Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Design and Meaning
By Brett Combs

One of the defining characteristics and driving forces of late capitalism expresses itself in the momentum of competitive markets. Within a market economy saturated with competing goods, the difference between product, information or service, A or B, comes down to design. Recently, for this reason, design has received media attention for its more integral role in the life of companies. In the July 5, 2004 issue of Business Week, the editor’s note describes design as part of a company’s core competence.

Design’s origins in the work of expressionists, futurists, cubists and constructivists fighting against the spirit of capitalism, evolved dramatically in the work of the Bauhaus around the turn of the century lead by Walter Gropius. The practical innovations developed by the Bauhaus profoundly effected design’s relationship to industry and perhaps respectively to its anti-capitalist roots. Since the time of the Bauhaus design education, answering the demands of industry has taken on the character of training in the arts of service industry more than a branch of liberal art education. By the early 1970s, design was more commonly known as commercial art than an art of its own, the innovation which defined the spirit of the Bauhaus with its numerous achievements of form, affecting the most basic aspects of life, had given way to more conditional and constrained form making.

In the 1980s and 1990s design like so many other institutions found itself dealing with the developing rhythms of multinational capitalism and media society, with planned obsolescence and rapid fashion and style changes, design came under the spell of a perpetual present, and lost focus of both its past and a drive toward self-definition. Within this postmodern frenzy the field became defined from without by its clients. To quote Business Week editor, Stephen Shepard, “Companies use design like paint, to slap on a color or fancy shape after engineers and marketing people had come up with a product. Out of this dynamic design became more identified with one aspect of form, style, and designers, saddled with the waning myth of individuality became quasi celebrities identified by their individual style and forms.”

Design defined from without, as an accessory in the function of markets, has led over the course of several years to a more sophisticated, yet no less capitalist identity. Style and functionality have become more and more integrated leading up to the current developments of “experience design”, where design in some people’s eyes, has reached its zenith as a service to the western ideology of conquest in its drive to remake the world into a well-furnished environment for man.

This view of the state of design captures the feeling of frustration and dissatisfaction expressed in the First Things First manifesto. However, this is not the only way to look at design and society; it is probably somewhat accurate and at the same time, a very harsh assessment of a profession functioning in an age of multinational capitalism and media. To sight only one positive aspect of design today, consider the rise in variety and multiplicity of style and how those increased options have enriched people’s lives, giving them affordable personality enriching choice. First Things First, at its depth, seems to be a call for meaning, a call for the definition of the practice from within, and perhaps for the creative abilities of not just design, but for humanity, to be refocused to include a deep and abiding contemplation of purpose.

Out of this dissatisfaction and negative criticism there is a rich source of potential. It is a sign of the times, of our tumultuous, dizzying culture of metaphysical angst. First Things First 2000 reflects a larger feeling in the body politic, from the pages of Tricycle to Wired, writers are reporting on a fundamental absence of a clear sense of purpose for both technology and society. In the September 2004, issue of Wired, Bruce Sterling opens up the question of technology and the crisis of purpose. His article focuses on the problem of technological singularity, which he defines as a moment when runaway advances have outstripped human comprehension and all our knowledge and experience become useless as a guidepost to the future.

The glass half full then is that FTF2000 is a calling, and that it has come at a crucial time. Dissatisfaction is a key ingredient for change. The opportunity for design today is to attend to itself unconditionally. Having reached the art of “experience design“ It is natural now for the form of life processes to be considered with the aim of reconnecting to the source of life’s meaning. The questions of Ontology could be vitalized in our processes of making; deeply investigated and contemplated in an effort to give human dimension and form to the rolling momentum of technology and economy.

What is design for? As questions go, this is an important one. On the surface it seems to beg for a practical answer, and in many discussions of this topic today, and in the past, various excellent points of view have been brought to light.

Practical answers such as the post-war view that design’s purpose is to help make people’s lives better by designing our environments and information effectively, cannot serve as ends, the fundamental questions which ought to guide such action remains, more effective for what, what kind of a life, and what is this life for? These more fundamental questions draw out the problem of meaning, arguably among the greatest questions for which the human condition bares responsibility. With meaningful experience, as with other qualities of experience, people express certain common elements that distinguish it and lend it the character of meaningfulness.

Design, like so many other institutions today, shows signs of being affected by a crisis of meaning and value. So long as design remains determined by outside interests, by practical aims and authority, the meanings of the practice will produce a kind of value relativism. The institution of design may overcome this state, and become more vital as it supports the development of purposes, which come from within the art energy and qualities in and through which its products are produced. In philosophical terms, design must arrive at its “unconditional imperative” as a foundation of action.

The challenge is to nurture a culture of practitioners aware of the art’s purpose, guided by a horizon of possibility for life and society. Design educators empowered by a renewed discourse on what ends design may serve, contribute to the development of a culture of design unbound by the traditional conceptions of design as the generator of typography, fonts, information structure, products and style alone. As an art, when not strictly bound by market conditions, design can become a profession dealing with deep and vital questions of life and society in and through its giving of forms.

Brett continues to write on design from a philosophical point of view following completion of graduate studies in design at the California College of the Arts. He has a B.A. in Philosophy and Religion from San Francisco State University, and lives in San Francisco.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2099 FILED UNDER Essays
PUBLISHED ON Oct.05.2004 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Gahlord Dewald’s comment is:

design as performance art? and my rent will be paid by... ?

Interesting thoughts though.

On Oct.06.2004 at 09:29 AM
marian’s comment is:

If I understand your aticle correctly, this is not about "commercial work vs. non-commercial work," nor is it about "advertising vs. useful design." But I'm not sure. There seems to be a projection of design as "other," here. As though it exists somehow outside of ourselves and we grab it and use it for these commercial purposes without examining its true value.

But design is not like that. It's a process, and an end product of the process between a human and a goal. All sorts of variables impact that process to reveal a huge variety of end products. Outside of that, design doesn't exist. It's not out there floating in space waiting to be properly understood.

Do you get what I mean? Do I get what you mean?

"The institution of design" is built upon the very body of work that you seem to question: it's as though a child, grown up, looks at their body and wishes to shuck off this mortal, corporeal encumberment. I would have to ask, "How?" and perhaps more importantly, "Why?"

Design is in the doing. Examining and theorizing can come later, but without the body, there's nothing.

On Oct.06.2004 at 11:43 AM
Steve Mock’s comment is:

I'm gonna' have to disagree. I think design does exist as 'other'; as a force like gravity; rooted in mathematics and nature. Even, as the author alludes to, a philosophy/belief system.

Some might even call it faith.

Tell us more, Brett. Give that B.A. a workout!

On Oct.06.2004 at 12:19 PM
Hex’s comment is:

"The Force is what gives the Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." — Obi-wan Kenobi

Design is the new Force.

sorry... not buying it.

I don't believe that Design is some form of Cosmic Energy that can be tapped into and molded into whatever form we will. If we just wish hard enough...

I agree with Marian. Design isn't some "Other",

it is a process.

On Oct.06.2004 at 12:45 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>As an art, when not strictly bound by market conditions, design can become a profession dealing with deep and vital questions of life and society in and through its giving of forms.

What a bunch of academic, santimonious malarkey.

What are these "deep and vital questions of life and society"? Racism? Hunger? Religion? War? Overpopulation? Culture?

But wait, doesn't design reflect and drive culture? Isn't art culture as well? What about the everyday things that people consume and interact with? Is that not culture as well? Who gets to decide what has "meaningfulness" within this "deep and vital" gauge that this First Things First group has put forth?

I find it incredibly sad that this group seems to think design has lost all meaning. What an obtuse and defeatist way to look at the world and the human condition.

I disagree as a designer, and am insulted as a consumer.

This is just like missionaries proclaiming that people's lives are hollow and empty unless they've found God and a greater purpose.

Well I generally have a response for that, and it ain't amen.

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:04 PM
Brett Combs’s comment is:

More from the following chapter.

In philosophical thought man breaks through the constraint of practical needs. Design, when put to use giving form to that which does not yet exist shares in that ethos. What is more, design unlike philosophy produces objects in the world, and those objects are significant for their roles in social life — for the consciousness of man acquires its character in and through his social being. (that's Marx at the end there)

Design as an organizer of both information and technology can come to assume a more vital role in the life of society when functioning unconditionally. Forms generated unconditionally are the potential of man to transgress current limits of the use of reason, to open to what Buckminster Fuller has described as, "man’s unique capacity for the metaphysical." It is this capacity which can nourish and renew a vital and productive ethics for a world transformed in total by the central and driving forces of technology, and their defining of human purpose in materialist and finite terms.

Interesting responses.

Mr. Mok Aristotle's ideas on final causality and John Dewey's A Common Faith are great for seeing more of the nuance of wether this would constitute a faith or not. My take is that often anything that considers purpose beyond the material, finite and see-able, "to see is to believe" is treated as religious fanaticism.

Design is process! To quote Tibor "Design is a means to an end. It is a language not content." So this being the case how about exploring those ends?

Hex>>>> thanks for the evil thoughts, health and well-being to you too.

Marian, Both and, both and. I love traditional design, typography and print especially. Why not explore the potential of the process, after all, human beings are the explorers, right!

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:33 PM
marian’s comment is:

this group seems to think design has lost all meaning.

This group? Tan?

I think that looking for "meaning" in design is a mistake. You'll drive yourself crazy that way. It's like looking for meaning in a pencil or a meal or a drive through the country. Do it, enjoy it; the meaning comes from your relationship to the act and from the viewer's relationship to the product (the design). It's impossible for it to "lose meaning" unless all design activity stops.

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:36 PM
Andy’s comment is:

I disagree as a designer, and am insulted as a consumer.

amen.

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:39 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

Well done! Nice work.

