top-down manner but as an emergent process shaped by lived experience.

Even after his retirement, Selle remained intellectually active, continuing to write essays and contribute to discussions on design and education. His later works explored the intersections of design, everyday culture, and the increasing digitalization of aesthetic experiences, always maintaining his critical stance against unreflective consumerism and technological determinism.

Despite his sharp critiques, Selle was never cynical. He believed in the potential of design to contribute to a more just and meaningful world—if only designers and educators were willing to question their own assumptions and challenge established norms.

His work will continue to inspire scholars, designers, and educators who seek a deeper understanding of design’s social, historical, and pedagogical dimensions. His critical approach remains as relevant as ever in times of uncertainty. He reminds us that design is, at its core, a cultural and political act—one that demands reflection, responsibility, and a commitment to human experience.

With his passing, we lose a voice of intellectual honesty and passionate critique. But his ideas live on, urging us to see design not just as an aesthetic discipline, but as a field deeply entangled with the structures that shape our world.

Rest in peace, Gert Selle. Your work will not be forgotten.

Portrait: Gert Selle, Carl-von-Ossietzky-University Oldenburg.

Die Aufgaben

_ Mitarbeit bei der Vorbereitung, Administration und Durchführung von Projekten, Tagungen und Seminaren
_ Mitarbeit an wissenschaftlichen Publikationen (Literaturrecherche, Korrekturlesen, Kommunikation, etc.)
_ Konzeption und Durchführung eigener Lehrveranstaltungen
_ wissenschaftliche Weiterqualifikation
_ wissenschaftliche Zuarbeit in Forschungsfragen sowie Mitarbeit bei der Analyse, Aufbereitung sowie Dokumentation von Forschungsergebnissen
_ Unterstützung bei der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Forschungsbereichen und Institutionen
_ Präsentation und Vermittlung von Forschungsergebnissen auf Tagungen und in der Lehre
_ Anteilnahme an den Aktivitäten einer Kunsthochschule sowie des gesamten Promotionsbereiches
_ Mitarbeit in der Beratung von Studierenden
_ Mitarbeit in Gremien

Ihr Profil

_ ein qualitativ überdurchschnittlich abgeschlossenes Hochschulstudium (Diplom/Master) im Fach Designwissenschaften oder verwandter Fächer
_ sehr gute Kenntnisse in der Designtheorie und -forschung
_ Erfahrung in entwurfsbasierter Forschung
_ Offenheit gegenüber neuen experimentellen Forschungsansätzen und Methoden
sichere und präzise schriftliche Ausdrucksfähigkeit, insbesondere in der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation
_ Kenntnis gängiger AV- und Grafikbearbeitungssoftware (Adobe etc.)
_ sehr gute Englischkenntnisse in Wort und Schrift
_ Verbindlichkeit, Selbstständigkeit und strukturierte Arbeitsweise

Im Rahmen der Weiterqualifikation wird die Vorbereitung einer Dissertation erwartet. Hierfür steht gemäß § 72 Abs. 2 HHG ein Drittel der Arbeitszeit zur Verfügung. Die Promotion soll eine designwissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung zu aktuellen und zu erwartenden Fragestellungen der Designforschung im Kontext gesellschaftspolitischer Entwicklungen, Herausforderungen und Transformationsprozesse zum Ziel haben.

Für diese Stelle bietet die Hochschule
_ ein anspruchsvolles und abwechslungsreiches Tätigkeitsfeld in der anregenden Atmosphäre einer Kunsthochschule;
_ das unentgeltliche Landes Ticket Hessen nach Maßgabe des derzeit gültigen Tarifvertrages TV-H;
_ flexible familienfreundliche Arbeitszeiten im Einklang mit den Vorlesungszeiten;
_ eine auf 3 Jahre befristete Tätigkeit mit Vergütung bis zur Entgeltgruppe 13 TV-H mit einer wöchentlichen Arbeitszeit von 20 Stunden.

Wir wertschätzen Vielfalt und begrüßen daher alle Bewerbungen - unabhängig von Geschlecht, Nationalität, ethnischer und sozialer Herkunft, Religion/Weltanschauung, Behinderung, Alter sowie sexueller Orientierung und Identität. Menschen mit Behinderungen im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 2 SGB IX werden bei gleicher Qualifikation bevorzugt berücksichtigt. Die HfG Offenbach strebt eine Erhöhung des Anteils der Frauen in Forschung und Lehre an und bittet deshalb qualifizierte Frauen nachdrücklich, sich zu bewerben.

Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Bewerbung mit aussagekräftigen Unterlagen und Dokumenten über unser Onlineportal bis zum 28. Februar 2025. Für Fragen zum Stelleninhalt steht Ihnen Herr Prof. Dr. Bieling, bieling[at]hfg-offenbach.de, gerne zur Verfügung.

Die Erfassung und Verarbeitung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zum Zwecke der Durchführung des Bewerbungsverfahrens erfolgt auf der Grundlage des § 23 des Hessischen Datenschutz- und Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes (HDSIG). Auskunft im Hinblick auf die Verarbeitung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten gemäß Art. 13 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 27. April 2016 (Datenschutz-Grundverordnung) erhalten Sie unter datenschutz@hfg-offenbach.de. Nach Abschluss des Verfahrens werden die personenbezogenen Daten datenschutzkonform gelöscht.

Die Hochschule für Gestaltung (HfG) Offenbach ist eine Kunsthochschule des Landes Hessen, in der eine zeitgenössische und zukunftsorientierte Lehre praktiziert wird, die durch einen vielfältigen Austausch zwischen den freien, den angewandten und den theoretischen Fachgebieten gekennzeichnet ist. Die HfG Offenbach hat zwei Fachbereiche – Kunst und Design - und besitzt das Promotionsrecht.

The unique epistemic and innovative potential of Design Research is increasingly recognized across the academic landscape and is in growing demand from institutions, businesses, and policymakers alike. By bridging traditionally separate forms of practice and modes of knowledge, Design Research occupies a distinctive position—one that challenges clear disciplinary boundaries, formal conventions, and implicit assumptions about secured knowledge and linear progress in traditional research fields.

Embracing this inherent openness as a strength, the New Experimental Research in Design (NERD) conferences serve as a truly inclusive platform for showcasing, discussing, and critically examining the diverse ways in which design’s unique perspectives and capabilities can be employed as a research competence. NERD welcomes contributions from researchers worldwide, spanning all areas of Design Research, with a particular focus on empirical and experimental projects that demonstrate originality—or even boldness—in their choice of topics and methodological approaches.

The conference’s emphasis on empirical and experimental work reflects our conviction that the discourse on the value and potentials of Design Research should be led by example: What constitutes an effective method or approach only becomes evident when put into practice. For this reason, NERD also does not adhere to any predefined topics or schools of thought, recognizing that the qualitatively new transcends established categories.

Developed and realized by BIRD—the Board of International Research in Design, which publishes the book series of the same name at Birkhäuser—as an annual event with changing venues, NERD has firmly established itself and proven its productivity as a conference format, now entering its seventh iteration.

NERD 7th Heaven

Nerd 7th Heaven will be hosted by New Practice, the research platform of the inter-institutional Master’s program Design & Computation at Technische Universität Berlin and Berlin University of the Arts. The event will feature a curated selection of 30-minute research presentations, each followed by 30 minutes for audience questions and in-depth discussion.

We invite submissions from advanced graduate students, doctoral candidates, and early-career postdoctoral researchers to present their ongoing research or completed theses. Contributions should demonstrate a well-conceived, design-based, and empirical or experimental approach and may engage with a wide range of socially, culturally, and intellectually relevant questions.

