-- One more articulate than I

Chomsky noted that requirements of concision typically ensure that nothing new can be said.

I don't know if I can say much in 100 words, but I'll try. Nice exercise, btw:

We design appearances, objects, histories, tools, communities, economies, families, dwellings, sentences, art, etc. The study of how and why is the study of Design. Design Studies is the new study of human rationality, avoiding the rigid connotation of “rationality”, resolving all factors in human creation: the “subjective”, “social”, and “communicative” along with and not in opposition to the “objective.”

Perfect design is achieved when nothing more can be added, nothing taken away. But good design is not always perfectible by addition or subtraction.

It can take a lifetime to arrive at a state where design comes in an instant.

Like love, great design is immediately apprehensible. You know it when you see it.

Design is not decoration.

Calvin noted, I know life's not fair, but why can't it ever be unfair in my favour?!

I do work that helps make the selling game "unfair" in my clients' favour.

-

I only work for clients that I can believe in. My joy in my work is to help build their success. I have little desire to do personal work. My soul goes into my professional work. This leads me to make:

Stuff that's pretty

appropriate to its use, out standing, well-crafted.

Stuff that sells

It has to work hard and effectively for my clients.

Stuff that suprises

It must grab the eye & give it a reason to linger. It should have depth.

Stuff that hasn't been done before

at least in the context that I am doing it.

-

* & Hobbes, not John

"Harmonize, then customize."

-Wilson Pickett

We give ideas form.

Somewhere inside my head as I click away... If I'm not (slightly) uncomfortable with the design, I need to push harder—otherwise I've probably seen it somewhere else already.

Design is a solution

i'm just a man, trying to make a living.

Address your audience as individuals. No one ever thought of themselves as a consumer or as part of a demographic. Design, advertising, its all art--treat it as such. It's not about style, its not about content, its just about revealing a truth we already knew but have not yet articulated.

But most importantly...enjoy the fuck out of it. Too many people in this business take it way too seriously. And if money is your primary objective, please stop designing and get ye an MBA. Personally, the only drive to make money for me is to sustain the work (and myself. I guess). But, the only way I do good work is if I'm enjoying my life.

I like what Hillman Curtis says: Making the invisible visible

I find that it is easy to forget that much of design is collaborative, a negotiation and that I am only part of the process of developing a solution.

Norman Foster, the architect once said in an essay in 1969 -

"In many ways, the design process is probably one of our cheapest commodities. It allows us the scope to explore many alternatives and possibilities before making any commitment in reality. All too often, however, it is the subject of short-cuts; an unnecessary fringe benefit to which lip service is occasionally paid, or a luxury for those prestige occasions. The results we suffer surround us, and the loss at all levels is entirely our own."

Since that is a bit longer than 100 words - here's something shorter he said in his AIA Gold Medal address -

"But design is not a fashionable 'ism': it is born out of the needs of people."

And as Bradley says, I agree wholeheartedly - got to enjoy it, so I choose projects that I want to work on.

I kind of go by "Work hard, be strong, play nice." I also aspire to "Good ideas done beautifully" but the point really is to always always always aspire to better and better work. Also, I think the degree to which one basks in praise is the exact degree to which one is pained by criticism or indifference. Never put too much stock in either, since both are subjective, fickle,and often misguided. Also, never believe what you read on blogs.

listen with your soul.

conceptualize with your mind.

design with your heart.

follow your gut.

Do not follow the rules

I can say it in four words:

Work your ass off.

Design is a playfuly kind of work.

—Charles Eames

"You need to build an army, before you can go to war"

- Andrew Pollak

War, huh? That's a serious analogy, albeit a strategic one.

My current favorite comes from Andy Clark:

'Everything leaks'

1. Listen

2. Make it better.

Create objects of affection as a means of communication.

Everything is design, but design is not everything.

I am not sure if I have a philosophy, I just do stuff. I get to it. I don't hesitate. I simply make. Trial and error. Victories and losses. Crap and no crap. I follow my gut and instinct, wherever that takes me… sometimes it's to the deli downstairs for a chocolate chip cookie. I just let it be and what comes, comes, what doesn't, well, doesn't. I compromise, otherwise it would be an endless battle where the only loss will be mine. I simply do. Because I love to.

I guess I do have a philosophy.

Armin -

umm... that's not quite a philosophy.

It's a series of events.

"Stress? You draw on a computer all day."

Whatever works.

It's a metaphor Kingsley. Think about it…

Learn what the story is about, find that one thing, that one essential truth, and then tell it. If no one remembers, if no one cares, if no one acts on it, you failed. Whether or not people like it is beside the point. That, however, does not excuse schlocky or insulting work. You gotta have guidelines.

stop using cool grey 9

(it's been my color of choice a little too much lately)

Armin : I simply do. Because I love to.

Love is not a series of events. But, Armin, why don't you elaborate on these last two sentences.

This is a great topic: one that I have thought about a lot in the past few years.

First off, I agree whole-heartedly with the pragmatic approach stated by Jeff G and the wonderfully intuitive and personal perspective of Bryony.

But I think that the Andy Clark quote "Everything leaks" offered by M Kingsley, in a way, comes closest to my own feelings about design in that I feel that everything is much more interconnected than humankind routinely considers.

For me, Modernism/Structuralism seems too simplistic and reliant upon the myth of universal rationalism and logic. Postmodernism/Post Structuralism/Deconstructivism seems too self-referencial, self-indulgent, and overly concerned (obsessed) with debunking Modernism. And I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with different aspects of each paradigm. Moreover, both of these philosophical perspectives are too anthropocentric, still validating the Descartian view of "mind over matter" or the artificial separation of human beings from the processes of nature.

So, now that I have quickly framed my forthcoming statement (and kinda cheated, in a way) I will now give a brief description of a design theory I have been developing called Organic Multiplicity.

Organic Multiplicity is based upon three dynamically interconnected principles: natural systems, complexity, and context (conditionality/subjectivity). To be more specific: processes within nature are intrinsic to the processes within design, as design is a manifestation of life and the human spirit; embracing non-linear complexity rather than linear, reductionist simplicity as a way of viewing and engaging in the world; and, the important role of conditionality and subjectivity within the design process, namely that form may follow function, but context changes everything. Each of these principles is conditional and recursive to the other two. These relationships can also be understood as the self within a subset of local complexity, within the backdrop of universal phenomena.

Steven. Prolific. Although exceeding our 100-word limit, I'm happy to see somebody take your approach. This relates very closely to what a mentor told me once, "Nobody can own design. It's part of human nature."

> stop using cool grey 9

Ginny -- try cool grey 10 or go wild, and take it to 11. They're completely different.

Sorry, too buried today to contribute anything more than snarky comments.

Though I will offer this recent headline/quote from The Onion:

"Just discovered: Dolphins have evolved opposable thumbs. "Oh, shit." cries humanity."

Back to the quarry...

Whew.

Jason -

This is Armin's 'series of events' I'm refering to:

I just do stuff. I get to it. I don't hesitate. I simply make. Trial and error. Victories and losses. Crap and no crap. I follow my gut and instinct, wherever that takes me… sometimes it's to the deli downstairs for a chocolate chip cookie. I just let it be and what comes, comes, what doesn't, well, doesn't. I compromise, otherwise it would be an endless battle where the only loss will be mine.

It gives me the impression that Armin lets events of the world determine his fate -- probably the farthest thing in our minds from a definition of a designer. His willingness to compromise suggests there isn't a 'gold standard' that he's willing to fight for -- be it Modernism, hand-done type, making sure people get paid properly, hiding 'Ninas' in illustrations, whatever...

Given his commitment to free-flowing and open discourse on Speak Up, I know this is not the case. His love for design is not the question -- it's his philosophy.

Philosophy is comprised of etchics, aesthetics, metaphysics and epistemology (the study of HOW you know); and is usually more of a speculative than observational method. We can have a philosophical insight going downstairs to get a cookie -- but getting the cookie is not a philosophical act.

So Armin -

I'm obviously not getting the metaphor. I suspect you're flirting with some kind of Buddhist thing-a-ma-jig, but don't want to put words in your mouth. Please spell it out for dummies like myself.

