Prosthetics of 2070: Armed and Dangerous
Making Critical Design accessible for all
Critical design, the practice of using design as a commentary or challenge of the status quo is a practice that can be used to provoke ideas, discussion and ultimately bring about social change whatever the discipline. Our brief, to design what we think a prosthetic of the year 2070 will be like, is one that can not only help us analyse the current state of prosthetics and use our imaginations to envision how future technology can be used to our benefit, but also provide a commentary on current patterns in the science and technology sector that are concerning, and how they, if left unchallenged, may continue to be exacerbated in the name of profit.
Whilst a valuable tool in the right context, the practice of critical design has come under scrutiny for effectively being ‘design for designers’ — offering very little to the average person and not promoting any reasonable or practical resolutions, or even a basis from which a dialogue can be opened.
“More and more, the danger is that critical practice becomes overly self-reflexive and introverted, sustained, practiced, and exchanged in a closed community. By operating in this way, its usefulness as part of a larger disciplinary project is undermined. There are already utterances of critical practice being little more than “design for design’s sake,” “design for designers,” or perhaps more appropriately, “design for critical designers.” (Malpass, 2013)
Making critical design accessible for a wider audience is paramount to getting the public to understand (and subsequently agree with) the commentary being put forward by the design.
The aim of this contextualisation is to analyse how our product offers a critique of current trends in technology and explain how, by putting forward a compelling yet simple presentation and interesting product, we can provoke a thoughtful response from all, not just the design world.
Disability vs. Enhancement
Although many would not like to admit it, the almost universally accepted response to those of whom that wear a prosthesis from the able-bodied is to take pity, to admire their perseverance, then to quietly be thankful for not being in the same position. Despite years of refinement and innovation, there are few practical applications for prostheses that can be done better than flesh and bone.
However, as advancements in neuroscience, artificial intelligence and nanotechnology come at an alarming rate, it is becoming increasingly clear that practical products will be developed in the near future that will be able to mimic the function of their organic equivalents with 100% accuracy, and potentially go above and beyond the ability of their ‘able-bodied’ counterparts. It is perhaps more appropriate to use the term ‘bionics’ rather than ‘prosthetics’ then, as the superhuman connotations of the former will ultimately be one of the most important factors in eliminating the stigma surrounding the use of artificial body parts, and instead elevating them to be objects of desire.
It is at this time, when our able-bodied pity is replaced with seething envy, that another ethical grey area arises: commercialisation of one’s own body.
Although portrayed in a fairly light-hearted manner in the promotional video, there is a very real and very serious possibility that the person of the late 21st century may wish to upgrade their existing limbs for something stronger, more dexterous, or less prone to fatigue.
Note this is not some medical procedure being carried out in extreme cases of mutilation and trauma; this is a consumer product intended to reach as wide an audience as possible.
Although branded as something that today’s typical consumer is most likely familiar with (Amazon’s ‘Echo’ range of smart devices), the ‘Echo Arm’ of 2070 could be presented in many guises — the very nature of the free market dictates that the Echo Arm will not be the only ‘Smart Arm’ available in this dystopian future, and more and more corporations will be offering their own variations of the prosthesis with different features and at different price points. Considering our current trajectory, it is hard not to anticipate a future in which our own body is simply reduced to an array of expendable gadgets, all of which are subject to the manufacturing errors, data gathering and other questionable company policies of their retailers.
With a clear narrative in the promotional video, using familiar iconography, the audience is able to quickly comprehend the effects of such a device, both positive and negative.
Critical Design for Designers
Dunne & Raby, the design firm behind the popularisation of critical & speculative design, have over the years provided social commentary and critical insight across a wide variety of topics.
Their above project, entitled ‘Not Here, Not Now’ (2014) is a piece of speculative design that aims to show what an interface for an alternate time or world could look like. They are very vague models with very little basis in reality; the audience should gauge their purpose from the names — the above model is called the ‘Publi-Voice Device’ — it clearly contains a mouthpiece of sorts, but beyond that is left to the audience’s interpretation.
This project is a beautiful expression of creativity that allows us to use our imagination to find a purpose for these contraptions. However, it doesn’t appear to be a particular useful one, as without any tangible relation to the ‘here and now’, we cannot ground this project in reality and as such, very little discourse can come of it. It’s high art; a project that’s value is determined by aficionados and not the everyman.
With the Echo Arm, the audience is able to see a realistic vision of future biomechanics. Drawing influences from today’s biomedical technology, artificial intelligence, and of course, science fiction, allows the audience an insight into how this ‘enhancement’ may be used in practical applications in the future, and how its supposed benefits could easily be subverted into something more nefarious.
Privacy as an Archaic Concept
The topic of privacy and our right to it is a hotly contested one, especially in a time in which extensive data collection by governments in the name of ‘security’ has been normalised.
From the widely publicised cases of the US mass surveillance programs leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013, to the recent examples of China using facial recognition and movement tracking for policing, the right to be away from prying eyes seems like a distant memory now. It’s not just government organisations, though: Mark Zuckerberg’s recent Facebook hearing may have been the most public response of all the tech companies’ questionable attitudes to their users’ privacy, but there are plenty of other worries amongst the largest megacorporations trying to maintain their squeaky-clean images, from Amazon’s eavesdropping smart devices to Google’s effective monopoly of the internet creating a scarily accurate digital footprint of its users, unbeknownst to all but the most tech savvy.
Our digital footprints are increasing exponentially, and along with new services come new invasive terms of use and ownership of data policies.
However, we as designers can challenge this status quo. Julian Oliver’s ‘Transparency Grenade’ (2012), is one such artefact that does exactly this. The device, whilst purely hypothetical, is a covert listening device that instantly captures all network traffic and audio data at a site and streams it directly to a dedicated server, where the information is mined. Moulded into the form of an iconic Soviet F1 Hand Grenade, it’s a weapon to wage war against those who impose these invasive policies on us — a protest stating that the information age works both ways; that our governors should be open and honest about the manner in which they operate.
That brings us to where the Echo Arm succeeds — the manner in which it is presented is not vague and abstract; it bears some semblance to products of today, but interwoven with an attitude of tomorrow. The audience does not have to jump through hurdles in order to get from where we are now to the resulting product — it is more just a logical conclusion; a very real possibility of what the future may hold.
The real question that the Echo Arm provokes is not about whether an item like this is possible, but rather, is it right?
References
Matt Malpass (2013) Between Wit and Reason: Defining Associative, Speculative, and Critical Design in Practice, Design and Culture, 5:3, 333–356
Promotional Video, Amazon Echo Arm concept
Publi-Voice Device: http://dunneandraby.co.uk/content/projects/744/0
Transparency Grenade: http://www.designcurial.com/news/speculate-to-accumulate-4425687
