Never underestimate a (designer) with (designs) to (design)
BDES 1201 — Week 2 — What drives design and design diversity?
The three authors discussed this week, Julier, Heskett and Petroski, are each attempting to understand what design is, and why design is — what are the conditions necessary to spark a design solution. In short, what does form follow?*
Heskett says that design is a human — notwithstanding beavers and bowerbirds — trait and tendency to shape our environment, serve our needs and give meaning to our lives (Heskett 18). He goes on to point out that nothing in design is “inevitable or immutable,” but a matter of human choice (19). In essence, form follows need.
Petroski concedes that want, not need, is likely the true driver of design. That, and the real or perceived shortcomings of a form. According to Petroski, no designed object is perfect — and, indeed, our definition of perfection changes over time, so redesigns and newly designed objects will always be desirable (Petroski 40). Form follows failure.
Petroski brings architect and theorist Christopher Alexander into the conversation to answer the question: Why do objects fail in the first place? According to Alexander, failure is the result of poor fit, and design is a “negative process of neutralizing the incongruities, or irritants, or forces, which cause misfit” (45). For Alexander, form follows context.
But what if we consider context more broadly — not just the particular, localized context of a design’s use, but society at large? After all, Petroski notes, design products are, in effect, a product of the ideas of the society in which they’re made (42). In a capitalist society, people are defined as consumers or users, organized into market segments, and plied with products.
And, as Heskett notes, new technologies and flexible manufacturing have created the possibility of ever niche-ier markets and customizable products to suit (Heskett 35). This may, in fact, be the true instigator — not need, desire or failure — for the incredible diversity of design objects we see today. In truth, form follows the market.
How else can we explain the trend of “Never underestimate a (blank) who (blanks) and was born in (blank)” t-shirts available for purchase online? This kind of wild variety and absurd specificity could only be the result of cheap, customizable manufacturing processes and access to niche groups of consumers (as well as their personal data) via computer algorithms.
Is this what Julier was alluding to when he describes the designer’s role in generating value (Julier 9) within a complex network that is three-dimensional, temporal, simultaneous, experiential, multi-platform and that includes people, products and culture (4)? “No design object is an island,” he said. “Rather, its meaning, function and value are dependent on a complex patchwork of other artifacts and people” (5).
* “Form (ever) follows function,” said architect Louis Sullivan, meaning the shape of a building should be informed by its use. The phrase was co-opted by Modernists as a rallying cry against ornamentation and has, over time, become a design truism. Or has it? Petroski quotes theorist David Pye, who said the relationship between form and function is essentially fantasy: “The form of designed things is decided by choice or else by chance; but it is never actually entailed by anything whatever” (Petroski 43).
Questions for further reflection:
Is design strictly a human trait and tendency? What are some other animals that, according to Heskett’s definition, can be considered designers?
Is it true that, as Pye insists, form never truly, purely results from function? Can we think of some examples that might counter this?
Works Cited
Heskett, John. Design: A Very Short Introduction. New York, Oxford University Press, 2002.
Julier, Guy. “From Visual Culture to Design Culture.” Design Issues, vol. 22, no. 1, Winter 2006.
Petroski, Henry. “Form Follows Failure.” The Evolution of Useful Things. New York, Vintage Books, 1992.
Word Count: 524