SIMPLISTIC COMPLEXITY�

Ah Crap... sorry, I wasn't 100% into writing today, but I did write what I wrote for a reason, so let's see:

I just do stuff. I get to it. I don't hesitate. I simply make.

I guess that is the basic. I do. I do logos, packages, web sites, whathaveyou. I don't question the client's motives, I do question how to get there but I don't bitch and moan about how they are making a big mistake because they are printing a brochure 2-color instead of 4-color plus metallic and spot varnishes. If the need arises I try to convince, but I don't let stuff like that impide the process. I just do it.

Trial and error. Victories and losses. Crap and no crap.

As much as I enjoy doing great stuff I don't mind failing from time to time, it reminds me that I'm young, sometimes naive and many times, well, wrong.

I follow my gut and instinct, wherever that takes me… sometimes it's to the deli downstairs for a chocolate chip cookie.

I should have probably just written this. I let my instinct guide me. Yes, within the constraints of the project, of course. You could say it is the event of the worlds that guide me… at least the events in my daily life. It is impossible to separate, at least for me, the personal from business. So one day, I'll eat a chocolate chip cookie and design a wonderfully retro-stylized logo and the next day I'll have a caesar salad and do a bauhaus-influenced logo.

I compromise, otherwise it would be an endless battle where the only loss will be mine.

That doesn't mean I don't have standards. It means that I work with the client not against him. I know many, many designers that get so fucking upset because the client asks them to change the type from 7 pt to 12 pt. The end-result is about them, not me. The process, to me, is what is fulfilling.

I simply do. Because I love to.

Um, well I love design, that's why I do it.

> but getting the cookie is not a philosophical act.

Well, you obviously haven't tasted the deli downstairs' cookies.

I should have just gone with something like Giny's: Stop using Filosofia.

Jason-

Thanks for the compliment. My theory is still very much a work in progress; but I am encouraged with how things are coming along.

This relates very closely to what a mentor told me once, "Nobody can own design. It's part of human nature."

Design (in the broader meaning), when considered anthropologically as a component within the toolmaking process, is indeed a part of human nature and our evolution.

And yeah, my official statement was ten words over. But hey, rules are meant to be bent.

Steven,

Cool. I will read through your theory as soon as I get a chance, because this seems right in line with what I am interested in. Are you open to criticism? Plan on publishing?

Are you open to criticism?

I am open to criticism. In order for my ideas to have relevancy and value, they need to be challenged. My attitude all along has been: "nothing ventured, nothing gained." It's the unavoidable consequence of presenting a thoery.

Plan on publishing?

Yeah, I'd like to eventually publish a nice, beautiful, weighty book; or even a thinner one for that matter. But, while I think I have a good basic structure, I'm still very much in a research and development mode with developing a requisite amount of depth. In the meantime, I've got my site to self-publish my "in-progress" ideas.

To be frank, in a perfect world, I would love to publish my theory and methodology in a MFA thesis. However, I'm more immediately and practically concerned with trying to buy a house and start a family. Then later I can figure out how to afford the tuition and be a full-time student. Anyway, in the interim, I can still research and write and keep myself moving forward toward that eventual goal.

I'll go through your theory tonight and respond to it as soon as I can. Should I post my comment here or send you an e-mail?

Seems that we are in very similar situations. I could have written your last post myself.

Tom, if Steven is cool with it, you can post your opinion about it here. Perhaps then we can all share our thoughts on it.

I'm with Armin, this is as good a forum as any for discussion / critique.

OK, the people have spoken, and knowing a bit more about Steven's beliefs I would imagine he'll be fine with it.--I'll put it out while it's still hot--I have to get some sleep and might be out for a day or two. I hope there are some more theorists out there willing to hop in.

It's long, but hey, it could have been longer. I deleted about 75% of his text. Check out his website if you're interested in it. It looks nice, much nicer than mine.

And note please that if a paragraph starts with an arrow (>) those are Steven's words, from his Organic Multiplicity site.

Hi Steven,

I’ll let you know a bit about myself first. I like to think of myself as a "design theory savage"; partially because I am too young and inexperienced to be welcomed into the "design discourse". I would like to be part of it, and yet at the same time, I see that once you are in it, certain systemic forces control what you say, and certainly if you have a prestigious degree and a good job, you are more careful about exploring too far off the beaten path. So I’m actually just a beginner, but I prefer to think of myself as CHOOSING to stay in the margins, developing an innocent and perhaps more true or at least unique perspective on things. The longer I do this the more I can develop a unique theory on my own, unlike anything I would be taught in school (I do have a BA in Graphic Design though). I’d also like to explore the extent to which a person like me really lacks a voice or even an "existence" because of the power structures of discourse. I would love to prove that someone who just has a good argument could make a difference, but I don’t think this is the case.

My belief is that theory can actually help us understand ourselves and the world (which is fairly obvious), and it can help us become better designers (a claim that most people disagree with). I believe we should resort to theory when common language isn’t adequate. I disagree with the approach of creating a new self-referential language that doesn’t say anything significant, but sounds really smart. Theorists are in danger of doing this, because it can be effective in gaining power over other people. Design theorists are especially likely to do this because they are so saturated with the concept that image is everything. This "dramaturgical action" as Habermas calls it (in reference to the work of Erving Goffman) is a non-communicative form of rational action which treats people as objects to be manipulated through controlled self-expression. It lacks sincerity, which is a major condition for mutual understanding.

My own research on what I call "neomodernism" involves mainly Habermas, but I’m starting to include a lot more influences, as well as many of his influences as I begin to understand him and where he comes from more. Some of my musings are at Link, but the site is more like a personal collection than a public presentation like yours.

I’ve pasted all the text from your website into my word processor and I’ll go through and give you my reactions. The response is more haphazard than holistic, and is possibly nit-picky because of that, but it may be the only serious way to go about it. I’m sure if I step back and try to take your perspective, I can sort of understand what you’re trying to say, but it does no good to just agree on a gist and not rigorously examine the basis. When I take this nit-picky approach with others I am usually told that I am not "seeing the forest for the trees"; then of course all I can do is say "yeah I guess I kind of agree", or not, but then discussion quickly dies. It dies because we have agreed to take the basis for granted, which is exactly what theorists do not do, in opposition to all of those "regular people" who do.

The only thing I apologize for is the quality of the writing. And for it’s brevity. If we were to make each of our points as a 100 page thesis, they might carry more weight in the design discourse. Which is also to say that we too are neglecting the basis to an extent. As you say, let’s just get the ideas out and not worry that we don’t have all the academic minutia. On the other hand, as the above paragraph said, minutia is all there is to theory. Somehow we need to find a middle way so that we can have a stimulating and productive exchange without resorting to professionalist absolutism.

Another way to look at it would be to say that even academics must take certain things for granted; they are just more rigorous about citing the relative sources of those assumptions.

(I’ve been dying for someone to rip my theories apart. Not because I can’t on my own, but because he or she might see something, a challenge, that I don’t. Generally, though, when you�re a savage, you�re not entitled to an opinion and you will be ignored by people smart enough to critique you. For them to acknowledge you would be to give you power, a voice, which they naturally struggle to keep for themselves. They seem to ignore you because you don’t have the minutia, and then if you give them the minutia they will tell you it’s too boring! So I�ve been told.)

>For me, Modernism/Structuralism seems too simplistic and reliant upon

>the myth of universal rationalism and logic.

I agree. I can understand this reaction: since you are looking for a philosophy to go by, you have to reject modernism outright because it has been overcome. In my research, I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how philosophical modernism (from the Enlightenment on) is connected to artistic modernism (from probably not much earlier than the beginning of the 20th century.) What do we mean by modern art and how is it connected to Enlightenment thought? There is an incredible interest in rationality, monological thought, and utopianism in the early 20th century art movements, and I wonder why artistically it came so long after the philosophical shifts.

