thoughts on design

12 Dec 2005 - 1:55pm
8 years ago
14 replies
573 reads
Doug Murray
2005

A few thoughts spurred by a prior thread...

Design is not a random, spontaneous act. It has purpose -- a goal that is trying to be achieved. Good design achieves the intended goal or purpose (or, at least gets close). If I design a chair that is visually appealing, but terribly uncomfortable, my design has not succeeded (as a chair, although, it may succeed as sculpture, or *art*.)

It is true that some designs may be overly constrained due to business issues. But, this is nothing new. Many great artists through the years were constrained by the desires, or willingness to pay, of their benefactors. What they painted, composed, sculpted, etc. was greatly influenced by their employer. That doesn't mean their work wasn't worthwhile, or successful. The reality is that most designs have constraints of time and money. Tradeoffs must be made. Good designs focus on focus on achieving the objectives of the sponsor, and of the user * even if some *art* gets sacrificed in the process.

I don't see this as *pandering to profits.* It is not a *bad* thing to be avoided, rather it is what makes design *design.* Does that mean that a comfortable chair cannot be visually appealing? Absolutely not! If the visual aesthetics add to the overall *experience*, they add to the success of the design.

Great designs go beyond the business (sponsor) needs. Really great designs have as one of their key objectives to meet the needs/wants of their users (in an *elegant* way). Great designs provide great user experiences, not just a creative outlet for the designer. And, bad designs (that don't consider the user experience), generally are limited in their benefit to the business paying for the design. The process is self regulating. Bad designs have limited commercial success. Good/Great designs often have the best commercial success. (Think of iPod, IKEA, Google, or your favorite products/services/software.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

13 Dec 2005 - 9:58am
Tom Hoferek
2005

When you consider all of the constraints that a designer must deal with,
its not too surprising that trade offs and compromises are often
required. Maybe one way to look at things is like this:

Art is design without compromise.
Design is the art of compromise.

Cheers,

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Doug Murray
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:56 PM
To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] thoughts on design

[Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
material.]

A few thoughts spurred by a prior thread...

Design is not a random, spontaneous act. It has purpose -- a goal that
is trying to be achieved. Good design achieves the intended goal or
purpose (or, at least gets close). If I design a chair that is visually
appealing, but terribly uncomfortable, my design has not succeeded (as
a chair, although, it may succeed as sculpture, or *art*.)

It is true that some designs may be overly constrained due to business
issues. But, this is nothing new. Many great artists through the years
were constrained by the desires, or willingness to pay, of their
benefactors. What they painted, composed, sculpted, etc. was greatly
influenced by their employer. That doesn't mean their work wasn't
worthwhile, or successful. The reality is that most designs have
constraints of time and money. Tradeoffs must be made. Good designs
focus on focus on achieving the objectives of the sponsor, and of the
user * even if some *art* gets sacrificed in the process.

I don't see this as *pandering to profits.* It is not a *bad* thing to
be avoided, rather it is what makes design *design.* Does that mean
that a comfortable chair cannot be visually appealing? Absolutely not!
If the visual aesthetics add to the overall *experience*, they add to
the success of the design.

Great designs go beyond the business (sponsor) needs. Really great
designs have as one of their key objectives to meet the needs/wants of
their users (in an *elegant* way). Great designs provide great user
experiences, not just a creative outlet for the designer. And, bad
designs (that don't consider the user experience), generally are limited
in their benefit to the business paying for the design. The process is
self regulating. Bad designs have limited commercial success.
Good/Great designs often have the best commercial success. (Think of
iPod, IKEA, Google, or your favorite products/services/software.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only
for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org List Guidelines
............ http://listguide.ixda.org/ List Help ..................
http://listhelp.ixda.org/ (Un)Subscription Options ...
http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
Questions .................. lists at ixda.org Home .......................
http://ixda.org/ Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is
believed to be clean.

13 Dec 2005 - 10:25am
Dave Malouf
2005

A great example of an amazing designer who thinks outside the box is Yves
Behar. He specializes in conceptual design -- won a chest-full of IDEA 2005
awards this year for his work. His ability to come up with new innovative
explorations is almost unparalleled in concept design today. Yes, he has a
ton of freedom as nothing he does gets built, but even in that freedom it is
amazing how--on evaluation--tangible his designs really are. Definitely
next-wave, but also very accessible for use. You can imagine them in your
hand, your lap, your room, etc.

I think you can see his work at fuseproject.com

On a more local front for myself, I have always enjoyed following the work
of the dynamic duo of Antenna Design. They bring beauty to entire systems in
a way that surpasses even the amazing work of Jonathan Ives at Apple.

