HACKER ATTITUDE AND CRITIQUE OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN PRACTICE

The word “Hacker” found its way into the designer jargon with the rise of  “Design against hacking” discussions. "Design against hacking" is a new area of interest, sharing similarities with the "design against crime" movement. However there is a misconception about what "hacking" is.

The word "hacker" is generally used to describe "crackers", which is a common mistake. The basic difference between them is this: hackers build things, crackers break them.

The hacker culture produced its own documentation about what a hacker is, and what are the motivations of a hacker. Famous "The Jargon File" and the "How to Become a Hacker" are the main on-line documents that define the hacker philosophy.

Some of the key elements of hacker attitude can be listed as:
Hackers do things because they find them interesting.
Hackers are against being bored or drudged at repetitive work.
Hackers highly value creative thinking.

While industrial design appraises itself as one of the most creative disciplines, the designers should question themselves about their work. The majority of industrial design work done around the world seems to be redesign and styling, which generally don't require much intelligence or creativity.

Creative design doesn't come from the muse, it requires breaking down existing ones, experimentation of new production techniques, new materials and getting your hands dirty. Much of these activities seem inapplicable in the stylish design offices and with the attitudes of the ones who occupy them.

Another point worth questioning is the applicability of so-called "design against hacking". The level of knowledge about computer related technical topics is very limited in the designer community. Even the misuse of the terms hacking and cracking can be interpreted as a sign of disability of designers about computer related topics.

This paper intends to criticize the everyday industrial design practice in contrast with the hacker attitude of work and to question the applicability of the "design against hacking" ideal.