The orthodoxy is that design should serve its clients, those with the resources, ability and power to commission professional design as a service. Following this logic, design represents the interests, gives form to the ideals, and affirms the larger economic, political and social systems in which its clients are embedded. (…) The various fields of design that have emerged since the industrial revolution primarily serve industries and corporations and are embedded in the expansion of trans-national systems of mass production and global market consumption. (…) Some argue for more autonomy and independence to be given to (or taken by) design, some refuse to design, ‘waiting for the revolution’ in the systems and conditions circumscribing the profession.
(…) Design must be responsive beyond the metrics of client satisfaction, return on investment or any other narrow conception of value formulated for design as a service profession aligned with industrial interests.
Ramia Mazé & Natasha Marie Llorens
This excerpt from the book Design Act, reinforces my position to criticize the traditional design practices, which have always revolved around industrial and corporate interests. Also interesting to point the negligence as one of the most powerful acts, understanding the refusal to design as a very active attitude and a critical statement towards the practice.
it is what it is 