Linking modernism to structuralism (instead of a broader connection with the Enlightenment), makes for some much easier interpretation! More has been done to link design with the work of Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Freud and Marx. Come to think of it, Nietzsche, Freud and Marx may be the only modernists I need for my theory…

Modernism is Simplistic, yes. But I also think your understanding of Modernism might be too simplistic as well. It’s a very complicated thing, and it may not even actually "exist" as anything significant beyond our interpretations. We can’t package it up as if it is a philosophy to be selected from among others. It is history. It’s not even an option. It’s not even easy to define, and consists of so many different "modernisms".

Beyond that, I think we need to work on creating a better understanding of "rationality" that is not based on a universal logic. It seems to me impossible to "reject rationality" as so many claim the postmodernists have. Habermas calls it a per formative contradiction-- you can’t argue without assuming that argument leads toward truth, and you can’t rationally argue in order to undermine rationality (although you can undermine particular conceptions of rationality, and this assumes a greater, intersubjective rationality.)

>Postmodernism/Post Structuralism/Deconstructivism seems too self-referencial, self-indulgent, and overly concerned (obsessed) with debunking Modernism.

I happen to love the insights of postmodernism. They are true. I think of modernism as constructive, postmodernism as deconstructive. To find the balance between them is to find a balance between absolutism and relativism. Imagine a screen with one pixel. The structuralist turns it either on or off. Such a simplistic and absolutist image, either black or white. The deconstructionist breaks the pixel into parts, so there are more pixels. The modernist can continue absolutizing things and flipping binaries, but as he works with the deconstructionist the screen becomes more and more high-defnition, and the modernist has a more intelligent space in which to construct much more beautiful, changeable, fluid, but still meaningful images. And the deconstructionist is a very important part of that process. That analogy just came to me; it could be written better but maybe you get my point? Both drives are necessary.

>And I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with different aspects of each paradigm.

Precisely why a coalescent position needs to be found, taking the good from modernism and the good from postmodernism, mutually correcting the bad parts. I think of Neomodernism as "constructive and progressive like modernism but corrected by the relativity consciousness of postmodernism."

>Moreover, both of these philosophical perspectives are too anthropocentric, still validating the Descartian view of "mind over matter" or the artificial separation of human beings from the processes of nature.

OK. I think modernism has this problem much more than postmodernism. Although in each, drives toward a natural process of nature can be seen. Hegelianism seems very natural-process-oriented to me. What I understand of Foucault on discourse seems to be based on the inability for actors to exert even mind because of these processes.

Besides that, I am very interested in how a process-of-nature guy like yourself can avoid the charge of assuming a universalist logic. Determinism has been my criticism of both systems theory in general and systems level rationality in graphic design, possibly because I don’t thoroughly understand systems theory; perhaps I am still thinking at a simple level, but complexity vs. linearity only seems to make determinism complex as opposed to linear.

Now, since your website is not linear and my e-mail is, I will probably be viewing these entries in an order that could not occur if I was naturally exploring your site. I hope it doesn’t cause any major problems for my interpretation of your thought.

I like the way you are exploring prior to academicizing it. It seems to me that the unimaginativeness of the average thesis has to do with professionalism. As you probably can already tell, seriously grounding your theory according to the strictest academic requirements would be a very big task, because it is so abnormal. No wonder people pick theses with a very minor point or twist--that’s all that discourse easily allows.

I like the fact that you are stressing others involvement. This gets you out of the monological, armchair method of speculation of Descartes, out of the "philosophy of consciousness" as Habermas calls that limited conception of rationality. Your website is an example of an idea I had recently ("book idea" post on point.blogs.com .) The idea is that a cooperative attempt should be made by design theorists to really produce a grand theory of design. It should attempt to incorporate everyone’s point of view in one way or another, either by modifying the theory or being convinced of the superiority of a paricular argument. This has not been done in design, although it is the general purpose of academic writing to contribute to such a theory. No design journal has been able to maintain a focus and make significant progress in an intersubjective way. We generally see a bunch of articles that never refer to each other, because we do not yet have a real professional discourse.

>Three Essential Principles

- Natural systems as design process In other words, processes within nature are intrinsic to the processes within design, as design is a manifestation of life and the human spirit.

This seems pretty natural. I’m looking forward to seeing more specifics about what you mean exactly.

>- Complexity over simplicity As we gain a greater scientific and holistic understanding of ourselves and our earthly and heavenly environment, we are drawn to the realization of the subtly complex and interconnected nature of ourselves and the universe around us.

The first principle seems like the "way things are", and this second principle seems to be the "way things (should?) go", if I might try to simplify this for myself as I move through.

>- Context changes everything The contextual and subjective relationships within the design process are as influential in the creation of the final solution as any pragmatism or logic.

This seems like a restatement in a way. I’m wondering if I can understand the distinctions between these three principles: whether I can grasp the grand plan that you are trying to set up here. I’m missing something about the way they interrelate. I’ll read on.

>In other words, form may follow function, but context changes everything.

Sure. It is possible to collapse context and subjectivity into the model of systems, but I’m glad you’re making the distinction. Still, they are not exempt from being in the system, if design processes include all functionalism as well as subjectivity and context. I’m interested in how you can make this distinction profitable…how does the distinction make a difference besides further differentiating between various aspects of the process? How exactly will our deepened understanding of these processes make things better? And do we have any choice as to whether we do that or not?

>Interconnected Relationships

These three principles of Organic Multiplicity do not exist as independent concepts; but rather, each principle is conditional and recursive to the other two. These relationships exist in a state of dynamic interconnectedness, which can be visualized as three overlapping spheres of influence.

Can this overlap be shown visually? I imagine that all these spheres cover everything, in which case there is hardly a distinction, besides vertically. If we imagine that there is some point at which all three spheres meet, is that preferable to a point where only one sphere exists?

>Alternatively, the relationship of each principle may also be considered as a concentric subset of the other two. The concentric model is most useful when considering context as a subset of complexity, which is a subset of natural systems. This relationship can also be understood as self as a subset of local conditions, within the backdrop of universal phenomena.

Ah… ok… I am thinking of this model in relation to Habermas’ model of three worlds. There is the subjective world of the individual actor, the social world of normative relations, and the objective world of empirical fact. When you say backdrop of universal phenomena I am assuming that you have an all inclusive picture of all matter and non-material "things". But it also brings to mind the phenomenological concept of the life world (sort of a background of possibility from which all experiences emerge.

>Methodology

As it pertains to Organic Multiplicity, the process of design can be understood as defining a conceptual ecosystem within a given contextual landscape, which is defined by the complexity of local conditions, which exist within larger, universal systems.

Ok, I see that here you have located "organic multiplicity" within this model. I’m also realizing that my question as to the distinction between the first three principles has been answered, although to the best of my ability I can only try to translate it into something like the three-world model. When you mention a conceptual ecosystem and I translate the rest, I wonder whether by "conceptual ecosystem" you are speaking of the designer.

>These relationships give a greater opportunity for relevancy and depth of expression than the simplicisticly limited statement of "form follows function." With respect to the collaborative process of working with clients and vendors, the creation process can be thought of as "solution building."

Can we say that the clients and vendors exist as local conditions? If not, I’m not following.

>Significant Opportunities

In relation to the practice of design, the theory and methodology of Organic Multiplicity is a more holistic, contextual, and pluralistic way to engage in creative endeavor than what can be found in last-century Moderism or Post-Structuralism/Deconstructivism. Organic Multiplicity attempts to bring greater understanding, connectivity, and relevance to the design process. But most importantly, Organic Multiplicity strives to give humankind the tools we shall need to overcome the challenges of our collective future

How so, exactly?

>To get a better understanding of Organic Multiplicity, it is useful to examine the theory's essential two components: design's relationship to natural processes and the imperative of contextual relevance. These two aspects of Organic Multiplicity represent a holistic approach to understanding and practicing design.

The two components relationship to design can be understood as being the external and internal, or on a personal level, the body and the mind.

