I'm surprised no one has responded to this post yet. Well, anyay... I'll be the first one out on the dance floor then.

1. What is design?

I actually have thought a lot about this, in relation to my theory site, I have embraced a fairly broad interpretation:

"... the practice of design can be considered as the premeditated and purposeful activity of humankind to affect positive change in response to our environment"

I freely admit that under this description quite a lot of activities fall under the term of design. But then, both as process and artifact, design exists in a multiplicity of forms and actions.

2A. Can the artifact supplant the process? Meaning, does the preconceived notion of the end result render the process lame?

2B. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

(A) Yes, yes. (B) Yes/no. This isn't necessarily a bad thing if both the client and designer are in agreement with the end result--and under the pressure of a compromising deadline to produce. This could be construed as being efficient and practical. On the other hand, fixating on something at the beginning of a project could certainly get in the way of innovation or re-orientation. Ultimately, it all boils down to time and money--and being open-minded.

3. Do you use a process?

Yeah, I agree that we all use some form of process, in some form or another. For my own part, I've been trying to practice what I preach by incorporating the ideas of Organic Multiplicity into my methodology and I've been pleased with the results.

"...we seem to be more concerned with the artifact rather than the process though which we or other designers create those artifacts."

In general, I agree with this statement. A certain poster contest comes to mind. ;-)

But I would like to point out that process and artifact exist in a recursive relationship: One begets the other. The embodiment of process is the artifact. The artifact is then a test of process. Process affects artifact, which affects process, which affects artifact, and so on. In other words, both process and artifact are interdependent and complimentary aspects of design.

Hooboy. (By the way, way to kick it off Steven.)

1. What is design? Process or artifact (end result)?

For me, it's both. I don't think one can limit the definition of design to just being the process, nor to just the artifact (end result). Perhaps the process is being underminded because it's such an inherent piece of all of us that we think of it as a common thread and therefor it doesn't need to be specified. The artifact, however, is a more dominant part of this blog (and our industry) because that's how we measure ourselves. It's tangible.

I have this on my website, and I hold to it because I believe it unclutters what design really is. "Design is a thing not seen or heard or experienced, it is a thing... always understood." Of course, this applies more to the artifact, but I think it can also be applied to the process. After all, maybe that's why we don't focus on the process so much (as I stated above), because we understand that we all have it even though it may be measured differently from designer to designer.

2. Can the artifact supplant the process?

No, of course not. The artifact is always the goal when we begin a job, but we know that to reach the goal (artifact) we must have a strong process that takes us there.

3. Do you use a process?

Maybe the question should be, do we value the process. My answer would be an astounding yes. The process is something that grows with us. Actually, it's the part of us that grows when we say we've grown as designers. But because the artifact is measurable that's how we tend to perceive our growth.

I want to start off by saying I agree in principle with what you're saying. But a few thoughts:

After introducing himself, he immediately hit us with the question, “What is design?” The obvious answers came first, communication, stylization, surface, expression, arrangement, organization, a poster, a package, a building etc.

In my experience, communication, stylization, expression, and organization are all processes, albeit with quantitative results, but not artifacts. If these are the "obvious" answers, how incredibly limited this discussion must have been. Your teacher calls all of them obvious, and then rails against the last three.

The problem, as I've come to understand it, is not that "Design" is defined incorrectly, it's that the word is repeatedly misused. Design is a plan. So in that sense, yes, a composer "designs" music and a soda jerk "designs" triple chocolate fudge. But when it comes to graphic design, none of these people are doing anything remotely like what we do. Yes, it's a technicality, but I think an important one. "Graphic" is our distinction, and until we think up a better name (which we should)we better stick to it.

But on to the questions:

1. What is design?

Design is a process with a goal in mind. The goal is often viewed as the important part, but that's not enough; there must be thought, reason, and purpose to what we do.

2. Can the artifact supplant the process?

In a perfect world, it shouldn't. In reality, however, it does, in a lot of (if not most) cases; the end result is what matters, it's what feeds us, clothes us, and allows us to function in society. We can't be in an endless process, and do what we do for a living.