Brett is talking about the co-option of design by industry. Not only has our work lost its "art" because of its complicity with instrumental rationality, we are now faced with a fateful decision: will the "experiences" we design also be dictated by the corporate "ideology of conquest"?

"Experience" design revives the possibility for contemplation on experience, life, and purpose. We have a new opportunity to inject "art" (a challenge to technological power and social norms) into design.

Brett concludes with the call for an "unconditional imperative", which is synonymous with the call for ethical purpose. "Unconditional" means without conditions-- design not conditioned by the limited rationality of systems. "Imperative" is something that we must do. So, what is the purpose of design, what is it that we must do that we can base on a real understanding of purpose, not based on what we are told or bribed to do? Where, exactly, in the design process, do we have the power to act against the colonization of our lifeworld by the system? Brett suggests that the answer lies in the dimension of design called "art", which is correct.

But I would suggest that in light of this thing called co-option (where the meaning of form and even "experience" is continuously undermined by putting it in the service of the powers that be), we shouldn't be too quick to take this call for "art" as a suggestion that the "artful" among us are necessarily on track. A better sense of art as negation is needed.

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:44 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Meaning is a matter of degree. I do not mean to say that design is meaningless or that life is meaningless. However if the materialist culture we work in and through has proven deficits. To look for meaning is design to me would be to look for opportunities to articulate meaningful experience in the world. Design already does this and should more so.

On Oct.06.2004 at 01:46 PM
marian’s comment is:

design unlike philosophy produces objects in the world,

But design doesn't produce objects. Humans produce objects through design. I still think you're projecting onto something that doesn't exist.

In order to explore the potential of the process you still have to have a start (the idea) and a finish (the idea realized). From nothing to something. We all do this every day in an infinite variety of ways, but unless the idea is realized somehow there is no design. That is to say you must make something, (even a sketch) or whatever it is you're thinking about is not design, it's philosophy or fantasy or religion or something else. In a vaccuum it's useless and possibly even meaningless. Perhaps this is how design "loses its meaning" is by thinking about it without doing it; by treating it as an abstract entity that has nothing to do with humans getting their hands dirty. I don't see design as being some heady thing. It's very, very earthy.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:00 PM
marian’s comment is:

Brett is talking about the co-option of design by industry.

Oh is that all? I thought it was more ethereal. I will have to reassess and readdress whan I have more time.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:04 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>This group? Tan?

The First Things First group is who I meant marian. And we seem to agree about the "meaningfulness" of design.

>To look for meaning is design to me would be to look for opportunities to articulate meaningful experience in the world. Design already does this and should more so.

This seems to be a much softer interpretation than your "deep and vital questions of life" call to action for design.

I feel like there's something unspoken that's being condemned here — like the "immorality" of corporate commerce, or the greed of designers, or the inhumanity of technology. What and why? Where are all these evil ramifications of technology?

>Not only has our work lost its "art" because of its complicity with instrumental rationality...

Put down the Thesaurus Gleason. Who talks like this? Can you not articulate non-metaphysically?

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:06 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Philosophy is the principal of concentration through which man becomes himself, by participating in reality. Even those groups which are hostile to it cannot help harboringt their own ideas and bringing forth pragmatic systems which are a substitute for philosophy though subservient to a desired end...such as marxism or fascism. Karl Jaspers 1951

Philosophy is where the ruber hits the road, and it is time for design to embrace it.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:17 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Design’s origins in the work of expressionists, futurists, cubists and constructivists fighting against the spirit of capitalism, evolved dramatically in the work of the Bauhaus around the turn of the century lead by Walter Gropius. The practical innovations developed by the Bauhaus profoundly effected design’s relationship to industry and perhaps respectively to its anti-capitalist roots.

Sorry, but my bullshit meter just went off again on this statement.

One of the chief goals set forth by Bauhaus was to unite the leaders of industry, design, and artisan craft in an attempt to gain independence from government support by selling designs to industry. By promoting this symbiosis between design and industry, Bauhaus seeked to make the products of design and art available to the common mass and at the same time, elevate the status of common craftsmen (and commercial designers) to the same level as fine artists.

Capitalism is about the non-government owned production and distribution of goods and profits in a free, non-regulated market that's accessible by the common mass.

It seems to me that both ideologies have similar goals. So how can you say that design and Bauhaus has "anti-capitalistic roots"?

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:33 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

Tan, you're a fairly smart guy, so I assume that you are just being sarcastic and trying to wave the magic wand that makes criticism disappear, like FitzGerald talks about in his last Emigre article, Buzz Kill, by calling my comments "theoretical".

But I can't let that happen, so I'll have to take your question literally, and try to explain what I mean:

"Not only has our work lost its "art" because of its complicity with instrumental rationality, we are now faced with a fateful decision: will the "experiences" we design also be dictated by the corporate "ideology of conquest"?"

Instrumental rationality is a subjective, goal-oriented form of rationality. Given the goal, it proceeds to work out the means of accomplishing that goal without ever questioning the goal itself. It is concerned with success (as if in a game) and never questions the game. You could think of it as a very scientific, technical process, as opposed to an artistic one.

Art has been induced to happily "reflect" society, which serves only to multiply what exists rather than to critically challenge it.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:44 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Philosophy is where the ruber hits the road, and it is time for design to embrace it.

We have. It's called "concept".

But philosophize this: design is mainly about serving up communication, form, and function to an audience of consumers. Is it not?

I'd argue that that's where the rubber hits the proverbial, embraceable road.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:47 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Tom — first of all, thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

But all I'm asking for, is for you (and Brett) to augment the heady language a bit and tie your philosophies — in this case, that design has become more of a technical process than an artistic one (see how easy that was) — to real-world, tangible examples. It would make discussions like these much more productive and applicable, and far less esoteric.

On Oct.06.2004 at 02:58 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Capitalism is also about a spirit of human finite self sufficiency giving rise to an attitude of domination over nature in which respect is lost for human and or any other kind of individuality. Cezan and Van Gogh each represent a lead in to abstraction (Paul Klee a member of the Bauhaus)and both are expressions of a revolt against this stripping of the objects in our world of properties beyond those imposed by the self. Cezan and Van Gogh are celebrated for expressing more of reality than meets the eye.

The Bauhaus was perhaps the beginning of a compromise between this ethos and the interests of industry. To revisit such a state of affairs today would be a good thing, NO?

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:00 PM
szkat’s comment is:

But design doesn't produce objects. Humans produce objects through design.

all i could think was, guns don't kill people...

leave it to me to oversimplify things, but when people say to me, "i'm not creative, my level of creative is crayons on a paper bag" i tell them that inherently, they can understand balance, proportion, rythm, and color. what makes me a designer is that i'm more famaliar with it and i have the language to explain what i can see. we both know something like the Mc Donald's logo is successful, but only one of us knows that yellow is a stimulant. only one of us knows that using yellow can manipulate the consumer into thinking they're hungrier than they actually are. YET, the ignorant half of this dialogue still inherently knows that they are somehow effected.

i think this bridges the gap between "design is the force" and "design is a process." i think we all -- more and more as our culture and time go on -- have to some degree a human understanding of the fundamentals (aforementioned balance, proportion, repitition, etc). so in that sense it is a force, because even in nature, in snowflakes and blades of grass, there are inherent patterns.

i think the stress of the Bauhaus Manifesto was on integration, not about capatalism one way or the other. but two are inseparable. a facet of design is efficiency, and efficiency is good for business. and that is not to be confused with the inherent patterns of a crystallized drop of water.

and is. all the time. they're treated as inseparable, but they're not.

ps., Tan - i thought the past tense of seek was sought. ;)

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:08 PM
Michael H.’s comment is:

> Put down the Thesaurus Gleason. Who talks like this? Can you not articulate non-metaphysically?

Those high-school kids on Dawson's Creek talk like that all the time Tan.

Brett is doing something that mankind has been doing since it's beginning: make order out of perceived chaos. When man doesn't understand something then it must be made understandable.

The stars? Astrology.

The weather? Mythology.

Life and death? Religion.

So now design and art is under the microscope? Brett, it sounds like you are trying to get us all to look at your big picture. What is it about design that you don't understand?

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:16 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Capitalism is also about a spirit of human finite self sufficiency giving rise to an attitude of domination over nature in which respect is lost for human and or any other kind of individuality.

Hmm...but capitalism gives rise to individual choice, does it not? And individual choice is also individual expression. It may be superficial and shallow, but it's still freedom of expression.

As to domination over nature and humanity — that has more to do with industrialization, which can occur in non-free market economies. Look at what's happening in China.

Yes, I agree that it's a good topic of discussion. I just disagree to calling design and Bauhaus inherently "anti-capitalistic".

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:19 PM
szkat’s comment is:

i think my last post made more sense in my head.

i guess i'm saying that there is "a force," but that doesn't mean that every beautifully designed birthday card i make is a deep philosophical comment on societal issues.

there is a human understanding of design that is constantly confused with how we have tried to magnify, obstruct, deconstruct it. i think that when people try to define design, it's like separating drops of water in a glass. the parts are connected, are the same, and you can see them as a whole, but as you try to extract single parts other parts cling to them and confuse the identity of the singular. which might be part of why we can't define design.

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:21 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Tan - i thought the past tense of seek was sought. ;)

That's what I thunked.

Hey, let's not start grading on grammar now. Cause it'll get bloody real fast around here :-)

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:23 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Tan, I see your point philosophical language. This essay has come out of an interview on Design Observer of Michael Bierut and Rick Poynor titled "What is design for". Perhaps it would ground things to connect to that dialog.