I like this. Your use of external and internal seems familiar to me, because I have sensed a similar dynamic. I have been sketching out models of this externality and internality myself, although I have been focusing on the development of constraints to and meaning of form in relation to these. There are external factors of ideology, technology, and economy that provide limits to the possibilities of what can be done. Within this sphere of possibility is personal creation, outside of it is the context which shapes it. The possibility of world disclosure on both fronts, internal and external, is a major part of my theory, because designers typically take the externals for granted. To open up argumentation is to offer an opportunity for designers to press on the external front, disclosing new possibilities for meaning and breaking through the ideological constraints which limit the possibilities of form. But I digress…

>Natural processes refers to the external aspect of design. Economic, social, cultural, and environmental forces induce adaptation mechanisms whose expression are determined by one's innate abilities. The contextual imperative refers to the internal aspect of design and the importance of understanding the subjective relationships and dynamics that exist within the contextual landscape of a project. Together, these relationships create an embracing and gestalt vision of the practice of design.

Maybe I don’t digress! This sounds very familiar to me. Except for the language of systems theory. Habermas by the way has done a lot to integrate systems theory into his work as a result of his debates with Niklas Luhmann. When he’s in systems theory mode, I still don’t really understand him. When I read you I feel like I’m reading Luhmann (although I’ve never really read Luhmann to any extent…he’s tough, and not much has been translated.) Maybe our debate could be as productive, or perhaps a study of their debates would be productive for both of us. Luhmann has a book on the Mass Media that you might be interested in as a starter. It is fairly easy.

>Given an understanding of the fundamental aspects of Organic Multiplicity, subsequent understandings and extrapolations can then be made.

Integrating nurturance and growth into the practice of design will enable us to evolve in a constructive and positive fashion, as well as promote growth and enrichment in our clients and peers.

Where does nurturance and growth come from? That came out of nowhere for me.

>By embracing inclusion and pluralism, we create a more open and less divisive professional environment. And since Organic Multiplicity does not promote a specific aesthetic or style, designers are given greater freedom to express themselves. Lastly, by finding our own inherent creative sensibilities, we are better able to grow and evolve in ways that leverage our native creative strengths.

I also agree with your theory that the theory itself should not promote a specific style. Not only because it is too simplistic to say "only red, yellow and blue", and not only because it’s been done and it always has ridiculous consequences, and not only because it is impractical, but mainly because I believe style carries with it the residue of the ideology that creates it. A commandment to follow a certain style which has not organically grown out of free and undistorted intersubjective argumentation is not only lacking in depth of meaning, but productive of design which promotes a perpetuation of this lack of meaning and orientation toward mutual understanding. It is design which discourages free discussion of human desires and rational action. I’ve always thought this about Neomodernism--that it cannot be dictatorial about style. The new philosophy of design must move above and beyond the realm of form. Habermas says something like "the more abstract our agreements become, the more we can nonviolently disagree in the world."

>By allowing for a more inclusive understanding of design, Organic Multiplicity brings a sense of cohesiveness and neutral understanding to the multitude of frequently conflicting design theories. Old-school Modernism, Deconstructivism, Post-Modernism, Vernacularism, Brand Speak, and others all have their kernel of relative truth. Yet, each of these theories tends to fall apart when applied in a universal manner to all endeavors.

Excellent point. A few days ago, I realized that the new design theory won’t state "pluralism is good" in a simplistic way. It will allow for pluralism and yet try to make sense of it all.

Now I’m wondering why you use the term Organic Multiplicity… It seems idiosyncratic, and I’m still not connecting it semantically to the process of design.

>In relation to the culture of design, Organic Multiplicity creates a more relevant, less divisive, environment in which designers can conceptualize and practice design, without sacrificing their group affiliations or distinct individuality.

How is this accomplished. Your system supposedly describes the world. Nothing has changed now that you’ve revealed this to us, except for that fact that we have this model of the world. Are you saying that this mental model of the world makes people less divisive? I’m not sure it follows. From your theory I get the sense that I am in a system of natural processes, and I feel and have always felt that my aggression toward inferior beings is quite natural (tongue in cheek). If we don’t sacrifice our group affiliations or distinctive identity, how do things change, exactly? Relatively, everything stays the same. We might understand the Absolute truth that you have given, but relatively, everything stays the same. If we lapse into mysticism here it is no good. Certainly something must change in the actual world, other than our attitude toward it….And if our attitude changes, what systemic changes could be predicted?

>Since Organic Multiplicity is concerned with contextual appropriateness, it does not have a unilateral construct or signature style. Designers can express and align themselves in any manner that they deem appropriate to the creation of a viable solution.

Hitler had a great solution for the Jews. Your theory endorses it. You have no basis for critique.

>Most importantly, Organic Multiplicity strives to be a system of understanding and practicing design that integrates and harmonizes with the systems and cycles of nature, rather than the abstract and isolated notions of human ambition and arrogance.

I am rethinking your identification of design processes with natural processes. It is a serious possibility, and I fall into it myself very often, that your philosophy will lapse into mysticism because of its inability to differentiate various spheres of rationality. By collapsing the world of subjectivity (claims of sincerity) and the world of social reality (claims of appropriateness) into the world of objective fact (claims of truth), you are leaving open the possibility that people will confuse "interrelatedness" with a false conception of causality. A "holistic" worldview that does not distinguish between these various spheres is called by Habermas a "mythical" one… one that has not yet even become "modern".

This is a problematic that I am very concerned with for my own theory. One of my main influences is Nagarjuna, a Buddhist philosopher. I take from him the idea of resolving dichotomy and finding a middle way between absolutism and relativism. However, his philosophy does not constitute a modern worldview, and Buddhism, particularly Tibetan Buddhism, indeed confuses the spheres of rationality and often resorts to magic and oracles. In some cases, these practices can be made sense of. In other cases, they are dangerously ignorant.

I put that concern out there without any further explanation, because I am only beginning to wrap my mind around it myself. I believe there is some validity to it, because I find when I conflate truth and rightness and sincerity, my philosophy lapses into a word game which CAN make sense on a certain level and CAN have insight, but does not constitute serious research or theoretical rigor.

>The continuation and advancement of our species will be contingent upon the sustainable nurturance of our environment, rather than conquering and consuming resources.

Issues like these require a deep engagement with economy and politics as well. To what extent can we control processes of consumption?

I am deleting small portions of your text if I have nothing to say, since I’m running out of time.

>Until modern times, we have always struggled to survive within a challenging and hostile environment, filled with creatures and environments beyond our complete control. As such, the traditional relationship to our world has always been confrontational. We desired to conquer and tame nature, in order to build a more hospitable and accommodating environment, suitable to our liking and ease.

With the advent of industrialism and modernism, humankind gained the ability to tame our environment. We have proven ourselves to be quite adaptive and have we have spread ourselves widely upon the planet, consuming and manipulating nature as we go. But we have failed to fully realize or appreciate our interconnectedness and dependence to the very natural systems we have chosen to combat.

I like the description here. My theory differs from yours in that it sees world-domination as a limited form of instrumental rationality, to be corrected by a focus on sincere and undistorted communication (which of course includes a concept of interconnectedness.) My philosophy thus includes an imperative to critique the systematic distortion of communication, which is seen as a major threat to humanity.

I also think that I might disagree with you on another fundamental point: our relation to the physical world is very naturally exploitative. We use the world because as part of a physical system, we need to survive. There shouldn’t be anything inherently wrong with performing teleological actions. it is this attitude of domination creeping into human (and maybe animal) relations that is disturbing, especially when people are being bought and sold and made slaves and given no say in matters.

>we will be able to create a truer form of modernism, more contextually appropriate to realities of the current condition of humanity.

A neo-modernism? ;)

>Forced to thrive in a closed, finite system, industry will be required to develop sustainable methods of production and consumption, within an economic environment of nearly uniform labor costs and globally interconnected financial systems and institutions.

That is a too-utopian prediction. I see no reason why the increased global communications will produce a leveling out of class. You are missing a huge aspect of communication: that it can be and IS systematically distorted to a very great degree. Your prediction is the projected result of a really transparent society full of respectful people… but the truth is that the gap between rich and poor is widening due to MORE distortion of communication through mass media. Your theory is lacking a realistic view of the communication community and the dynamics involved. Real argumentation where the better argument actually wins on its own merit is very very rare. Usually authority and money is the bearer of truth.

But I am beginning to see how much your theory is focused on sustainability, and that is an honorable goal. It is an important topic which I have not been able to incorporate directly into my theory so far.

