Blue Sky design contests

I was recently very derogatory about the latest Electrolux design lab finalists who submit blue sky design concepts under themed categories.  The concepts selected this year do not seem to be as strong as previous years.  I cannot understand why they were presented (without a reality check from tutors and peers prior to submission) and why the judges decided that they should be selected.  This is not me trying to knock student work, I only want to support students, but I believe you never learn as much from positive comments as you will from constrictive criticism.  

For this years competition, Students could submit work under three categories, one of which was air purification.   I do not wish to single anyone out as I think they were all bad, but as an example, no matter how far into the future you go, I cannot see how an air purifier the size of a match box worn on the wrist outdoors, can work.  Just mathematically, anything that small could not shift the volume of air necessary to improve air quality in an outside environment effected by wind especially when you factor in the distance it will normally be from your face.

I have strong views about blue sky work, I did a lot of it when I was in university and I enjoyed it, but now I question how much value it has.  Blue sky as I know it, is looking at what scientists and engineers predict will be the future in 10-20 years time and designing objects that take these things into consideration.  Looking back at the work I produced, most of the technology that 15 years ago it was predicted we'd have today, has either not come to pass, has been superseded, or just wasn't adopted by the public.  What I'd designed would have been difficult or impossible to manufacture and is still worthless 15 years later.  Whilst I had fun, I didn't really learn as much as i would have trying to design objects that could be manufactured.   I was not trying to be practical, that's not what blue sky is about. So, foolishly I adopted a blinkered approach, which I fear anyone designing objects with Blue Sky thinking is prone to do. As as soon as you hit a design barrier it is all to tempting to get around the problem by assuming, that in the future batteries will be as thin as a human hair with enough power to last a life time and motors the size of a fingernail will have enough torque to drive a car. Lights will be infinitely bright and everything will posess the ability to hover and think for itself.  Now I think the term blue sky is used as a way of covering up bad design and its lazy.   The blue sky pieces I designed were not really good for my portfolio.  What did they tell prospective employers? This designer has no idea how to package existing technology into something feasible- if you employ him, you will have to retrain him to produce things that can be made.

I'm not saying designers should not design for the future.  Most designers are designing for the near future, because it takes months to finalise tooling, approve 1st off production samples, manufacture stock, ship that stock to a store and put it on shelf.  Six months or more could have elapsed from the concept to selling the first product and in that time fashions change, tastes swing.  A designer is not designing for now, they are designing a little way into the future, but not the future in 10 or 20 years time, what would be the point.  I remember watching old episodes of Star Trek in which the set designers tried to make a version of the future, how dated it looks now and how irrelevant.  Even the films today with all their special effects in 15 years time will be inaccurate.  You cannot predict the future, it's impossible and so, in my opinion, unless you are a set designer on the next sci fi epic, blue sky design and the concepts selected for this years Electrolux design lab contest are largely a waste of time.