We take the attributes New and Experimental in NERD seriously—even if sometimes we ourselves can’t say exactly what they mean: if we could, they would likely no longer be new or experimental, but conventional and predictable instead. In other words, we want to be surprised—by bold, unconventional, humorous, even anarchic approaches that challenge expectations and push the boundaries of Design Research.

How to apply

To apply, please submit an extended abstract (1,000–1,500 words) detailing your research project or the specific aspect you wish to present. Submissions should be sent to bird@bird-international-research-in-design.org by April 30, 2025. All submissions will undergo a blind review process, and applicants will be notified of the outcome by June 30, 2025.

The conference will be held in English.

NERD 7th Heaven – New Experimental Research in Design (Berlin, Nov 6–7, 2025)
Technische Universität Berlin & Berlin University of the Arts
New Practice, MA Design & Computation
November 6–7, 2025

Deadline: April 30, 2025

Imagination und Absurdität im Dienste des Denkens –
Ursprung der Pataphysik und ihr Einfluss auf die Wissenschaftskritik

Alfred Jarry definierte die Pataphysik als eine Disziplin, die die „Gesetze untersucht, welche die Ausnahmen regeln“ (Jarry 1982). Sie stellt eine radikale Umkehrung der traditionellen wissenschaftlichen Methodologie dar, die auf universellen Gesetzen und Regelmäßigkeiten basiert. Während die Wissenschaft das Regelmäßige sucht, erhebt die Pataphysik das Einzigartige und das Absurde zur normativen Grundlage. Sie fordert die Logik heraus, indem sie sich mit dem Unwahrscheinlichen und Paradoxen befasst – nicht als bloßer Kritik an der Wissenschaft, sondern als Erweiterung ihrer Möglichkeiten.

Jarrys Werk ist eng mit den intellektuellen Strömungen des Fin de Siècle verbunden, das von einer tiefen Skepsis gegenüber der aufkommenden Dominanz des Positivismus geprägt war (Shattuck 1968). Diese Skepsis, die auch in Bewegungen wie dem Dadaismus und später dem Surrealismus Ausdruck fand, wurde zu einer Quelle kreativer Subversion. Die Surrealisten, etwa André Breton, sahen in der Pataphysik eine Methode, um die Grenzen von Logik und Realität zu überschreiten und das Potenzial des Unbewussten und Absurden in Kunst und Literatur zu erschließen (Breton 1980).

Pataphysik als methodologische Erweiterung der Designforschung

Designforschung zielt – nicht immer, aber häufig – darauf ab, Methoden anzuwenden oder zu entwickeln, die funktionale, ästhetische und gesellschaftliche Probleme adressieren. Dabei ist der Fokus häufig auf pragmatische Lösungen und Effizienz gerichtet, was zwangsläufig normative Rahmenbedingungen reproduziert (Krippendorff 2012). Die Pataphysik stellt diese pragmatische Ausrichtung radikal infrage, indem sie fordert, die Regeln selbst zu hinterfragen und nach Alternativen zu suchen, die jenseits der etablierten Denkweisen liegen.

Ein zumindest in Designgefilden prominenter Ansatz, der sich mit dieser Methodologie annähernd deckt, ist das spekulative Design. Dunne und Raby (2013) definieren dieses als Praxis, die nicht primär auf Problemlösung abzielt, sondern Hypothesen über alternative Zukünfte formuliert. Dabei kommen pataphysische Prinzipien ins Spiel, indem Designer:innen bewusst dysfunktionale oder absurde Objekte entwerfen, die dazu dienen, gesellschaftliche Normen und technologische Entwicklungen zu hinterfragen. Einen vergleichbaren Ansatz nimmt das „Critical Design“ für sich in Anspruch, das ähnliche Ziele verfolgt. Statt die Welt „besser“ zu machen, strebt es danach, eine tiefere Reflexion über soziale und kulturelle Kontexte zu fördern (Malpass 2017). In diesem Kontext wird das pataphysische Denken zu einem epistemischen Werkzeug, um die Funktionalität als oberste Maxime des Designs zu überwinden und Raum für das Spekulative und Imaginäre zu schaffen.

Pataphysik in der praktischen Designforschung: Anwendung und Relevanz

Die Anwendung pataphysischer Prinzipien in der Designforschung erfordert eine bewusste Abkehr von traditionellen Lösungsansätzen. Statt sich ausschließlich auf funktionale oder ästhetische Optimierung zu konzentrieren, können Designer:innen pataphysische Methoden nutzen, um alternative Denkweisen zu kultivieren. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist das Konzept der „imaginären Prototypen“, die nicht als Vorstufen realisierbarer Produkte gedacht sind, sondern als spekulative Objekte, die Fragen aufwerfen und Diskussionen anregen.

Diese Praxis erinnert an die surrealistischen Objekte von Künstlern wie Salvador Dalí oder René Magritte, die alltägliche Dinge auf absurde Weise transformierten, um verborgene Bedeutungen zu offenbaren (Foster et al., 2013). Ein vergleichbarer Ansatz könnte in der Designforschung genutzt werden, um das Verhältnis von Mensch und Technologie zu hinterfragen – etwa durch die Entwicklung von Geräten, die absichtlich dysfunktional sind, um die Abhängigkeit von Effizienz und Rationalität zu problematisieren.

Ein weiteres Anwendungsfeld liegt in der Stadtplanung. Hier können pataphysische Prinzipien verwendet werden, um urbane Räume zu imaginieren, die sich den Zwängen von Funktionalität und Kontrolle entziehen. Die Situationisten, die sich ausdrücklich auf Jarrys Ideen beriefen, entwickelten etwa das Konzept der „dérive“, des ziellosen Flanierens, um Städte als Orte des kreativen Spiels und der Subversion zu erleben (Debord 1996). Ähnliche Ansätze könnten in der Designforschung zur Förderung partizipativer und spekulativer Planung genutzt werden.

Kritik und Perspektiven

Obgleich die Pataphysik in der Designforschung ein enormes Potenzial entfaltet, wird sie auch kritisch betrachtet. Eine häufig geäußerte Sorge ist, dass pataphysische Ansätze das Risiko bergen, sich in ironischer Selbstreferentialität zu verlieren und keine greifbaren Ergebnisse zu liefern (Baudrillard 1983). Doch gerade in ihrer bewussten Abkehr von greifbaren Resultaten liegt ihre Stärke: Die Pataphysik fordert nicht nur das „Was“, sondern vor allem das „Wie“ und „Warum“ heraus, indem sie die epistemischen Grundlagen von Design und Wissenschaft hinterfragt.
Für die Zukunft der Designforschung könnte die Pataphysik zu einer zentralen Quelle der Inspiration werden, insbesondere in einer Welt, die immer stärker von technologischen und ökologischen Umbrüchen geprägt ist. Indem sie alternative Denk- und Gestaltungsräume eröffnet, erlaubt sie es, über die bestehenden Paradigmen hinauszugehen und Gestaltung als kritische und spekulative Praxis zu verstehen.

Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations. Semiotext(e).

Breton, A. (1980). Die Manifeste der Surrealisten. Rohwolt.

Debord, G. (1996). Die Gesellschaft des Spektakels (La société du spectacle). Edition Tiamat

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.

Foster, H., Krauss, R., Bois, Y.-A., & Buchloh, B. H. D. (2013). Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism. Köln: DuMont.

Jarry, A. (1982). Gesten und Meinungen des Doktor Faustroll, Pataphysiker (Gestes et Opinions du Docteur Faustroll, Pataphysicien). Frankfurt a. M.: Insel.

Krippendorff, K. (2012). Die semantische Wende – Eine neue Grundlage für Design. Basel: Birkhäuser.

