Isabel Prade’s Design Truth
“Interesting impacts can happen on a very small scale, they do not always need to show a big revolution for creating a relevant question. All they need is to connect to the people and invite them to experience another point of view.”
Isabel, what first inspired your interest in the future of emerging technologies?
In the first place, the wish to simply understand more about what is going on in that field and asking questions about which possible futures we might be heading towards. By looking closer at all the ideas that are developed out there, I have not just accepted that evolution is moving extraordinarily fast, but also how much it continuously provokes changes in our everyday lives without us always consciously noticing it.
This is actually the part I’m most interested in: how technology is integrating itself almost autonomously and is becoming an individual player. I’m curious about how we need to adapt to it and which solutions we can find to create a homogenous interplay.
Symbiosis, 2016.
Who has been the biggest influence on your approach?
When I started my studies, a whole new world opened up to me. The design department I chose at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna was led by Fiona Raby until the summer of last year. Back then, I already had an idea of what design could be, but I soon discovered a lot of new perspectives on it also.
Through the questions Fiona would ask and by seeing her way of thinking, I got introduced to design as an explorative tool which can be highly playful. Stepping into the world of design in an experimental way has influenced me a lot and has taught me about the wide range of possibilities this field offers.
I have also always been inspired by other young designers – probably even more than by the already established ones, as I think it is interesting to observe how different design approaches evolve and get redefined over time.
How would communication look like if we would start creating new languages by using other senses than usual to express ourselves and understand each other?
This is the era of hyper-connectivity; the degrees of separation between individuals move towards zero and the individual elements of our social tapestry contain a multitude of styles, lives, and identities. This scenario is growing and we are living a sort of contradiction: the new sensibility at the moment seems to be a sense of isolation and that we desire to create a new kind of emotional connection. How might we be able to do this?
The way human relationships and identities are formed has changed a lot indeed. It has become unclear if this hyper-connectivity makes us grow together or apart – if it teaches us more about each other or rather about ourselves.
I feel that it is both at the same time and that the interesting part lies in finding out how to use the benefits of new communication methods and become aware of the parts that do not contribute positively to our relationships, so they can be avoided more consciously.
Human beings have always felt the need to share and interchange with others – indeed, it is a human need that will always stay. Yet, what is changing are the tools that we use to connect with each other, creating new ways of expression and behavioural patterns. Speaking in general, social interactions have become incredibly transparent and are losing depth and meaning. Therefore, they become less tangible and real.
I think we need to look for the kind of tangibility that helps us to create valuable connections. I approach such questions often by asking myself how we currently apply our senses for certain activities and what we could change to get a new perspective on those already established attitudes. For example, how would communication look like if we would start creating new languages by using other senses than usual to express ourselves and understand each other?
Molecular control mechanisms are engineered. What do you think technology ‘wants’?
Technology and nature have always gone hand in hand. Often, they feel like two separated worlds, but in fact they influence each other on so many levels that it is hard to see them apart.
The inspiration for technological development has mostly been found in nature. What is happening now is that instead of nature just serving as an example, the two worlds are growing more and more unified.
There are many problems confronting humanity and so many differences between the world of the science as body of knowledge and the subjective world of mental states (and also the personal and the social). Are smart solutions, in the sense of designing out all imperfections, the only way to solve them? Or they could smart solutions contribute to increasing our society’s ability to deal with complexity?
First of all I believe that imperfections are important for us to grow and evolve. Perfection, as I see it, is incredibly subjective in itself and therefore will always bring its counterpart –imperfection – with it. What I want to say is that most of the time when there is a design that tries to solve something, it will always bring up new questions and ask for further steps.
We live in a world that tries to provide smart solutions all the time and I still find it incredibly complex and not easy to deal with it at all. As I understand the question, you are pointing out that some aspects of our lives have become ‘easier’ or more comfortable through new technologies. It might be true that we are now able to do lots of things in a way we never could have imagined before, but there are still all the consequences of this technology that we have to confront and will have to confront in the future as well.
To answer your question, I would say that there are many other ways than looking for perfection. It can be even constructive to integrate ‘errors’ or ‘glitches’ into one’s ideas – to create imperfect designs that encourage people to question the status quo.
How can we redesign responsive visions, models, processes, and futures?
I like to look at the emotional connections we build up with the visions that seem different to us. It is about exploring these emotions to get a more personal understanding of what we are looking for, I think.
Interesting impacts can happen on a very small scale – they do not always need to show a big revolution for creating a relevant question. All they need is to connect to the people and invite them to experience another point of view.
What are the consequences of the asymmetry often revealed between something new and our understanding of it?
If we think about implementing a cultural change, it is true that it needs time to make it understandable. So I can see an asymmetry between the development of ideas and their acceptance – although I believe that we have become much faster in adapting to new processes.
We’ve now become used to seeing visions that originally felt so far away from becoming reality manifest in a much shorter time. I think that to make people feel that an idea is appealing, it is about the approach, about which questions are asked and about how others can identify with them. In this way, the new and the understanding of it become one project.
What have you changed your mind about?
Oh a lot of things I guess! Besides that I now definitely prefer flying to invulnerability if I could choose a superpower or that coffee without milk can be great … well at the moment I can’t come up with something specific, but I try to keep an open mind that is always flexible to changes.
What is something that currently fascinates you?
The contradiction between what we define as natural and what we see as artificial. I find it intriguing that we have such strong images of both, but the boundaries between them are extremely blurry.
What couldn’t you live without?
Surprises. I couldn’t live without life surprising me over and over again.
What’s next for Isabel?
I’ll continue to explore and look for journeys that bring me into new worlds.