Antenna's work can be found at http://antennadesign.com/
Work like Subway cars, Ticketing systems, Airline Kiosks, and even Bloomberg
terminals are museum quality let alone award winning.

I mention these (and I'm sure there are many more) to try and build off the
idea that constraints in and of themselves while real are also flexible and
even quite intangible at times. A great design innovates beyond the
constraints dictated. Of course great design usually requires a lot of time
to happen (or just inspired luck and serendipity).

-- dave

On 12/13/05 9:58 AM, "Tom Hoferek" <Tom.Hoferek at corel.com> wrote:

> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted material.]
>
> When you consider all of the constraints that a designer must deal with,
> its not too surprising that trade offs and compromises are often
> required. Maybe one way to look at things is like this:
>
> Art is design without compromise.
> Design is the art of compromise.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> Doug Murray
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:56 PM
> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: [IxDA Discuss] thoughts on design
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> A few thoughts spurred by a prior thread...
>
> Design is not a random, spontaneous act. It has purpose -- a goal that
> is trying to be achieved. Good design achieves the intended goal or
> purpose (or, at least gets close). If I design a chair that is visually
> appealing, but terribly uncomfortable, my design has not succeeded (as
> a chair, although, it may succeed as sculpture, or *art*.)
>
> It is true that some designs may be overly constrained due to business
> issues. But, this is nothing new. Many great artists through the years
> were constrained by the desires, or willingness to pay, of their
> benefactors. What they painted, composed, sculpted, etc. was greatly
> influenced by their employer. That doesn't mean their work wasn't
> worthwhile, or successful. The reality is that most designs have
> constraints of time and money. Tradeoffs must be made. Good designs
> focus on focus on achieving the objectives of the sponsor, and of the
> user * even if some *art* gets sacrificed in the process.
>
> I don't see this as *pandering to profits.* It is not a *bad* thing to
> be avoided, rather it is what makes design *design.* Does that mean
> that a comfortable chair cannot be visually appealing? Absolutely not!
> If the visual aesthetics add to the overall *experience*, they add to
> the success of the design.
>
> Great designs go beyond the business (sponsor) needs. Really great
> designs have as one of their key objectives to meet the needs/wants of
> their users (in an *elegant* way). Great designs provide great user
> experiences, not just a creative outlet for the designer. And, bad
> designs (that don't consider the user experience), generally are limited
> in their benefit to the business paying for the design. The process is
> self regulating. Bad designs have limited commercial success.
> Good/Great designs often have the best commercial success. (Think of
> iPod, IKEA, Google, or your favorite products/services/software.)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only
> for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org List Guidelines
> ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/ List Help ..................
> http://listhelp.ixda.org/ (Un)Subscription Options ...
> http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org Home .......................
> http://ixda.org/ Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org/
Dave (at) ixdg (dot) org
Dave (at) synapticburn (dot) com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

13 Dec 2005 - 10:40am
Dave Malouf
2005

In case Jonathan and his team grace this list. I need to apologize for
misspelling Jonathan Ive's name. It is just Ive, no "s" at the end (except
when possessive like in the previous sentence.

Thanx Dan!

--dave

On 12/13/05 10:25 AM, "David Heller" <dave at ixdg.org> wrote:

> On a more local front for myself, I have always enjoyed following the work
> of the dynamic duo of Antenna Design. They bring beauty to entire systems in
> a way that surpasses even the amazing work of Jonathan Ives at Apple.
-- dave

David Heller
http://synapticburn.com/
http://ixdg.org/
Dave (at) ixdg (dot) org
Dave (at) synapticburn (dot) com
AIM: bolinhanyc || Y!: dave_ux || MSN: hippiefunk at hotmail.com

13 Dec 2005 - 10:49am
Greg Petroff
2004

Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.

Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
exploration.

Art is not the inverse of Design nor is Design the inverse of Art. Both are
creative endeavors. And projects can have aspects that are in both camps.

I am not sure the issue of compromise even need be a factor. Constraints
are the part of a project that make it interesting but they never have to be
seen as places to compromise. Many artists use contraints as a point of
origin for their work. And most design innovation occurs specifically
because there are constraints.

Compromise is one mans Opportunity.

Context for the design process is also very important. I can think of many
projects where the context changes how you evaluate your approach to design.

Lets take the chair example:

Context: Bus Shelter
The design goals might be in order of importance:
vandal resistant, durable, easy to maintain, uncomfortable (lest someone use
it to sleep on or stay there to long), aestehticaly pleasing.

Form, Aesthetic, Function, Emotional connection, user centered design are
all legit avenues to pursue. Some of us will work on one end of the
spectrum, some in the middle, etc.

