Design Innovation in India

February 5, 2007.

Trained
as
an
industrial
designer,
Uday

Dandavate
is
founder
and
principal
of
the

design
research
firm
SonicRim,
where
he

specializes
in
helping
international
clients

understand
people,
cultures,
and
trends
in


emerging
markets.
Uday
is
a
key
figure
behind

the
Design
with
India
initiative,
which
occurred

on
February
5,
2007
at
the
Asia
Society.
The

IDSA/NYC
and
the
Asia
Society
brought
together

a
panel
of
global
leaders
from
the
fields
of

business,
culture,
education,
and
design
from
India
and
the
United

States.
The
goal
was
to
identify
the
opportunities
and
challenges
for

design
innovation
between
US
and
Indian
companies,
professionals
and

consumers,
and
how
to
create
a
framework
for
a
successful
partnership.

After
the
program,
Uday
spoke
to
Flora
Zhang.




Original
interview
available
at:
http://asiasociety.org/business‐
economics/economic‐trends/design‐innovation‐indi



Would
you
start
by
telling
us
about
the
idea
behind
Design
with
India?

How
did
it
come
about?


The
idea
for
Design
with
India
came
up
on
an
online
forum
called
Design

India.
It's
a
Yahoo
group.
It
started
off
as
a
small
group
and
has
grown
a
lot

over
the
past
few
months.
It's
moderated
by
a
man
named
Sudhir
Sharma.

It's
a
very
active
forum,
with
about
1,100
people
from
around
the
world.

Last
year
around
this
time
or
a
bit
later,
while
we
were
having
some
very

interesting
discussions
about
issues
related
to
design
policy,
I
made
a

suggestion
that
since
fewer
than
1,000
people
were
benefiting
from
this

very
active
and
inspiring
discussion,
maybe
we
needed
to
do
a
road
show

and
take
the
discussion
offline.
Everybody
liked
the
idea.
Online
they
all

started
talking
about,
"Oh,
let's
do
this...
where
should
we
do
it?"
So
I
said,

well,
we
should
do
it
around
the
world,
and
I
can
take
the
first
initiative
and

do
it
in
New
York.
They
liked
it
and
immediately
I
contacted
the
Industrial

Designers
Society
of
America
(IDSA),
who
is
the
national
body
of
designers

in
America,
and
they
were
very
excited.
I
approached
Vishakha
Desai
and

asked
if
the
Asia
Society
could
collaborate
with
us
on
that,
and
specifically
I

mentioned
that
in
today's
world,
cultural
issues
are
dominating

international
relations.
And
we
see
designers
beginning
to
play
a
big
role
in

helping
people
preserve
their
identity
through
objects
of
everyday
use.

There
was
an
opportunity
to
use
the
message
of
both
culture
and
design
as

elements
of
great
relevance
in
international
and
public
policy.
Vishakha

liked
the
idea
and
liked
the
platform.
She
said,
"We
are
interested
in

looking
at
culture,
business,
and
design,
and
its
intersection."
We
met
with

Judi
Kilachand
and
Yoshie
Ito
from
the
Asia
Society.
We
brought
in
people

from
IDSA,
Microsoft,
and
CII;
that's
where
it
started.
At
the
same
time,
the

board
of
IDSA
met
and
they
suggested
that
they
talk
to
some
of
their

members.
The
members
said
that
if
you're
talking
about
India,
then
it

should
first
happen
in
India
and
then
happen
here.
They
were
curious
to
go

to
India.
So
we
decided
that
we'd
do
a
global
kickoff
session
of
this
initiative

in
India
and
then
do
mini‐road
shows
around
the
world.
The
first
session

took
place
in
December
in
India.
We
developed
a
platform
called
Design

with
India
and
created
a
logo
and
everything
for
it.
The
logo
was
designed

by
Elephant
Design.
The
next
session
happened
here
in
New
York,
and
we

want
to
take
it
further
now
and
to
other
countries.


So
this
is
a
new
venture
for
you.


