• Archives of design research
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.111-122
• /
• 2003

We must not consider a culture as means of economy. Specially, it is not possible that is supposed to incorporate a cultural identity in a shape of product, but also international competitiveness can not be raised by it. Because an identify is based on the system of symbol such as language, it can be understood only in a same cultural area. While, the value-in-use of technology can be accepted universally as a formative language of international style. Therefore, the competitiveness of design will say as a special quality that can be acquired in connection with technology. For instance, that Korean mobile telephone could be recognized worldwide is not because it has the Koreanized shape but has a high technology. The public have only a superficial understanding about design. Because that is limited in the visual aspect of product, so called 'the pretty design', which exclude the value-in-use and the organic correlation of form and function in general, it may be a cause of socio-ethical dysfunction. It is providing an elbowroom for making a mistake that can regard the product design as an artistic experiment and try to raise the international competitiveness simply with the visual aspect. And the distorted understanding about design has been diffused rapidly owing to spread of black box products because the over-designed shape is known to the public as a proper result of designing. That reorganize the design category will do as a starting point that can get rid of such a misunderstanding, and do to achieve an ideological role of design for human and society. And it will be a warning to the moral slackening that is due to regarding a style as means of competitiveness and the blindness due to thinking culture as means of economy, and we may expect to offer a basic understanding about design which can prevent products from being visualized.