With the individualism and pluralism that distinguishes productive culture today it is almost
impossible to arrive at a 'standard' in design. Adding to the confusion is the 'empowerment of the
masses', as it were, that allows practically everybody to be a designer.
Reference is being made here to the plethora of 'user-friendly' gizmos, design-tools, software etc that
are so much in everybody's face that few realize the consequences of using these.
Most importantly it changes the meaning of 'design', provoking at least one critic to observe that
designers don't design anymore but are themselves designed by others' designs.
From the anonymous design of vernacular dwellings or traditional jewelry to modern-day extreme
building or management systems, design is understood variously in various contexts. Not least the
occasional derogatory label of 'designer-stuff for the sub-standard or ridiculous.
Design is held responsible for the unsustainable lifestyles some people enjoy and others aspire to. If
it is understood as one of the reasons for the phenomenal strides capitalism has made, design thought
is also seen as its handmaiden. It is design that has been held responsible for the seduction that is
practiced in the name of packaging and marketing.
Thus all that is good and growing in the material world is as much designed as the rollercoaster to
self-destruction the planet is firmly on.
• What then is design? A much maligned monster or the hallmark of sophistication?
• What is said to be designed and what is not?
• Who is and who is not a designer or does 'design democracy' allow everyone to be one?
Also, read this thread and the Design vs. Styling article I linked to in it. With that in mind, I would most definitely state that NOT everyone is a "designer".
haha :-) Its a question that's coming up. A couple of my colleagues and i are doing a seminar regarding this very controvertial topic wherein we're trying to probe the depths of Design....some of the questions we hope to answer in some ways are - What IS design? and WHO is the REAL designer? So i'd like to know what are your views on this
I once read an archvoices article on alternative career paths in architecture. In it, the editor essential summed up 'design' as a broad scope of integrated services:
...we should take care how we use the word “design.” In unguarded moments, it’s easy to say “the design” when what we really mean is “the way it looks”: “I like the design, but the construction is poor,” or “It’s a nice design, but it doesn’t function very well.” We know better: the design includes the construction, it includes function, and—not unimportantly— it includes the way it looks.
When we’re expanding our services as architects, it includes, as well, financial analysis, development strategy— indeed, everything we bring to the table. What we’re bringing is not a grab-bag of services, but an integration of factors, the relations among which may be hard for others to see. The integration of apparently unrelated things lumens, column spacing, and social space, for example—is the core of what we do, and it would serve us well if we reserved the word “design” for that integration. We should be prepared to demonstrate, through vivid examples, how design can serve a gamut of interests, from the fiscal to the social to the visual. And whenever anyone uses the word “design” to mean anything less than this rich synthesis of concerns, we should call them on it.
look around....those other jobs are out there. I am actually in the process of getting into another career...my architecture background is actually helping me!!!!
an interesting statement made by someone - Everyone remembers the designer who designs 10 BEST buildings but nobody remembers the 30,000 BAD ones that were built in the process.
Now see, I disagree with you there, e. I would happily say "Everyone is creative" which would encompass all kinds of acts of synthesis: cooking, selecting paint colors, putting together a music mix, making a speech...
But I don't think all of those are necessarily acts of design.
i do realize that alternative (yet adjacent) career paths are available and plentiful, especially with a varied academic background such as my own.
...fortunately i have another year until I have to get serious about that decision. how sweet would a hybrid research/design position be? (of course i would do this without having to put myself through a 2-3 year ph. d program)
do you think we're just trying to make ourselves exclusive? like everyone tries to be different.... similarly are we just saying design cannot be done by everyone just cuz we want to be different from the common man?
laistm: One of the best examples of why everyone isn't a "designer" is one I heard eyars ago here on archinect, I think by a posted named Lula? Or Lily?
Anyway, she said 'When people say "But everyone can design", I respond by saying "Yeah, and everyone can sing. But I don't go around calling myself Celine Dion."
There is more empowerment then ever before for the "typical" individual to have a stage for creative output; through digital media, etc. I think it is important for us as architects and designers to foster desgn culture to the masses. Considering perhaps the idea of open source design. There are certainly those that are talented designers and those that are not; as it relates to being a part of a social art like architecture, however, empowerment should be part of a way of working as a designer.
basically, i thinke every object in our built environment has a component that is designed, and a component that is undesigned...
i think design, although very broad, is always the result of human intentions and conscious or subconscious mental construct, it's always "monumental", even if it happens in an everyday way...
design is always a service business... sometimes avant garde art, sometimes a fashion industry, including the high fashion of runways or more experimental stuff, that gradually has a market appeal that then has the trickle-down effect of being absorbed by the market, and the moment the market buys into it, and the money sources assign an aesthetic or use value to the design, it gets copied in various forms, degrees of refinement...