Malpass, M. (2017). Critical Design in Context: History, Theory, and Practices. London: Bloomsbury.

Shattuck, R. (1968). The Banquet Years: The Origins of the Avant-Garde in France. New York: Vintage.

It cannot be emphasised clearly enough to highlight the importance of the topic “Design Equity” in addressing current challenges, societal and political developments, and not least the various dichotomies in design research. Just for instance: there are different concepts concerning the social dimension of Design. Among several others, “Equity” is one, “Pluriversality” is another one – both are important, but they are different approaches. Renato Leitao recently brought up this topic as well, as both terms are often (wrongly) used interchangeably – particularly, as Renata states, “due to the (…) backlash that (…) terms (such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) are receiving in the US” and other countries as well, right now. (pg. 6)

In this respect, the title of this issue may not have been the ideal choice, although we had long discussions in the search for a suitable title, which always involves a certain kind of exaggeration (and therefore both abbreviation and misleading). When we nevertheless call this issue Design Equity, it is based on the assumption that this term must also be understood and analysed in its ambivalence and ambiguity. Just how fruitful and important this discourse is, was also demonstrated in the DESIGN EQTUITY video conference that we organised for the launch of the journal edition, which attracted a large audience of well over 100 participants. One thing became clear once again: a lot has already been achieved on the one hand, yet there is still so much to do on the other. And it seems increasingly important to maintain a constructive, close dialogue. May our current issue “Design Equity” make a contribution to this.

Chapters by Lesley-Ann Noel, Ana Julia Melo Almeida, Griselda Flesler, Valeria Durán, Celeste Moretti, Raquel Noronha, Leyla Acaroglu, Dorothee Ader, Naomi Rado, Felix Kosok, Bitten Stetter, Uta Brandes and Tom Bieling.

Click [here] to read the online version!

Brandes, Uta & Tom Bieling (Ed.) (2025): Design Equity. DESIGNABILITIES Design Research Journal. Issue 07, 01/25. ISSN 2940-0090

DESIGN EQUITY
Videoconference
23rd January 2025
6pm – 8pm CET
via zoom

SPEAKERS
Bitten Stetter (ZHdK Zürich)
Celeste Moretti (FADU-UBA Buenos Aires)
Dorothee Ader (Klingspor Museum Offenbach)
Felix Kosok (GIU Berlin)
Griselda Flesler (FADU-UBA Buenos Aires)
Lesley-Ann Noel (OCAD Toronto)
Lisa Lenkersdorf (UdK Berlin)
Maria Cecília Loschiavo dos Santos (USP São Paulo)
Naomi Rado (Same bold stories? Frankfurt)
Raquel Noronha (UFMA Maranhão)
Tom Bieling (HfG Offenbach / BIRD)
Uta Brandes (iGDN / BIRD)
Valeria Durán (FADU-UBA Buenos Aires)

Free participation – Register via https://www.eventbrite.de/e/1147606926209?aff=oddtdtcreator to receive the zoom link. Please join for an ecxiting discussion!

Organised by Prof. Dr. Tom Bieling & Prof. Dr. Uta Brandes
DESIGNABILITIES Design Research Journal
www.designabilities.org

For designers, parametric design offers a powerful way to engage with complexity and dynamic systems. It enables the creation of fluid and adaptive structures that respond to environmental, cultural, or functional requirements. Beyond aesthetics, it has practical applications in fields as diverse as architecture, typography, product design, and communication design. By embedding logic into the design process, designers can focus on strategic or other decisions while leveraging computational power to handle intricate details.

On 16 January, Tom Bieling and Johanna Siebein will host a lecture by Prof. Heike Grebin (Hamburg/Berlin) at HfG Offenbach. With her studio Troppo Design and in her work as a trained architect and professor of communication design at the Department of Design at HAW Hamburg, specialising in typography, she deals with parametric design and algorithmic logic, which can be used to generate and control form.

This is also relevant for areas of design beyond the graphic, for instance with regard to aspects such as flexibility (adapting design easily to changing conditions) or efficiency (automating repeated variants and tasks) and much more. Play the System documents the work of students and teachers at HAW Hamburg who are investigating parametric design methods. From critical adaptations of historical design techniques to feminist perspectives or political posters, the works reflect social negotiation processes.

Lecture and discussion start at 17:30 in the left chapel (“Linke Kapelle”) at Isenburger Schloss, HfG Offenbach, Schlossstr. 31. 63065 Offenbach. Free entrance!

https://play-the-system.xyz/

Poster: Siebein

The Klingspor Museum in Offenbach collects modern and contemporary book and type art. It is also home to a large estate from the former type foundry Gebr. Klingspor in Offenbach. In July 2024, the exhibition Same Bold Stories: Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries opened at the Klingspor Museum. The group show was developed through a collaboration between Klingspor Museum, the design studio turbo type and the feminist collective +FEM, bridging historical and contemporary positions in type design. Same Bold Stories offers an opportunity to reflect the contributions of FLINTA* (Female, Lesbian, Inter*, Non-binary, Trans* and Agender) designers to history and practice, as well as institutional processes of collecting. While preparing the exhibition, the curatorial team encountered more questions than they were able to answer, prompting a prolonged and necessary confrontation with established narratives in design research and with the limitations of museal institutions. Written from the perspectives of two of the exhibition’s curators, this essay aims to present and reflect on central motifs and problems of Same Bold Stories, especially with regard to practices of collecting and history writing, and to provide an outlook on possible future approaches to collecting and curating design.

Exhibition view 2, Same Bold Stories, Foto: _turbo type

Canons, Collections, and Critique: Re-evaluating Type Historiography

Type design can be approached from various perspectives: its formal language and expressions convey time-specific fashions, evoking various associations and connotations. Type design can be activist, and play with or completely subvert conventions in a provocative manner. Consequently, type design is inherently political. The history of type design reflects social contexts and values, revealing the stories of the people who created and marketed it. History, on the other hand, is fundamentally shaped within itself by what is preserved, researched, and put on display. To place critique at the centre of design discourses that focus on marginalisation it is crucial to reflect on the structures of preservation. Academic disciplines and their established canons are informed by normative standards that determine what is considered valuable and worthy of preservation. Thus archives and collections are rarely neutral; they reflect deliberate choices, and reveal just one (his)story of many possible narratives – yet often masquerade as a representative whole. When considering what has been inscribed into the canon of design historiography, it is also important to acknowledge the blind spots and gaps that remain while individual oeuvres are highlighted. What and who was excluded from being researched in the first place and to what extent does this reflect the way museums collect and display artefacts? Are their archives equitable, authentic reflections of reality or are they shaped by historical biases that reproduce in present-day curatorial practices?

Women and queer identities, in particular, remain underrepresented in most major exhibitions and also in design historiography (cf. Eisele/Naegele 2024). When looking at this issue through the lens of intersectionality, one will further notice a correlation between the decrease in privileges and the increase of barriers in context of the representation of BIPoC individuals especially within the field of type (cf. Duke 2021). Nevertheless this is not solely the result of museum neglect but of profound societal forces preventing access: women for a long time were denied social participation, and consequently, equity. At the same time, queerness was (and often still is) viewed as deviant – an identity discriminated against, stigmatised, and forced ‘into the closet’ by social prejudice. This also interconnects and partly applies to different forms of ethnic and racial discrimination, even if those are not the main focus of this text. A more equitable approach to collection and exhibition development for all (regardless of class, gender, cultural or religious background) would not only grant equal opportunity to those positions who were historically othered.* It would instead actively address the systemic disadvantages that certain groups still face, and provide them with the support they need to thrive. Based on this, if the ideal of ‘equity’ is taken seriously, it requires more than just a call for parity: such demands need to be grounded in the fundamental principle that labour as well as resources are distributed to each individual according to their abilities, and according to their needs.**

Absent, Erased, Unmentioned?: Women’s Invisibility

While many historical accounts quickly assert that there almost were no female type designers in the first half of the 20th century, a closer examination suggests that women participated in many areas of type production. Their contributions are largely invisible today due to a lack of acknowledgement and documentation during their lifetimes. This situation underscores the selective nature of historiography: while some narratives are highlighted others are marginalised or fully erased. It remains a significant challenge to reconstruct the lives of those whose achievements were not documented.

