Chasing glory and marketplace success

I have just walked through the large ‘pop-up’ craft market in San Cristobal De Las Casas in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico.

There were hundreds of booths displaying many things, but there was a definite emphasis on textiles. The colours are spectacular and the workmanship is both highly skilled and conspicuously laborious. It was very impressive.

Beyond the dazzle of the goods being displayed, what seemed the most noteworthy was that there was so little design variation. There were lots of different designs, but each booth had, basically, the same ones. I’m sure that this is principally a result of noticing what has proven to sell and nothing succeeds like success: the winning designs get reproduced over and over again.

What came to mind was a parallel with the biological world: the survival of the fittest. If we, for the sake of this argument, think of designs as inorganic genes, then we can recognize that certain design genes have prevailed.

They have replicated themselves the most successfully because they are what the market wanted. If we sustain this analogy, we can recognize that certain genes represent the best qualities. We might even recognize that the word “best” should be considered carefully.

Certain characteristics in other design genes may have been superior, but the combination of the right look, the right price, the right function, the right time and maybe even a bit of luck will have allowed the winner to win and proliferate.

The insider world of design tends to place a premium on creativity. This is reflected in that novel designs are often those that obtain the greatest amount of publicity. In design schools, students are also rewarded, by better marks, for their demonstrations of creativity. I recall a discussion (an argument?) that I had with one of my own design instructors, many years ago. He maintained that only the most highly original designs were worth pursuing. It was like a manifesto for the virtues of revolution over evolution. Incremental improvements in design was the work for losers.

But, these many years later, I still wonder if that is accurate.

The message of the market here in San Cristobal is that certain designs are worth doing, to the exclusion of others. I’m sure that, from time to time, some eccentric craft producer will try something new. And maybe, one try out of many, a new saleable design is discovered and it will add to the vocabulary of what gets copied. But, mostly, the river of known and proven designs rolls along without too many surprises.

This is not only true of this craft market. One has only to consider almost any category of goods: cars, smartphones and footwear as only a few of many examples. What is on the market is fairly largely indistinguishable to the cursory glance. What sold got copied. And thus the market achieved the homogeneity that we are so familiar with.

In a design school such as mine, with roots in an art school, there is an emphasis on something that is called ‘finding your voice.’ This usually means finding a way to be originally creative. And I have been happy to support that, feeling that the capacity to be original is not only what distinguishes our graduates but is what makes them valuable.

However, much of what passes for design work has more to do with finding the voice of the market rather than one’s own particular and precious voice. Designers often get jobs to replicate what is already on the market and adapt it to some particular and unique requirements, such as the technical capacity of a particular manufacturer, or a different market size, or another of many other variables.

This might look, at a quick glance, like a lesser version of design. But I’m not convinced. If there isn’t a market for what gets designed (and made), then why do it? Markets are an aggregate of the demonstrated needs and desires of a specific set of consumers. Human needs exist and markets are created to meet them. We should be happy to comply.

My instructor of long ago was eventually revealed to be, at times, a covert plagiarist who thought he was too clever to be found out. But this discovery kind of makes my point. Even he realized that a proven winner was worth backing.

We can follow the market or we can try to lead it. The former is a lot safer and probably more remunerative. The latter may turn out to be more glorious, or it may not turn out at all.

Paul Epp is a professor at OCAD University, and former chair of its industrial design department.