Yes.
Since
India
is
receiving
a
lot
of
media
attention,
we
want
to
take

advantage
of
that
media
presence
to
discuss
how
design
can
participate

within
this
new
presence
India
has,
and
then
begin
to
define
some
role
for

design
in
the
global
economy.


Why
is
it
Design
with
India
as
opposed
to
Design
in
India?


India's
presence
is
everywhere
today.
Not
just
in
India,
but
a
variety
of

cross‐cultural
communities
are
present
wherever
globalization
is

happening,
not
just
at
an
economic
level,
but
at
social,
cultural,
all
the

levels.
It
has
an
impact
on
people
having
the
benefit
of
the
best
brands

from
around
the
world.
From
that
context,
we
are
already
at
ground
level

working
with
each
other,
and
it's
just
a
matter
of
capturing
that
reality,

articulating
it,
and
making
people
aware
that
India
and
Indians
have
also

moved
on
and
have
evolved
in
its
intellectual
power
and
its
cultural

relevance
in
the
modern
lifestyle.
India
wants
to
engage
people
of
other

ethnicities
in
experimenting
with
new
cultural
expressions
which
come

from
cross‐cultural
interactions.
So
that's
why
it's
not
just
about
India
doing

something
to
sell
itself
or
trying
to
invite
the
world
to
do
something
for

them
or
help
them;
it's
more
about
making
a
bold
statement
that
in
the

world
today,
it's
not
about
two
superpowers
or
one
superpower
dictating

what
the
world
should
do,
it's
more
that
we
have
a
presence
in
each
other's

lives
and
create
something
collaboratively.
It's
about
being
creative
through

collaboration.


In
terms
of
collaborating
with
India,
is
there
anything
unique
to
the
Indian

mindset?


I
would
not
like
to
claim
the
Indian
mindset
as
unique
as
opposed
to

something
else,
but
I
would
definitely
say
that
in
the
evolution
of
mankind,

some
societies
have
taken
shape
later,
whereas
some
have
a
rich
history
of

cultural
happenings.
In
that
process,
countries
like
China
and
India
have

both
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
tradition
and
culture.
They
are
also

eager
to
invest
in
modernity.
I
have
always
said
to
my
designer
friends
that

the
way
that
I
understand
design
and
culture
is
that
people
are
constantly

going
through
changes
as
they
migrate,
and
as
they
interact
with
new
types

of
people
and
new
ideas.
In
that
whole
process
of
change—especially

because
I'm
professionally
involved
in
studying
trends,
lifestyles,
people,

and
cultures
around
the
world—I
find
that
when
people
embrace
change,
it

points
us
to
trends.
But
then
as
they
change,
they
still
retain
something
of

their
past,
and
that
is
what
I
call
culture.
Culture
also
changes
but
it
is
still

tied
to
their
past
and
to
their
roots.
I
think
as
change
happens
between
the

tradition
and
the
culture,
we
retain
the
trends
that
bring
us
closer
to
new

opportunities;
somewhere
in
between
is
a
new
identity,
a
new
expression,

and
a
new
experience
which
is
constantly
evolving
and
rich.
That's
where
I

feel
this
reference
to
the
past
that
adds
uniqueness
through
participation

of
multiple
cultures
is
where
the
present
becomes
more
exciting.




Let's
backtrack
for
a
moment.
Can
you
tell
us
about
your
background?

Growing
up,
was
there
anything
that
influenced
your
way
of
thinking?


