Stumbling across this article The rise and rise of ‘anti-design’ earlier, I thought I’d struck art school journalism gold - having still not worked out exactly what it is that those alleged anti-designers actually do with their time. But upon further investigation it transpires we’re in fact looking at an article, that starts life chatting shit about Phillipe Starck and his new wind turbines, written by some chump design consultant practically describing ‘green designers’ as the axis of design evil, where the phrase anti-design is synonymous with, say, anti-Americanism.

‘The Design Council says: “Good design is sustainable design. It results in objects, systems or services that work aesthetically, functionally and commercially, improving people’s lives and making the smallest possible impact on the planet.”

‘Hang on. Isn’t design always about making an impact? Not according to the green-design movement, or the ‘design deniers’ who argue for placing limits on human ingenuity and creativity.’

Isn’t design always about making an impact…on…the…planet? Like, ecologically? This is where my disbelief began…from small impact on the planet to limits on human ingenuity in one fell swoop, but, shit, it goes on and on.

‘The greening of design, as epitomised by the likes of Starck and others, preaches to the rest of us on how to live differently. In practical terms, this means choosing sustainable or ethically acceptable design practices over those that are capable of making more of an impact using the best, newest and most innovative materials and resources.’

The greening of design preaches to the rest of us how to live differently? Surely designers and design have always done this - only difference is this guy doesn’t appreciate the connotations of the lingo this time ’round. Choosing sustainable practices over those using ‘the best, newest and most innovative materials and resources’ is surely only a reversal of the priorities of previous generations of designers who as opposed to preaching ‘to the rest of us on how to live differently’, with the help of manufacturers, big business, and mugs like this guy, allowed (at the very least) the economically disadvantaged to be forced into living their lives within designers’ moulds. ‘Best’ ‘newest’ ‘most innovative’ are myths, biased to the prerogatives of whatever or whoever has the money to control production. Design and designers in this context serve as both a product and producer of such whims, and as opposed to being merely anthropocentric, are most importantly capital-centric, to the extent that I believe the kind of ‘design’ and ‘innovation’ the author speaks of only exists to serve businesses and perpetuate an individual’s capital gain, not to mention, as a result, for want of a better word, social and political status quo.

To a guy like this, words and phrases like ‘best’ ‘newest’ ‘most innovative’, and I don’t know, fucking ‘progress’ and whatever, can only be associated with isolated, futile, concerns when considering, say for instance, a genuine, existent future. But hold on, he has that covered already, in his never ending quest for the best, newest and most innovatively designed solutions, the article concludes that ‘we need bigger, better and dependable power stations (including nuclear ones), not small home generators’.