What a breathtalkingly dumb piece of fluff, Lloyd!

The idea that all designers (graphic, industrial, architectural etc.) live lives of luxury, inhabiting swanky lofts and living the Wallpaper* jet-set lifestyle is laughable. Sure, the caricature of the urban aesthete is rooted in some truth, but there's as many designers living in cookie-cutter Atlanta suburbs, working for corporations in bland office parks, as Montreal Plateau-dwelling hipsters -- if not more, actually.

But beyond that, the article doesn't seem to recognize the imminent recession that ALL of us are going to be facing when the twin dilemmas of Peak Energy and climate change hit hard.

If we're seeing $100k speakers, it's just because it's an artifact of our times -- we're pretty much at the peak now and some people in that thin minority of the uber-wealthy can afford such things. I'm sure there were $100k gold-plated gramophones in 1929 as well....

We're already seeing the "hallucinated wealth" of suburban homebuilding, derivatives markets and refinancing starting to collapse, as noted on a previous Treehugger article. Assuming nobody sees the big picture and puts the brakes on the stock market, and puts us on a crash program to re-engineer our economy for the post-oil era, a lot of designers will just be flat out of work.

The one point the article makes that's worth saving is that designers ought to be working on projects of social value. Whether it be awareness posters, community projects, tools and systems that encourage urban agriculture, products that use less energy, etc -- and getting involved in local planning commissions and similar meetings to push for sustainable development / redevelopment where they live.

right-o AJ Kandy...

It's a bit of a paradox that this publication promotes high fashion and ridiculously financed worthless design like that of Newson or Lovegrove...even Behar. Who are are these clowns designing for? Not any one I know, they are certainly not using their "talent" to help solve any real social or environmental problems.

Design does not need a recession, it's still trying to get out one, what design needs, is a new and fresh definition of what is good design...

Guh. I'm with you on this one, Lloyd -- and those designers AJ mentions, in bland Atlanta office parks, aren't helping either.

I know that soon enough all this easily-ruined junk won't be cost-effective anymore, but in the meantime it's frustrating to see the last barrels of oil go into, like, simulated leather for "executive portfolios" at Officemax, when you can't even buy a durable binder.

High design gets me so mad because even simple things get marked up absurdly. Consider Michael Graves' outdoor "sofa" for DWR, a bigass hunk of grey plastic -- not even solid -- for $1200. But because it's 'roto-molded,' the whole design scene wets themselves for it.

I think there's a definite place for the Kelly Wearstlers of the world, & maybe even the Michael Graveses, but ... at least do it equitably; come on.

Treehugger prints a lot of stuff without researching or knowing what it is all about. Most designers are very pro environment and have been for a long time. Longer than most bloggers for sure. When I say most designers, I don't mean celebrity designers - which represent .00001 percent of the design world. Most designers are independent self employed individuals or at best, work for small private design shops of 8 or fewer people. Usually 5 or less. Most under 40 years old make below $50,000 a year (below the mean yearly salary in US) and few of any age make more than $100,000 except for a very small minority of corporate VP of design and those celebrities. Most designers are married and have families. Many live or work near or in big cities but there are also many out in the country and up in the mountains.
All of the professional design organizations either have or have had initiatives to encourage more green design. The AIGA, largest graphic design organization in the world, is having its next national conference carbon neutral (included in the conference fee). I have never been to a conference on or for design that did not include one or usually 10 or more sessions or events that were not in some way about being more green or green issues. I've attended conferences for 20 years now.
People are confusing designers with clients, engineers, and stylists. A designer can be all of those but, typically, a client (with engineer in tow if applicable) comes to a designer with a need or problem. That need or problem may or may not need aesthetic issues addressed (styling - which, if in excess, like aluminum speakers, I think is the big gripe with people here) but if it does need this cosmetic issue dealt with (often a legacy issue from decades earlier), the designer must match that to the fashion or income of the user of that design, or the client walks. But usually most designers will bring green solutions to any design problem. Now, more than ever, clients say yes and often wanted green anyhow. How could a client refuse an offer to reduce shipping costs, reduce packaging costs, reduce manufacturing time and materials, use less toxic materials in product or packaging, and at the same time save money and the planet?
Maybe the oil companies might refuse but most others want it, love it, and need it. The designer is the one to make that green design happen.
I've never met a design firm that has never done pro bono design work for non profits. Indeed, in Europe, the bread and butter of most small design shops (the majority) is doing work for non commercial clients often for social, artistic, or environmental causes.

OK. Designers are not some magical carreer discipline that only includes people smarter than the rest of us to whom we all rely on for salvation.

Remember: stupid people need jobs too. Some designers are brilliant, some are not. They are just like engineers, teachers, artists, & janitors. The designers who participate in the collective effort to understand "refinement" are the ones who are attempting to raise the bar for the whole industry. For every $100k speaker designed, 1000 regular designers realize a new perspective on their own efforts, taking another step to improving their own capacities.

Design is no different than any other industry, you need innovating creators and early adopting consumers to drive the spread of skills in the industry so that poor designers develop and what used to be luxury, becomes common .

This basic function of "excess" needs to be added to the environmentalist basics section since you can't talk usefully about environmental efforts without understanding the building blocks of economics.

Fatcat designers are real? I thought they were a figment of half-inch thick magazines and badly written television.

Amen to those stats, jmco. (and thanks for helping reinforce my self-employed, under 50K, small city GREEN choices.) If I look good it's because architecture school can teach you how to solve your own problems in an attractive way. Excuse me, must go put rainwater on the edible landscape.

The 'designer' culture, which to me means the higher end stuff, has become more popular because as Lloyd says, most of our basic material needs have been met.

It's caused home-made or local stuff to look increasingly cheap, and added another layer to the reliance people feel on 'experts' to look after their needs. And design in this respect is all about pushing the lust buttons that will make you pay over the odds for novelty.

But I share the optimism of the posters above, because many designers understand the power of the green perpsective, and genuinely want to think more carefully about the way we develop things. I got into design because I wanted to make a positive difference, and after a phase of being disilusioned about consumerism I realised there are ways we can produce positive things, not just a relentless stream of straight-to-landfill products.