In 1971, art historian Linda Nochlin posed the question “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” In her essay, she analyses mechanisms of gender discrimination and the limited access to educational and professional opportunities to counter the misconception that women lack talent or ability. According to Nochlin, it is the systemic and institutional barriers that have historically excluded women from achieving success and recognition, thereby contributing to their invisibility in the arts. More than 50 years later, her question is just as relevant. Because one might be tempted to believe that there simply haven’t been enough talented women artists or that they weren’t as ‘great’ as their male counterparts – an obviously false conclusion. It is crucial to explain why women were not acknowledged 1) to demonstrate that visibility does not necessarily reflect the quality of a work of art or design, but rather indicates gatekeeping, and 2) to understand the complex processes involved in the formation and establishment of canons. Gatekeeping, a practice that excludes certain individuals from institutions, also has a significant economic component (cf. Del Prete/Rado/Sanoh 2020), while canons enhance and consolidate symbolic value. Structurally these notions – in an almost reversed-intersectional manner – accumulate privilege.

Another feminist approach focused on design and its historiography is Martha Scotford’s concept of a Messy History. It aims to challenge the traditional, often male-centred narratives by embracing the complexity and multiplicity of historical contributions. Rather than presenting a singular narrative, Scotford advocates for acknowledging diverse and marginalised voices which have received little attention historically (cf. Scotford 1994). Messy History is essential not only for re-evaluating the role of women in type design but also for engaging with postcolonial approaches to historiography. By applying a Messy History approach, the multi-layered nature of history is revealed – which is never defined by a single, objective truth. The notion of Messy History helps dismantle hegemonic narratives and supports a more inclusive and non-linear understanding of (design) history.

Exhibition view 1, Same Bold Stories, Foto: _turbo type

Type design is certainly one of the least permeable design sectors in the 20th century and to this day. Training locations and technical conditions favour the Latin writing system, thus European and North American type designers get more attention on a quantitative level (cf. Ben Ayed 2023; cf. Chahine/Meseguer/Rado 2024: 194–195, 200). In the 20th century, male dominance in this field obviously coincided with opportunities for education and work. But there are more complex reasons worth taking a closer look at: in fact, the research into typefaces designed by women and queers in the 20th and 21st centuries in the Klingspor Museum’s collection has shown that there were indeed several notable positions such as Editha (Dita) Moser, Erika Giovanna Klien, Anna Simons, Hertha Larisch-Ramsauer or Elisabeth Friedländer present already in the first half of the 20th century (cf. Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 114-151). Although they weren’t included in historical records these female designers are probably just the tip of an iceberg yet to be explored. Similarities can also be observed with regard to other countries: Alice Savoie’s research on the women behind Times New Roman exemplifies how female employees, who meticulously documented their work on specific typefaces, played a significant role in the design processes of the British Drawing Offices (Savoie 2020). Despite their important contributions, the involvement of women has been overlooked or ignored in favour of linear historical narratives. By examining their roles, academic research can provide a more nuanced and accurate account of history, challenging the dominant narratives that emphasise individual genius. In context of Times New Roman, this means acknowledging that typeface production was a collaborative effort rather than an individual achievement.

Exhibition view 3, Same Bold Stories, Foto: _turbo type

The Klingspor Museum’s collection offers valuable insight into the working processes of the Gebr. Klingspor type foundry in the early 20th century. While the type designers were indeed all male, the production process still relied on the contributions of many female workers. The museum’s collection features a typescript by Hans Halbey summarising the type foundry’s employee index from 1894 to 1956. In the introduction, the author notes that he documented only employees who had worked at the foundry for over five years and that individuals “were not included if they were not involved in special tasks over a longer period of time, for example as type sorters.” (Halbey cited in Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 105) Of 493 names recorded, only 64 are female, indicating that the typescript is particularly incomplete concerning female employees at Klingspor: women’s careers often ended due to marriage, pregnancy, and similar factors, leading to shorter work periods (cf. Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 105).

Photographs from the Klingspor foundry show female employees in many different places, and the job of type sorter seems to have been a purely female occupation: the finished typefaces were checked by the type sorter using the casting slip and arranged alphabetically in fixed units (cf. Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 106–107). In the publication Schriftgießerei im Schattenbild (Type foundry in Paper Cut), Rudolf Koch describes the finished packaged unit of the type sorter with the remarkable words “underneath, full of verve, she boldly places her own name, like the artist does.” (Koch cited in Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 107) The recognition of the type sorter in Koch’s text is a rare example of acknowledging women’s contributions to type production in the early 20th century. According to Cheryl Buckley, the silence about women’s work is a “direct consequence of specific historiographic methods. These methods, which involve the selection, classification, and prioritization of types of design […] are inherently biased against women and, in effect, serve to exclude them from history.” (Buckley 1986: 3) As a result, much of women’s involvement remains undocumented, often leaving only names, if anything, and making reconstruction nearly impossible.

Font Gupper by Giulia Boggio

Font Violet by Carmen Nacher

The Politics of Preservation: Power Relations in Archive and Collection Development

Archives require significant maintenance and care, as their preservation demands continuous attention and safeguarding. In this way, the role of the archivist parallels a particular interpretation of curatorial work: the verb to curate comes from the Latin curare, en. to care for (cf. Buurman 2021: 21; for further reading on the notion of ‘curating as care work’ see: Krasny/Perry 2023). Both the curator and the archivist in this sense perform care work, ensuring that objects of cultural or historical significance are protected. However, the roles of archivists, curators and custodians have historically been male-dominated, despite the fact that the notion of care work is traditionally feminised. This reveals an inherent ambiguity and problem: while care work for children or the elderly is still a female (unpaid) domain, the professional care of high art has largely been entrusted to men, and therefore reproduces patriarchal structures. Even though more FLINTA* individuals now occupy archival and curatorial positions, the artefacts considered worthy of preservation are still predominantly those attributed to men’s legacies and genius, reinforcing a gendered hierarchy. This divide exemplifies how gendered divisions of labour and recognition continue to influence both, archival and curatorial, practices.

The Klingspor archive holds an extensive type-related collection that also includes type samples and documents from numerous other type foundries. Names of well-known, and exclusively male idols dominate this collection together with the narrative of heroes and exceptional talents who wrote type history in the 20th century. A fundamental aspect of a museum’s responsibilities lies in its ‘collection concepts,’ which define how a collection is structured and expanded. This process involves countless decisions, determining which contexts are significant and how these are reflected in a collection. Unfortunately, within an institution, particularly one with a long tradition of collecting, decision-makers are never entirely independent; structures and thought patterns change slowly. In recent years, museums increasingly re-examine their collections considering these deficiencies in the representation of women and other marginalised positions.

