The idea of default systems defined by Rob as the “preordained settings found in common design programs… that a user (or designer) manually override” seems to be aligned with art schools intrigue of minimalism. To keep everything simple (KISS) has been a big thing in design and what the MOMA is clearly based upon. Modernity comes with simplicity is what is circling in current design. Conceptual art which Rob speaks to it being opposing from default systems seems to be somewhat accurate, however there are exception like the examples he’s posted where default systems are used as humor. This I feel to be similar to minimalism because artists who have this ability to create the art could be creating that humor. Default systems is very straight forward and so is minimalism, a stripe across a page can have no other explanation that that is is perfectly in the center of the canvas and the lines are straight; also similar to default systems where a font is a font no reasoning just so the page is clean and simple.
Month / November 2015
Class 9 Lecture — Advanced CSS
Class 8 Reading
Is it possible to make something that is universally aesthetically pleasing and at the same useful?
In my opinion, yes. Just this weekend, I watched the ‘Steve Jobs’ movie, and I guess that kind of inspired me to think that it is possible. The original models that were made by Apple, were literally bricks. And when Jobs left and made a new model, it looked like a box. However, I think that the apple computers are a good example of an object changing and improving over time, both for actual use and aesthetics. There are so many examples that I could use, and this is especially apparent on the web, which is one of the most useful aspects of our society, where literally anything is possible.
Reading response-class 8
How to design with effectiveness, but also pleasurable to the whole society?
It is very important to know what your customers want and satisfy their need with your design. In the past decade, there are many issues raised with if the current designs are sustainable. Many designers design products or concepts only focus on the current stage. They try to solve the problem in the short term, but not the long term. It is important for designer to think of their product in future. What would the product bring to society in long run? Design can affect people’s behavior and thought. It is a very powerful tool.
Designer should not only design product that make customer happy, but also make the nature environment, the society happy. It is important for designer to satisfy people’s need, but at the same time many people are not aware of many potential sustainable solutions. I think it is designer responsibility to learn how to designer sustainable, also promote the ideas to their customers. There are demands and supply in the markets. I think designer can affect both the demand and the supply from the market. Now live sustainable has become a lifestyle for many people, they eat healthy and want to be sustainable. Design should not be simply made to please or entertain people. I think it should made to surprise and to astonishing people, educate people and client a new way of thinking, hopefully is a sustainable way of thinking.
reading | pleasurable design
As designers, where do we truly find happiness?
This article features a bunch of recent works by designers that are said to be “pleasing”, or make us happy. It seems like just as futile of an attempt at exploring happiness as any other one. This has been such a trend in design themes, but not so much in art. Stefan Sagmeister focuses on exploring happiness in The Happy Show, which is an exhibition dedicated to the understanding of what makes us enjoy certain things. It features bright yellow walls smothered with infographics based off of recent studies, and endless interactivity.
There is a new concept that Art and Design have evolved into the same. However this interest in exploring happiness distinguishes the two in a big way. When have we not seen this topic explored in science or even technology? Even better, when have we ever seen this in fine art?
The understanding that happiness means the same thing to all of us, whether we are designers, artists or scientists, is false. Trying to develop universal truths about happiness will most likely not be successful.
In this article, there are no designed objects that are out of the ordinary. A book, a chair, a vase, etc. They are all purposeful and functional in their designs, but the writer finds aesthetic pleasure in each of them. Maybe you will too! It’s a pretty well-written article after all. Why is it then, that after reading I am still left wondering more about what happiness is supposed to even be?
As designers, how can we design for happiness? Is it a matter of being happy while designing? Where and when does this magic happen? The designed objects that this writer has chosen do not necessarily please me. The bias in this article is frustrating and barely legitimate rather than inspiring, because happiness is a topic that is not based off of anything close to objectivity. You could argue that science offers some studies that contribute to the greater investigation of happiness, but as a whole it is simply too subjective to form any real truths from this type of data.
This article may be fun for someone that is not aggressively pursuing design, but for a designer, these articles – regarding aesthetic pleasure and happiness – are simply not helpful. Designers may want to subvert the concept of happiness, rather than focusing on it head-on. At least in my experiences, happiness is a thing that happens exclusively while other things are happening. In the meantime, diving into deeper more substantial areas of interest may be a quicker and less maddening path to gaining true pleasure from design.
Reading Response – Class 8
What design means nowadays?