After giving a definition of design the dialog turns to FTF. MB in his third contribution to the discourse points out that "There's got to be a route in between... selling out and being marginalised...which will be found by smart people who are engaged with larger issues in the world...There is a way for designers to get involved but it requires engagement with much larger ideas in the world and not to think that the limit of your scope is to figure out how you make the T-shirt. I am concerned by our eagerness to retreat to the margins where we can work undisturbed and unnoticed."

Now this is taken out of context. That said I expand on these sentiments proposing that, as Tom points out our current practice does not question the game enough (allusion to Wittgenstein and language games, design is a language). I also wanted to open this question up to a larger arena, that being the question of meaning in our age of drivethrough-window instant-win-ticket big six multinational capitalism, and the bounty infused fantasies it projects as the unquestionable telos end and purpose of a human life. Art also creates illusions but illusions free from the harness of instrumental rationality. In fact art (Van Gogh for instance) generates illusions (Nietzsche proposes that all is illusion in a sense because all is in the final analysis interpretation)somehow more honest ones without claim to an objective view of reality. In so doing art frees us from the practical orientation modern life imposes of thought feeling and moving impulse. While designers are engaged in a practical activity, facilitating communication, the form giving language and process involved in doing so should, no, ought, to do so in a way that expresses itself as an art rather than a technique.

On Oct.06.2004 at 03:50 PM
ps’s comment is:

The challenge is to nurture a culture of practitioners aware of the art’s purpose, guided by a horizon of possibility for life and society.

artist should practice art. designers should practice design. if designers want to express themselves through art -- maybe they should pick it up as a hobby. bauhaus offered different programs that fed off of each other, that does not mean it was all put in the same pot with the same results in mind.

On Oct.06.2004 at 04:11 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

I just disagree to calling design and Bauhaus inherently "anti-capitalistic".

i'm glad that you distinguish between industrialization and capitalism, which often gets confused, and is definitely something for me to think about.

I'm no expert on China, but it seems China is fairly capitalistic now, and that alone isn't enough to change its human rights record. But again, this is nothing I can claim to know much about.

The Bauhaus had a naive faith in the social power of industrialization combined with art, and I think this may have been a first instance of the co-option of modern art. A failed experiment.

I wasn't intending to allude to "design as a language", because I'm not so sure of the connection. I would rather my comments be interpreted as a call to view design as a process of rationalization; and there are several modes of rationality, some quite limited if we're talking about rationalization in the most humane, democratic sense, where purpose is human purpose, not the purposes of an inhuman system.

I really think that Brett's proposal is well-intentioned and more perceptive than most, but still outdated, with too much faith in the power of form to subvert what it works in the service of. I think of Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil", which is often associated with bureaucratic work but is more and more relevant to the art world. Anyway, Form actually becomes quite powerless when it is co-opted. Brett's philosophy is, in the end, nothing more than the naive Bauhausian ideal.

"The Sustainment is not a supplementary activity to run alongside the status quo. Rather it is the means to produce its redundancy, displacement, and replacement-- not via revolutionary transformation but through pragmatic recognition leading to radical change..." Tony Fry, Stepping Back and Looking Forward, pg. 85 of Design Philosophy Papers Collection One.

On Oct.06.2004 at 04:25 PM
Brett’s comment is:

There is no bright line. To say designers should design seems to say that instrumental rationality need not be resisted. That a subjective, goal-oriented form of rationality which proceeds to work out the means of accomplishing that goal without ever questioning the goal itself is the way to go.

This approach is simply amoral and "We can do better."

On Oct.06.2004 at 04:30 PM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

Great article, great discussion. I'm going to have to back Brett and Tom on this one, for their intent if not their language.

From my perspective, design is fundamentally about communication, about how one gets a message across from one person to another, or many others, through the use of 'designed' artifacts or otherwise. Yes it is a process, it isn't an "other", (I'm not sure where this came from), but can't the nature of a process have meaning, and doesn't it deserve investigation?

And seeing the current state of miscommunication in the world (ISLAM=EVIL, AMERICA=EVIL, WAR=PEACE, POVERTY=WEALTH, AMERICA= WORLD, CAPITALISM=CHOICE, CHOICE=CONSUMPTION, CONSUMPTION=EXPRESSION etc.) it seems to me that a deep, commited investigation into how we communicate to one another is probably one of the most pressing necessities for us as cultural producers.

so much more to say, but really not enough time right now.

On Oct.06.2004 at 04:38 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

Brett, that is precisely why I focus on design as rationality and look to thinkers like Habermas, who could help to correct the identification of design with instrumentality, and replace it with a broader, more intersubjective form of rationality. There is too much "rationality" implied in the word design to ignore the subject of rationality. And that is why a new theoretical basis for critique in design has to focus on the concept of rationality. A Neo-modernism.

On Oct.06.2004 at 04:40 PM
Gahlord Dewald’s comment is:

I wish I could remember where my auto-Heidegger text generation script was...

Really folks... this original post was fun to read. But anthropomorphizing an entire discipline or field of thought... "design like so many other institutions found itself," " design came under the spell of a perpetual present." No no no. Designers or consumers or clients or everyone found themselves or came under spells. When you let an abstract concept stand for individuals you are removing the possibility of free will. Dangerous road.

"The opportunity for design today is to attend to itself unconditionally." This one is a beauty ain't it? Sort of like "Our big break has come: we can now gaze upon our navels."

I think, Brett, you gotta start at the top and tell us whether design is an object or artefact created by people, or is it a process (as many on this thread believe) or is it a Big Concept.

Without defining your position on this it's going to be a whole lot of slippery slope to relativism here.

Sure your writing is obtuse and needlessly jargony. I'm willing to try and decode but you gotta be more rigorous and clear. Do keep it up, we need a genuwine philosophically inclined writer around.

g

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:05 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Is there a philosophical word-bingo game we can generate from this?

"Noncognitivism" is a very apt characterization of this discussion I think. First to use it in a rebuttal gets 10 points.

Like Gahlord, I'm willing to decode, as long as it has direction and some consistency. I've given up making non-esoteric interjections.

>we need a genuwine philosophically inclined writer around.

Good God...why? Why can't we just keep it trailer park simple?

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:22 PM
Rob ’s comment is:

There's so much crap flying through the air, I don't know where to start. How about here:

Brett is talking about the co-option of design by industry. Not only has our work lost its "art" because of its complicity with instrumental rationality, we are now faced with a fateful decision: will the "experiences" we design also be dictated by the corporate "ideology of conquest"?

First of all, design is not art. Art is about self-expression. Design is, and always has been, about developing a visual solution to a (business) problem. Corporations are our clients and not the enemy of design, which is what I perceive is being said here.

You guys can throw our all this theoretical, philosophical positioning but I don't feel like a) you are making any sense whatsoever and b) that you are twisting words just because you can and not to serve any helpful purpose.

Having reached the art of experience design It is natural now for the form of life processes to be considered with the aim of reconnecting to the source of life's meaning. The questions of Ontology could be vitalized in our processes of making; deeply investigated and contemplated in an effort to give human dimension and form to the rolling momentum of technology and economy.

Really now? Don't you know that the true meaning of life is 42. That's it. That's all there is. There isn't any more. And your last sentence, really, not to be picky but I can't make any sense of it. Last time I looked, ontology was merely the describing of concepts and relationships within a community (and not a formal noun). You make it sound like 'experience design' is some new found way of life support, when what it really is, is a fancy marketing phrase used to describe the consumer experience from all facets of a company or a product (tied closely to branding—which can be defined as how a company is perceived by said clients or customers. But it certainly is not 42, the meaning of life, or any such thing. It's just plain marketing lingo for something that's been around a long time.

So long as design remains determined by outside interests, by practical aims and authority, the meanings of the practice will produce a kind of value relativism.

What exactly are you trying to say? Or better yet, considering design is a process from which one provides visual solutions to a client's problem, who's really doing the determination here? Is it not a partnership between designer and client? And the relative value of that partnership is defined monetarily and by how long the client uses that designer to help him solve problems.

I agree with Tan and Marian's comments. Design is meaningful and it does serve purposes outside of just being a tool for corporations. The AIGA 'Get Out the Vote' campaign is an example, designer's doing pro-bono work for non-profit clients is another. And I'll leave it at that for now.

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:28 PM
amanda’s comment is:

gosh. coming for a speak up visit is suppose to be a refreshing treat from the hustle and bustle of work. I now have a headache.

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:35 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Michael H., 2 things:

My son would love for you to explain to me why the chaos in his bedroom is only perceived

Could you come look at my big picture and help me to understand what I don't understand about life & death so that I don't need my religion anymore. I would especially love for you to use the really caring, condescending tone that I'm hearing in my head.

Kevin Lo

CONSUMPTION=TUBERCULOSIS

Tom Gleason

I have so much missed reading you! Still don't have a clue what you're on about, but I do share your suspicion about designed communication. Every file that leaves this studio from now on out will end in .txt

Brett

Philosophical writing is great, but

when it is directed at a bunch of people whose livelihood is taking ideas & making them into something concrete, one should not be too alarmed when the request to keep something as an idea is met with cries of "Pointless!"

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:40 PM
ps’s comment is:

Why can't we just keep it trailer park simple?

tan, if we keep it simple, it might be considered "designed communications," which of course would make some of us suspicous.

On Oct.06.2004 at 05:52 PM
marian’s comment is:

a deep, commited investigation into how we communicate to one another is probably one of the most pressing necessities for us as cultural producers.

OK, Kevin, but here's what I don't get. When how we communicate to one another (through design) is so mindblowingly broad, what will that "investigation" tell us? I could start listing the ways and means but it would be a long list, take a lot of time and not even begin to cover it. I think a distinct narrowing of focus is required and I get a sense that actually what Brett is talking about may in fact be regarding a much more finite aspect of design.

Originally I thought this was like we were all stoned, and as stoners discussing the "meaning" [of something] just because it's fun and kindof good for the brain—gives it a little exercise.

