This is Safe Cuddling, by RCA graduate Helge Fischer, a children playsuit that fires an alarm if the child is touched inappropriately. Image from Deezen. Full post here. Video of the product here.
The inherent risks of critical design are that on the one hand its messages may arrive to individuals who are already informed and educated enough to develop that criticism in their own right, and, on the other, that the same messages can be paradoxically legitimize the very object of criticism.
In this case, for instance, one can read a reference to the paranoia with which parents surround their children today, a paranoia which dramatically limits the children's ability to interact with the environment and the others. This was the designer's stated intention. However, to be able to read this, you have to be able to think this by yourself, and from this point of view, it is like "preaching to the saved," or can even be described as a form of social ventriloquism, whereby the opinion that to recognise erogenous areas in infants is plainly ridiculous is presented as shared by most members of the design-educated community. In fact, most of the commentators are outraged by such an overdose of puritanism or are adamant they would never use this for their children. On the other end of the spectrum, there are users (probably paranoid parents) who take the product to be a certification of their fears. "This is really cute and practical!" exclaims one observer, amongst several newly parents, in the comments to the original Dezeen post. However, it "loses some of its practicality due to the fact that it will get dirty very quickly," realistically argues another.
Critical design is always interesting and invaluable as a conversation starter. It really becomes a formidable tool in the hands of the committed designer when its aim is to locate, chart and highlight lines of tension within society and culture. This is a work on the structure of design, rather than the visual language of design.
