Michele De Lucchi about today's requirements for design education

Michele De Lucchi is one of the most significant designers and architects of our time. Born in Ferrara, Italy, in 1951, his designs, such as Artemide's iconic Tolomeo lamp, are etched in our collective visual memory. As a co-founder of two major 20th century design movements – ­Alchimia and Memphis – he has written design history. With his sons, Pico and Arturo, the next generation has joined the ADML Circle studio – a multidisciplinary circle of creatives.

You taught design in Venice for many years. In how far would you change your teaching today?  

My way of teaching has changed a lot over time and I would like to keep evolving it for two reasons: the first one is the changing of historical, social and cultural circumstances; the second one is a personal motivation that binds to my own path and evolution.

Twenty years ago my teaching was more practical. I was trying to develop in students a talent for 'entrepreneurship', because a designer is not complete if he does not have a sense of industry, of production and of the market he is addressing. Today I am more theoretical and ask students to transfer intangible concepts and values into products that must become tangible in the final stage. I also deal with issues in a less sectorial and more multidisciplinary way to give young designers breadth of vision.

The profession of designer has changed a lot because technological innovations have changed the tools and processes of design and prototyping, but also because the topics on which we should reflect and make a contribution have changed; as designers we are also much more attentive to the health of the ecosystem, the balance in the distribution of wealth, and the emerging social problems.

At the occasion of a symposium of European design professors, the "thinking with hands“ concept was named as a model for the 21st century, a term of the Renaissance. How do you feel about this?

This is a concept I feel very close to, although we should not think that hands can replace machines or machines supplant hands. The two tools co-exist and must continue to co-exist. On the contrary, I am convinced that without machines and automation we would not sufficiently appreciate the use of the hands and the value of handcrafted things, made with passion.

Author design versus collaborative design in the 21st century: How do you see this?

I don't think there is a real difference, it takes 'authorial spirit' both when designing alone and when working in a group. Depersonalised design has no value and a designer must learn to constantly evaluate his or her own contribution in relation to the one of the other designers. I am familiar with this topic because I am considered a designer-author and I founded AMDL CIRCLE with which I experiment with common design processes.

In the Circle, I work hard to ensure that multi-handed design is not disqualified by a lack of identity, that choices are democratically distributed and oriented towards a common result where contributions interconnect harmoniously, generating more value. It takes an 'expert eye' in everyone involved in the team. I have an architect's education and I believe this influences my approach a lot, because an architect cannot do anything alone and needs to dialogue with very large and open teams.

Will there be, in your opinion, an impact of artificial intelligence on the design process and if so, how will AI affect it?

Yes, there will be and it will help us a lot to understand the value of our rational qualities combined with our emotional ones. AI is certainly a danger like all great human achievements, just think of the discovery of fire in prehistory or nuclear energy in more recent times. Everything that comes from innovation has its risks and benefits. It will be crucial to learn how to use AI well in any form it presents itself and this must become a goal in the training of new designers.

What do young people in design studies mainly have to learn when AI is involved, in your opinion?

I simply emphasise the distinction between rational and emotional intelligence for the time being. In our brains, the two hemispheres are constantly in dialogue and we know for sure that there will never be a purely rational or purely emotional approach. Even if there was someone convinced to declare his absolute rationality, the statement would already reveal a good deal of emotionality.

Where do you see the biggest regional differences in design studies (Europe - US - Asia or Italy - Germany - Scandinavia)?

The difference lies in the lifestyle one refers to and the ambition to achieve an ever better quality of life. I personally believe that societies that foster the individual value of the person and promote diversity are worth promoting. Without diversity there is no drive for innovation, alternatives are not experimented with and the most unusual and original ideas are condemned. This is why I am a supporter of Italian design: for its creative force and continuous search for new forms, new materials and new incentives beyond functional rigour and market logic.

As architects we say that designing is not a purely technical activity and that when we design we also design the behaviour of those who will use the spaces of our projects. I believe the same applies to designers: when designing, they should be aware that they are also intervening in the behaviour of those who will use their products.