This one-sided approach to collecting has multiple underlying reasons, but one in particular places female contributions at a significant disadvantage. Many collection concepts continue to adhere to a narrow definition of what constitutes valuable works, primarily focusing on individuals whose lifetime achievements are characterised as ‘oeuvres.’ Especially when examining earlier periods, fewer bodies of work by women are found to align with this criterion. The Klingspor Museum’s cataloguing of female type designers has revealed numerous working biographies from the early 20th century, often marked by brief, intense creative periods that were abruptly ended due to marriage, motherhood, displacement, or economic challenges. The inclusion of these positions in the collection is often coincidental. As a result, the collection largely reproduces a one-sided, linear narrative, reflecting the concept described by Scotford as a Neat History (in contrast to a Messy History).
In type design, a fundamental re-evaluation is necessary to provide a more comprehensive framework for future research. Addressing the gaps, parallels, and collective developments is essential for representing type as a social phenomenon. However, it is important to address how the principles of Messy History can be integrated into collection concepts. Naïma Ben Ayed provides instructions for a change in the practice of archiving: “Working collectively and collaboratively, commence an archive of multi-script letters, looking for lettering, calligraphy and writings more than type specimens. Research periodicals, ephemera, street signs, packaging, political leaflets, family letters, etc.” (Ben Ayed 2023). Re-thinking the tasks of an archive can lead to new possibilities for understanding its function and role. By viewing the archive as an evolving entity or a process-driven development, it can re-engage with past discourses and connect them to contemporary issues, opening it to a more emancipatory approach to archival practice. Teal Triggs, professor at the Royal College of Art in London and a founding member of the Women’s Design and Research Unit, also suggests that archiving should not merely serve as a means of preservation but as an active, dynamic resource that enlivens debates and facilitates critical engagement. Triggs emphasises that archives play a crucial role in dismantling barriers, enabling students and scholars to pursue their individual goals and perspectives while contributing to broader discussions (cf. Rado/Triggs 2024: 93–94). In this way, archives transcend their traditional role of conservation and become a method for re-contextualising knowledge, establishing new connections, and bridging the gaps caused by generational and disciplinary divides. This transformative potential demonstrates how archives function as both, repositories of memory and spaces of active inquiry. Archives can continuously reshape and extend the narratives of the objects they preserve.

Archives and collections are increasingly central to design history research, serving as foundational resources for historiography while also offering a rich array of possibilities, models, and inspiration. This growing focus on archival resources arises, in part, from the inadequate representation found in mainstream institutions. As a result, smaller or independent organisations often take the initiative to actively showcase contributions that are overlooked (cf. Rado 2021: 18–19). Platforms such as FLINType, a database that showcases global FLINTA typefaces in different scripts, ensure that the diversity and variety within the field are documented, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the international scene. (Nevertheless such digital collections are themselves in need of concepts of preservation.) Such efforts illustrate that visibility in type design is inherently tied to processes of archiving and cataloguing, which make typefaces accessible to the public.

On Visibility I: Unveiling the Hidden Narratives

Strategies of visibility involve processes such as naming, speaking, publishing, and exhibiting. Engaging with and sustaining these platforms requires networks, time, and energy. Even today, these factors continue to disproportionately disadvantage FLINTA* individuals. This inequality is particularly evident in various roles within the museum’s historical collection of type design, reinforcing the prevailing mechanisms of gatekeeping that influence museum collections.
With regard to the historic type design collection, numerous female names appear in the estates of Rudolf von Larisch’s type classes in Vienna from 1902 and Rudolf Koch’s type classes in Offenbach from 1906. The most notable names in these collections are Anna Simons, Hertha Larisch-Ramsauer, Gudrun Zapf-von Hesse, Elisabeth Friedländer, Dita Moser and Erika Giovanna Klien. The museum’s inventory provides several insights into the visibility of women in early 20th-century type design:

1. Compilations of works, which came to the museum unfiltered by archivists or collectors, feature numerous female names. Women, who studied in writing classes in Vienna and Offenbach in the early 20th century, are likely to have worked in the relevant field as well. Their works were not specifically collected, but rather entered the museum’s collection by chance. It is noteworthy that the School of Arts and Crafts in Vienna did not officially admit women until 1920. Nevertheless, an art school for women and girls opened in Vienna in 1897, and trained 200 to 300 female students per year (cf. Arbeitskreis für Gleichbehandlungsfragen, 2024).

2. Dita Moser, Hertha Larisch-Ramsauer and Gudrun Zapf-von Hesse are three better-known figures whose husbands worked in the same field. They therefore had access to networks. Dita Moser, whose calendar works from 1908 and 1910 are included in the collection, was also part of the Wiener Werkstätte, which her wealthy family supported financially (cf. Ader/Ledenev/Prenzel 2024: 128–129).

3. More prominently collected items correspond to the ‘collection-worthy’ concept of work. Anna Simons’ or Erika Giovanna Klien’s works, in addition to a lifelong artistic activity, were considered innovative, fitting the role of pioneers, and therefore fit into the concept of Neat History (Scotford 1994: 369). Simons was one of the first women to study at the Royal College of Art in London from 1896, supervised by Edward Johnston. As a lecturer in lettering and typography, she taught in Düsseldorf, Weimar, Hamburg, Munich, Halle, Nuremberg and Zurich. Her teaching methods influenced generations of students in the field of type. Erika Giovanna Klien was a student of Franz Čižek and Rudolf von Larisch at the Vienna School of Arts and Crafts from 1919 to 1925. She was one of the protagonists of the Viennese Kinetism art movement, which she pursued and further developed until her death in 1957.

On Visibility II: Collectivity, Empowerment, and Innovation

The historical absence of FLINTA* individuals in type design, a practice at the intersection of industrial production and artistic expression, also reflects broader issues such as authorship and ownership. However, recent developments within the type design industry signal a shift toward greater inclusivity. Today, FLINTA* designers not only confidently create typefaces, but they also shape the contemporary international type scene. This increase in visibility can be attributed to multiple factors, including technological advancements (cf. Chahine/Meseguer/Rado 2024: 200). The democratisation of design through user-friendly software has made it easier for individuals to engage with type design independently, without the need for traditional educational or institutional backing. Through digital accessibility designers now have the freedom to work from anywhere, and to market their work directly through personal websites and new platforms dedicated to publishing, bypassing conventional gatekeepers and providing alternative routes to visibility.

Furthermore, digital communication and collaboration tools have facilitated the creation of international networks, allowing designers to connect, share resources, and explore new forms of cooperation: in collectives, cooperatives, and small teams, FLINTA* individuals often adopt work practices that emphasise shared authorship (cf. Kliefoth 2018) and mutual support, thus challenging traditional hierarchies. Examples for such networks are associations and opportunities tailored specifically toward FLINTA* designers, such as Alphabettes, and the Malee Scholarship (for further reading see Chahine/Meseguer/Rado 2024: 193, 200–201). An example of collaborative work featured in the exhibition is Flavia Zimbardi, who creates type families in joint authorship with fellow type designers, Ayaka B. Ito, Inga Plönnings, and Tida Tep (Type Electives 2024). By incrementally publishing these typefaces they also revive a strategy once common in traditional type foundries: releasing individual typefaces before expanding them into families. This approach reflects a trend in contemporary type design, where the practice is no longer seen as static but as continuously evolving, and process-driven.