I read the rest of your writings. I like the attempts to apply theory to practice, but it all remains a bit vague, as you surely know ("jeez, i told you it wasn't finished yet..."). The only reason I’m not responding to everything is because I am running out of time. My theory is the same way, a bit vague but promising. I’m hoping with persistence will come clarity, and with clarity some deep conviction for change. Good luck with your project and feel free to write me anytime.

Tom

Make it stick.

1. The individual is king. All progress, all creativity, all new ways of seeing and doing come from the human mind and what it is capable of doing.

2. The world is black and white. The only shades of gray that exist are those that we create. There is a right, there is a wrong, there is a best, there is a not-as-good. Universal logic exists too--a 1 is not a 0, a light switch is either on or off., there is no "kind of" or "in between." This isn't simplistic; if you look at things from all angles, eventually you'll simplify the situation...everything can be broken down to a 50/50, eventually.

3. The work is all that matters. All the theories and intellectualizing and philosophical talking in the world amount to nothing without actual creations. Brilliant thinking not executed is completely worthless. It's the work that counts, its the solutions that have REAL value, and making the work as strong as humanly possible is the only sane option--anything else cheats your audience and it cheats your client. There's a difference between personal vision and personal preferences; sometimes the two do not overlap. Adhere to your vision; if that vision includes lying or harming people, its wrong.

Tom & Steven--

What are you guys getting at? I don't want to come off as a narrow-minded solutions-only focused jackass, but through all the -isms and multi-syllabic words, at the end I find myself asking "what now?"

Look at it this way: Marshall McLuhan wrote volumes before publishing The Medium is the Massage, which took a grand total of 27 minutes to read (some critic timed it, and he was right). No one really knew who he was or what he was saying until the simplified (drastically simplified) version of his thinking came out.

I guess the main issue I take with the theory is the complexity of simplicity angle...this is something you either get or you don't. Very specific example--typographically, your readability improves the more consistent you keep your margins, leading, and point size. Similarly, limiting the number of faces (or "voices") helps too. Or colors--a successful photograph tends to be monochromatic, or at least keeps things in the same value range or chroma. The more simplified you keep your presentation, the more explosive the ideas will be--and perhaps this is what you mean, putting a value on sharpened, hyped-up mental activity.

But honestly, I don't know. I'm trying to see what you're getting at, and I know for a fact that it practical application has infinitely more value than theoretical contemplation.

Design philosophy is very, very simple. You just have to remember that what we create as designers doesn't actually exist in the physical world. Sure, there are manifestations - logos, websites, posters, etc. - but the point of all those is an emotional reaction to what was taken in by the observer. Everything else is about what kind of reaction you want.

Nice, Greg. This line of thinking follows the ideals of a German named Hartmut Esslinger--a design guru at Frog--who said, "Form follows emotion."

Sometimes the form IS the function.

...remember that what we create as designers doesn't actually exist in the physical world. Sure, there are manifestations - logos, websites, posters, etc. - but the point of all those is an emotional reaction to what was taken in by the observer. Everything else is about what kind of reaction you want.

"Form follows emotion."

Greg & Jason, thank you. Those were the two most useful (to me) comments of this entire thread. This will actually affect the way I think & work.

All y'all are crazy.

It's about communication, if it doesn't communicate it fails.

why are you making it so hard?

Well, griff. Not everyone has 20/20 vision.

Griff--

Yeah, I agree. It IS about communication.

But in terms of creating the work...some of this is useful. To each his own; I have my own guidelines (don't compromise your notion of what the solution should be, cuz you are a professional), there's best answer out there, etc etc etc. I think its good to think about what you're doing.

But its also good not to know TOO much about what you're doing too--otherwise you'll just fuck it up.

You know, I was about to say something cynical about people with academic, convoluted, �, design theories. I'm not a big believer. Most writings I read these days sound too academic to be relevant, or too esoteric to be pragmatic. That's not a slam on anyone's thoughts here -- it's just that I believe doing is always better than talking.

But then I noticed a row of books on my shelf -- Weingart: Typography, Glaser: Art is work, Cahan: I'm Almost Always Hungry, Tolleson: Wash Soak Rinse Spin.

I'm a damn hypocrit. I was taught theories in school, and have collected these books through the years obviously because I find value in reading about other's creative philosophies. In fact, come to think of it -- I've given talks about design where I've waxed on and on about how to think this, and not to do that.

But at the end -- do I believe in it? Why am I so skeptical?

Maybe it's because that as a designer, I create things by challenging the conventional. Not believing in a method. More likely to take a cynical attitude towards those with truisms about how to do what I already know how to do -- my way. Maybe that's it.

Look at that -- I just did it myself. Talked about a design theory.

Dammit.

Hey, thanks for the interest everyone. I need to take care of a few things (ya know, actually be a practicing designer; and then there are the two sets of brown eyes staring relentlessly at me for a walk) before I get back to reponding to all of your postings. As I mentioned to Tom directly, I may need a little more time (overnight) to respond to many of his points and comments.

eesh, "I believe we should resort to theory when common language isn’t adequate."

...and then born was the fruit known as: Speak Up Observer.

Tan - I think all designers have similar feelings. My philosophies are constantly changing and growing. Some times I look at the book shelf and wonder if Weingart, Glaser, Cahan, Tolleson ever later thought Man, I was full of shit when I wrote that!

Is there any fate worse than becoming a celebrity designer and living in a prison of your own persona? Having what you now realize were perhaps half baked ideas imortalized in print.

Um, did I just agree with Tan!?!? Satan must be wearing mittens today.

Bradley - I agree. I was over simplifying. Over simplifying because that is the only way I could answer the question in 100 words or less. Otherwise thousands of words would be required. I am much to lazy to take on such an endevor!

Okay, so where was I? Oh yeah.

I'm going to need to take a bit more time, like overnight, to respond to Tom's monsterous posting.

But in the meantime, I'll respond to some of the other comments.

First off, while the word "multiplicity" is a bit awkward, it is a more concise and ultimately more practical way of saying "manifold and various." So, you'll just have to adapt. Sorry.

Bradley-

My design theory should be considered as a way of understanding the practice of design in a multiplistic manner. Indeed, I consider my ideas to be both a theory and a resultant methodology.

The methodology is not really about a specific doctrine, but rather is really about networks or systems of doctrines. So there is no specific visual style; and other than promoting sustainability and evolution, there aren't any didactic and restrictive rules or processes. On a small scale, I'm hoping my theory will allow us to move beyond being monocentrically devisive and overly territorial in how we engage in design, and how humankind engages the universe, in a larger scale.

Bradley, I have to absolutely disagree with that whole B/W perspective. Not only are things different shades of grey, they're bloody every color that can be experienced. Hell, just ask a lawyer or an accountant about how definite things are. Or a referee making a call during a football game: some calls are good; some are questionable; and a few are completely off-base. Everything we feel, think, and experience is conditional to the our individually subjective conditions.

everything can be broken down to a 50/50, eventually.

I'm just not that convinced that this is the case. Certainly not from personal experience. I mean, my official statement of this thoery was 10 words over the "limit;" and yet we continue with the dialog. Hmmm. Looks like there's some "grey" right there. ;-)

The work is all that matters. All the theories and intellectualizing and philosophical talking in the world amount to nothing without actual creations.

As a practicing designer, I very much appreciate the act of creating. I very much consider myself a craftsman. I lovingly make my comps and mechanicals. I am very involved with process. So, I agree with the spirit of this statement.

But, I don't agree with the notion that the "artifact" of design is more important than the "process" of design. Process is always more important than the object. Sure, from the client's perspective and the perspective of providing a service to some entity, the object is indeed the most important part. But from the perspective of being the creator of the objects, I'm much more concerned with how I am doing, than what I'm doing. I know that there will be a multitude of objects that I will create over the course of my career. And as a doer and a maker, I'm more concerned with breadth and depth of my creativity in the longrun, rather than solely focus on the immediate. I want to be an efficient and creative participant in my craft.

the typography example you gave

Let's take this from the opposite perspective. Say you have plain text that is just poured into a layout. It's all one font, case, size, and color. The reader views it as a mass of text, with very little to reveal it's underlying structural--just columns of text.

