Why things look the way they do: explaining change in design by cycles and natural selection

Wright, Erica (2005) Why things look the way they do: explaining change in design by cycles and natural selection. Doctoral thesis (PhD), Manchester Metropolitan University.

Preview

Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (13MB) | Preview

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to add to the understanding of the changing appearance of mass produced designed objects over time. The Littlewood’s mail order catalogue archive, from 1932-1980, was identified as a large collection of images of designed objects, which made it suitable for a study of change over time. An initial investigation of explanations for change to design revealed two that stood out as being good candidates for this study. These were cycles and Darwinian natural selection. Cyclical theories were investigated because they represent the view that what is successful recurs, and that change to the appearance of designed objects included in the archive occurred in repeating patterns, which might be cyclical. Darwin’s theories of natural selection, including ‘sexual selection’, were investigated for this work because a study of evolutionary theory demonstrated them to be more appropriate for answering this study’s central questions than other evolutionary theories. 1 devised a method of converting mail order catalogue images of table lamps and clocks into quantifiable data, making graphs that were then compared to diagrams that were based on a version of Kondratiev’s fifty-year economic cycle, known as the Smith cycle. 1 used two models of change to help interpret the statistical results of the study, to find answers to the study’s central question - Why do designed objects change in the ways that they do? Conclusions reached were: - 1. According to the analysis of the statistics generated by this study, between 1932 and 1980, there is considerable correspondence between changes in the appearance of two products in the Littlewood’s mail order catalogue and the socio-economic cycle used in this study. 2. There is no evidence for the Spencerian progressive form of evolution, or of the Lamarckian passing on of acquired traits as a result of stimulus, form of evolution, but there is evidence for the Darwinian natural selection form of evolution. 3. Analysis of the statistical material bore out ideas of design cycles being linked to socio-economic phases and natural selection of designed objects according to the set of circumstances, characterised by the design attributes displayed in that phase. 4. The two explanations investigated in this study, cycles and evolution while initially being studied in isolation, ended up being shown to be compatible, and indeed interlinked, as explanations for change over time to the designed objects illustrated in the Littlewood’s mail order catalogue, revealing the mechanism by which a dependent design cycle is connected to a socio-economic cycle, and modified by individual events.