Inclusivity has become a central concern in the design field, particularly in relation to accessibility and diversity. By integrating these elements into type design, significant barriers and gaps in representation and usability can be addressed. A notable approach is emerging that moves in two directions, giving equal consideration to both: 1) ensuring that typefaces are accessible to individuals with diverse abilities, as reflected in updates to WCAG standards, and 2) making the type design industry itself more accessible to individuals with different abilities and from diverse backgrounds, by creating opportunities for participation through specific programs, mentorships, and scholarships. This shift toward inclusivity reflects a broader cultural and political recognition that design must meet the needs of all, rather than just a select few. In connection to more inclusive practices, allyship within the type industry is gaining importance as a means of accountability. In an interview for the publication accompanying the exhibition Same Bold Stories, Giulia Boggio, art director at ALT.tf and type designer, emphasises the need for greater accountability among major industry players and a critical reflection on how the industry perpetuates exclusionary practices:

“Not everyone can afford to pay just to have their work reviewed. This automatically excludes students and early-career professionals. Consequently, we keep seeing the same people winning, and we wonder, ‘How is this possible?’ – this is why. It’s a hard truth, but one that must be acknowledged when considering awards, prizes, and even publications. These practices are far from inclusive.” (Boggio/Rado/Weaver 2024: 175)

Effective allyship involves advocacy and action: it means to use one’s privileges to support the voices of those who are affected by systemic injustices. By addressing inequalities, the industry can actively work toward a more equitable future where all designers have the opportunity to succeed and contribute their unique viewpoints.

Such tendencies in the reflection about type design show that it is no longer just about creating functional or aesthetic letterforms; it is about rethinking who gets to participate in shaping the visual language of our world. The increasing visibilities of FLINTA* individuals and other marginalised groups mark a critical shift in the industry, one that challenges long-standing gendered hierarchies and opens new possibilities for design as a socially engaged practice. Fostering inclusivity in type design, however, is not solely the responsibility of designers and scholars: users must also actively engage with and utilise typefaces beyond those traditionally deemed ‘high quality’ according to established norms. By intentionally widening their selections to encompass typefaces from a more diverse range of designers, users can contribute to challenging entrenched biases and promoting greater equity within the field.

Font Sisters Two by Laura Meseguer

Annotations

• Originating from Simone de Beauvoir’s analysis in The Second Sex (Le Deuxième Sexe), ‘othering’ refers to how women, and by extension marginalised groups, are cast as the ‘Other’ (l’Autre) in contrast to a normative ‘Self’ (typically a white, heterosexual male). This process alienates and dehumanises the ‘Other,’ denying them full subjectivity, agency, and inclusion in societal narratives. While the original French term centres on ‘l’altérité’ (otherness) and ‘l’Autre’ to capture this dynamic of marginalisation, the specific verb form ‘othering’ is more commonly used in English-language feminist discourse.

** This principle is based on Karl Marx’s ideas expressed in Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875).

An abridged version of this text can be found in the DESIGN EQUITY issue of the DESIGNABILITIES Design Research Journal

Ader, D., Ledenev, V. and Prenzel, T. (2024). ‘Same (B)old Stories? The Things a Collection Does (Not) Tell.’ In: Klingspor Museum and Rado, N. (eds.), Same Bold Stories? Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries, Offenbach, pp. 98–163.

Arbeitskreis für Gleichbehandlungsfragen (2024). Zur Geschichte des Frauenstudiums an der Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien. [online] Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien. URL: https://www.akbild.ac.at/de/universitaet/arbeitskreis-fur-gleichbehandlungsfragen/copy_of_geschichte [Accessed 23 Sep. 2024].

Ben Ayed, N. (2023). أحْرُف وكَلِمَاتْ وقِصَصْ A Multi-Script Type Design Program. [online] Futuress. URL: https://futuress.org/stories/letters-words-stories/ [Accessed 17 Sep. 2024].

Beyerle, T. and Meer, J. (eds.), (2024). The F*word – Guerrilla: Girls und feministisches Grafikdesign. Heidelberg: arthistoricum.net. doi: https://doi.org/10.11588/arthistoricum.1325.

Buckley, C. (1986): ‘Made in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women and Design.’ Design Issues, 3:2, pp. 3–14.

Buurman, N. (2021). ‘From Prison Guard to Healer: Curatorial Subjectivities in the Context of Gendered Economies.’ On Curating, 52, pp. 21–34.

Del Prete, L., Rado, N. and Sanoh, D. (2020). Free from Discourse: On Institutional Accountability. [online] PASSE-AVANT. URL: https://passe-avant.net/features/free-from-discourse-staedelmueum [Accessed 20 Sep. 2024].

Duke University Libraries (ed.), (2021). Exploring Diversity: What Difference Does a Font Make? [online] Duke University Libraries. URL: https://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/font/intro [Accessed 22 Sep. 2024].

Eisele, P. and Naegele, I. (2024). ‘UN/SEEN – SEEN. For the Visibility of Female Graphic Designers and Typographers 1865–1919 and Today.’ In: Klingspor Museum and Rado, N. (eds.), Same Bold Stories? Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Offenbach: Klingspor Museum, pp. 42–67.

Kliefoth, M. (2018). Tools and Shapes of Shared Authorship. [online] TYPO International Design Talks. URL: https://www.typotalks.com/news/2018/05/09/tools-and-shapes-of-shared-authorship/ [Accessed 20 Sep. 2024].

Krasny, E. and Perry, L. (2023). Curating with Care. 1st Edition, London, New York: Routledge.

Nochlin, L. (1971). ‘Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?’ originally published in ARTnews, 69(9), here cited as reprinted in Nochlin, L. (1988). Women, Art and Power and Other Essays. 1st Edition, New York: Harper & Row, pp. 145–178.

Rado, N. (2024). Interview with Dr Nadine Chahine and Laura Meseguer. In: Klingspor Museum and Rado, N. (eds.), Same Bold Stories? Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Offenbach: Klingspor Museum, pp. 182–203.

Rado, N. (2024). Interview with Giulia Boggio and Amber Weaver. In: Klingspor Museum and Rado, N. (eds.), Same Bold Stories? Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Offenbach: Klingspor Museum, pp. 166–179.

Rado, N. (2024). Interview with Teal Triggs. In: Klingspor Museum and Rado, N. (eds.), Same Bold Stories? Type Design by Women and Queers in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Offenbach: Klingspor Museum, pp. 70–95.

Rado, N. (2021). Offspaces als Gegenöffentlichkeit. In: KVTV (ed.), Koi_Pond. Frankfurt am Main: n.p., pp. 16–19.

Savoie, A. (2020). ‘The Women Behind Times New Roman: The Contribution of Type Drawing Offices to Twentieth Century Type-Making.’ Journal of Design History, 33(3), pp. 209–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epaa025.

Scotford, M. (1994). ‘Messy History vs. Neat History: Toward an Expanded View of Women in Graphic Design.’ Visible Language, 28(4), pp. 368 – 388.

Type Electives (ed.), (2024). TE Lecture Series: Women in Type. [online] Type Electives. URL: https://www.typeelectives.com/events/te-lecture-series-women-in-type-tickets-837747333827 [Accessed 20 Sep. 2024].

Born on December 6, 1977, Nova’s multidisciplinary approach bridged social sciences, information technology, design, and natural sciences. His life’s work centered on understanding everyday cultures and their dynamic interactions with technology, always seeking to tell compelling stories about the ways innovation shapes and is shaped by human behavior. As a beloved professor at the Haute École d’art et de design Genève (HEAD), Nova not only guided countless students but also championed the exploration of how design could illuminate the societal impacts of emerging technologies and environmental changes. His insights challenged conventional thinking and opened doors to new ways of understanding the world.

Nicolas Nova’s passing leaves a void in the field of design research and in the lives of those who admired his work and character. While we mourn his loss, we also celebrate the lasting legacy of his contributions, which will continue to inspire and resonate with future generations.

