A Critique of Design in History by Victor Margolin
The article Design in History by Victor Margolin discusses the issues between design and the broader subjects within the field of history. He argues that design should be considered of enough importance to be studied as its topic. Margolin also emphasises that the history of design is also significant in other areas of history.
Margolin acknowledges the accomplishments of design historians including the wide variety of research that has been conducted and the “growing collection of academic publications.” (Margolin, 2009) However, he criticises the lack of generalisation to other components of history like the social aspects. “Yet despite these accomplishments, the community continues to operate within an intellectual framework that frequently isolates design from much of what other historians do.” (Margolin, 2009) He goes on to describe how subjects such as history of technology, engineering, material culture and many more may also be relevant but that design has failed to engage with these other topics.
In the second part of the article, Margolin talks about the successes of technology historians who manage to link subjects of technology and invention to a wider range of other topics. He refers to a book American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970, by Thomas Hughes who described technological inventions in terms of “systems” rather than “individual objects.” According to Margolin, this was important as discoveries involved people as well as the “machines and processes”. I feel that this is a central point in his argument as views are often limited by people reporting their findings.
Another issue that is presented is that historians of design have ignored other subjects whilst in search of an answer to their own inquiries. Margolin’s example is how Cheryl Buckley chose to ignore “evidence of women’s achievements in the field of mechanical and technical invention” yet complained about the requirement for “a greater recognition of craft arts.” The way in which the history of technology has been overlooked could perhaps mean that design historians need to show more awareness for other social fields as this may aid them in discovering the answers to their own matters.
Margolin makes a point that many “components of daily life can be linked to larger economic and social forces.” (Margolin, 2009) He uses Fernand Braudel’s study of capitalism as a model of how material culture, and design, could be “incorporated within a large, historical narrative.” (Margolin, 2009) I think that this is a major point in the article as design historians should try to understand the bigger picture and use other topics of history to assist them with their research. They could perhaps also make use of knowledge about “complex social relations revealed by Jeffrey Meikle.” (Margolin, 2009)
Later on the in the article, Margolin continues to explain how other areas of history could apply to design. He mentions how many cultural historians have written about design which suggests that there is some level of relevance between the two topics. For example in Deborah Silverman’s study, Art Nouveau in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture, the Art Nouveau movement is defined in terms of social contexts such as self-glorification and associations to psychologie nouvelle. (Margolin, 2009)
In the conclusion, Margolin describes the main fault as not a limitation of design as a subject but the lack of the ability of design historians to broaden their knowledge of other areas of history and incorporate these into their studies. I would say that design historians are actually the limitation of the study of design history as they overlook the importance of all other fields even though they are just as substantial and would greatly improve their knowledge. There is also the issue that design may not be considered of adequate significance and so it is dismissed in the field of history. In general I feel that Margolin’s view on the topic of design in history is rather accurate. He does criticise many design historians for their lack of understanding of other history-related fields and I agree with this argument. The historians of design should engage further with other aspects of history as this will help everyone to develop a better perception of the history of design and all other fields. If all historians were to work together they could produce a larger view of the various events and discoveries in history and convey this to other domains. By looking at the other contributions to studies of history, design historians may even be able to uncover new insights into the history of the design world.