"RR01:" Complicated

The title is a song done by Bon Jovi. To be honest, I'm not a real big fan of theirs. The group is pop metal, and that is an awkward sounding combination to me. However, they were quite popular for awhile, and they do have a couple of catchy songs. More important is the actual title. I chose it because it seems to describe 'design' perfectly. As this post will show, design is not easily explained (not accurately, anyways) because it is such a broad topic. So, what is design? It's complicated! And as always, I like to start with a brief overview of the post. I wasn't sure if we needed to site the actual textbook or not, so I did not on the grounds that it is an understood assigned reading from one single book/author. If this is a problem, I will change it for the next post, but all I plan to do is say what page I found my material on. Also, it should be noted that a true critical analysis over this many pages would easily be over 15 double spaced, typed pages, so to shorten this for a blog format, I intend to dedicate about a paragraph to every chapter. I'll pick something that really interested me, break it down, and discuss it a bit to save time/space. Because let's be honest, you guys don't want to read that much, and frankly, I don't want to type all of it out in a coherent, literate fashion. Now, on to chapter one.

With chapter one, I felt like the big idea he wanted to stress was design is misunderstood due to various human/cultural aspects. The field of design is, in fact, difficult to sum up, largely due to the fact that the word 'design' encompasses so much material. Thus, it means many different things to different people. In other words, design can not be simplified to a simple definition and approached the same way to be taught or applied. Heh, imagine a painter who excels with a brush trying to sit on a computer and use the architects software to design a functioning building.That is hardly the same skill/expertise. The point is, again, design meant two different things to the people applying the respective skills. Since design encompasses different fields, different definitions, and people (varying from the individual to an entire culture) perceive their environment differently, it is hard to simplify. So difficult, in fact, that it really can't. It can only focus on certain aspects at a time and the best we can do as a whole is to understand that each area is a little piece of design which fits neatly together to form a whole. The key idea? Design is a huge part of our lives and can be found everywhere and in everything. It just takes many, many different forms.

Moving on to chapter two, Haskett briefly highlights humans role in design, claiming that "There has been change and evolution...but human nature as remained remarkably unaltered...[thus] design [is] a unique and unchanging human capability" (Haskett, 8). He continues with the chapter giving various historical examples to support his claim, showing how design has simply been improved upon over time. While I agree that design is unique to humans (we are, after all, the only species who radically shapes our environment for simple aesthetic pleasures), I disagree that it has been unchanging. For instance, do all humans perceive design the same way? Of course not; that was discussed in the preceding chapter. So if that is the case, how can design not change? It has been forced to fit so many different fields and subjects after all. Furthermore, technology allows for innovations. It allows for new designs and ideas to be realized that would have otherwise been inconceivable or impossible. For example, I do not believe modern day luxury ideas, such as this very computer I'm typing on, were thought of in early human history. If you want to go back to 'the beginning', regardless of what you believe in, humans focused on basic instincts. Keeping safe, providing nourishment, reproducing, etc. They did not have the time or resources at their disposal to think of such things. Their inspiration came from basic shapes in which would become useful to help them live out their lives. So how can design remain 'unchanged' when at one point in time, such ideas were inconceivable, yet now, they are a fact of life?

Next came chapter three, and the key idea I focused on was form versus function. It should be noted that, both in the book, and within the lecture notes presented to us, a prevailing theory was 'form follows function'. Catchy, if nothing else, making use of consonance with the letter 'f'. But, of course, there is much more to the phrase than simple writing terms. It was readily believed that, when designing something, the function was key to the process. And once the function was established and successful, then form would be applied to aid in said function. In the natural world, this definitely appears true. And even in human history, I would say it also held true. But I think it is important to challenge this idea as well. Just because something functions well, does that mean we should not be as concerned with aesthetic value? Maybe a better way to approach this idea is by analyzing our own economy. We are based on industry/commercial enterprises. As a national community, we buy products that appeal to us in someway. Now, when selecting a product, let's say an automobile, and specifically, a typical car, do all of them not have identical functions? I would say, for a car, the point is to move a person(s), semi-comfortably and quickly, from point a to point b. Now, assuming that is the primary function of the car, why is it that there are so many different auto makers? I argue it is because of form. All cars have different shapes, colors, designs, extra features, etc, etc Their key function all remains the same, however, as consumers, we have developed personal interests and tastes based off of aesthetics. Thus, I believe that function is vital. However, I believe form is what attracts people. Form is what interests people to buy said product and have self satisfaction from the use of it. Without form being stressed, a product simply works, yet does nothing to change a persons mood.