I
was
born
in
a
family
that
participated
in
India's
freedom
struggle.
After

being
ruled
by
the
British
for
200
years,
India
decided,
under
the
leadership

of
Gandhi,
to
take
control
of
its
own
destiny.
Both
of
my
parents

participated
in
the
movement.
They
were
both
very
well
educated;
my

father
was
a
nuclear
scientist
and
my
mother
was
an
artist
with
a
Masters

in
psychology.
Having
been
exposed
to
new
ideas,
their
participation
in

India's
freedom
struggle
was
also
driven
by
a
desire
to
free
India
from
the

negative
aspects
of
its
past;
to
free
it
from
some
of
the
psychological

barriers
that
Indian
traditions
and
practices
have
so
that
they
can

participate
in
the
future
without
those
things
holding
them
back.
There
are

many
things
in
Indian
society
that
we
need
to
overcome,
both
at
the

economic
and
social
level.
So
that's
what
they
did
all
their
lives.
They
were

in
politics;
both
my
parents
were
members
of
the
Indian
parliament.
My

father
was
also
in
the
government;
he
was
the
Finance
Minister
of
India
for

a
while,
he
was
also
the
Railway
Minister
and
the
Deputy
Chairman
of
the

Planning
Commission
for
a
while.
My
mother
actually
tabled
the
private

members
bill
that
has
turned
into
a
law
against
dowry.
She
also

campaigned
to
set
up
a
National
Commission
for
Women.
This
proposal

was
accepted,
and
she
was
actually
appointed
the
first‐year
Chairperson
of

the
National
Commission
for
Women,
but
she
declined
it
because
she
was

appointed
by
the
Prime
Minister
the
day
he
lost
his
majority
in
the

parliament.
She
said
that
ethically
it
wasn't
correct
for
a
lame
duck
Prime

Minister
to
make
an
appointment
so
she
wouldn't
accept
it.
So
with
this

kind
of
a
background,
they
were
both
focused
on
change
in
the
Indian

society
at
a
fundamental
level.
So
it
was
natural
that
I
was
basically

ingrained
into
thinking
about
change
and
modernity.
Not
modernity
as
in

the
sophisticated
form,
but
modernity
in
terms
of
having
the
opportunity
to

participate
in
world
affairs
with
new
ideas
that
develop
into
current
times;

new
ideas
that
don't
constrain
your
opportunities
either
because
you're
a

woman
or
because
of
class,
caste,
or
whatever.
So
that's
where
my
head

was
when
I
started
design,
which
is
also
about
change,
about
managing

change,
about
managing
by
influencing
the
physical
world
of
people.
I

embraced
design
and
I
liked
it.
As
I
went
through
my
graduate
education,
I

moved
from
design
to
design
research,
which
is
even
more
about
people

and
influencing
their
lives
and
understanding
what
they
want
for

themselves,
and
then
helping
designers
design
for
them.
So
that's
where

both
my
growing
up
and
my
learning
through
initial
education
and
design

practice
evolved.


Usually,
people
go
into
politics
to
push
for
changes.
You
went
into
design.

What
are
your
thoughts
on
that?


I
think
for
a
long
time
we
have
entertained
the
belief
that
progress,

development,
and
evolution
of
mankind
is
dictated
by
money.
No
wonder

the
profession
of
economics
dominated
the
profession
of
policymaking
for

a
long
time.
It's
easy
to
manipulate,
analyze,
and
understand
numbers
and

project
them
through
the
science
of
mathematics.
But
what
we
forget
is

that
numbers
are
only
an
abstraction
of
reality.
So
I
think
that
if
you
use

numbers
to
understand
reality,
as
long
as
you
have
reference
to
the
reality

and
to
the
fact
that
numbers
are
only
an
abstraction
of
reality,
it's
okay.
But

sometimes
when
people
get
bogged
down
with
numbers,
their
reality
gets

removed
from
the
reality
and
what
you
get
is
just
the
spinning
of
numbers.

And
I
think
what
happened
over
a
period
of
time
was
that
policy
planning

became
a
self‐serving
activity
rather
than
something
that
made
a
big

impact
on
people's
lives.
In
that
whole
process,
the
field
of
economics

evolved,
and
also
the
field
of
design—which
is
a
relatively
recent
field
of

knowledge—took
root,
made
direct
reference
to
people's
life
experiences,

and
influenced
life
experiences
through
the
objects,
images,
brands,
and

everything
that
is
a
part
of
your
everyday
life.
People
who
had
the
expertise

to
influence
people's
lives
through
design
began
to
require
deeper
and

more
strategic
understanding
of
how
to
improve
people's
quality
of
life.
So

in
that
process
I've
always
maintained
in
some
of
my
recent
blogs
on

Design
India
forum
that
most
designers
are
trained
to
be
micro‐designers,

but
they
now
have
the
opportunity
to
be
macro‐designers
and
influence

public
policy.
In
this
background,
there's
an
urgent
need
for
developing

educational
programs
which
help
designers
think
at
macro
levels
and
tie

micro
and
macro
together
to
influence
change
and
the
quality
of
life
for

people.


