Last year during Winter Session, I took a Landscape Architecture course, called “Poetic Chemistry.” It was a very conceptual and open-ended course, and each student had to decide on a field of interest, define their own problems through a series of research, interpret and represent them in whatever way they wished to. It was an interesting experience for me, as it was during this course that I came to realize that I was no longer able to think in a free, fine artist-like way, but in a practical, designer-like way.
Coming from the first semester in the Industrial Design department, during which I was trained to think practically and to solve problems, all I could think of was practicality, sustainability, and the users. On the other hand, there was a student, called Emily, from the Painting department, and her work was all about her own imagination and philosophy – her own interpretation of the world. She had such a free but concrete perspective on life, and I was amazed at her unrestricted and poetic way of thinking. Simultaneously, I was surprised by my own designer-like way of thinking, which was all about the reality, the user experience, and the environmental issues.
Now, what is “design?” We are surrounded by all kinds of “design”: the buildings that we live in, the Internet, clothes, businesses, signs on the streets – everything – including this very computer that I am using to write this essay right now. I mentioned a few words earlier to describe “design,” but those terms are far from sufficient to truly explain what design means.
When I think of the word design, many words come to my mind: style, practicality, functionality, ergonomics, sensitivity, sustainability, beauty, balance, affordability, experience, emotion, psychology, society, and so on. If anyone asked me to define what “design” means, I would probably go in circles, trying to decide within myself what it means to me.
Design, to me, is like a religion – not in the sense that I believe in it and worship it as if it was a religion, but in the sense that it is so broad that it confuses me and I cannot define it in one sentence. I consider myself not religious, and this is because I am confused. I do not know which philosophy to follow amongst the many religions that exist in our society, or, if I want to follow one at all. I classify myself as agnostic, and same could be applied to design; there are so many aspects of design that I am not sure which one to pursue.
What does “design” mean? I do not think that design is solely about functionality and practicality. Every industrial designer would probably have heard of this humorous and a bit stereotypical anecdote about the difference between designers and engineers: the designers will spend days and nights designing a stylized product with carefully considered radius, but when the product goes into production, it comes out hideous, without any of its radius that used to be there, because the engineers sought the functional aspect only. The engineers do consider the aesthetics, too, but the difference is that they focus more on the functionality and the manufacturability of the product, rather than its style and the psychology. If all that mattered in a product were functionality and practicality, then everything would look like bricks and boxes. Cheap and unattractive products that worked okay would be the best sellers. The world would lose its creativity. However, the truth is that people do tend to be attracted to objects that are visually pleasing and inspiring, that work well (meaning, easy to use and durable.)
Oftentimes, beautiful designs do tend to work well, too – a good design means a better experience for the user. For example, Apple’s iPods are very delicately designed, with meticulous attentions to the details. The iPods were, and still are, extremely popular, not just because of their appealing form, but also their interface. The iconic Click Wheel not just adds to the overall style of the object, but it also greatly enhances the user experience; it is an innovative design that makes the navigation through lists and series of data easier.
However, it seems like good experience is usually accompanied by high costs. The iPods are well-designed objects, but they are very costly. Another example is the Herman Miller Aeron Chair. The Aeron Chair has the reputation that it is one of the most comfortable and elegant office chairs in the market, but one chair costs over $1,000. It is almost ridiculous how much the chair costs, yet the Aeron chairs are in high demand, as the concept of ergonomics is in trend these days.
Contrarily, on the other end of the spectrum, there are Ikea chairs, which cost less than a tenth of the Aeron Chairs. These chairs may be less durable and less comfortable, but they work perfectly fine as chairs. Affordability is an important factor in design these days, and the balance between quality and expense – like the Aeron Chair and the Ikea Chair – is a difficult and sensitive problem.
How do we balance affordability and quality? How do we balance aesthetics and functions? Balancing the different elements in design is a very difficult task. It is like finding the right balance between sugar and salt in cooking, or between work and life. This is where each designer’s values and the contexts come in to play. There is never a wrong design; there could be a better design; but there is never a perfect design.
Design is perhaps about creating an experience – it could be the actual physical experience, an emotional or psychological experience, or a socio-cultural experience. The experience will change depending on the balance among function, aesthetics, quality, and affordability. For example, if a stool is designed with more attention to its aesthetics rather than its function, then the user may have a less comfortable experience sitting on the stool, but he or she will have a more visually and psychologically pleasant experience. If a stool is made really cheap but it is bound to break after a year, then a lot of users will be able to own the chair, but they will have to go through the trouble of repairing them and buying more chairs after a year.
I, personally, would like to pursue quality and aesthetics through my design. However, this does not mean that I want to be designing luxury products. I certainly believe that affordability is an important aspect, but greater affordability usually means lower quality. When a product becomes too cheap, then the quality drops drastically, which means it will probably break more easily and quickly. The object will be thrown out, and this will do even more damage to the already-suffering environment. Plus, if the object is too cheap, then the user will hesitate less to throw it out, which does not help the situation. If the quality of a product could be raised so that it lasts longer by raising the price a little bit, it will be better for the environment, which in turn will benefit the humanity.
Sustainability has become such an enormous issue nowadays, and it seems like it is going to be the next subject to drive the design momentum. (Or it already is, perhaps.) Until recently, designers sought balance among creativity, functionality, style, quality, affordability, and manufacturability. Sustainability will be a new category that will have to be balanced with the others. I myself believe that sustainability is one of the most crucial factors in design, and this balance is going to impact the world, in one way or the other, which will in turn lead to a different future and experience.
There are so many aspects in design that I find it almost impossible to really define what design is. There are certain factors that I consider more important than the others, but I still do not have a definition for the word “design.” As our lives and mind change, design will change along with it. It is like a religion, which keeps changing slightly as the society and the culture change. It is a continuous evolution.
Design evolves.
No comments:
Post a Comment