Design Ideals

I have strong ideals when it comes to design, in the sense that I believe some designs can be better or worse than other designs. This is related to my understanding that design serves a utilitarian purpose, as well as an aesthetic one. Pretty much all of the time, the purpose is some sort of communication.

In my view, designs derive their quality from the degree to which they successfully fulfill their utilitarian purpose - i.e. communicate. Personally, I think that the best designs are created when utilitarian and aesthetic elements work very closely together, even to the point of being one and the same. For example, the entire field of typography is built around making letters (a utilitarian element) look beautiful to whoever is reading them. This is elegance - an idea communicated clearly, and beautifully.

But that isn’t the point of what I’m trying to say.

What I mean to say is this: Among other artistic practices, design is regarded as relatively solved; Critics, including myself, can confidently say what is good and what is bad design. Yet I recognize that I have strong design ideals with some disappointment, because this idea of better or worse design also disturbs me. After all, design is an art form, and it doesn’t seem fair, or even possible, to directly compare the value of different works of art, right? I can’t stand hierarchies like that! I think it disturbs the part of me that is afraid of failure, afraid that what I create will land at the bottom of some stupid hierarchy. And It also disturbs the part of me that tries to keep an open mind - the part of me that remembers my opinions can change, and that my perspective is just one small, limited one in a world full of opinionated people. But of course I have seen design work that I love, and design work that I don’t, so I can’t deny there is some hierarchy present - at least within the confines of one person’s opinion. And, it seems to me that people’s opinions generally overlap on the subject of what good design looks like.

So there is a hierarchy of design. But it’s not a rigid one. It’s an opinion averaged over the entire audience. It has blurred lines, and it shifts and changes as you move from culture to culture, subculture to subculture, time to time. Some styles of design retain their hierarchical standing from culture to culture and time to time. Other styles fall sharply in and out of grace. Sometimes overtly harsh or ugly styles find short-lived popularity by capitalizing on the feelings of the time or place they are in. And sometimes, bewilderingly, these provocative styles shift the paradigm, totally redefining the hierarchy and refusing to fall out of grace.

What is good design then? Is it design that stands the test of time? Design that appeals to many different cultures and subcultures? Or is it design that causes a paradigm shift? I don’t really know. These all seem like good metrics to me. I guess you could say these are some of my ideals.

And yet, this explanation feels incomplete. Words can only go so far - and I could probably go on forever. I’ll save you the time, and encourage you to spend that time exploring other works of art instead.