Can
you
talk
briefly
about
your
concept
of
macro
and
micro
design?


Design
has
traditionally
been
a
micro‐level
activity,
where
you
focus
on
a

person,
a
community,
or
a
home,
and
develop
products
or
images
of

communication
that
suits
that
person.
In
some
cases,
design
has
been
used

for
public
spaces,
such
as
museums,
railroad
stations,
and
airports,
to

improve
the
quality
of
life
within
a
space.
But
as
design
evolves,
I'm
feeling

more
and
more
that
like
economists
who
do
macro
economics,
designers

should
raise
their
thinking
to
a
level
where
they
can
practice
macro
design.

It
essentially
means
to
understand
policy
implications
of
altering
people's

physical
environments
in
ways
that
influence
people's
quality
of
life.
So
it

makes
direct
reference
to
policy
implication,
and
it
makes
direct
implication

to
the
impact
of
policy
on
the
quality
of
life.


If
government
institutions
or
international
development
agencies
take

your
idea
of
macro
design
and
apply
it,
how
do
you
think
it
will
work?


It's
already
happening
through
participation
of
some
people.
For
example,
I

met
a
gentleman
at
the
conference
in
Paris
who
is
heading
up
an

organization
that's
mandated
to
brand
the
city
of
Glasgow
through
design

and
art;
not
just
through
design
of
objects,
but
to
create
an
aura
of
design,

an
awareness
of
design
within
the
Glasgow
community,
and
to
articulate
it

to
the
world
and
to
communicate
to
the
world
in
a
manner
where
people

are
attracted
to
and
understand
the
brand
Glasgow
as
one
that
is
attached

to
design,
art,
creativity,
innovation,
and
a
quality
of
life
so
that
people
will

want
to
live
in
this
place,
which
is
a
hub
of
creative
activity.
Richard
Florida,

in
his
book,
The
Rise
of
the
Creative
Class,
has
said
that
people
do
not

always
choose
to
live
in
places
just
to
make
money.
They
choose
to
live
in

places
where
they
like
to
be,
places
that
afford
them
a
unique
quality
of

life,
which
is
again,
not
about
money,
but
more
about
quality
of

experiences.
That's
one
reason
why
cities
like
Austin
and
San
Francisco

attract
people,
because
people
in
those
communities
are
creative,
tolerant,

and
diverse.
That's
what
makes
life
more
meaningful
to
people
and
worth

living.
These
kinds
of
aspirations
at
the
level
of
a
city
or
a
country
are
a

conglomeration
of
organizations
that
take
this
kind
of
high‐level

perspective
and
enable
people
to
be
creative
and
innovative,
and
this

makes
design
happen.
Design
doesn't
have
to
be
made;
it
happens
as
a
by‐
product
of
synchronization
of
imagination
and
creative
energy
within
a

community
or
an
organization.
To
give
another
example,
you
can
think

about
all
the
design
activity
that
happens
before
the
Olympics.
The
host

city
develops
an
Olympic
village
with
the
perspective
of
presenting
its

history,
traditions,
and
the
state
of
art
to
the
world.
Developing
tourism

infrastructure
is
another
example
of
macro‐design.
The
cities
that
are

successful
in
building
infrastructure
that
is
sensitive
to
the
experience
of

tourists
through
design
can
have
a
direct
impact
on
the
economy.
Design

can
also
help
translate
local
craft
skills
into
marketable
products
and,

thereby,
help
sustain
traditions
and
employment
in
communities
that
are

fast
losing
their
opportunities
for
productive
participation
in
modern
life.

These
are
the
kinds
of
examples
that
help
government
and
policy

organizations
take
perspective
from
the
point
of
view
of
design.