But as you start to define headlines, subheads, bullet points, quotes, important blocks of copy, and other details through the varied use of font, case, size, color, and layout, the readability suddenly improves. So I would submit that a reasonably varied and systematic use of typography helps to define the content. I would also submit that the notion of appropriate variation or complexity would be conditional to the subjective nature of the designer's personal taste.

Tan-

Maybe it's because that as a designer, I create things by challenging the conventional. Not believing in a method. More likely to take a cynical attitude towards those with truisms about how to do what I already know how to do -- my way. Maybe that's it.

Okay first off, thanks for getting that damn Sinatra song in my head. ;-)

But seriously, being different, innovative, novel, and defying convention is very important to many creative people (and somewhat important to me). There's nothing wrong with this, as long as it doesn't become the main reason you design--to the disadvantage of the client. But hey, if you can make a good living "letting your freak flag fly," I say more power to ya!

"Form follows emotion."

I think that if you're doing work that his highly personalized or you're taking that super-emotive tactic to branding, then maybe this could be considered true. But I'm not sure that I would say this about all of the work that I do. Some designs just have to be more functional, pragmatic, and not that exciting, like forms.

I guess I also feel that there needs to be an intellectual component to what I do, for me to consider something really good. Designs that just look pretty, but don't have a deeper meaning, usually tend to go stale quickly. Really great design has a dynamic balance between intellectual and emotive concerns.

Two things I'm stewing about & I won't get any work done till I write this:

1

The current obsession with process. As a self-taught, relative newcomer to graphic design, it looks to me like a big over-correction of a past obsession with the end result. If you put productophiles on the right and processors on the left, then the right place to be is on the high road of balance down the middle in a *New Labour/Zen kinda way. If you are on your very own middle/third way, the process obsession is useless. You are already doing enough exploring side roads, enjoying serendipity, and touching your neuroses. I think the process thing can be valuable for productophiles whose work is suffering. Conversely, the end result people can pull the processors away from the fluffy bunnies at the end of the rabbit trail and help them meet some deadlines. For the rest of us in the middle these narrow extremes are positions to be ignored or useful tools, depending on the particular situation (i.e. don't be afraid of getting unbalanced for a while, just remeber how to get it back).

2

Design is not decoration. Entirely true. But design includes decoration. Decoration is good. People like and need decoration. Does anyone not have any decoration in your house? Good decoration stimulates emotion, enhances form and makes the function more enjoyable. Don't be ashamed to decorate! You are a graphic designer! You can do it better than anyone else! Get out there and decorate the world like a professional! Decorate! Decorate! Decorate! Until there is no more room for Word Clipart.

Now I shall return to designing an advert for solid marble fireplaces.

*Not a political endorsement or affiliation.

Bradley-

Organic Multiplicity can contribute to the understanding of design in two other important ways:

* Defining the nature of the designer in relation to his/her environment. If we understand the process of design as being the concentric relationship of self (context), existing within local systems/interactions (complexity), within the backdrop of universal systems/interactions (natural systems), we will be able to more deeply understand the context or environment in which we create, and therefore be more effective with how we grow and adapt to our creative challenges.

* Defining creativity in relation to an environment. By understanding a design solution as a "conceptual eco-system" existing within a "conceptual landscape," we're able to see design as a multidimensional model. Our individual creative interpretations and expressions exist within a landscape of other creative possibilities. All of these appropriate within their individual, subjective conceptual micro-environments. It's a way understanding and accepting many different ways of practicing design, so that we can move beyond entrenched beliefs and create a more meaningful dialog.

Tom-

Anon.

This has been a valuable exchange, because we have hit on many different, important theoretical issues that are relevant to the practice of design: Personal expression v. social responsibility; The complexity of the design process; The question of where design value resides; Theory v. practice; Style; Manipulation v. Communication; And Professionalism. This is just to name a few, there are probably more issues under the surface here.

Steven and I have very different approaches, so I will follow his example of responding to each of your criticisms.

Bradley-

1. While I value the individual and am deeply concerned with what I should do as one, it seems to me that all human “progress, creativity, and all ways of seeing and doing” are the result of a process of individuals interacting within society. The human community is king, and without it, the individual isn’t even possible.

2. I have to agree with Steven about the grayness of the world. Or is it grey. Even the spelling is a little gray. I understand what you are saying, though. When we make logical arguments, they are based on statements that are true or false. But I think this has more to do with the way our brains work than anything. Structuralism was based on this: it showed that if you flip one assumption into its opposite, the whole world view logically changes its structure. Poststructuralism sought to avoid giving primacy to either opposite in any formulation: life/death, true/false, man/woman, etc. The purpose of this was to make the world as gray as possible, to undermine absolutism, which is a very nice goal but seems to leave no basis for any meaning. Which is exactly what many radical postmodernists claim. Postmodern works of design follow this idea by allowing for multiple interpretations, no ultimate meaning decided by the designer (or the client, for that matter, so you can see the problem for postmodern theory in a world still full of people who think meaning is stable.)

3. To say that the material product is all that matters is a radically materialistic statement. You say that all the thinking in the world amounts to nothing without actual creation. But what about those times when thinking leads to you “think twice” about doing something. Sometimes thinking more leads to “doing” less, but what is so bad about that in a society full of people who are busy making a lot of stupid pointless things? I think that non-doing can often be an act of intentional design. I also think that thinking IS doing. It may even be “making”, as we create theories to use. How could you really separate thought from design?

Your second post raises some different issues. What Steven and I are both trying to “get at” is an understanding of all these issues. We theorize because we hate the idea of working under assumptions chosen for us. To theorize is to begin to understand, and begin to gain a freedom from, the forces that determine our actions. Theorizing makes design more meaningful, not only to ourselves, but more meaningful as an act in society.

McLuhan and Fiore’s book is influential and good because it is the product of all that previous thought and effort. You make it seem as if he should just have jumped right to the picture book, but that would not have been possible.

Again, I will stress my conviction that it is very practical to think about what we do.

Greg-

The idea that design is about strategically eliciting an emotional response (or any other kind of response, for that matter) is very troublesome to me. We claim to be experts in visual communication, not visual manipulation. If all our talk about communication is just rhetoric used to hide our real motives, then I think the goal of a theorist should be to reveal the dirty truth so that people might better understand the situation. Advertising is certainly guilty of treating people as objects to be manipulated.

At the same time, we can’t pretend that sincere communication is without emotion. I would just suggest that truthfulness is more intrinsic to a well-considered philosophy of design. This is why I became interested in Juergen Habermas. He shows these various kinds of rationality: making things work for us, knowing our places and roles in society, and presenting ourselves in a way that elicits a certain response from others. He shows that that these basic types of rationality are non-communicative (they are not oriented to mutual understanding.) Not that they are necessarily always bad, but he shows that a new, better concept of rationality can be created that is based on communication.

It just so happens that Design claims to be a communicative profession. It just so happens that Design combines objective, social, and subjective elements in a way that puts us at the crux of these new debates on rationality. Not only do I think that Habermas’ insights can be useful to us, but I think that by studying design processes we can help humanity better understand the nature of its rational potential and our potential for real humane progress.

Griff-

So I agree with your stress on the communicative aspect of design. Also I am thinking not only of the designed object (whether that communicates well or not), but also the role of communication in the design process itself. Not only should there be a stress on undistorted communication between the design and the audience, but there should also be free communication between designer and client, and above that, between everyone and everyone to come to mutual understandings about the nature of their profession.

You might ask why it is important for designers to agree with each other. This is not because it will make the profession more coherent, stronger, more powerful. It is because the process of free and undistorted argumentation leads to more rational understanding of the situation (meaning a communicative process actually leads to more truth than solitary speculation does.) It is necessary for real progress, necessary to avoid the problematic illusion of progress while the world destroys itself and our relations become less and less humane.

I won’t go into the details of the “ideal speech situation” (which I am referring to when I say “free and undistorted communication”. ) Anyone can probably easily imagine what the requirements would be for a perfect communication situation (time, equality, patience, etc.), and anyone can easily guess that this situation never occurs. The theory behind neomodernism is a very idealistic one, but Habermas shows that it is a necessary ideal and even built into the language we use.

