This week’s videos and readings helped me understand that design and creativity are not only skills or jobs but a way of continuously participating in the world. Before this, I tended to treat design as a survival skill, completing tasks, solving problems, and achieving functions. But from the concept of “dependence on the artificial” to “Defuturing and Sustainment”, I began to see a broader perspective: every act of design shapes the conditions of future life. These ideas made me reflect on whether I should gradually move from “finishing works” to “using design to intervene in and reshape the artificial world.” This shift can help me look at each project differently, moving my focus from the work itself to its social, cultural, and environmental impact. I hope my design will not stop at the level of form but can have a more positive and lasting influence on the real world.

When reading Design for the Real World, I was struck by Papanek’s description of a design dilemma: “Should I design it to be functional,” the students say, “or to be aesthetically pleasing?” This question resonated with my own experience of often hesitating between “concept expression” and “wearability.” Papanek’s Function Complex made me realize that the “function” of design is not a single measure or a binary choice but a dynamic balance between multiple dimensions. The text also says that “elements cannot be ripped out of their telesic context with impunity.” This made me think of the “cultural borrowing” we see today: ethnic patterns, local architectural styles, and traditional craft elements are quickly extracted, mixed, and consumed, often losing their original meaning or sparking controversy. This reminds me that in any design work, we need to understand the cultural context and intended use of these elements, trace their history and value, and only then decide how to transform or innovate.

Question: many of this week’s readings also stress that creators must take responsibility for the world and consider social issues, environmental issues, culture, politics, and future impacts. Especially at the start of Design for the Real World, Papanek criticizes the “useless” and even “harmful” designs produced by modern industrial design and writes, “we must stop defiling the earth itself with poorly designed objects and structures.” But I also wonder: do these designs that look “meaningless” actually satisfy some short-term desire or “small dose of meaninglessness” at a psychological or social level, and therefore push designers to follow them? In other words, where is the boundary between designers “shaping demand” and “being pushed by demand”? This makes me wonder how much initiative I really have as a designer, and how to find a balance between business and responsibility in the future.