2B. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Depends on how you look at it. If you want measured, immediate change from being a garnisher, window-dresser, or whatever name you give to those who refuse to, or are disallowed from, thinking through problems, then it is terrible, but you'll have to take it up with the capitalists. If you're able to see that overall change as a goal for the future, then you can begin implementing the idea now in your own work. Put your head down to the table and do it. Sneak meaning in anywhere or everywhere.

3. Do you use a process? (I can tell you the answer is, yes.)

Oh, ok then, um, YES.

Why do I feel like we've had this conversation already?

I've said this before in a different post, it's become one of my favourite sayings:

'Design is what we do with the things we know'

A lot is said about knowledge. Walk into an average university and you'd be forgiven for thinking that the sole purpose of human existance is to accumulate knowledge. But this is only half of the picture.

Without design - the premeditated and purposeful activity of humankind to affect positive change in response to our environment - knowlege becomes a frighteningly impotent horror. Imagine a world in which we could only observe, only know but never do, never create.

Yes, the artifact of design can sometimes get tangled up with the process of design, but this is just culture playing it's natural course - we learn, we know, we design, we make, we learn, we know, we design, we make and we learn again.

Is this lame? Depends how cynical you are.

When we cast our gaze too narrowly, only focusing on our own little bubbles of expertise, we're bound to find tangles and inconsistencies. But if we learn to look wider, we can begin to see that we're just part of a much bigger process - the churning, tumultuous beast that is culture.

If design is what we do with the things we know, then we refers to us all. Not just me, not just you - certainly not just professional designers - but everyone. And not everyone individually either. Everyone collectively.

Tan -

I agree! I have one client whos referred to in the privacy of my own home as "the evil client." :o)

I have nothing on this topic that hasn't already been said by the crew at emigre.

Design is a good idea.

The problem, as I've come to understand it, is not that "Design" is defined incorrectly, it's that the word is repeatedly misused. Design is a plan. So in that sense, yes, a composer "designs" music and a soda jerk "designs" triple chocolate fudge. But when it comes to graphic design, none of these people are doing anything remotely like what we do. Yes, it's a technicality, but I think an important one. "Graphic" is our distinction, and until we think up a better name (which we should)we better stick to it.

Great way to sum it up Greg, I couldn't agree with you more.

1. What is design?

Objectively, by definition -- vs. theory -- this is how I describe the nature or basic qualities of design.

Design requires planning by definition (Planning=Process?). A plan (the process), by definition, indicates pre-completion i.e. a series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result.

Design is: The planning of an end result.

2. Can the artifact supplant the process?

No. Regardless of the extend of process -- how un/developed -- there will always be a process involved. Whether the process is appreciated, documented, and refined is up to the individual.

2B. Is this necessarily a bad thing?

I would say, in most cases, a preconceived notion is completely rational, however, that notion should be developed. Not putting time and consideration into a preconceived notion can become a bad thing.

3. Do you use a process?

Yes. I however, have not appreciated, documented, and refined it.

An excerpt that helps to identify with the invisibility of The Process

When things work, the forces that make them work are invisible. The universe at large is a notorious example of this. It took a towering genius to recognize the laws of motion and universal gravitation that now seem almost boringly obvious to us. Newton's genius was precisely the genius of seeing that which is so evident as to be unseeable. Every advance in science makes manifest a working that is cloaked by its very success.

Excerpt from: Beyond Civilization by: Daniel Quinn

Cheers for a Great post Greg.

Meaning, does the preconceived notion of the end result render the process lame?

I found myself struggling a little to understand this sentence. Is not 'a preconceived notion of the end result' a process? Rendered in that way the sentence might read: Does the process render the process lame?

The process is everything. It is the creative thought behind every thing. Many times, we look at a thing and wonder, "What were they thinking?" True, sometimes an artifact exists as a truly beautiful object. But why is it beautiful? Why do you want it? Why do you hate it? Because of the thought. Because of design as a verb.

Design as a noun is just another thing. One more thing in a flood of things. Subject to desire, opinion, rants and raves. It is finished. On to the next project.

It is creative thinking that needs to be taught and explored. Thinking about your world in different ways. Breaking thought habits. Fundamentally changing your mind. Working on wonder.