Years ago, one of my teachers, Architect Gianni Petana said, "If you are
sitting next to the most beautiful woman in the world, it does not matter if
you are sitting on a bed of nails". He was making a point about how context
and beauty can change your interpretation of an objects attributes, your
physical and emotional perception of it.

-gp

1

13 Dec 2005 - 10:42am
Tom Hoferek
2005

<snip>
I mention these (and I'm sure there are many more) to try and build off
the idea that constraints in and of themselves while real are also
flexible and even quite intangible at times. A great design innovates
beyond the constraints dictated. Of course great design usually requires
a lot of time to happen (or just inspired luck and serendipity).

-- dave
</snip>

What you say is why I suggest that design is not simply about making
comprimises but the art of doing so. Great designers, like those you
mention (and many others that do get their work produced), produce work
that appears to be without constraints, or the constraints are invisible
to end users. Is it an art? I don't know if you can actually call it
that, but it is a 'mastery' of some sort - being able to produce work
that amazes through hard work, inspiration, luck, whatever. Kind of like
art.

Cheers,

Tom

13 Dec 2005 - 10:52am
Greg Petroff
2004

Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.

Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
exploration.

Art is not the inverse of Design nor is Design the inverse of Art. Both are
creative endeavors. And projects can have aspects that are in both camps.

I am not sure the issue of compromise even need be a factor. Constraints
are the part of a project that make it interesting but they never have to be
seen as places to compromise. Many artists use contraints as a point of
origin for their work. And most design innovation occurs specifically
because there are constraints.

Compromise is one mans Opportunity.

Context for the design process is also very important. I can think of many
projects where the context changes how you evaluate your approach to design.

Lets take the chair example:

Context: Bus Shelter
The design goals might be in order of importance:
vandal resistant, durable, easy to maintain, uncomfortable (lest someone use
it to sleep on or stay there to long), aestehticaly pleasing.

Form, Aesthetic, Function, Emotional connection, user centered design are
all legit avenues to pursue. Some of us will work on one end of the
spectrum, some in the middle, etc.

Years ago, one of my teachers, Architect Gianni Petana said, "If you are
sitting next to the most beautiful woman in the world, it does not matter if
you are sitting on a bed of nails". He was making a point about how context
and beauty can change your interpretation of an objects attributes, your
physical and emotional perception of it.

-gp

13 Dec 2005 - 11:19am
Lyle Kantrovich
2005

On 12/13/05, David Heller <dave at ixdg.org> wrote:
> I think you can see his work at fuseproject.com

> Antenna's work can be found at http://antennadesign.com/

While the work of these designers may be outstanding (some looks
fascinating), I just have to say that their *web sites*, in my
opinion, aren't very user friendly. It's sites like these that have
given Flash a bad name in the past. The sites seem to have a contempt
for both the content they are presenting, and the user or potential
customer who is using them.

To me, it's a clear case of someone trying to make their web site the
experience instead of helping me, as a user, experience their
portfolio and/or learn about them as a design firm.

Sorry...I just had to say it. (Now donning a flame-resistant suit
waiting for all the people who'll tell me I'm Flash-bashing and have
no appreciation for creativity or aesthetics.)

--
Lyle

--------------------------
Lyle Kantrovich
Blog: Croc O' Lyle
http://crocolyle.blogspot.com

13 Dec 2005 - 2:06pm
Pradyot Rai
2004

Gregory Petroff <greg.petroff at gmail.com> wrote:

> Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.
>
> Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
> exploration.

I agree with the above statements, but how does that apply to some
outliers(?) --
- Chop-sticks
- High heals
- Neckties/Bow-Ties
- (Fashion industry, in general)

What processes did the above example follow? Did somebody deliberately
applied any thought/process/self expression, or, things happened by
accident?

13 Dec 2005 - 2:08pm
Pradyot Rai
2004

Once again --

> Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.
>
> Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
> exploration.

I agree with the above statements, but how does that apply to some
outliers(?) --
- Chop-sticks
- High heals
- Neckties/Bow-Ties
- (Fashion industry, in general)

What processes did the above example follow? Did somebody deliberately
applied any thought/process/self expression, or, things happened by
accident?

13 Dec 2005 - 2:05pm
Jim Kalbach
2005

On 12/13/05, Gregory Petroff <greg.petroff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.
>
> Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
> exploration.
>
> Art is not the inverse of Design nor is Design the inverse of Art. Both are
> creative endeavors. And projects can have aspects that are in both camps.
>
> I am not sure the issue of compromise even need be a factor. Constraints
> are the part of a project that make it interesting but they never have to be
> seen as places to compromise. Many artists use contraints as a point of
> origin for their work. And most design innovation occurs specifically
> because there are constraints.