So
impact
through
design
is
a
good
idea
for
government.


Yes.
In
the
case
of
tourism,
if
you
design
an
infrastructure
that
affords

people
a
good
or
memorable
experience,
it
will
attract
more
tourists
and

will
have
a
direct
bottom‐line
impact
on
the
economy
of
the
country.

Bhutan,
for
example,
is
the
only
country
that
measures
the
quality
of
life

for
its
people
not
by
gross
domestic
product,
but
by
gross
domestic

happiness.
They
have
created
an
index
for
measuring
the
happiness
of

people.
This
kind
of
innovative
approach
can
actually
help
policymakers

view
people's
life
experiences
and
their
roles
and
responsibilities
in
a
totally

different
way.
Since
design
is
tied
to
quality
of
life,
and
to
the
skills
and

behaviors
of
people
who
participate
in
institutions
that
create
those

experiences,
I
think
it
has
policy
implications.


Let's
turn
to
India.
What
are
some
of
the
prominent
design
innovation

trends
that
you've
observed
recently
in
the
burgeoning
consumer
middle

class
in
India?


What
we
do
in
my
company,
SonicRim,
is
to
study
people,
cultures,
and

trends,
and
help
our
clients
mix
design
and
innovation
strategies
that
take

into
consideration
the
life
that
the
target
consumers
want
to
have.
Bearing

that
in
mind,
we
have
been
studying
people
and
trends
around
the
world.

We're
not
just
focused
on
emerging
markets,
but
we
are
focused
on
the

world.
What
we
do
see
is
that
the
notion
of
emerging
markets
is
a
product

of
a
sense
of
saturation
in
developed
markets.
In
recent
years,
economic

conditions
have
made
global
companies
especially
restless
about
the

stability
and
growth
prospects
of
existing
mature
markets.
Consumer
needs

are
generally
fulfilled,
primarily
through
marketing,
advertising,
and
some

amount
of
innovation.
These
countries
are
still
trying
to
grapple
with

opportunities
for
growth
in
mature
markets.
But
they
also
find
that
there's

a
vast
market
in
developing
countries
or
emerging
markets
where

consumers
are
eager
to
catch
up
with
the
rest
of
the
world.
Within
their

means,
they
want
to
invest
their
dollars,
Rupees,
or
any
other
local

currency
in
things
that
give
them
the
assurance
that
they
are
catching
up

with
the
rest
of
the
world.
So
from
that
point
of
view,
the
opportunity
is
to

understand
what
quality
of
life
means
to
people
in
different
countries
and

communities,
and
not
apply
the
same
framework
that
we
use
for
offering

quality
of
life
in
the
more
developed
world.
The
frustrations
and
aspirations

of
people
in
the
developed
world
are
shaped
by
the
infrastructure
and

resources
available
to
them,
whereas
the
frustrations
and
aspirations
of

people
in
the
emerging
markets
are
shaped
by
their
own
realities.
I
think
if

you
want
to
really
fulfill
people's
aspirations
with
meaningful
value

offerings
through
products,
brands,
and
services,
then
you
cannot
do
it

without
first
understanding
people.
And
that's
what
we
do.
Among
many

other
things,
something
that's
very
visible
as
a
trend
in
emerging
markets,

including
India,
is
that
people
are
being
exposed
to
world
cultures
and

traditions,
and
to
new
innovations
that
are
happening
around
the
world.

Technological
practices,
social
practices,
behavioral
practices,
and
people

have
the
curiosity
and
desire
to
try
it
out
for
themselves
to
see
what
work

for
them
and
adapt
things
that
they
think
are
innovative
in
other
parts
of

the
world
to
their
situation.
I
think
the
biggest
opportunity
for
these
people

is
this:
here
is
a
consumer
who
is
already
satisfied
and
just
looking
for
a

change,
versus
here
is
a
consumer
that
is
really
eager
to
move
on
and
catch

up
with
the
rest
of
the
world.
Within
the
means
of
their
economic
power,

they're
willing
to
invest
in
products
and
services
that
can
give
them
a
sense

of
improved
quality
of
life.


