"Woman As Design" by Stephen Bayley

WOMAN AS DESIGN: CONTEMPORARY OBJECTIFICATION

If ever there was a more fitting counterpoint to the sensitively conceived Elles@CentrePompidou it Stephen Bayley’s controversial book Woman as Design, which was also released this year. The publication, which was described by radio presenter Jenni Murray as ‘a coffee-table playground for perverts’ (on Radio 4’s ‘Woman’s Hour’) has been met with extreme scrutiny by almost all who would deign to read, let alone review it.

On first introduction the very title is unsettling, an alarming parallel is immediately drawn between that of the female and admired aesthetics of a design. This is followed by an extremely provocative musing in Bayley’s foreword: ‘If woman had been designed then what exactly was the brief?’  The very notion of a woman as a designed object invokes themes of ownership and objectification that would be more suited to a 1950s advertisement than a contemporary publication.

It would be possible to analyse every ill conceived comment and sweeping generalisation in Bayley’s essays, but it would be a thoroughly futile exercise. In short, what has been produced is a book that is accurately described by Camilla Long as ‘a rambling and quixotic pervathon that rests wholly on his patronising and flawed central thesis of woman as a product’^. 

Bayley relies heavily on a bizarre montage of imagery involving everything from a fertility sculpture dating back to 30,000 BC (figure 8), to a publicity shot of Racquel Welch in the 1966 film ‘One Million BC’ (figure 7)which can both apparently be used as a direct comparison for legitimate historic representations of the female form.

Bayley seeks to defend himself in a recent Guardian article (2009) stating ‘Any fair reading of Woman as Design would not find reactionary sexism. But reactionary feminists are not fair readers’. On the contrary, it would be near impossible to find anything other than the most reactionary responses to a full double page spread displaying a completely waxed vagina (figure 5) beside that of a 1958 Ford Edsel (figure 6); or an apparently factual statement that ‘naked breasts suggest either a nurturing mother or a woman who is sexually available’ (2009 p.15) Of course, there’s nothing like an allusion to the Whore and Madonna analogy to provoke accusations of sexism.

The general condemnation that this book has received may seem extreme to some, and perhaps even fit the image of ‘reactionary feminist’ that Bayley alludes to. It could be argued that feminist design, exhibitions and works of art have all used similar imagery and brutal comparisons to present the feminine form (including the exhibitions previously discussed). However it is the very nature of the authorial voice, combined with these other factors, that culminate in such an abhorrent exploration of the female form (aspects of the gender other than physical aesthetic are barely mentioned). Bayley continually refers to a universal ‘we’, ‘us’ or ‘our’ in terms of objectifying every part of a woman’s body, even going so far as to pose the alarming question: ‘Have we designed women?’. 

Therefore it must be considered, who exactly is Bayley’s audience? The assumption that these views are inclusive would suggest that Bayley believes there is a large percentage of readers who seek to objectify and sexualise the female form almost constantly. The didactic tone of Bayley’s text is also abrasive through his factual presentation of personal opinion, combined with fragmented elements of art history and social critique.

Comparisons can be drawn between this tone and that of the Bad Girls museum context. Both examples seek to inform the viewer on the subject of female representation, and yet it is being presented by traditional patriarchal institutions. In the first instance you have that of the ICA and secondly that of Bayley’s position as cofounder of the Design Museum. 

The Design Museum itself has been subject to tensions and disagreements involving issues of gender and female input in terms of curation. 

Such strong tensions were first made public knowledge when Alice Rawsthorn was appointed director in 2001. Immediate clashes were apparent with founder Terence Conran and chairman James Dyson in terms of content and focus within the museum. This ultimately led to Dyson’s resignation in 2004 amid mentions that ‘many holding more “traditional views” of design disliked what appeared to be an apparent “feminisation” of the museum.’ This is, of course a provocative statement and leads to the question, how exactly do you feminise a museum?

The main issues of hostility lay within Rawsthorn’s decision to exhibit the work Constance Spry, a teacher and social reformer who worked with underprivileged families and schools in deprived areas of London in the 1940s and 50s. By using simple aids such as flower arranging to improve the aesthetics of poor homes Spry instigated the beginnings of facilitatory design as opposed to more traditional products, but had more commercial success with her flower arranging.

Furthermore Rawsthorn named Hillary Cottam as Designer of the Year for her development of the program Design Works which involved the redesign of Kingsdale School, Dulwich; not only in terms of architecture but also curriculum, communication and management systems.Both of these decisions were met with disdain by Bayley, Conran and Dyson. In an article for The Independent in 2006 Bayley explain their concerns, stating:

‘Dyson thinks flower arranging is ridiculous, because, to him, it debases his interpretation of design as a problem solving activity, based in technology, not a vase... To Conran, it is about making ordinary life more pleasurable to more people. To Dyson, it is about invention and manufacturing and engineering.’

Once again these two conflicting opinions represent the male dominated traditional view on design as a clear end product which solves a problem. Adversely Rawsthorne’s approach encompasses a more progressive appreciation of facilitatory design that encompasses Lovelace’s computer programming and Kare’s operating systems.

There has been much debate concerning the museum’s conflicts and it’s intent in terms of defining design. In his article Bayley himself mentions a generational shift and explained that ‘the Design Museum was built at the end of the Machine Age’ where cut and dry product design was accepted and understood. Indeed a shift has taken place, and there is a fear that if such institutions cannot diversify then they will flounder. If  Woman as Design is to be taken as a representation of the prevailing ethos at the Design Museum then there is cause for concern. 

It is disconcerting that Bayley so heavily criticises the work of Rawsthorne, claiming her apparent ‘style over substance’ approach has no place in the Design Museum. Yet he refuses to see that this is exactly what Woman as Design is: an ill-conceived and fragmented publication relying heavily on eroticised images of the female form. It lacks function, as Bayley’s question of woman as a design brief is redundant. Such a book has no place when considering exhibitions such Elles are finally giving women artists and designers the recognition they deserve. The only purpose this publication can really fulfil is a reminder that no matter how much progress has been made, the misrepresentation of women is still prevalent within the creative industry, and we still have an awfully long way to go.