Tan-

I agree, everyone theorizes. I think that the reason most people don’t realize this or attempt to push their theories forward is because the dominant theory (especially in our profession) is this one:

Theory is separate from practice.

This theory, which most people subscribe to, leads to statements like “theory is mental masturbation”, “you have to stop thinking and start doing,” etc. This theory is invisible AS a theory, and makes further thought unnecessary. It is like a virus contracted from our materialistic culture. We must fight it wherever it appears. (unless of course someone could more correctly describe the relation between theory and practice, rather than just identify them with each other like I do. Then they would be separate in an ok way. The most common way to try this, though, is to imagine that theory and practice must be “balanced“. I don�t think that theory holds any merit, for reasons I won�t go into here.)

Yeah, its critical to think about what you do but what you create is really what matters--no designer would ever get hired or really have the chance to consistently get his/her own jobs by writing essays about what they think. I can talk for hours about the mystical spontaneity and utter breathlessness of this cabaret that I'm doing some posters for, I can then talk about how the design should capture those feelings, but without the work...without the creation...nothing is captured. Nothing happens. You gotta have the thinking behind it to get started, but intuition is more important, its more natural, and that's simply better. Again, brilliant thinking not executed is literally worthless. Completely devoid of value. If nothing is created then how is the thinking ever revealed?

It's not that I have a disdain for process, its just that I also know things happen in wildly unpredictable ways and even to attempt to formulize/formalize any of it erodes the possibility of creating something great. Sometimes it takes a week to get the great idea, sometimes it takes 10 minutes--doesn't matter, because nobody pays for process and process itself means nothing to your audience. Putting the emphasis on process takes responsibility away from the artifact you create--for all the talk about "design improving life" I find the reluctance to create anything (sometimes) quite astonishing. Thinking not executed isn't thinking; its just...nothing. Like, what has Adbusters ever done? Made a corporate flag and liberated some billboards? What else? What's the big deal? Mostly its a bunch of whining--where's the lobbying, where's the dialogue, where's the direct challenge to those who pull the strings? Sure they're loud and angry, but they're like a loud and angry mouse or something--potentially annoying but ultimately not remotely influential.

It's a question of what this is all about: I quit working in "graphic design" because there was a mode of thinking that I continually encountered and that I, personally, disagreed with. It was usually about "the design," it was about the style someone desired, it was about the theories someone liked. Well, for me, that ain't how it works. For me, its about life, its about getting to a story, an essential yet frequently obscured truth or emotion and revealing it. Design is a great way to build bridges, but its not about the bridge--its about the connection that's formed.

As for B&W, well...a few examples. A man carrying the Farmer's Almanac is stopped at the airport, because this particular book has been tagged by the FBI. Might mean he's a terrorist. Well, this is a lousy premise--his carrying the book implies nothing, and the book itself implies nothing either. That one thing follows another accounts for nothing. This was David Hume's great discovery, when he remarked that the fact the sun rises today doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow. It's simplistic thinking that led to a policy that identifies potential terrorists by the things they read, its black & white thinking that says "bullshit." It's WRONG. Or another. A woman is begging outside a grocery store so I give her $5 to get some food. Turns out though, that was actually the last $5 she needed to buy an AK-47, which she purchased and then shot up the grocery store. Was I right or wrong to give her the money? I can't be kind of right or kind of wrong, its one or the other, if only for my own sanity. Because I don't control and I cannot predict the actions of another, I'm certainly not wrong in my decision to give the money.

Okay, so what does any of this mean? For me, its about simplifying things, which, last I checked, was what design was usually about. No one comes to a designer to make a mess of things; even if a mess is the objective, its about localizing it and sharpening its effectiveness. Saying that everything is gray is shirking responsibility and accountability, it doesn't mean anything. There's a way to see everything in a situation and from all angles without prematurely concluding its all gray or a bunch of different colors. Its your job as a designer to make sense of it, its your job to take a stand, its your job to express that, and you either do it or you don't. And if you don't, you're not a designer. That simple. As Yoda says, "There is no try. Do or do not."

But as you start to define headlines, subheads, bullet points, quotes, important blocks of copy, and other details through the varied use of font, case, size, color, and layout, the readability suddenly improves.

Dude, that's just basic hierarchy--that's design. But you approach that not in 8 different ways, you simplify it. Limit your sizes. Limit your colors. You only need to do one thing to something to separate it from the rest, anything more is overkill and diverts attention to the technique and away from the purpose.

The idea that design is about strategically eliciting an emotional response (or any other kind of response, for that matter) is very troublesome to me. We claim to be experts in visual communication, not visual manipulation. If all our talk about communication is just rhetoric used to hide our real motives, then I think the goal of a theorist should be to reveal the dirty truth so that people might better understand the situation.

90% of communication is how something is said, not what is said. If the opposite were true then none of us would have jobs! I don't think what I do is manipulative in the same sense of the word that you mean. Manipulation implies that I am forcing someone to feel a way that they don't want to. What I do is ask someone to feel a certain way through visual communication. It's not manipulative, its inductive.

I think talk about communication is great, but for all our prattle about artistic movements and great GD's of history, all we are really trying to do with our work is make someone feel. All the rest is what feeling we want to evoke.

We actually a year ago started to evaluate ourselves as a company and look at what we do, not only as designers, but as solutionists, we have been moving towrad design as the key to changing society's perceptions about a company, organization or person.

1. It is not merely knowing or being knowledgeable. It is not merely analysis or the possession of the capacity to create elegant solutions to identity problems. It is practicing the art of conveying simple truths . . . we operate at the crossroads between pereception and society.

2. If the common language is inadequate for discovering and conveying truth, then a language patterned by symbols and typographic notations could be the key to the exact ordering and verification of all knowledge.

> Theory is separate from practice.

well said Tom. I completely agree w/ how you put it -- and so eloquently too.

Like I said, I'm not poo-pooing (word of the day folks) on the need and validity of design theories. It's just that most people mix theory and practice too easily, or make theories about practices, or just practice on theories, or...I've just lost myself.

Anyway. Yes, I agree in theory w/ you.

...and Griff -- bro, we've agreed on many things before. Your peanut butter and my chocolate can co-exist just fine.

Why should theory be separate from practice?

Do you separate thinking from doing?

Tan--

I agree as well. Theory and practice are two totally different things; practice is necessary because without it you have nothing, and theory is necessary to an extent but its not everything. What's more relevant? David Carson's "theories" on design (which are pretty simple), or his work? Obviously, the work.

See, when I think theory and practice I start thinking military and war (partially because its what I majored in--German history), and any general knows that the most elaborate plan starts to degenerate once the first shot is fired. Theory is only as good as its practical applications.

Because thinking is not doing. One is an aspirational ideal, the other is a realistic execution. There are times when both meet, but they are not the same things.

Trying to "be the spoon" only works in movies.

...and I can theorize about sleeping w/ Catherine Zeta-Jones, but....

I think Tom's point is that there's no doing without thinking—and that operating as though the contrary is true will trivialize the profession.

Thinking absolutely is doing. Thinking is an act, like writing and talking and blogging and pushing a mouse or a rapidograph around. Unless there is some special class of designers who design without thinking, but I thought we were calling those folks cake decorators or Kinko's employees or layout monkeys.

What I find most troubling about the implicit anti-intellectualism of this thread is that no one seems to see any value in thinking or theorizing. It might shock you to know that some people in the world derive real pleasure from plain old thinking. It can be an act like surfing or playing piano or anything that's "in the zone" as they say.

Some might say that the problem with theory is it doesn't produce results, only so-called "doing" producs results. But it seems pretty plain and obvious that thinking tends to produce something called knowledge. Maybe designers can do without knowledge. Apparently they might prefer to.

> I think Tom's point is that there's no doing without thinking

actually rebecca, I don't think that's what Tom's point is at all.

We're not discussing the relevance of thinking to designing. We're talking about the relevance of over-intellectualizing the purpose and process of design in the first place. The thinking about design. The theory of the science, not the science itself. Thus, the difference between theory and practice.