So
you're
saying
that
consumers
in
India
or
other
emerging
markets
are

receptive
to
other
cultures,
influences,
and
design
values.
Do
you
think

they
feel
a
strong
desire
for
Western
innovations
and
design
values,
in

which
case
American
and
European
companies
should
go
to
India
and

assert
their
design
values?


Yes
and
no.
They
are
receptive
to
new
ideas,
but
new
ideas
that
suit
their

conditions,
their
mindsets,
their
comforts,
and
their
practices,
not
new

ideas
that
enforce
a
change
that
is
not
required.
I
think
from
that
point
of

view,
when
Western
companies
or
global
companies
approach
societies

such
as
India,
China,
other
Asian
countries,
and
Brazil,
they
need
to
keep
in

mind
the
fact
that
their
behaviors,
their
practices,
their
associations
with

culturally
rich
or
meaningful
objects
of
everyday
use
are
driven
by
history

and
habits.
You
cannot
just
impose
a
brand
or
a
technology
that
is

successful
in
another
country
for
another
mindset,
another
tradition,
and

another
behavior
in
this
culture.
That's
where
cultural
sensitivity
becomes

immensely
important.
To
understand
people's
frameworks
of
mind

becomes
important.
I'll
give
you
an
example.
There's
a
book
called

Geography
of
Mind
that
looks
at
how
Asians
think
differently
from

Americans.
The
author
said
that
a
Western
or
American
way
of
thinking
and

the
Asian
way
of
thinking
can
be
explained
by
the
two
philosophers
of

these
two
cultures.
The
Western
way
of
thinking
can
be
explained
by
the

thinking
of
Aristotle
and
the
Eastern
way
of
thinking
can
be
explained
by

the
philosophy
of
Confucius.
The
Aristotelian
way,
or
the
Western
mode
of

thinking,
is
driven
by
the
tacit
belief
in
the
concept
of
agency,
which
means

a
belief
that
you
can
control
your
destiny
and
you're
responsible
for
your

destiny,
whereas
the
Confucian,
or
Asian
way,
of
thinking
is
tacitly
driven
by

the
concept
of
harmony,
where
people's
focus
is
on
living
in
harmony
with

their
family,
community,
or
society
as
an
abstract
concept,
and
not
about

setting
and
meeting
individual
goals.
These
two
distinctly
different

frameworks
of
value
motivate
people
to
take
individual
momentary
action

or
choices
that
are
different
from
each
other.
For
example,
in
a
Western

mode
of
thinking,
productivity,
speed,
and
efficiency
are
critical
goals,

whereas
in
the
Eastern
way
of
thinking,
balance,
connection
with
family
or

to
network
of
friends,
and
peace
are
core
goals
that
people
have.
Unless

your
products
or
brands
direct
or
address
people's
aspirations
along
these

fundamental
societal
goals,
you're
likely
to
miss
out
on
opportunities
in
the

consumer
field.
So
that's
how
these
countries
need
to
understand

fundamental‐thinking
frameworks,
cultures,
and
behaviors,
and
then
fine‐
tune
their
brands.


How
has
liberalization
affected
local
designers
and
businesses?


At
the
political
level
there's
a
belief
that
the
key
to
progress
is
liberalization.

That's
like
a
simple
equation
that's
been
accepted
at
a
political
level,
and

no
matter
which
party
comes
to
power
in
an
election,
they
seem
to
address

this
notion
and
almost
position
themselves
either
for
or
against
the
notion

that
liberalization
is
good
or
liberalization
is
bad.
I
think
this
notion
has

been
defined
by
international
trade
agencies
to
promote
international

trade;
by
international
development
agencies
and
economists
who
believe

that
a
top‐down
capitalist
model
is
going
to
work.
In
some
cases
it
has

proved
correct.
There
has
been
development
on
the
Western
mode
that's

happening
from
the
top
down.
So
you
see
a
lot
more
malls,
you
see
a
lot

more
skyscrapers
appearing
in
Pudong
and
in
Gurgaon,
India.
These
new

habitats
of
the
modern
world
become
symbols
and
showcases
of
modern‐
day
policies
dictated
by
this
way
of
thinking.
So
it
has
created
an