It seems that, nowadays, the word “design” is used so loosely that its meaning gets lost. It appears that everyone is a designer these days. You have engineers of all sorts that can be considered designers, architects, interior designers (as the name already shows it) are designers. Then you have graphic designers, UX designers, clothing designers and the names go on. And so, it gets to a point that when someone says “I am a designer”, it doesn’t mean anything, or even better, it means everything, therefore the person has to be more specific about what kind of designer he/she is. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, design is “the way something has been made, the way parts of something are formed and arranged for a particular use, effect, the process of planning how something will look, happen, be made”. Taking into account this definition, indeed a lot of people can be designers and create designs, because they are creating, making something. Architects are creating buildings, clothing designers, clothes, obviously, interior designers are creating nice spaces, engineers are creating products, technologies, websites and so on.
I agree with the author of “Pleasure Design” in saying that design more than make us happy, it entertains and surprises us. But, who is to say what is considered a good design? Some say that taste is personal and it cannot be discussed, in other words, it cannot be judged. Therefore, who is the judge of a good design? Maybe the design of a person is beautiful to someone and, at the same time, horrible to someone else, as it happens in many cases. It is not like a math problem with one correct solution. It has many solutions, being a very subjective matter.
Reading Response- Class 8
Do designers have a responsibility to do good?
Yes and no. I think the ability to create and the exercise of creating is positive, no matter what it is, because creating is what propels us into new realms of living. The ability to imagine and then make what before was just fantasy, is beautiful. If we continue to imagine and create worlds based on that imaginative thinking, we will continue to grow as a collective species.
This is not to dismiss the issue with designing destructive products; there are obvious concerns with 3D printing a gun or even on a greater level- making the atomic bomb. While it would be great if people chose only to design positively, the issue is not with the way people design, but with the way people think, and the power and profit that go to ideas that are negative towards the earth and other humans. Censoring ideas will do nothing but circulate more negativity and the real solution would be to foster environments and spaces that invite positivity and beauty as opposed to fantasizing destructive apparatuses.
Pleasurable Design Reading Response
Is it possible to please everybody with a design? Should that be the only goal?
It seems like a silly question, but this article argues that the goal of a design is to please its audience. If the article didn’t delve into the different ways a design can please an audience (surprising, astonishing etc.), I would consider that statement to be wrong. Design is much more then putting a pleasing pattern and image together to present. It’s much more complex.
Design is meant to evoke some sort of emotion or reaction from the audience. Trying to please everybody would render designs meaningless—they would be “pleasing” to look at, but nothing would be daring or risky about them. In order to have a successful design, it’s good to anger some people. That means it gets attention and you portrayed something that received a strong response. It might not be a reliable or stable way to build a brand or design, but it would be eye-catching and interesting. Astonishing the audience is an effective way to grab their attention. Not everything in design has to be aesthetically pleasing. An artist should never be afraid to make something ugly.
Can design ever have too much functionality?
In this reading the writer mentions four ways in which design can benefit us; pleasing, entertaining, surprising, and astonishing us. In the 21st century, products have become more and more functional but the idea of having to label something to be “user friendly” makes me question if something wasn’t what is the point of that product to be put out to have users. Products in the past have only had one function, for example a cell phone just made phone calls not to surf the internet, play games, track spending habits etc. Sometimes in the world of technological development the need to have pleasure, entertainment, surprise, and astonishment in one product is a lot and almost makes something not functional and not necessarily pleasing. I do agree that some products are complicated now because of the industry and pushing to create something new, like the 3D printer, a product meant to be run by a specialist. In my experience with 3D printing it is definitely satisfying after the hours and hours of work and holds both astonishment and surprise. In conclusion, reading this article and thinking about the products that I own, it is convenient to have all these elements in one but to other generations they would not necessarily call anything “user friendly” now.
Reading Response 4
When thinking about design, it is important to think about the audience that you’re trying to reach.
The first step, establish the audience you’re trying to reach. Unfortunately, it is impossible to please everyone. We are all entitled to our own opinion, as long as it can be justified.
There are many talented people today that you may not be able to related to but that doesn’t mean that other cannot relate as well. Jack Hamilton said, “If you enjoy Macklemore, you have terrible taste in music.” Some may defended that statement, but for others, that cannot be true due to the large population of Macklemore fans, myself included. You cannot state whether someone is talented or not, it is strictly an opinion.
For me, I agree with the statement “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.