But I'm getting the vague sense that something specific is being questioned, and that that may be regarding the way some people use design to misinform for purposes of commerce or politics. Because this specific use of design may be something that many people don't notice, take for granted and ultimately accept, there is a call to examine this, or question it, think about it, change it, whatever.

However, as Tan pointed out, without specific examples it's really hard to sift through the language (don't bogart that joint, my friend) to find the true meaning of this discussion.

There are two languages being spoken here (and I have to say it's very funny to read posts by Tan followed by posts by Brett or Tom), I just don't happen to speak the one that Brett does. And this is where I have a real problem with this kind of language: if it helps you communicate in an academic world, that's great, I understand that. But if you want whatever you're theorizing about to make any sense (and therefor make a difference, or have meaning in a real-world way) to the people you're theorizing about, then you absolutely have to be able to speak in language they can understand and provide concrete examples before you can ask "so what do you think?"

Toke?

On Oct.06.2004 at 06:24 PM
Michael H.’s comment is:

Jeff,

> My son would love for you to explain to me why the chaos in his bedroom is only perceived

Ha! I bet only you see your sons' room in chaos, but he sees it as everything in a place. Why should he clean it? He knows where everything is.

> I would especially love for you to use the really caring, condescending tone that I'm hearing in my head.

I sincerely apologize if my tone was read as being condescending to anybody. Simplifying? Yes. Condescending? No.

> Could you come look at my big picture and help me to understand what I don't understand about life & death so that I don't need my religion anymore

I think now you're sounding condescending. I never said that religion was not needed. If you want to continue that direction of conversation feel free to contact me offline. I'm sure that's the kind of discussion that would spiral out of control here.

On Oct.06.2004 at 06:48 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Michael.

I specialise in spiralling out of control!

I'm not offended or (too) condescending. Just a little light jab from a tired man stuck working late at night with a horrible purple logo that May Not Be Changed.

On Oct.06.2004 at 06:56 PM
Brett Combs’s comment is:

Rob, those examples of design at the end of your post are design operating outside of its traditional artifacts. That is a great thing. I do not mean to negate the traditional work of designers as meaningless; that is ridiculous. We are considering the difficulties our society has with generating a culture reflecting a better balance of rationality and feeling than we do at present. Henri Bergson has pointed out, "Mechanistic accounts of the world and mind are responsible for producing closed societies in which human beings are expected to conform and behave in well-drilled mechanical ways. Open societies in which people are inspired by a sense of the flow and vitality of life are the aim.”

Tom, yes my writing is overstated and jargony; this should have been read by someone like you before it was posted, perhaps. Still the central point questions the current limits and character of reason.

Design, when put to use giving form to that which does not yet exist, offers the world a more balanced methodology than science This approach is positioned to give the new life to ethical inquiry required for an age of technological singularity, through an inquiry into our relations to the world more open, inclusive, and far richer in possibility.

So, now to the question of what design is. Design is a process of applying a synthesis of poetry and science, and the challenge is to create novel and beneficial artifacts. The process has meaning for those engaged in it, depending on their attitude, I suppose. I think the important thing is that design is a synthesis of art and science when it begins with the conception of a form out of unconstrained imagination, what Bukminster Fuller coined as "man's unique capacity for the metaphysical", and that this process is important for an age burdened by the detached rationality criticized so thoroughly by continental philosophy.

Seeing hope and promise in the functioning of design as a philosophical activity is far from naive. The humanities have been divorced from processes of designing and making in our culture by an instrumental rationality. To be sure we have accomplished a great deal with this getting-it-done attitude. Nevertheless, it may be that design methodology can help us to facilitate a less mechanistic culture and society, overcoming or, even balancing out, bit by bit, the instrumentality of cultural production and in that way facilitating the more open society Bergson describes.

On Oct.06.2004 at 07:01 PM
Seth’s comment is:

My reading of the article gave me the impression that design is to be led and sponsored by the art/academic/government rather than business.

The first problem I have is that it's not design that's supposed to be improved, led or sponsored. Design's sole purpose is to slave for whatever purpose it's being used for. Design is a tool to solve a problem or to better communicate an idea.

And I'm not convinced that art/academia/government are more deserving of good design than business is. I've done identity design for people starting their businesses and it's neat to see them do well and grow their businesses and support their families. I'm proud to be able to work for big corporations to do good work to make shopping easier for people and to make the companies succeed, grow the economy, hire new employees, etc.

And how is this transferrence of power to happen? Should designers revolt, quit their jobs, get their MFAs and write books? Or work on public-works projects? Even then, business won't stop needing designers. There will always be commercial artists/designers.

Of course the government needs to have good design. Sure, universities should encourage design research. And artists of course need to use good design principles (that's why they learn design in their fundamentals courses).

But I don't think that capitalism or business or people who sell products or services are BAD. After all, that is where all the money that pays for the colleges and artists and government. Sure better design everywhere is important, but it's still vitally important for businesses.

On Oct.06.2004 at 07:06 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>When how we communicate to one another (through design) is so mindblowingly broad, what will that "investigation" tell us? I could start listing the ways and means but it would be a long list, take a lot of time and not even begin to cover it../... as stoners discussing the "meaning" [of something] just because it's fun and kindof good for the brain—gives it a little exercise.

Ding, ding, ding. Marian is closest so far to the word of the day — "Noncognitivism"

According to an online resource:

"Cognitivism is the view there exists knowledge or the capability of acquiring knowledge, relative to some field of inquiry. Noncognitivism is the opposite, arguing that knowledge in the relevant field cannot be acquired. Usually, you will find the concept expressed in debates about two areas: ethics and the existence of gods.

In ethics, noncognitivism takes the position that when people express moral judgments, they are not making claims of knowledge or making propositions which can possibly have any cognitive, epistemic, or truth value. Noncognitivists will often focus on the social function of ethical discourse, pointing out how it serves to negotiate social disagreements and construct both social boundaries and social cohesion, rather than describe factual states of affairs in the world."

We've done nothing but talk about the "greater purpose" and ethical relativism of design. Noncognitivism, boys and girls.

As Marian described it — just like stoners discussing the meaning of life just for the hell of it.

How is this more valuable than trailer-park talk again?

On Oct.06.2004 at 07:52 PM
marian’s comment is:

Do I win anything, Tan? A Speak Up T-shirt? Or perhaps something less "product" would be in order. Maybe an evening under the stars in the company of good friends—think you can arrange that?

On Oct.06.2004 at 08:27 PM
Michael H.’s comment is:

It's all good Jeff, I understand where you're coming from.

> ...a horrible purple logo that May Not Be Changed

And that made me laugh, thanks.

On Oct.06.2004 at 09:27 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Maybe an evening under the stars in the company of good friends—think you can arrange that?

You've got it darling.

We can drink wine under a starlit sky and talk about design, the meaning of life, why Armin hates camping, if Maven's wife knows what he's telling people online, and so on....

On Oct.06.2004 at 09:43 PM
ps’s comment is:

why Armin hates camping,

hmm, how come i have heard that one as well... is that part of his standard intro speech? but then, he also tells me that tan snores... hmmmm

On Oct.06.2004 at 09:49 PM
Armin’s comment is:

1. I hate camping.

2. Tan snores like there is no fucking tomorrow.

On Oct.06.2004 at 09:57 PM
Michael Surtees’s comment is:

if Maven's wife knows what he's telling people online, and so on....

Since we're pondering things of great importance, has it been definitively proven that DesignMaven is a man — DM could be a women.

On Oct.06.2004 at 10:40 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>Tan snores like there is no fucking tomorrow.

You bitch. And to think we spooned.

Yea, I may snore like a 72 Chevy, but it keeps the bears away.

On Oct.06.2004 at 10:46 PM
Rob’s comment is:

Nevertheless, it may be that design methodology can help us to facilitate a less mechanistic culture and society, overcoming or, even balancing out, bit by bit, the instrumentality of cultural production and in that way facilitating the more open society Bergson describes.

The way I'm reading this, it almost seems similar to the line of thinking of Luddites. Technological advances are a 'danger' to society at large. Bergson was interested in showing that intuition was what lead to the 'real world' and not intellect.

And if I read you correctly in describing our society as more mechanistic the opposite would seem to lead toward anarchy. So, what exactly does design, or the methodology of design, at least in terms of graphic design, have to do with the structure (rules and regulations) of society. And how does a more open society govern itself without becoming, mechanistic?

On Oct.06.2004 at 11:56 PM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

So here's a question, are those that are opposed to the type of thinking/language that Brett is using opposed to the very idea of philosophy having value in general, or just when people believe that a philosophical approach can be used in a study of design? this is not a rhetorical question

How is this more valuable than trailer-park talk again?

I've learned so much from this show.

On Oct.07.2004 at 06:51 AM
Daniel Green’s comment is:

If we back up and look at the bigger picture of design, we're really not talking about design anymore.

Back up from the design process, and you're talking about the creative process in general. Back up from the function of most graphic design, and you're talking about the theories of communication. Back up from the ethical part of design, and you start to talk about the political or religious beliefs that provide an individual's or group's point of view. The same goes with other aspects of design. Much (but NOT all) of graphic design is directed to promoting products or services. If you back up from that, you get into theories of economics and wealth creation.

I've always thought of design as a hybrid activity. It's what makes design so interesting. Yet it also makes it difficult to carry on a discussion like this thread, since we start confusing and interchanging the fundamental elements that go into the practice of design.

An interesting discussion, yes, but easily muddied.

On Oct.07.2004 at 08:23 AM
Gahlord Dewald’s comment is:

Ok I'm starting to drink the cool-aid a little...

Brett could you please unpack the following:

"Mechanistic accounts of the world"

"mechanistic culture and society"

Tan:

It is no better than trailer-park talk. It's just a variation on the theme.

g

On Oct.07.2004 at 09:47 AM
Michael H.’s comment is:

Excellent point Daniel.