but it is everywhere, and it's so infused with everything built or produced around us, all of the consumer culture of our cities, global... there's everyday designand then there's spectacular design, and then there's political or ideologically driven design... everyday stuff like the design of the plastic vitaminwater bottle, or the graphic label on that bottle... or the design of a zipper on a piece of clothing, or a laptop or ipod... or the graphic design of a bilboard, or the opening cinematic sequence of an HBO drama you see on television... the carbon copy condominium developments, or the stylistic public plaza, to the new building typology or even adaptive reuse project marketed as *green*, to the kitchy touristic postcard or kraft dinner label and box...
design can be good and it can be bad... the market buys both. whether its design or not has little to do with whether its good design or not... that's a different question...
then there's also: undesign... the aspect of even "designed" objects that emerges as the result of forces beyond human control are undesigned... those things that are the result of randomness, the unravelling of design, maybe even the decay or weathering of all things, things slipping into the natural state of chaos... your kitchen or desk gradually falling into random mess while you continually clean it up and reorganize it... so you have these ongoing constructive and decaying forces at work all the time... design and undesign...
thank you bRink. thus does there exist a level of entropy in design as well? just as there exists a drive toward increased disorder (entropy) in physics?
this feels a bit solipsistic to me. or at the very least a circular argument in the making.
what is the reason for the question? maybe that makes it easier to answer. i think design is complicated but not all-encompassing. we can pretend it is like duchamp's urinal, ie, whatever we say it is. i am quite happy of design is fashion. also equally happy if we define it to include integration of all kinds of services and philosophishing. but in the end even that broad definition is a kind of fashion, and not forever. most useful view of design for me is that it is something i do, not think about, and all the rest is in service to make the doing real. but that is not a definition, just a reaction...still, i get by with only that. maybe the definition is not so important?
ryanj, phd is ususally 3-5 years. am not certain a non-phd research route will yield very much apart from lots of sub-standard work which doesn't get the scrutiny of a proper defense against critical/sharp people...it doesn't have to be that way, but it often looks like it from where i stand. not that academia is the best way to go, but research unquestioned and undefended is just play, not research. there is a lot of it done by architects.
Sep 1, 07 3:44 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
WHAT IS DESIGN?
With the individualism and pluralism that distinguishes productive culture today it is almost
impossible to arrive at a 'standard' in design. Adding to the confusion is the 'empowerment of the
masses', as it were, that allows practically everybody to be a designer.
Reference is being made here to the plethora of 'user-friendly' gizmos, design-tools, software etc that
are so much in everybody's face that few realize the consequences of using these.
Most importantly it changes the meaning of 'design', provoking at least one critic to observe that
designers don't design anymore but are themselves designed by others' designs.
From the anonymous design of vernacular dwellings or traditional jewelry to modern-day extreme
building or management systems, design is understood variously in various contexts. Not least the
occasional derogatory label of 'designer-stuff for the sub-standard or ridiculous.
Design is held responsible for the unsustainable lifestyles some people enjoy and others aspire to. If
it is understood as one of the reasons for the phenomenal strides capitalism has made, design thought
is also seen as its handmaiden. It is design that has been held responsible for the seduction that is
practiced in the name of packaging and marketing.
Thus all that is good and growing in the material world is as much designed as the rollercoaster to
self-destruction the planet is firmly on.
• What then is design? A much maligned monster or the hallmark of sophistication?
• What is said to be designed and what is not?
• Who is and who is not a designer or does 'design democracy' allow everyone to be one?
feel better?
Where did that get cut-and-pasted from?
Also, read this thread and the Design vs. Styling article I linked to in it. With that in mind, I would most definitely state that NOT everyone is a "designer".
haha :-) Its a question that's coming up. A couple of my colleagues and i are doing a seminar regarding this very controvertial topic wherein we're trying to probe the depths of Design....some of the questions we hope to answer in some ways are - What IS design? and WHO is the REAL designer? So i'd like to know what are your views on this
I once read an archvoices article on alternative career paths in architecture. In it, the editor essential summed up 'design' as a broad scope of integrated services:
...we should take care how we use the word “design.” In unguarded moments, it’s easy to say “the design” when what we really mean is “the way it looks”: “I like the design, but the construction is poor,” or “It’s a nice design, but it doesn’t function very well.” We know better: the design includes the construction, it includes function, and—not unimportantly— it includes the way it looks.
When we’re expanding our services as architects, it includes, as well, financial analysis, development strategy— indeed, everything we bring to the table. What we’re bringing is not a grab-bag of services, but an integration of factors, the relations among which may be hard for others to see. The integration of apparently unrelated things lumens, column spacing, and social space, for example—is the core of what we do, and it would serve us well if we reserved the word “design” for that integration. We should be prepared to demonstrate, through vivid examples, how design can serve a gamut of interests, from the fiscal to the social to the visual. And whenever anyone uses the word “design” to mean anything less than this rich synthesis of concerns, we should call them on it.