Tom Bieling

Die Buchvorstellung fand am 20. November 2024 an der HfG statt. Prof. Dr. Kai Vöckler, Professor für Urban Design und Prof. em. Dr. Marc Ries, ehem. Professor für Medientheorie näherten sich im Gespräch mit HfG-Präsidentin Prof. Dr. Brigitte Franzen, der Kanzlerin Dr. Susanne Eickemeier, der Typografie-Professorin Johanna Siebein und HfG Alumna Prof. Dr. Dagmar Steffen dem Wissen und um die historischen Epochen und daran anknüpfenden Diskursen und Konflikten der Frage, ob wir heute tatsächlich weiter sind als die damals verkündeten Ziele und Visionen.

Das ursprüngliche Werk von Michael Erlhoff setzte bereits in den 1990er-Jahren einen Meilenstein in der Diskussion über nachhaltige Nutzungskonzepte und Alternativen zu traditionellen Konsummodellen. Im Zentrum stand die Vision, Besitztum durch kollektive Nutzung zu ersetzen – ein Ansatz, der heute unter Begriffen wie Sharing Economy oder Kreislaufwirtschaft bekannt ist. Die Neuauflage greift diese Konzepte auf und erweitert sie um aktuelle Themen und Beiträge.

Das Projekt sucht über Spenden finanzielle Unterstützung, um die Druckkosten und die damit verbundenen Aufwände abzudecken. Ziel ist es, 8.000 Euro zu sammeln. Unterstützer:innen können je nach Höhe ihrer Spende verschiedene Dankeschöns erwarten:

Namentliche Erwähnung Spender:innen können auf Wunsch im Buch genannt werden.
Ein kostenloses Exemplar Für Spenden ab 75 Euro wird nach Erscheinen ein Exemplar des Buches zugesandt (Versand innerhalb Deutschlands, Österreichs und der Schweiz).
Einladung zu einem festlichen Dinner Bei Spenden ab 300 Euro erfolgt eine Einladung zu einem Dinner im Rahmen der 7. NERD-Konferenz in Berlin, bei der das Buch vorgestellt wird.

„Nutzen statt Besitzen revisited“ ist nicht nur eine Hommage an ein visionäres Werk, sondern auch ein Aufruf, sich mit aktuellen und künftigen Fragen nachhaltiger Ressourcennutzung auseinanderzusetzen. Die Unerstützung dieses Buchpjrojektes möge dazu beitragen, neue Denkanstöße zu geben und die Diskussion über nachhaltiges Design weiter voranzutreiben.

Link zur Crowdfunding Kampagne: https://gofund.me/2d2d5aa6
BIRD Link: https://www.bird-international-research-in-design.org/books

Start Correlations Forum: Wednesday 11.12, 16:00 | Aula

Welcome: Prof. Dr Brigitte Franzen
Lecture by Prof. Dr Varvara Guljajeva - ‘Artistic Strategies to Guide Neural Networks’
Lecture Ariana Dongus - ‘Always in Beta? AI, Data, and Labor in Experimental Economies of Exclusion’, Wed, 11.12., 18:00 | Aula

Exhibition opening and performances: Wed, 11.12., 19:30 | left and right chapel

In the accompanying exhibition, students from the HfG Offenbach and the KITeGG partner universities will show works that deal with the cultural and social dimensions of AI. Among other things, video works, interactive installations and performances will be shown.

Extract from the programme:

Panel ‘Generative AI and Photography’ with Anja Engelke, Roland Meyer, Olga Moskatova, Lukas Wilde, Diego Nóbrega, Thu, 12 Dec, 10:30 - 12:00 | Aula
Lecture Hannes Bajohr - ‘Degrees of Distance: Authorship and AI’, Thu, 12 Dec, 17:00
Workshop programme, Fri, 13.12., 10:00 - 17:30
Tereza Ruller ‘The Synthesised Self - Crafting Personal Narratives through AI and Sound’ | D301
Leon-Etienne Kühr ‘Becoming Fluent in Token-Language’ | Robotics Lab
Tym Novikov ‘Real-time AI systems’ | AI Lab

Admission is free and registration is not required.

At the same time, it is intended to respond to a larger paradigm shift that seems to be taking place in art and culture as well as in the scientific field and which is expressed on the one hand in crises of legitimization and on the other in new and creative forms of research and production of knowledge.

The HfG Karlsruhe is taking this diagnosis as an opportunity to rethink hybrid formats of research and also to question the function of academic doctorates. To present and discuss these programmatic considerations, the symposium with international guests aims to create spaces and ideas for a transforming research practice.

With Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, Matthias Bruhn, Filipa César, Constanze Fischbeck, Alistair Hudson, Susanne Kriemann, Armin Linke, Tina Lorenz, Monica Narula, Simon Sheikh, Joy Mariama Smith, Nina Zschocke and others.

The event opened with a warm welcome from Prof. Dr. Helge Oder (TH Augsburg ) and Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Jonas (BIRD), setting the stage for a program filled with diverse topics and perspectives. The first session, “Alive Matters”, chaired by Dr. des. Marc Pfaff (BIRD / TU Berlin), explored the interplay between design and biological materials. Emma Sicher (HU Berlin / Matters of Activity / HfG Offenbach) presented her work on the variety of biomaterials studied in laboratory and natural settings, while Marta Mastalerska-Scholz (TU Berlin) examined mycelium-based composites and their applications in bio-inclusive architecture, bridging ecological and technological approaches.

The afternoon featured the session “Speculative Existences”, moderated by Prof. Dr. Michelle Christensen (BIRD / TU Berlin). Here, Veronica Ranner (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) delved into bio-digital futures, emphasizing collective speculative methodologies to envision new possibilities. Following this, Lisa Glauer (Kang Contemporary) shared experimental artistic (research) approaches reimagining human-machine interactions, after a scheduled presentation by Louise Permiin (Kolding School of Design, Denmark) had to be canceled.

Another highlight was the session “Spatial Encounters”, chaired by Prof. Dr. Tom Bieling (BIRD / HfG Offenbach), which focused on rethinking institutional and spatial design paradigms. Clee-Zhuo Wang brought a posthumanist perspective to design transformation, drawing on observations from Hong Kong, while Ozan Güngör shared strategies for challenging hegemonic structures within institutional spaces. The day concluded with the launch of the book “NERD – New Experimental Research in Design III”, presented by Michelle Christensen & Tom Bieling, followed by a hearty, convivial conference dinner and an exploratory study of Augsburg’s nightlife by some eager conference participants.

The second day opened with “Textile Narratives”, hosted by Prof. Dr. Uta Brandes (BIRD / iGDN). Pamela Nelson showcased how digital embroidery techniques are redefining the boundaries between craft and technology, while Valerie Lange discussed the designer’s role in repairing and revitalizing fashion, reflecting on sustainability.

In the session “Machinic Extensions”, moderated by Prof. Dr. Sandra Groll (Zhejaiang Wanli University), Elias Naphausen presented his project “RoboSonic Play” (supervised by Jan Willmann, and Andreas Muxel), introduced by a performative session outside the conference hall) exploring sound-based dimensions of alternative perceptions. Since Natascha Tümpel’s presentation on computational design’s potential to push aesthetic limits was cancelled, Ranjit Menon’s (Amrita University, India) talk took place earlier than planned. He explored the integration of systems thinking in design education.

The final session, “Explorative Reflections”, chaired by Marc Pfaff, centered on Luz Christopher Seiberth’s (University Potsdam) and Robert Fehse’s (Argument) discussion on the non/role of recipies in design processes. The lively closing discussion, which encouraged attendees to reflect but also contemplate future directions for experimental design research, was moved to the foyer rooms for reasons of time and space, thus creating a smooth transition to a well-deserved weekend after an intensive and productive conference

Overall, the 6th NERD Conference was a vibrant celebration of experimental design, fostering dialogue among researchers and practitioners from diverse disciplines. The carefully curated program and dynamic discussions reaffirmed its importance as a platform for practice-based and critical inquiry in the design research community, and the lovely feeling of watching a discipline grow.