In regards to other's associating verbage with intelligence, watch "Snatch". Trailer park speak is not reflective of intelliegence.

Speaking of capitalism, has anyone seen that Veer now has merchandise? I see a couple of things that can fit in my stocking...

On Oct.07.2004 at 10:11 AM
marian’s comment is:

So here's a question, are those that are opposed to the type of thinking/language that Brett is using opposed to the very idea of philosophy having value in general, or just when people believe that a philosophical approach can be used in a study of design

Kevin, please. I for one am not opposed to the thinking, philosophy or the philosophy of design. I'm not even opposed to the language per se, as I understand that different forms of language evolve in different circumstances. When computer geeks get together they talk in computer geek language, but when they come into my office to explain what I need to do to keep my network from going down, unless they can drop the acronyms and speak to me in a meaningful way, I consider them useless as techs.

Theorize away; I am honestly, genuinely glad that academics exist in all fields, and I would like to think that whatever they theorize about has some practical use, or at least some interest to me or others in the field, but they have to be able to adjust their language in order to do so. And I don't believe it's necessarily dumbing down, either. There are many academics who are able to write engagingly and pasionately for the populace when they want to (Oliver Sacks and Noam Chomsky being 2 who come immediately to mind; Michael Bierut, in our own field, while not an academic, is an excellent example of someone who writes in-depth and accessibly at the same time).

It's a very basic design principle: communication. Got something to say? Say it to your audience, not your peers.

Brett, thanks for posting. I have a bunch of shit to do today so I'm not going to be around to see how this pans out. I hope you have a meaningful discussion today.

On Oct.07.2004 at 11:27 AM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

Thanks Marian, my comment wasn't meant as an attack. There seems to be people who are attacking the language Brett is using and simultaneously people attacking the very idea that design can be investigated on a philosopical level.

What I'm personally curious about is this difficulty with language and I agree pretty much with what you're saying, especially in regards to people who can speak eloquently, engagingly and simply on complex subject matter.

But not everyone can do it. I find myself in a position now (finishing an MA, writing my dissertation) where I can't figure out how to speak! On one level there is no way my language/vocabulary/thinking stands up to any sort of high academic rigour. And on the other side, the more complex concepts I am dealing with and the language I use to describe them tends to confuse people outside of the academy to the point that they don't want to engage.

So when I hear stuff like this:

You guys can throw our all this theoretical, philosophical positioning but I don't feel like a) you are making any sense whatsoever and b) that you are twisting words just because you can and not to serve any helpful purpose.

it is disheartening. Attacking (accusing people of twisting words) someone for the language they use is to me pretty petty.

On Oct.07.2004 at 12:30 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Thanks Miriam and Kevin.

Would it be an interesting project to write a book through a collaborative process like what is going on here which documents the negotiation of the difficulties Kevin points out?

Kevin's words:

"On one level there is no way my language/vocabulary/thinking stands up to any sort of high academic rigour. And on the other side, the more complex concepts I am dealing with and the language I use to describe them tends to confuse people outside of the academy to the point that they don't want to engage."

A project like this may generate some insight into

the difficulties of splitting the difference with respect to academic rigour and journalistic tone.

On Oct.07.2004 at 03:32 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Mechanistic accounts of the world.

Roles, habits, culture, generated out of what is called "the mass" in the tradition of Marxist criticism. The mass is the product of the abstraction of labor and the effects of efficiency eclipsing questions of human life and purpose (instrumental rationality) in modes of production. As industrialization functioning through the gravitational pull of surplus value (profit) produces mass culture, it also produces mechanistic accounts of the world.

Or in another discourse, fallen man and the western tradition of the body condemned produces a view of the natural world as in need of redemption and subject to domination and control. Eastern traditions do not share this entrenched a mind body problem. Oh wait, not too fast, west and east each have in certain times and places recognized the problem of time and duality and expressed this.

On Oct.07.2004 at 04:00 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Mr. Green

G...

Much (but NOT all) of graphic design is directed to promoting products or services. If you back up from that, you get into theories of economics and wealth creation.

B...

Design is a process of applying a synthesis of poetry and science, and the challenge is to create novel and beneficial artifacts.

An example. Industrial design problem presents itself. Designers utilize the art of documentary fill making followed by production of a system of access (website) which allows them to capture more of the human dimension involved in the problem they face as designers. Mid way through the process the team finds that the form of the solution the client had coming into the process is either narrow or definitive and a novel form is generated which breathes life into a system previously constrained by derivative and instrumentally rational 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 attempts at servicing some need.

On Oct.07.2004 at 04:19 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Typos,

fill = film

definitive = derivative

oops*#@!

On Oct.07.2004 at 04:22 PM
M Kingsley’s comment is:

Sorry to be so late to the party, but I've been caught up in the meaning of deadlines.

>Within a market economy saturated with competing goods, the difference between product, information or service, A or B, comes down to design.

Brett, I have a problem with this blanket assumption. There are many other differences than Design. What about intent, service, branding, etc.? Better yet, you probably should offer your definition of design.

>In the 1980s and 1990s design like so many other institutions found itself dealing with the developing rhythms of multinational capitalism and media society... ...design came under the spell of a perpetual present, and lost focus of both its past and a drive toward self-definition. Within this postmodern frenzy the field became defined from without by its clients.

I don't know about you, but I was working in New York then and I think you're incorrect. There was quite a bit of discussion about Design's definition and history. For example, Steve Heller's "Modernism and Eclecticism" symposia, the Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, the Walker Art Center's traveling exhibit on the history of Graphic Design, and so on...

>The opportunity for design today is to attend to itself unconditionally.

Like in Neville Brody's claim that since the average secretary could now churn out a reasonably-looking brochure, he was now free to become like a typographic painter? Good luck with that attitude when you're designing that next order form.

>The questions of Ontology could be vitalized in our processes of making; deeply investigated and contemplated in an effort to give human dimension and form to the rolling momentum of technology and economy.

You're speaking in platitudes. Aren't you treading into Branding territory here?

>Practical answers such as the post-war view that design’s purpose is to help make people’s lives better by designing our environments and information effectively, cannot serve as ends, the fundamental questions which ought to guide such action remains, more effective for what, what kind of a life, and what is this life for? These more fundamental questions draw out the problem of meaning, arguably among the greatest questions for which the human condition bares responsibility. With meaningful experience, as with other qualities of experience, people express certain common elements that distinguish it and lend it the character of meaningfulness.

Problematic assumptions leading to problematic conclusions.

Here's an interesting passage from Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil"

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

If we assume, first of all, that the notion of a "philosopher" is not restricted to the philosopher who writes books—or even puts his philosophy into books! A final characteristic in the picture of the free-spirited philosopher is provided by Stendhal. Because of German taste I don't wish to overlook emphasizing him, for he goes against German taste. This recent great psychologist states the following: "Pour �tre bon philosophe, il faut �tre sec, clair, sans illusion. Un banquier, qui a fait fortune, a une partie du caract�re requis pour faire des découvertes en philosophie, c'est-�-dire pour voir clair dans ce qui est "

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The French translates to:

“To be a good philosopher it is necessary to be dry, clear, without illusions. A banker who has made a fortune has one part of the character required to make discoveries in philosophy, that is to say, to see clearly into what is.”

In other words, don't go dismissing that guy in the suit so quickly.

The question of meaning is as much a design problem as it is a breathing problem — it's a philosophical problem. And no, please don't go down the Sartre/Merleau-Ponty condemned to meaning/condemned to freedom path — we don't want to scare the trailer-park talkers.

I suspect some of the resistance you and Tom Gleason are feeling here comes from a lack of practical experience dealing with deadlines, printing, clients, etc. If any of you can apply thine chin stroking here, then you could possibly change the world. I wish you luck. Many have gone before you.

Divinity consists in use and practice, not in speculation. — Martin Luther

On Oct.07.2004 at 04:56 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

the difficulties of splitting the difference with respect to academic rigour and journalistic tone

Much of what is derided as jargon is shorthand. “Jargon” assumes a listener/reader who understands the shorthand, thus not needing tedious explanation. That is the excuse for the opacity of some academic writing. One can’t be expected to take a reader through six years of classes before making a new point.

Most academic writing is obscure because the writers are incompetent or gutless. Either they do not know how to write or they want to sound like the big boys or they want to make sure nobody can challenge them or (perhaps most commonly) they want to make obvious or silly assertions sound like impressive, breakthrough pronouncements.

This is not to say that some writing should not be dense. This is not to say that some writing should not be difficult. Writing should not, however, be dense and difficult for no better reason than ego satisfaction.

The advice I give anyone who asks me about academic writing is to pretend like you're talking to a really smart sixteen year old who doesn’t know anything about your subject but catches on very fast.

Just as academic writing should be clear, journalistic writing should be rigorous.

(The above is not a specific criticism of anything on this thread. It’s a reaction to the particular statement I quoted.

I had “pompous diatribe about writing style” in angle brackets around what I wrote but the site censored the FauxML. I guess the machine wants to restrict jargonistic shorthand.)

On Oct.07.2004 at 05:16 PM
Brett’s comment is:

To M Kingsley?s comment:

It may not seem at times that I respect experienced designers doing the work designers do day in and day out, but I do. I would not have spent so much time and effort considering design and working to teach and practice if I had no respect for it.

That said, I do not see the point of telling me about deadlines, purple logos that may not be changed, and other glass half empty gripes. I am simply writing on a topic which considers design in a larger frame. I feel that that is a good thing. It will not, however, erase banality.

As to defining design, the interview which inspired this essay from Design Observer took that approach. I made the decision to leave design open for interpretation. If pushed to offer a definition, this would be it: ?changing existing situations into preferred ones.?