excitement
amongst
professionals
and
designers
who
are
making
more

money
and
finding
more
clients
who
want
to
invest
in
these
icons
of
the

modern
world.
But
at
the
same
time,
if
you
take
a
humanistic
view
of
the

down‐level
realities,
somehow
it
happens
that
through
progress,

modernity,
and
technology,
more
and
more
people
are
finding
themselves

outdated
in
their
skills
from
the
demands
of
the
new
technology
and

production
process.
There
is
a
great
sense
of
unease
around
the
world
and

a
fear
of
the
loss
of
jobs
and
opportunities
to
apply
skills
that
they've

devoted
a
lifetime
to
learn.
It
looks
like
things
get
done
quicker
and
more

efficiently
and
things
look
better,
but
at
the
same
time,
people
seem
to
be

unsure
whether
it's
good
for
them.
So
there
is
that
little
unease
amongst

people
who
are
not
necessarily
direct
beneficiaries
of
the
new
modern

icons.
That's
where
designers
have
the
opportunity
to
see
how
to
keep

larger
populations
engaged
in
making
and
sustaining
community
living
at

three
levels—international,
national,
and
community.
I
think
liberalization

in
that
way
has
created
consumerism,
which
is
not
good
in
my
opinion,
but

it's
opportunistic
for
traditional
designers.
But
it
also
created
its
own

problems,
which
have
posed
new
challenges
to
both
socially
and
culturally

oriented
designers.
So
depending
on
which
side
of
the
philosophy
you
are

positioned—the
side
of
consumerism
and
modernity
or
the
side
of

humanitarianism
and
sustainabilit—there
are
great
opportunities
available

for
designers
today.


Final
question.
What
is
your
vision
of
the
world
in
terms
of
design
values

and
assumptions
as
brought
on
by
globalization
and
the
role
reversal

West
and
East—that
is
to
say,
the
shift
in
core
consumer
markets?


First,
more
people
are
migrating.
There
are
more
and
more
intercultural

communities
forming
and,
as
a
result,
there
are
some
people
who
are

adapting
to
intercultural
lifestyles.
For
example,
the
city
of
Toronto
is

considered
the
most
intercultural
city
in
the
world.
On
the
other
hand,

there's
also
a
sense
of
insecurity
and
loss
of
identity
because
of
modernity,

which
is
leading
to
homogeneity.
I
think
the
symbols
of
modern
life,
like

malls,
food
courts,
global
fashion
brands,
the
MTVs,
and
the
McDonalds
of

the
world
are
in
some
way
forcing
younger
generations
to
seek
connection

to
universal
values
and
universal
expressions.
But
somewhere
deep
inside

people
also
feel
disconnected
from
their
roots.
While
there
is
this
progress

happening
at
one
level,
there's
likely
to
be
some
conflict,
violence,
and

anger,
and
that
could
be
a
big
challenge
that
the
creative
community
will

face.
I
think
the
biggest
challenge
will
be
to
help
people
understand

intercultural
communities
and
how
to
live
in
them.
If
you
just
look
around

you,
open
any
newspaper
anywhere
in
the
world,
people
are
killing
each

other
because
of
their
inability
to
culturally
adjust
to
each
other.
People

who
are
being
creative
are
also
those
who
are
able
to
draw
inspiration
from

cross‐cultural
opportunities.
So
there
are
going
to
be
two
paths—one
which

is
leading
to
disaster,
and
one
that
is
leading
to
more
opportunities
for

creativity
and
innovation.
I
don't
know
which
one
will
succeed.
It
depends

upon
how
carefully
the
policymakers
manage
the
evolution
of
diverse

communities.


And
how
they
work
with
designers.


Yes.


Thank
you
very
much.


Thank
you.


Interview
conducted
by
Flora
Zhang,
Producer,
New
Media.