Right on, Gregory. Many people get this wrong, e.g. here:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/curse

Igor Stravinsky wrote in his biography: "No matter what the subject
be, there is only one course for the beginner; he must at first accept
a discipline imposed from without, but only as the means of obtaining
freedom for, and strengthening himself in, his own method of
expression."

Indeed, art (and design for that matter) is not about shaking off any
and all constraints, but instead about embracing them.

The rules for musical counterpoint in the 18th century are rigid and
complex, for instance. Yet J.S. Bach was able to create some of the
most incredible, expressive music there is. How? He mastered the
constraints of the system. And it is this mastery that we behold and
wonder when listening to his music.

Jim

13 Dec 2005 - 4:59pm
skyburn
2005

Critique, review, user test, requirements, resource planning, developer
integration, wire-frame, AI, logical model....aaarg!

There are many days with I wish I decided to be a plumber instead of a
designer...

--
Joe

13 Dec 2005 - 2:00pm
cfmdesigns
2004

"Tom Hoferek" <Tom.Hoferek at corel.com> writes:

> one way to look at things is like this:
>
>Art is design without compromise.
>Design is the art of compromise.

Design isn't "art". Design is "craft": art bowing to the demands of commodity.

(Please note: I'm not saying that as a bad thing.)
--

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Jim Drew Seattle, WA cfmdesigns at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rubberize/Weblog/index.html (Update: 11/05)

13 Dec 2005 - 6:40pm
CD Evans
2004

I think Tom's getting the closest to what I think about design.

'It is kind of like art'.

But, I actually think it is an art.

In the relationship between art and architecture, design is in the
middle. Architecture has been seen as an art for centuries, why put
design even father from art?

I think the bottom line is this: 'It takes talent'.

Not everyone can design, and especially not everyone who likes
programming.

I think the major need in this discipline comes back to the 'admission
of talent'. Without a strong belief that talent is needed for good
design, there will be endless amounts of bad design.

It's "talent", really. Every art form requires talent.

It's ok to not have talent, or to struggle with talent, but to ignore
it is dangerous. The world would be an awful place without talent.

CD Evans

On 13 Dec 2005, at 12:00,
discuss-request at lists.interactiondesigners.com wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:42:05 -0500
> From: "Tom Hoferek" <Tom.Hoferek at corel.com>
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] thoughts on design
> To: <discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com>
> Message-ID:
>
> <64EE67AFCF67384581D3B81C4B942B7203437C3C at ottmail01.corelcorp.corel.ics
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> <snip>
> I mention these (and I'm sure there are many more) to try and build off
> the idea that constraints in and of themselves while real are also
> flexible and even quite intangible at times. A great design innovates
> beyond the constraints dictated. Of course great design usually
> requires
> a lot of time to happen (or just inspired luck and serendipity).
>
> -- dave
> </snip>
>
> What you say is why I suggest that design is not simply about making
> comprimises but the art of doing so. Great designers, like those you
> mention (and many others that do get their work produced), produce work
> that appears to be without constraints, or the constraints are
> invisible
> to end users. Is it an art? I don't know if you can actually call it
> that, but it is a 'mastery' of some sort - being able to produce work
> that amazes through hard work, inspiration, luck, whatever. Kind of
> like
> art.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom

14 Dec 2005 - 12:19am
Greg Petroff
2004

Hilary,

Good Stuff. I was not trying to define boundries in anyway, but I think you
got that.