Teach and learn creative thinking. Then, teach and learn the mechanics. It might just be the process that renders the preconceived notion of the end result lame.

And that... is a totally circular post. Sorry.

Personally, I think how the word "process" is being used here is causing some confusion.

In the work place, management often classifies people as either "goal" or "process" oriented. The former designation being the more desireable. Someone who is process oriented essentially executes a predfined task or process. Once the execution is complete their job is done, irregardless of what the end result. A process oriented worker is someone who management would desire to replace with a computer or robot.

So in the case of making a sundae or sandwich...

Yes, the act of making them is a process, but these are processes which have already been designed. Design is a goal oriented method of creation. It's not determinisitc, which making a turkey club sadwich is. The first person to create a particular sandwich, on the other hand, was designing.

A process can be an artifact of design. If it isn't deterministic then, I would say, you could call it design. Otherwise...

Bleh, I don't know. Cheers.

Design is conceiving and executing a plan to solve a defined problem. All people design. Some better than others. Some animals design as well.

Greg,

> In my experience, communication, stylization, expression, and organization are all processes, albeit with quantitative results, but not artifacts. If these are the "obvious" answers, how incredibly limited this discussion must have been. Your teacher calls all of them obvious, and then rails against the last three.

Please understand that this lecture took place 15 years ago. So, I was merely reflecting on what I could recall. Michael was not the one who called them obvious; I was calling them that to say looking back on it we were a little preoccupied with the results and not how to achieve the results. His lecture quickly opened our eyes to the idea of process.

Trust me the discussion was not limited. It became quite verbose such that I remember the lecture extending another hour.

While communication, stylization, organization are part of the process, I was paraphrasing the answers (15 years takes a toll on the brain) and was posing them as the end result like a package or a brochure.

Jason,

> Why do I feel like we've had this conversation already?

Oh, my bad. Then I guess we resolved the issue and we shouldn't discuss it again.

Seriously though. As you can read from my comment above to Greg, this discussion has been a part of my life for 15 years and I find it interesting that I - as well as others - am still discussing it.

The reason I started thinking about it again was that we spend a lot of time criticizing the RESULTS of other designers' results without knowing completely what the PROCESS was.

As a general public - consumers - we can do that and feel no need to know the process since GE / UPS / YMCA / NWA / TBS et. al. cannot/should not have to explain why they designed their new mark or wrote their new tag line.

As designers, we have a responsibility to try to discover and understand why. Yet, we, both here and elsewhere, tend to react to the surface, take potshots, ridicule and defame without trying to get to an understanding of why.

This is not a sweeping condemnation, merely a personal observation.

Maybe you are right, though.

Let's end this discussion and move on to the next one.

As designers, we have a responsibility to try to discover and understand why. Yet, we, both here and elsewhere, tend to react to the surface, take potshots, ridicule and defame without trying to get to an understanding of why.

We? That's an all inclusive statement above. And yet, perhaps there's some truth to it. But I can't help but say to myself, Self, there's no reason the discovery, understanding, creation, and criticism can't all be part of design. Whether or not one chooses to multitask, and do all of the above is of little consequence. For me (read as I, not we), what matters is doing it well with some integrity.

In truth, I see your point about surface criticisms. Looking at a mark from the likes of GE / UPS / YMCA / NWA / TBS and pointing out the pros and cons without delving into the substance seems shallow. It boils down to connoisseurship before criticism. One judges through taste, while another through analysis.

Brady, you're onto something here, and I'm ready to see what exists in the next post. This all looks like a well thought out discussion on your part, and not just you digging up some old bones... as I was so quick to judge.

Design is eating at my favorite restaurant because the seats are comfortable and the rice pudding is cheap.

Design is the reason I have to eat here instead of there because of my student loans.

Design is everything...nothing.

Okay, okay, it's just one of those days.

Jason,

I felt as though you may have been reacting to the same feeling I get sometimes...

"God, must we continue to talk about this?"

I don't mean specifically on Speak Up but in other circles as well. Maybe it's election year politics, but I'm tired of negativity for the sake of itself. Hence our comments might be similarly linked.