So far as design?s identity, I would like to bring in Clement Mok?s ?A time for change? essay which I believe can be found at the AIGA?s site.

The Brody attitude: I happen to think Neville Brody's work is fantastic. In fact, it is part of what attracted me to design in the early 90's. But, I am not sure it represents all of what I am getting at in the call for design to attend to itself unconditionally. Perhaps the difficulty is in conceiving this as a discourse on graphic design.

I would like to argue, given time to do so properly, that any future ethics will, out of necessity, concern itself with not only the generating of text, but with the generating of forms. I see two main reasons, first that current instrumental rationality must be transgressed in order to accommodate the radical changes our technology has had on the interpenetration of self and world and second, that the ideal of humanity considered in design?s realization of vision (changing existing situations into preferred ones) brings together a rich combination of art, science, and concrete realization. Your Martin Luther quote may fit here if you feel it is required. I see this secularly.

So far as the superman Nietzsche stuff is concerned, he contradicts himself often so that quote you pulled simply will not do justice to one of the world?s most penetrating minds. Will to power and ethics is real interesting stuff; too bad, today, will to power is projected as a naturalism of a brutish and nasty sort...the economic capitalist conqueror. I could quote something but I think this forum may not be the place to get wicked deep, as you have pointed out.

No assumptions leading to a weak and arbitrary realism.

On Oct.07.2004 at 09:33 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Brett,

I can safely assume that you are smarter than I am. It's not just the fancy terms for everyday things. It's also the fact that you are smart enough to know that Mark Kingsley, a designer that I greatly respect, is too dumb to quote Nietzsche properly.

However, in spite of your great intelligence, you have demonstrated a couple areas where your mental powers are lacking.

1. It's been said already, but let me put it very baldly: you are too dumb to communicate with people who, although reasonably intelligent, are not as smart or learned as you are. Fortunately, your condition is not without remedy. You are closer to the solution than you think.

Take what you have written about dehumanising technology, design's slavery to capitalism, & mechanistic accounts of the world. Apply that to your style of writing. Think about it until you get the connection (I am being entirely serious). Now you are ready to discover a style of writing that is actually intelligible to your audience.

2. You are disconnected from the people you are writing to:

"That said, I do not see the point of telling me about deadlines, purple logos that may not be changed, and other glass half empty gripes. I am simply writing on a topic which considers design in a larger frame. I feel that that is a good thing. It will not, however, erase banality."

My comment about the purple logo was not directed at you, and it is abundantly clear that such comments should not be directed at you while you are in your present state of disconnect. What you took as a glass-half-empty gripe was merely a mildly amusing throwaway comment about my "arbitrary realism" that many designers can relate to. It was wholly unrelated to this discussion.

This may help: Learn how to hang out & chill out & drink some beer. Get a Buddy. Maybe design some real things for actual clients, just as a learning experience to help you with your philosophy.

Brett, you are smart. Someday you may be useful, but not until you learn how to connect & communicate effectively with people who are dumber than you because that is most everybody.

On Oct.08.2004 at 07:00 AM
Kevin Lo’s comment is:

. The advice I give anyone who asks me about academic writing is to pretend like you're talking to a really smart sixteen year old who doesn’t know anything about your subject but catches on very fast.

that's great Gunnar, thanks!

On Oct.08.2004 at 09:21 AM
Jason T’s comment is:

Brett,

I've read your essay and most of the above comments. While full of negativity and critical distaste, you shouldn't be at all disappointed. Not everyone understands nor cares where you are coming from.

There is nothing wrong with critical practice. I find your ambitions respectable, noble, and valuable. And for the most part, I found your essay more enlightening than some of the comments above. The audience seems to have overlooked key insights you made, one being that, As an art, when not strictly bound by market conditions, design can become a profession dealing with deep and vital questions of life and society in and through its giving of forms. What a great idea. What a humanistic notion.

There are many domains we can practice in, but one thing remains—the division between academia and industry. Practicing design critically places one someplace between those poles, where you consider a wide range of elements. It's not only about delivering goods for the client. You also consider a dialog with design history, how the work entertains you, if you're able to further design practice, who you're working with, how you can maintain a design practice on your own terms, and what your work can do for the betterment of society (or in stark contrast, for the betterment of yourself—art for art's sake, design for the designer's sake).

I feel you have a lot of valid points in your essay, Brett. And I agree with most, if not all of them. It's unfortunate that the readers had a difficult time comprehending and digesting your style of writing. Again, I say, don't let that dissuade you.

On Oct.08.2004 at 09:41 AM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Brett, I just had a quick read of what I wrote earlier. It was too caustic & probably spoiled my attempt to be constructive. I'm sorry.

Maybe if you read it again and pretend that I am your really nice best friend it might be useful.

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:14 PM
Frank’s comment is:

I have found that, writing like design

is often best when it is easy to understand

and not layered with soggy paragraphs that

don't stick.

That statement wasn't geared towards anybody,

just a generality...

As for this discussion about design...I suppose

as I glance down at my yellow #2 pencil, I could

suggest: This pencil is the perfect embodiment of

Mankind- dense as wood can be yet easily broken

in two...A tool to be used, retired away once most

of its life is over...Isn't this what we has been

doing -- pretending?

So what is design? Design on a very broad

scale is an activity human beings enage in, from

arranging the clothes in our closet, to inventing

the light bulb. How far do you want to take it?

...The process of design is a very unique

experience each time and to each individual. But

is it more? I suppose you could dress it up in

different clothes and call it Sally or Jane, but at

the end it would only be something in your head. I

think if one were to take a step back, out of the

design vaccum, Perspective would grant the

conclusion that graphic design cannot even come

close to lovemaking, or raising a family, skydiving

out of a plane,etc..--> LIFE. Design is just

something us humans do, but it isn't Life. It is

part of life and it can definately add meaning or

pleasure to it, but never try to subsitute it for "real milk".

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:15 PM
Frank’s comment is:

In regards to the greater good of

design:

Btw, what grander notion of design is there

than making a living to support yourself and

your family? I think that is pretty grand..

There are always ethical issues such as should

I design cigarette boxes for Big Tobacco

companies..but that's a personal issue.

Finally if you really want to take design

to the next level, you can work for or start a

firm that focuses on non-profit clients..how bout

a huge advertising campaign that adddresses the

rebuilding of Iraq--get the Iraqi people to have

faith in the rebuilding process by actively

involving them in the activity--tv spots,

advertising, even have somebody come up with a

new logo for some administration...

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:28 PM
ian’s comment is:

my biggest problem with the article and the posts inspired by it is this idea that design needs to be, or even can be, 'elevated' to the level of art.

ART IS NOT DESIGN and DESIGN IS NOT ART!

the end.

no amount of philosophising will ever convince me or many other designers that art and design can ever be the same thing.

the idea of elevating design, the way we think about it, and how we can use design towards resolving bigger issues is great. i am extremely passionate in my belief in the power of design. but as the first post said, how will it pay my bills? we all have to find a balance between the greater good and what's good for me.

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:42 PM
Daniel Green’s comment is:

OK, this entry probably won’t be real popular with some, but please take this as an observation from my personal experience.

I find it perfectly understandable that someone would look for meaning in design.

The act of design is fundamentally like any creative act, and can be a very meaningful activity and pursuit. Participating in any creative act (yes, even some of the more mundane activities associated with the design industry) can be a universal expression of our humanity, and is also something close to the divine.

My caveat is this: while design, and any other creative act, is a very meaningful experience, it may not be reliable as an ultimate source of meaning. “Meaningful” --yes. “A source of meaning” -- no. To get to the ultimate source of meaning, in my experience, you have to connect with ultimate source of that creativity, and that is the Creator.

The obvious religious tone to this will unfortunately turn off some of you, though I’m honestly not trying to sell a brand of religion here. However, the most grounded people I know are those who can constantly open up to the needs of others because they have a faith that sustains them in seeing and meeting other’s needs, whether through design, medicine, or bagging groceries. This is how they find meaning.

Design can certainly be a way that we meet others’ needs. It is a worthy endeavor to encourage everyone to make their design activities as meaningful to the world as they can. It can trully make the world a better place.

But design, in my experience, is not a good source of meaning. It is not self-sustaining.

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:49 PM
Jason T’s comment is:

Ian, you've stated your case and as such, for you art is not design. To others art is art by declaration...and the designer makes this claim on their own accord.

On Oct.08.2004 at 02:54 PM
anna’s comment is:

As Brett's girlfriend of many years, I felt I should probably say a few words,

I too agree with those who feel that Brett sometimes doesn't reach an otherwise interested audience because his language can be lengthy and dense, and even too academic for academic's sake at times, but I noticed over the years that this tendency happens much more when he writes, and that since grad school he's improved his ability to 'unpack' his ideas (is it just me or are you also getting sick of the recent explosion of the word 'unpack' in terms of critical writing)

When you actually get to talk with him, he's much more down to earth and self-deprecating than he may seem (I hope I have something to do with that).

Mainly what I wanted to say is how much I appreciate how overall everyone who has posted seems to have respect for dialouge and language. And I also wanted to remind Brett to use spell check before posting something, otherwise all the schoolin' and learnin' in the world doesn't amount to jack.

Love you babe.

On Oct.08.2004 at 03:12 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

hehe... dialouge

On Oct.08.2004 at 03:22 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

No offense. It's good to spell words correctly, but typos don't always undermine a point. You made one. And a mistake here and there, especially a trivial mistake, doesn't undermine an education.

On Oct.08.2004 at 03:31 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Re-visiting...