Chapter four follows the above, and it discusses the significance objects play in the world of design. Where as above, the idea has been form follows function, now from a post-modern perspective, form has taken the emphasis, and it allows designers to create products in ways that appeal to them instead of their potential consumers. It seems readily apparent, then, problems shall occur in the opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of dull, unappealing products, you have lively, striking products which appeals to individuals tastes. The trade off then? Functionality of course. Many of these 'unique' products beg to ask the question 'what, exactly, does it do...?' And the answer isn't always apparent. In fact, several of the more radical, yet unique, designs end up being even less functional than their counterparts. To complicate this further, they tend to be more expensive too. An example given in the book discussed a lemon juicer (Haskett, page 38) and how it was sought after as a kitchen piece, yet worked so poorly. Ultimately, the person would have to buy another, cheaper juicer to use, and allow the 'kitchen piece' to sit unused, adorning the counter top or cabinet in which it rests. In essence, some of these object designs appear to have become the traditional thought of 'works of art', much like a painting hanging on the wall. It is interesting, it is thought provoking, but ultimately, it is useless in function. And unless a person is coming from the upper end of society, the lack of extra spending money rules these objects out as household items. This, then, makes the 'art' piece more desirable and classy. These objects are then associated with rich individuals and become a symbol for status.

Now comes chapter five, which discusses communication within design. It immediately draws a comparison between objects and visual based communicative designs. The two key differences are centered around ease of use and emotional/thought provoking reactions. First, objects are simplistic to use, where as communicative designs need words and or definitions to help explain their meaning. Second, objects rarely provoke emotional responses. It is understood or implied how the device works, and that is the purpose it serves. But with communication based designs, images are readily available and used. And these images evoke a multitude of emotional responses which serve some purpose (Haskett, 55). After all, a picture is worth a thousand words, no? The rest of the chapter focuses various uses and fields within communication design. I don't have a lot of critical thought here, but I would like to note that visual communication can be a very powerful tool. Again, referencing our own economy, advertising programs spend their whole lives trying to use images and ideas to convince consumers to spend money on their products. And what about news based organizations? Sure, they inform you of what is going on, but how often do they seem to use subtle words/phrases and graphic images to influence public opinions? Communicative design is, again, a powerful tool that can easily influence masses into certain thought patterns and/or feelings. It has even gone as far as making brand names household expressions, and many companies have been made (or destroyed) with striking logos. So while communications isn't necessarily tangible, it is just as important (if not more so) than other fields within design.

And finally, chapter six features the environmental setting which houses the various aspects of design. Specifically, it focuses on the outer and inner environment of homes/businesses in various countries, and how their trends seemed to have changed over the decades. It would seem that the environment is rather important on an individual level because it is what holds all of the other various design areas, including the objects and visual communications, in one location. It is the 'big picture' within which the other designs can be found. And furthermore, it seems that environments, at least for the individuals, are physical manifestations of idea happiness/comfort. It serves as an outlet to put quirks and identities on display so that anyone visiting can, at a glance, get an idea about what matters to that individual. This is all affected by factors such as money, time spent at a place, whom owns it/rents it, etc. On a more personal level, I can understand how this matters and can affect a persons overall mood. For instance, going to college at a young age, like I am now, means that I don't own the residence in which I am living. I'm just a temporary tenant. As such, it means I have to compromise price with quality/luxury. That said, it means I have to live in a place that does not satisfy my personal aesthetic desires. And since I am a renter and not an owner, I have littler authority to change it radically to fit my desires. Thus, a perfect harmony can't be achieved; I simply have to make due and put as many of my personal items of design based interest in the house as possible.