As for the We statement...

By saying this is not a sweeping condemnation I was intending to clarify that we (the design community) are usually pigeon-holed by sweeping condemnations and that while some tend to analyze, others tend to react and those are the ones that, unfortunately at times, have the loudest voices.

Also, I said "we" because I have been know to react with out analysis.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my clarification.

> This all looks like a well thought out discussion on your part, and not just you digging up some old bones... as I was so quick to judge.

I think we are victims of fractionalized media. Everything comes so quickly and from so many angles that we have a hard time recognizing the source or the intent.

Speak Up is great. It's an opportunity to condone and condemn, to analyze and react, to scan and to savor. The problem is we can't read every post or every comment. So, at times we scan and react - sometimes to condemn.

I've thought that the next step for Speak Up/Under Consideration is to publish a book of critical writing about design in the spirit of the Looking Closer Series featuring present and past Speak Up authors. Something that goes beyond the "Sheepy" book that has some smart/humorous/serious thoughts, but lacks the context critical writing needs.

Just what you need Armin, another project.

> i've thought that the next step for Speak Up/Under Consideration is to publish a book of critical writing about design in the spirit of the Looking Closer Series featuring present and past Speak Up authors.

Stay tuned…

Oh, I forgot the appropriate emoticon ;-)

1) what is design? (think about it)

i believe design can be defined in two ways: as the process of creating, and as the end results of such process.

2) can the artifact supplant the process? (meaning, does the preconceived notion of the end result render the process lame?)

these are two completely different questions, and i think the second one is probably more on track with what your looking for.

can the artifact supplant the process? no, not at all. because regardless of the artifact, there was a process which created it.

does the preconceived notion of an end result render the process lame? yes it can, but not always. without some preconceived notion of an end result you are creating art (i’ve fought this battle to the bitter end many times). a preconceived end result defines design, it is creating with a purpose. yes, fine art has a purpose, put the pitchforks and torches down a second. but fine art has a different purpose, which is to be fine art. back to the preconceived design issue...in a client driven industry you can not simply begin to create something and sell the results to some client. that is not going to satisfy their needs, because to simply create something with out any preconception has nothing to do with them let alone resolving or addressing any of thier needs. i think this is a huge part of defining what design is and separates it from fine art. what i think can happen is through the process to create a preconceived artifact or end result, the designer can come to the realization that the preconceived idea is no longer in the best interest of the client and there is a better solution out there.

2b) is this a bad thing?

understanding that the process can lead you to new and better ideas, and being open to them is good. however, being so focussed on the preconceived notion that you see it as the only possibility of the end result and letting that define your process and not opening your mind to other possibilities which may be better, is bad. as well as having no goals or discipline to fully understand the potential of a single preconceived notion, and as a result, going off in so many different directions you overwhelm your clients including their budgets with no tangible deliverable, is bad.

3) do you use a process?

yes, but...the one thing i think is key, is to not get so tied into a process that it defines the end results, basically what i just said in question 2. every time you take on a new project, your process is just a little bit better because of the accumulation of past projects, and hopefully the lessons learned from those processes. did i talk myself into a circle yet?

This is related to the process vs. product discussion from a little while ago, which is why I'm getting deja vu as well.

1. Design is a process. Or, better yet, the act, which may not follow any order process whatsoever. Once it's about the artifact, we devalue design itself and those who work to master its many specific applications.

2. Yes, the artifact often supplants the process. Mainly because as trained/skilled designers we often make leaps in the first moments that others would take a long time to reach. The process helps to refine the idea, but often makes certain components unnecessary (like exploration). However, the preconceived notion still represents a process, just a compressed one that may lean on the processes of those who came before.

2b. No, it's not a bad thing. It just shouldn't be the only thing, particularly if you're in a team. Complacency is the thing that makes it bad.

3. I use an orderly process if I've got enough time (most of the time I do), but the process itself varies from project to project. Otherwise, it's a mad dash, an unpredictable evolution that I simultaneously direct and am directed by. Though, interestingly enough, once in a while not having enough time is better for my work than having more than enough.