Industrial design problem presents itself. Designers utilize the art of documentary fill making followed by production of a system of access (website) which allows them to capture more of the human dimension involved in the problem they face as designers. Mid way through the process the team finds that the form of the solution the client had coming into the process is either narrow or definitive and a novel form is generated which breathes life into a system previously constrained by derivative and instrumentally rational 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 attempts at servicing some need.

The potential of a greater horizon of human meaning than what is afforded us through the prevailing instrumental rationality is arrived at, in this example, in the explorative art of documenting through film with its poetic potential.

The meaning I am referring to is not subjective and individual, it is not about you finding meaning in the work you do as a designer, that is up to you. This has been thoughtfully pointed out by Mr. Green. Thank you Mr. Green.

The point of further critique of the writing and not the ideas in the writing escapes me. If you choose not to discuss the difficulties we face as human beings in our responsibilities for our relationships with the world and cultural production you are no longer on topic.

The question is...What is design? And it is framed by the essay in the above terms. Is this not the case?

On Oct.08.2004 at 06:59 PM
Greg’s comment is:

-Everything written symbols can say has passed by. They are like tracks left by animals. This is why the masters of meditation refuse to accept that writings are final. The aim is to reach true meaning by means of those tracks, those letters, those signs - but reality itself is not a sign, and it leaves no tracks. It doesn't come to us by way of letters or words. We can go toward it by following those words and letters back to what they came from. But so long as we are preoccupied with symbols, theories, and opinions, we will fail to reach the principle.

-But when we give up symbols and opinions, aren't we left with the utter nothingness of being?

-Yes.

Kimura Kyuho, Kenjutsu Fushigi Hen 1768

On Oct.09.2004 at 12:09 AM
M Kingsley’s comment is:

>That said, I do not see the point of telling me about deadlines, purple logos that may not be changed, and other glass half empty gripes. I am simply writing on a topic which considers design in a larger frame. I feel that that is a good thing. It will not, however, erase banality.

Brett, design practice is made up of those banalities. The exercise of small decisions throughout the design process manifests, and are the applications of, one's personal — for lack of a better word — philosophy. Being able to mix it up in the practical world — while maintaining a critical eye on one's profession and practice — would probably give greater weight in the acceptance of philosophical discussions such as this.

To use an extreme case to make the point, I was more receptive when Paul Rand would make some sort of grand pronouncement because he was brash, direct, and had a body of work that helped me understand his position. He also had a personal historical knowledge of design which helped with context.

On the other hand, wading through another thread of philosophical molasses on Speak Up about design's future direction gets caught up in rhetorical posturing. When presented with critiques and requests for examples, you gave us more rhetoric. This is where the power of real-world experience would come in handy.

On a Woody Allen-ish note: It would be nice if we could all be philosopher-designers, but imagine how boring AIGA events would become.

>I would like to argue, given time to do so properly, that any future ethics will, out of necessity, concern itself with not only the generating of text, but with the generating of forms.

They already do. The intention of the designer comes through in the application and interpretation of the work.

>So far as the superman Nietzsche stuff is concerned, he contradicts himself often so that quote you pulled simply will not do justice to one of the world?s most penetrating minds.

>Mark Kingsley... is too dumb to quote Nietzsche properly.

Jeff, yes my secret's out. I'm not a smart man.

Brett, the quote was presented mainly for the passage from Stendhal. I'm only a beginning level French speaker — all caught up in the complexities of articles — so I was unable to properly reference the quote. I first saw it in Nietzsche, thought he framed it nicely, und pulled it from there. Obviously, it hit your "crazy man alert" button.

Back to the quote; which approaches my point about experience and philosophy from a slightly different angle:

To be a good philosopher it is necessary to be dry, clear, without illusions. A banker who has made a fortune has one part of the character required to make discoveries in philosophy, that is to say, to see clearly into what is.

I think that's something we can all agree on, n'est-ce pas?

>I find it perfectly understandable that someone would look for meaning in design... But design, in my experience, is not a good source of meaning. It is not self-sustaining.

Amen to that Daniel. Design is like stone is like rose is like stick. Design is a thing. There is no meaning in things, only in their context.

Meaning with an uppercase 'M' is another issue. No suggestions here, only encouragement.

>The point of further critique of the writing and not the ideas in the writing escapes me. If you choose not to discuss the difficulties we face as human beings in our responsibilities for our relationships with the world and cultural production you are no longer on topic.

There were certain assumptions and historical points made in your original essay that I had issues with; critiqued with an aim for unilateral accuracy and commonality. Discussions on the difficulties of humanity and existence... probably better made with real-world examples as the vehicle for such discussion. Or in person, over wine. Call me.

>The question is...What is design? And it is framed by the essay in the above terms. Is this not the case?

Design as a thing is meaningless. Design as an activity, in context, has meaning. Designers finding Meaning while designing is not Design, it's Life.

In my experience, design practice is a vehicle for connecting with other people. While it's easy to get caught up in the dramatics of the creative process or client negotiations, I've never been able to believe in the holy mysteries of Design that your essay suggests. Calls to action on economic, social and governmental imperatives which are "dry, clear, without illusions"? Sign me up.

On Oct.09.2004 at 01:44 PM
Brett’s comment is:

Greg,

"The best things in life can't be told, because they transcend thought.

The second best are misunderstood, because they refer to that which is transcendent.

The third things are what we talk about."

The one and only, Hienrich Zimmer.

Meditate on how design might function within this beautiful passage along with this second one from a more familiar source.

An image is worth a thousand words.

On Oct.09.2004 at 08:49 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Brett—Your first paragraph manages the same dodge (or falls into the same trap) that many, including the AIGA do. You make generalizations about the role of design but implicitly claims that he is talking about graphic design. The confusion does not serve clear thought.

The second paragraph falls into the trap of accepting an historical narrative in place of historical evidence. Were [graphic?] design’s origins in early modernist movements or was modernist [graphic?] design’s origins in these movements? Either way, the notion that design dates back no farther than the Futurists is as ludicrous as claiming that there was an established “graphic design” profession then “commercial art” jumped up in the ’70s, eclipsing Bauhausian education. To the extent that this narrative is not garbled it is backwards.

There are many ironies in the relationships of form-makers’ various politics and later application of the form but the basic rhetorical goals of early 20th century socialism and mid 20th century multinational capitalism have much in common. The idea that the varied and often confused politics of various early 20th century designers should become a model for all designers to come [is this what you’re claiming? It’s hard to tell] is rather odd.

I promise I won’t go through the whole damned thing one paragraph at a time but “planned obsolescence” is hardly an invention of the ’80s nor is design as a cover for product mediocrity.

On to what I think is the substance of the essay:

What is design for? This implies that there is or should be a singular answer. Why would we assume that to be true?

Design, like so many other institutions today, shows signs of being affected by a crisis of meaning and value. How did you come to claim that design is an institution? By what definition of the word?

determined by outside influences This seems to imply that there is an outside and an inside to design. How does a person or a force become either?

design must arrive at its “unconditional imperative” as a foundation of action Would you explain what you mean by this? How does “design” do something? Is this the same error that Dubbya made by declaring “war on terrorism,” thus trying to muster tanks against a series of tactics rather than against people or groups? Can design arrive any more than terrorism can surrender?

Leaving the first problem aside for a moment, would you explain a bit about what this “unconditional imperative” is or should be and why? This seems to be the meat of your argument but it is barely mentioned.

I suspect that my questions about the phrase “the art’s purpose” are obvious. I wonder whether “the traditional conceptions of design as the generator of typography, fonts, information structure, products and style alone” exists. Haven’t you implied that the problem with graphic design is that it serves the wrong master? How then does it get found guilty of empty formalism?

Seth—I’ve quit jobs, gotten and MFA, and written books. The power may have been transferred but it missed me.

Michael Surtees—Despite claims on DO that Maven is a woman, it has definitely been proven that Maven is a man. I have the video.

Kevin Lo—So here's a question: Are those that are opposed to the type of thinking/language that Brett is using opposed to the very idea of philosophy having value in general, or just when people believe that a philosophical approach can be used in a study of design?

My problem with most attempts at design philosophy/politics/critical theory is that they don’t seem to be design philosophy/politics/critical theory, but philosophy/politics/critical theory that someone is shoehorning design into. If it is also literary philosophy/politics/critical theory, marketing philosophy/politics/critical theory, etc. then it may very well be applicable to design but seeming to claim it is the center or the essence only makes sense if we assume that design is not essentially distinct from other fields. This approach seems to deny the possibility that there is such a thing as design philosophy or design theory (or graphic design philosophy or graphic design theory.)

On Oct.10.2004 at 04:24 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

Gunnar,

I think your position is as confused as any. I�m interested in hearing exactly what you would say to this:

To the extent that graphic design is a "design" discipline (design being rational planning and making), understanding design is an essential component of graphic design education.

I have suggested that undergraduates should focus on "design studies", a position which was inspired by your claim that design education moves from specifics to generalities, the reverse of what would be considered a normal or effective education in any field. This proposal, which would require a radical change in the way graphic design is taught, implies that the themes of philosophy, critical theory, politics, etc., insofar as they are relevant to a conception of "rational planning and making", are not external concerns. I expand on this argument by saying that I am not merely calling for more interdisciplinarity. Rather, these are metatheoretical concerns for "design" quite specifically. Without a critical engagement with these foundations of design practice and thinking, we could not properly be called "designers", much less "graphic designers".

On Oct.10.2004 at 05:46 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Tom—I largely agree (except, of course, about the confused part.)

No question that, as Christopher Vice put it, there isn’t much design in most graphic design. The practice of graphic design would be much improved and graphic designers would be better respected if there were.

My objection to Brett’s confusing some broader design* with graphic design is not that graphic design shouldn’t be part of a wider design view. My objection is that it realistically isn’t, therefore broad statements made about the role of design need to be reexamined when we’re talking specifically about graphic design.