--gp

On 12/13/05, Hilary Spencer <hilary at trulia.com> wrote:
>
> Given the recent exhibitions of design in MoMA, SFMoMA, and the
> Guggenheim, in addition to many smaller galleries, I don't think a clear
> line can be drawn between design and art. The exhibits I'm thinking of
> include collections of wartime propaganda posters, a retrospective of Tibor
> Kalman at SFMoMA, and the emerging artists series at MoMA. There has also
> been a lot of hype in the art world about Ed Ruscha (his prints are now
> extremely valuable), who trained as a graphic designer, but transcended any
> supposed art/design boundary. I see whatever wall there might have been
> between the two as demolished by Marcel Duchamp. (Duchamp was one of the
> first to place everyday pieces of design in a museum and have them
> considered to be some of the greatest artworks of the 20th century.)
>
> At the risk of sounding horribly post-modern - IMHO, art is whatever the
> art world says it is and design is whatever the design world says it is (and
> it might be that the design world is more closely related with the worlds of
> marketing and business than the art world). One has a better chance of the
> art world agreeing that a particular piece is "art" when it is intended by
> the artist/creator to be "art" and the artist/creator can describe the piece
> using the current vocabulary of the art world, but in the end, there is
> nothing which is a priori art or a priori design, no matter how it is
> created. I think that counterexamples to the proposed dichotomy are not
> outliers, but the norm. Many artists are frequently trying to create things
> that push the boundaries of art and many designers try to make their work
> more artistic.
>
> Art is frequently about process, constraints, and purpose. There is an
> entire genre of art called "process art" which almost entirely discounts any
> product resulting from the creative act. Performance art may be included in
> this category, depending on who one talks to. (
> http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=234,
> http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/movement_works_Process_art_0.html).
> If one is suggesting that the process of design is distinct from the process
> of art, I would probably agree, but the ability of the final product to be
> included in either category suggests that process is not enough to
> differentiate between the two.
>
> Artists who create repetitions and variations on a theme (creating what is
> sometimes known as serial art) set extreme constraints for themselves, where
> the "purpose" of the artwork is not expressive, nor strictly
> interpretative. For example: On Kawara's date paintings (a series which
> consist solely of the date the painting was made in white lettering on a
> black background) or Josef Albers's squares (variations of different colored
> squares). (On serial art:
> http://www.alvaraalto.fi/conferences/universal/finalpapers/sandrakajiogrady.htm)
> Tom is also right on with his observation regarding the constraints
> (including fiscal constraints--many 16th century artists couldn't afford a
> true cobalt blue to use in their paintings) imposed on the great artists of
> our time.
>
> In regard to purpose, strictly speaking, anything which is intended to
> communicate anything (or even intended to stimulate thinking in an audience)
> has a "purpose". It may be more difficult to express the purpose of a work
> of art in language, but it seems to me that the foundation of art is
> partially communication loosely defined (e.g. art depends on having a
> creator and a receiver) and that any type of communication is necessarily
> purpose-driven.
>
> Design is also about self-expression, critique, interpretation, and
> exploration. I object to the proposal that art has more to do with
> self-expression. In so far that everything humans do is necessarily guided
> by the self, then sure... art has to do with self-expression. But I think
> it is wrong to think that artists are guided by some inner spirit or force
> which only finds its creative outlet in a painting or sculpture. This seems
> to be an overly solipsistic view of art.
>
> Criticism is just as important to the design process as it is to the
> artistic process. Design is about exploration of the visual and
> conceptual. It is also about interpretation. In the design process, one
> usually asks questions like 'when I place these two elements nearer
> (spatially) to each other, how does this change what we understand the
> things to be and how they relate?' A designer explores the space of
> possible interpretations one could give to something and uses criticism to
> guide him in this exploration.
>
> I'm sure my comments above do not really address what Gregory was
> attempting to say. I think his observations feel as if they are on the
> right track in part because the process, context, constraints, purpose,
> expression, critique, interpretation, and exploration of/in art seem
> different than those in design and vice versa. But this difference is
> illusory and I think it is a mistake to attempt to clearly deliminate the
> two. We can see a piece of artwork as design and a piece of design as
> artwork.
>
> On that note, are there artists who have clearly influenced your design
> (or designers who influence your artwork)? I visit museums a lot because I
> find being exposed to layout and color in different mediums (photography,
> painting) helps a lot with my UI designs. I also find that practicing art
> (I'm a photographer) helps a lot with my designs as it trains my eye. I am
> particularily enamoured of William Eggleston (for his color palette) and
> Richard Diebenkorn (for his layouts--he has this uncanny ability to create
> "space" in two dimensions).
>
> Sorry for the long diatribe--I periodically return to the question of the
> nature of art, but seem consistently unable to find an answer.
>
> Hilary
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com on behalf of prady
> *Sent:* Tue 12/13/2005 11:06 AM
> *To:* Gregory Petroff
> *Cc:* discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.co;
> discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> *Subject:* Re: [IxDA Discuss] thoughts on design
>
> [Please voluntarily trim replies to include only relevant quoted
> material.]
>
> Gregory Petroff <greg.petroff at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Design has more to do with process, context, contraints, purpose.
> >
> > Art has more to do with self expression, critique, interpretation,
> > exploration.
>
> I agree with the above statements, but how does that apply to some
> outliers(?) --
> - Chop-sticks
> - High heals
> - Neckties/Bow-Ties
> - (Fashion industry, in general)
>
> What processes did the above example follow? Did somebody deliberately
> applied any thought/process/self expression, or, things happened by
> accident?
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org
>
>

--
Gregory Petroff
Mobile # 646 387 2841

Syndicate content Get the feed