The one-day forum, will reflect on how power relations and contexts shape the production and validation of knowledge and how we can situate our own points of view. It will contain contributions by Bafta Sarbo, Kevin Ochieng Okoth and other guests as well as reports from workshops with Eric Otieno Sumba, Ozan Güngör, Elvira Soliman and students from the Bachelor’s degree programme in Process Design and the Master’s degree programme in Transversal Design.

The ‘Gathering Knowledges’ Day, organised by Prof. Ann Mbuti, tina omayemi reden and Prof. Matthias Böttger will be held in English, it is open to everyone, admission free.

Date and time
29 November 2024, 10:00-17:00

Venue
University of Art and Design Basel FHNW
Critical Media Lab, D 3.05
Freilager-Platz 1
4142 Münchenstein b. Basel

The book 1970 HfG, recently edited by Kai Vöckler and Marc Ries, traces the debates surrounding 1970 in this regard, both the debate within the institution about the school’s reorientation and the historical context, and poses the question of where we stand today in relation to the goals declared at the time. To this end, interviews were conducted with contemporary witnesses, as well as contributions focussing on the institutional reorientation, architecture, type design, experimental design and design research.

We shall see these as ‘teasers’, using our knowledge of the historical epochs and conflicts to enquire about the balance sheet of social development fifty years later, whether we have actually moved on today from the goals and visions declared at the time.

The book launch will take place on 20 November 2024, 6 pm in the HfG library, Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach am Main, University of Art and Design, Schloßstraße 31, 63065 Offenbach am Main, main building 3rd floor.

Prof. Dr Kai Vöckler, Professor of Urban Design and Prof. em. Dr Marc Ries, former Professor of Media Theory will be in conversation with HfG President Prof. Dr Brigitte Franzen, Chancellor Dr Susanne Eickemeier, Typography Professor Johanna Siebein, Klaus Staudt, former Sculpture Professor and Dagmar Steffen, HfG alumna and former lecturer.

Vision und Verantwortung – Zur Gründung der HfG Offenbach 1970
Hg. Marc Ries, Kai Vöckler
ISBN: 978-3-89986-416-8
Language: german
Release: October 2024

When attempting to categorise design as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it is noticeable that they are of little help due to their severe limitations. Neither in terms of understanding design itself. Nor in terms of how it could be done differently, i.e. how a ‘bad’ design could be transformed into a ‘good’ one. The conceptual information required for this is hardly sufficient. In common parlance, ‘bad design’ is often equated with ‘ugly’, i.e. it tends to refer to visual, external appearances and does not go into enough depth.

The situation is similar with term surrogates such as ‘stupid’ (idiotic, dorky) design - there is an albeit subtle, but nonetheless obvious ableism here. Words such as ‘stupid’ and ‘idiotic’ were for a long time medical terms used to describe intelligence quotients or mental performance, but over time were used in a derogatory way. The use of these words as insults can have an offensive effect on some people and contribute to the marginalisation of people with disabilities. This is because prejudice, discrimination or degradation of people is also conceptually perpetuated, which can contribute to reinforcing existing prejudices and stereotypes (about people or issues).

In the winter semester 2023/24, a group of 33 students at HfG Offenbach (Supervision: Prof. Dr. Tom Bieling) got to the bottom of the phenomenon of design ignorance. Different forms and phenomena were formulated and tested together, in groups or separately. The predominantly theoretical, discursive, but also practical exploration was deliberately critical. The aim of the course was, on the one hand, to sharpen the students’ ability to analytically and argumentatively analyse the various thematic spectrums of design. On the other hand, the methodological transfer of knowledge and thought was intended to help clarify the scope of argumentation in design processes.

To this end, they will dealt with different forms, things and media of critical articulation – reading, writing, photographing, posting, discussing and designing. This resulted in texts, cartographies, a photo safari, a website (www.ignorantdesign.de), thematic clusters and categories, a logo, stickers, an Instagram account (@ignorantes_design) and event concepts. The photos shown on the website or on insta are from the educational ethnographic exploration phase and were taken by the project participants in and around Offenbach.

www.ignorantdesign.de

Hosted by the Innovation Center of Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design in Budapest, over two days between 7-8 November 2024, participants will have the opportunity to engage with designers, researchers, industry experts, and students through a series of keynote presentations, lectures, workshops, and an exhibition. The conference will be accomponaied by an exhibition at MOME.

Program

Day 1: 7 November – Advanced Craft

8:00 – 9:00
Arrival & Coffee

9:00 – 10:00
OPENING KEYNOTE LECTURE
Dr. Thora Arnardottir
Postdoctoral Researcher, Northumbria University Associate Lecturer, University of the Arts London

10:00 – 12:00
Track 1
NATURE CRAFT: INTEGRATING LIFE INTO FUTURE FABRICATIONSi
Carla Paoliello
Invited Assistant Professor, ISMAT/COFAC
Américo Mateus
Assistant Professor, ISMAT/COFAC
Yuta Ikeya
PhD Candidate, Eindhoven University of Technology
Svenja Keune
Researcher, Swedish School of Textiles, University of Borås
Stephen Harris
Director, Full Grown

Panel Discussion and Q&A

12:00 – 13:00
Lunch & Networking Break

13:00 – 15:00
Track 2
FUTURE AESTHETICS: CRAFT AND MATERIAL TRANSFORMATIONi
Caroline Till
Co-Founder & Executive Director, FranklinTill
Sofia Duarte
PhD Candidate, Lecturer, Politecnico di Milano
Harry Thaler
Designer
Martin Brambley
Co-Founder & CEO, Doppelhaus Ltd (Cloudwool)
Erzsébet Szabolcs
Programme Manager, Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design
Vanda Kaviczki
Shoemaker, Hungarian State Opera
Melissa Lindemeyer
Colour Designer, RAL Colours

Panel Discussion and Q&A

15:30 – 18:30
Workshops

18:30 – 21:30
Masterclass

Day 2: 8 November – Conscious Tech

8:00 – 9:00
Arrival & Coffee

9:00 – 10:00
KEYNOTE LECTURE
Tom Szaky
Founder & CEO, TerraCycle & Loop

10:00 – 12:00
Track 3
DECENTRALIZING INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION: INNOVATING WITH OPEN-SOURCE MATERIALSi
Roosmarie Ruigok
CEO, Clean & Unique
Sara Diaz Rodriguez
Founder, HILO
Co-Founder, Berlin Textile Coop
Arianna Moroder
Textile Designer, Co-Founder, Lottozero
Giovanni Milazzo
CEO, BIOESIS
Panel Discussion and Q&A

12:00 – 13:00
Lunch & Networking Break

13:00 – 15:00
Track 4
SOLAR PUNK VS GREENWASHED CYBER PUNK: UP-SCALING SUSTAINABLE CRAFTMANSHIPi
Chris Lefteri
Director, Materials Expert and Author, Chris Lefteri Design
(presenting online)
Gaia Crippa
Head of Materials Innovation, Chris Lefteri Design
Clara Bartholomeu
Lead CMF Designer, Peec Mobility Innovative Materials Teacher, Istituto Marangoni
Zsófia Gudlin
Designer, STUDIO GUDZSO
Rolf Köhler
Technical Design and Design Manager, Alutrim
Krisztián Mihály Góra
Okodome Founder, Development Lead
Krisztina Radnóti
Okodome Founder, Business Lead

Panel Discussion and Q&A

15:30 – 18:30
Workshops

18:30 – 21:30
Closing Party

More info: https://futurematerials.mome.hu/conference/