Another problem I had with Brett’s “design” was that it was, even while being too broad, much too narrow. He seemed to consider that design was invented by the early modernist designers, ignoring the earlier precedents that have a much stronger influence on many areas of graphic design. (The very phrase “graphic design” was coined by a decidedly non-modernist designer.)

On Oct.10.2004 at 10:02 PM
Tom Gleason’s comment is:

not that graphic design shouldn’t be part of a wider design view. My objection is that it realistically isn’t.

This is what I don't understand, Gunnar. Critiques ("there isn't much design in graphic design") are launched because ideals are good to have in spite of reality. Even if graphic design was called by a more fitting name: commercial art or propaganda arts, similar criticisms could be raised. It just so happens, though, that commercial artists adopted a lofty label, "design", for one of two reasons: either because they have such ideals for the practice or because, intentionally or unintentionally, they wanted to give their work the air of something more important, more "rational". The effect, since they don't live up to the label in combination with the idea that it doesn't matter that they don't, is that any broad sense of design is going to be destroyed in this segment of the population. Unless, of course, we are vigilant and expect them to live up to the label, and to do that, critique is needed.

In other words, I don't think it would be a good idea to rename graphic design just because it lies about what it is. I would be just as critical of a graphic design that was up front with and complacent with its sense of self.

When I call you conservative, when I say that you are the unappreciated spokesman for the SpeakUp ideology, I mean that you are like that person who cries at a crit, saying "why can't you just appreciate what I did?!" The purpose of critique seems to elude you, because you always seem to be trying, after some nit-picky (but worthwhile and productive) "kibitzing", to throw the whole basis for or the whole concept of critique out the window. What reason does Brett have to incorporate the historical corrections you have made? The refinement of his position is meaningless if his whole approach is incorrect. And you don't offer any alternative other than, it seems (--this is what I read between the lines), to forget about it and join the "real world". You give some lip-service to "design" but then you dismiss the whole project of critique as theoretical and unrealistic. You seem to be working to legitimate and give power to the very worst objections in this thread. I don't think it can be done because these attitudes thrive on ignorance, not intelligence. There is no proper way to cut theory off from practice, not even "professionalization".

Critique is idealistic, not realistic. It looks to the past and imagines what could have/should have been. The call to "be realistic", the whole attitude of "look, that's not the way things are" spits in the face of critique and destroys its potential for spurring on progress.

On Oct.11.2004 at 01:18 AM
M Kingsley’s comment is:

Tom, you have your rhetoric on backwards.

Criticism is realistic in that it looks to the past, and through description, places its object in context(s). From that point, subjective opinions are made.

Idealism is akin to reverie, daydreaming, wishing, hoping, desire...

If a point is built upon questionable assumptions, perhaps the point itself is questionable too. If someone with more direct experience and historical observation claims that "that's not the way things are", perhaps they should be considered. If a person attempts to refine inaccurate historical claims found in an essay, perhaps they're not spitting in the face of the critique — perhaps they're just trying to help clarify.

On Oct.11.2004 at 04:45 AM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Tom— I almost made a joke after my earlier post about whether I was allowed to publicly agree with you. I should have known that you would be the one who wouldn’t allow it.

When Brett quoted Business Week editor Stephen Shepard as saying “Companies use design like paint, to slap on a color or fancy shape after engineers and marketing people had come up with a product. . .” it is clear that Shepard is talking about product designers. If one is using this in a criticism of interior designers or fabric pattern designers it is incumbent on the person extending the criticism to make that case that it applies. An easy case to make for graphic design, perhaps, but a case that should be made rather than assumed. In making that case I suspect some interesting nuances may appear. Is the relationship of a graphic designer to a brochure similar to the relationship of an industrial designer to a toaster? How and how not? Is the relationship of a graphic designer to a writer, editor, or marketing director similar to the relationship of an industrial designer to an engineer? How or how not? What does any of this tell us about the Shepard quote?

I strongly support the ideal of putting more design in graphic design. I think I do so in my work as a teacher and in my work as a graphic designer. I don’t believe that merely saying design = design advances the goal. If I’m wrong I’d like to hear a convincing explanation but I was not trying to say “That’s the way things are.” I was trying to say “Please describe things accurately and make it clear that examples are appropriate to the point being made.”

If I seemed to be asking “Why can’t you just appreciate what I did?” then perhaps I have been inarticulate. What I meant to be asking is “What the fuck are you actually whining about?” Brett’s essay had a long lead-in that was factually flawed. It wasn’t clear to me whether his thesis was predicated on the lead-in. It isn’t even clear to me what his thesis is.

Someone compared academic writing and journalism. Journalism’s “inverted pyramid” roughly follows the old speaking advice of “Tell ’em what you’re going to say. Say it. Tell ’em you said it.” You start by delivering the goods then give an explanation. The academic pyramid where you give the background, discuss thoroughly, and only then get around to saying what it is you’re saying becomes a real problem when people don’t clearly say what they are saying.

Brett—So, I’ll put this to you: “What the fuck are you actually whining about?” (This is by no means an a priori dismissal of any specific whining. A rude question, perhaps, but not a rhetorical question.) What do you think is wrong? Don’t try to convince me. Just make it clear to me. What would you like to see done and who do you think needs to do it?

Tom—Since I’m not sure I can identify a “Speak Up ideology” I’m tempted to do my best Bela Lugosi imitation saying “Unappreciated, perhaps. Spokesman, perhaps not.” I will say that I was not trying to “throw out” the critique. I was challenging what seem to be the basic (and, I believe, false) assumptions of the critique since the critique is not clear enough to me to critique said critique.

My comments about whether theory is design theory were a direct answer to Kevin Lo’s question. They were not meant to dismiss Brett’s critique. I still don’t know what Brett’s critique was. That’s why I asked a series of (non-rhetorical) questions in my earlier post and asked bluntly for clarification in this one.

So, singular answer for what design is for? What is outside or inside design? In what sense is design an institution? Is the personification of design, implying agency on the part of “design” defensible? And, most importantly, what is it that I seem to have dismissed or thrown out? Without the big lead-in and as simply as possible, what should be done and by whom?

On Oct.11.2004 at 05:51 PM
Brett’s comment is:

?Whereas science always pertains to particular objects, the knowledge of which is by no means indispensable to all men, philosophy deals with the whole of being, which concerns man as man, with a truth which, wherever it is manifested, moves us more deeply than any scientific knowledge.? Jaspers, again!

The ?fact? that design methods (this is an important term because everything is interpretation and our methods determine what is ?under consideration? and knowledge/truth respectively) rightly begin, like philosophy in conjectural thinking and visualization makes design methods critically important in an age of technology, living through a far more bounded rationality ? an instrumental rationality.

I would direct the consideration of this statement to the Zimmer and Confucius quote posted earlier.

Science = from the particular to the abstract.

Design = from the abstract to the particular.

Now to clarify my position. I do not mean to undercut the importance of science. Science is clearly as valuable a tool as philosophy. Nevertheless one may not proceed rightly without the other, and that is exactly what modernism has been, an imbalance, an overconfidence, born from a yearning for security in the face of what Jasper calls those ?ultimate situations?, death chance, doubt and wonder, in which the outwardly directed activity of science in service of fear in the form of manifest destiny, produces a society, to be sure, but at a cost. It is that cost we are beginning to see in the myriad of ethical problems we now seem to have no conceivable way to curtail the increase in, much less effectively treat.

A Neomodernism would be philosophical method vitalized in modes of production; an effort to reign in and make more human, the anarchic and planless character of contemporary capitalist production.

This is not a novel trajectory of thought!

This applies to virtually every field of creative activity.

Now in concrete terms, this is for you who require a practical statement to justify the discourse. Design?s public persona...... NO this will be better if it is put rhetorically.

If design were not perceived as a field for those with artistic talents so exclusively, and instead through a training in ?design studies? took on much more of an ethos of a helping profession, could it better serve a neomodernist orientation?

On Oct.11.2004 at 07:23 PM
Brett’s comment is:

>>>

My quotes were replaced by ?s

On Oct.11.2004 at 07:25 PM
Ross Ciaramitaro’s comment is:

Designers doing performance art...I can't quit picture it, and I would have to see it to believe it. I'm always open for new genre's involving art...we're about due for a new movement, I think

On Oct.27.2004 at 04:28 PM
Amy Isler Gibson’s comment is:

Brett, I did not follow all of the responses, but if I understand what you are saying, you are asking that the design of (what? objects? structures? types? shall we say things for short has become disconnected from intentions to create goodness, rather than just money for those who capitalize from designs? Is it that simple? If so, it seems certainly true. So who creates meaning? Just by using, as Marion says? If a tree falls in the woods? Brett you seem to be calling upon some universal, a priori good, a la Kant. I will tell you again, as I have said before, there is (to abbreviate), Kant and Mill, utility v. overarching clear, intuited goods (good lands on our heads like the anvil in the cartoon, from without), but I say god is in the details. K and M reflect two very strong tugs in humans, and they seem like the only ones. I would never vote for Nader but there is a third party candidate out there! Marion is a little right, I think; a pencil isn't a pencil if its just used for firewood, but the answer is not, I think, to keep looking for the essence of a pencil. My old example: don't do ethics in an abstract way, write or read a novel. Is abortion Bad? If you abstract away from a young girl's life, then of course it is. We make policies not because they are right, but because we have to function as a society. What is right will probably lie in the details of individual cases. Lately, that is seeming like more and more of a luxury as we overpopulate and greed, and its twin brother fear, take over. Wow, I have to go cook something. Good job Brett!!!

On Nov.11.2004 at 07:43 PM
Amy Isler Gibson’s comment is:

Sorry about the grammar of those first few sentences! I am rusty (excuse)!

On Nov.11.2004 at 07:45 PM