To me design is some sort of clarity of vision. Clarity to the extreme. Down to the last detail. Not to be confused with cleanliness. The design process is messy. Often chaotic and surrounded by uncertainty. But nevertheless the presence of a clear vision is a sign of maturity. And it’s a sign of discipline. Discipline to control ones bursts of artistism. Discipline to not miss the moment when the joyful playfulness needs to cease and get transformed into focused production. Discipline to not allow ones over-negative critique to dominate the design conversation. It’s a discipline of emotion and sometimes even the ability to self-induce yourself into certain emotions. There’s no absolute control though.

To me design is to perpetually strive to turn ones actions and creations into a signal. It’s about avoiding the noise. It’s about using the noise on purpose. It’s about formulating and following manifestos. It’s progressive, experimental in it’s core. It requires thought unencumbered with fixed believes. It is a non-stop challenging of the status quo.

The mind of the designer is built around sound theoretical foundations. Some of them… Others are totally unstable. Unproved. Designer’s mind is a work in progress. Fueled by the eagerness of self-improvement and even more by the desire to make things better for people… Somehow even when the designer is unreachable to the spotlights I imagine her/him as being impressive.

…And being expressive. The lack of theoretical foundations means lack of argument. To me this is a verdict for being reactive - it means having a single choice and be oblivious for the alternatives.  It’s a verdict for ignorance. These foundations in a way are an ability to communicate. An ability to discuss and analyze or just consider options. It is about forming a hypothesis, making an experiment. It’s about getting into the feedback loop. Then update the hypothesis or formulate new ones.

I would avoid questioning designer’s technique. I believe this is something the designer should grant by default. Lack of technique means lack of practice. It’s a signal for immaturity (not to be confused with lack of potential). It means not knowing your tools and language. It is often a deficit in expressiveness.

Taste is important. Subjective prism refracting the rays of aesthetics. Often taste is a deep understanding of the roots. Of the sources and evolution of things. It is knowing about the rationale behind them. All this should be intuitively sensed and recognized by the designer.

To me design should be holistic. It is rarely about building a single thing. It is about bringing it in the context of many things. It’s about minding the context. It’s thinking about systems of things.

Somehow in my life and work I feel this hunger to allow being influenced by a strong designer.

This post is tagged Design