Nice quote, ryan.
who cares???
lets drink!!!
thanks lb.
...now if i could only stumble upon one of those alternative career paths
ryanj
look around....those other jobs are out there. I am actually in the process of getting into another career...my architecture background is actually helping me!!!!
an interesting statement made by someone - Everyone remembers the designer who designs 10 BEST buildings but nobody remembers the 30,000 BAD ones that were built in the process.
geez ryan, nice one!
mdler - what are you doing?
strawbeary
i am going to start building models for TV shows
congrats! I'll take you out to lunch to celebrate!
thanks! it hasnt happened yet, but I am 99% sure that it will be happening soon
We are all designers.
Now see, I disagree with you there, e. I would happily say "Everyone is creative" which would encompass all kinds of acts of synthesis: cooking, selecting paint colors, putting together a music mix, making a speech...
But I don't think all of those are necessarily acts of design.
i design inteligently
my designs evolve, but i guess it must be out of stupidity.
thanks mdler.
i do realize that alternative (yet adjacent) career paths are available and plentiful, especially with a varied academic background such as my own.
...fortunately i have another year until I have to get serious about that decision. how sweet would a hybrid research/design position be? (of course i would do this without having to put myself through a 2-3 year ph. d program)
do you think we're just trying to make ourselves exclusive? like everyone tries to be different.... similarly are we just saying design cannot be done by everyone just cuz we want to be different from the common man?
design is word consist of 6 charachter ......
reaaaallly?
laistm: One of the best examples of why everyone isn't a "designer" is one I heard eyars ago here on archinect, I think by a posted named Lula? Or Lily?
Anyway, she said 'When people say "But everyone can design", I respond by saying "Yeah, and everyone can sing. But I don't go around calling myself Celine Dion."
There is more empowerment then ever before for the "typical" individual to have a stage for creative output; through digital media, etc. I think it is important for us as architects and designers to foster desgn culture to the masses. Considering perhaps the idea of open source design. There are certainly those that are talented designers and those that are not; as it relates to being a part of a social art like architecture, however, empowerment should be part of a way of working as a designer.
interesting discussion...
basically, i thinke every object in our built environment has a component that is designed, and a component that is undesigned...
i think design, although very broad, is always the result of human intentions and conscious or subconscious mental construct, it's always "monumental", even if it happens in an everyday way...
design is always a service business... sometimes avant garde art, sometimes a fashion industry, including the high fashion of runways or more experimental stuff, that gradually has a market appeal that then has the trickle-down effect of being absorbed by the market, and the moment the market buys into it, and the money sources assign an aesthetic or use value to the design, it gets copied in various forms, degrees of refinement...
but it is everywhere, and it's so infused with everything built or produced around us, all of the consumer culture of our cities, global... there's everyday designand then there's spectacular design, and then there's political or ideologically driven design... everyday stuff like the design of the plastic vitaminwater bottle, or the graphic label on that bottle... or the design of a zipper on a piece of clothing, or a laptop or ipod... or the graphic design of a bilboard, or the opening cinematic sequence of an HBO drama you see on television... the carbon copy condominium developments, or the stylistic public plaza, to the new building typology or even adaptive reuse project marketed as *green*, to the kitchy touristic postcard or kraft dinner label and box...
design can be good and it can be bad... the market buys both. whether its design or not has little to do with whether its good design or not... that's a different question...
then there's also: undesign... the aspect of even "designed" objects that emerges as the result of forces beyond human control are undesigned... those things that are the result of randomness, the unravelling of design, maybe even the decay or weathering of all things, things slipping into the natural state of chaos... your kitchen or desk gradually falling into random mess while you continually clean it up and reorganize it... so you have these ongoing constructive and decaying forces at work all the time... design and undesign...
lowercase letters were designed and are available for free use...
thank you bRink. thus does there exist a level of entropy in design as well? just as there exists a drive toward increased disorder (entropy) in physics?
is everything in the wold designed?
no.
except for platypuses.
this feels a bit solipsistic to me. or at the very least a circular argument in the making.
what is the reason for the question? maybe that makes it easier to answer. i think design is complicated but not all-encompassing. we can pretend it is like duchamp's urinal, ie, whatever we say it is. i am quite happy of design is fashion. also equally happy if we define it to include integration of all kinds of services and philosophishing. but in the end even that broad definition is a kind of fashion, and not forever. most useful view of design for me is that it is something i do, not think about, and all the rest is in service to make the doing real. but that is not a definition, just a reaction...still, i get by with only that. maybe the definition is not so important?
ryanj, phd is ususally 3-5 years. am not certain a non-phd research route will yield very much apart from lots of sub-standard work which doesn't get the scrutiny of a proper defense against critical/sharp people...it doesn't have to be that way, but it often looks like it from where i stand. not that academia is the best way to go, but research unquestioned and undefended is just play, not research. there is a lot of it done by architects.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.