...and Descartes, have you actually ever read your writings? I have actually, when I was more into math. The Descartes philosophy is more akin to this: Thinking exists and serves to remove doubt, conjectures, beliefs and opinions to reveal the truth -- one that is mathematically-based and pragmatic. But like all physics and math -- reality is the real proof. Ergo, practice. So in that perspective, thinking may lead to doing, but they are most definitely not the same. Look it up.

I've always liked this quote from Saul Bass:

"Design is thinking made visual"

K :

A very beautiful citation. Concise.

Of course, looking at some of the other comments made here, you could substitute some other words for "design" and still be accurate in other walks of life.

Did any of you happen to attend the latest AIGA conf. in Vancouver, B.C.? There were some interesting speeches on design and designing. Some were stretched quite thin and were reaching beyond the mark, imho. Designers want to be taken more seriously and some presentation addressed that by saying, "hey, do more investigation about your clients work, thinking about what is needed, bring more to the table, etc., instead of (only) acting like the "decorator" that we're sometimes seen as.

i SO am not going to take the bait.

But, Eric, you've acknowledged it...

acknowledged it...

...in theory

What I find most troubling about the implicit anti-intellectualism of this thread is that no one seems to see any value in thinking or theorizing.

This has GOT to win the Most Simple-Minded Award�. Look a little deeper and try to see what the story is really about, not what you imagine it to be or perhaps even wish it to be.

I have yet to find a shred of "anti-intellectualism" on this thread (though I notoriously dislike intellectualism, that doesn't mean I dislike intelligence. There's a difference), but I've seen plenty of arbitrary gray goo and cloud-floating ideals dabbled with here, which is fine I guess but its not enough. It's not the point of being a designer.

For the fifth time or so, BRILLIANT THINKING NOT EXECUTED IS LITERALLY WORTHLESS. Anything you create, anything you DO, should demonstrate an idea, it should stand for something. There's a certain school that's known for an excruciatingly over-intellectualized, more-cerebral-than-thou attitude towards design, and while I've seen a few good pieces here and there, the posters trying to demonstrate Derrida's Theory of Deconstruction (or whatever) don't even begin to imply anything. It might look cool, but the meaning? Bah. Insular at best.

I was spending some time on Frost Design's web site today because, well, Vince Frost kinda rules. His firm and Spin Design probably employ some of the coolest typography I've seen in ages. But with both of those firms, the ideas in the pieces are always painfully explosive and ridiculously well thought out. The depth of thinking and the pristine level of execution amazes me, and I expect to be amazed with every piece they create. The greatest thing is though, they don't really say anything about it--they just fucking do it. There's no theorizing or intellectualizing, there's just...design. Action. Creation.

We're designers, not philosophers. I dare anyone to accuse me, or anyone else on this site, of NOT thinking about what we do--just because I am constantly skeptical of intellectualizing doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I'm thoughtless and reckless in my approach.

Do things as you wish, treat this profession however you please. But the fact remains, those who take action and spend their time designing will always contribute more and accomplish more than those who spend the time locked in thought. I mean, shit, folks, we're not going to "think" Dubya out of office, we're not going to "think" our way to a cleaner environment, and Nike and IBM or my little clients here won't be "thinking" their way to increased sales.

Think about what you do, but make sure you're actually doing something. It's about the connections you make, not the bridge you take. Hah, that rhymes. Me and my anti-intellectual ass are going to go laugh at Jerry Springer and drool over Paris Hilton now.

Can somebody get this man an Amen?

A-MEN.

(I was going to emphasize it by adding a "Fucking"-conjugation in the middle of "A" and "Men"...but that didn't really sound right.)

I was going to emphasize it by adding a "Fucking"-conjugation in the middle of "A" and "Men"...but that didn't really sound right.

Thanks y'all.

And what WOULD Speak Up be like without "fucking"? Me-oh-my-oh.

What a riot. LOL. Goodgrief, can we get some cleanup on isle one please?

Oh, you guys would've died in Vacouver at this conference. The moment was building towards a crescendo after hearing folks spew out how design will save the world, and then these designers spoke - http://www.designobserver.com/.

I mean having Fritjof Capra and Bruce Mau on the same stage, you know there may be some issues.

Maybe if we had a little more "thinking", before our "doing", we'd have a better world to live in.

As you were...

Tom G-

I still need more time to respond appropriately to what you have previously posted. You've touched on so many points; and dammit if I'm just not that facile of a typist. But to quickly touch some points you've made:

I won't go into the details of the 'ideal speech situation' (which I am referring to when I say 'free and undistorted communication'. ) Anyone can probably easily imagine what the requirements would be for a perfect communication situation (time, equality, patience, etc.), and anyone can easily guess that this situation never occurs.

If this situation "never occurs," I'm wondering how ultimately useful it can be. Yes, striving for the unattainable goal of "free and undistorted communication" is very altruistic and commendable. But if we can never hope to achieve this, is it worth it. Wouldn't it be better to find opportunities/methodologies for communication that allow for these biases and inequalities? I'm not completly discounting the value of what Habermas is promoting. I'm just wondering if it's right to embrace it as universal vision.

I also don't think that it's important that designer agree with one another. To the extent that concensus can be achieved: great. But it's much more realistic to understand that people are always going to disagree. I would also submit that these disagreements form the dynamic churning process of human social and cultural evolution.

I think that by studying design processes we can help humanity better understand the nature of its rational potential and our potential for real humane progress.

Okay, I agree with this statement in spirit; but I don't agree with it's emphasis on rationality. I'm just hard-pressed to put faith solely in this. Subjectivity can never fully be separated from rationality. I think humane progress will be achieved through accepting our differences and learning to live and work with them as the dynamic, multitextural fabric of our global community.

BTW, I'm not discounting Habermas completely. I'm actually intrigued with some of what your saying.

Bradley-

Dude, that's just basic hierarchy--that's design. But you approach that not in 8 different ways, you simplify it. Limit your sizes. Limit your colors. You only need to do one thing to something to separate it from the rest, anything more is overkill and diverts attention to the technique and away from the purpose.

Well, I think that this is your methodology, which is fine. But I don't think that everybody would agree with this. Certainly a lot of design that has been created by those of the Post Structuralist/Deconstructivist ilk could be considered to be "overkill and diverts attention to the technique," but this doesn't invalidate or diminish the value of what they were doing. The obfuscation, ambiguity, and complexity of their design methodology is part and parcel of what they are trying to say.

I guess I think we can all have our own individual methodologies and theories to guide us, and these differences are all a part of the social/cultural richness that is humanity. Organic Multiplicity is really about celebrating this diversity.

More to come later...

> Oh, you guys would've died in Vacouver at this conference. The moment was building towards a crescendo after hearing folks spew out how design will save the world, and then these designers spoke - http://www.designobserver.com/.

K, we are still not biting, as Eric said. We were at the conference (Tan, Debbie, Eric, Marian and me). Enough has been said about that. Try these discussions to get our impressions.

Excuse my ignorance, but I've haven't read everything on the site and wasn't trying to get a "bite". This discussion just reminded me of some of those issues.

Thanks for note.

Didn't mean to imply ignorance K, my bad, I'm just watchful of (first-time) anonymous postings, that's all. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Very good site and interesting discussion.

Sorry about the anon posting, but it's my knee-jerk reaction to 600 lbs. of spam each week.

Keep up the good, no, great site.

K

Bradley-

just because I am constantly skeptical of intellectualizing doesn't mean I'm stupid or that I'm thoughtless and reckless in my approach.

Well, I certainly don't think this at all. And I hope that you weren't inferring it from my statements. The fact that you're spending all this energy on this topic means that you do indeed think a lot about design.

And, I have to agree with significant parts of your recent rant/post. Firstly, Vince Frost's work IS really great. Very cool stuff. Secondly, I agree with your statement that "There's a certain school that's known for an excruciatingly over-intellectualized, more-cerebral-than-thou attitude towards design, and while I've seen a few good pieces here and there, the posters trying to demonstrate Derrida's Theory of Deconstruction (or whatever) don't even begin to imply anything. It might look cool, but the meaning? Bah. Insular at best." This is why I can't fully agree with the Post Structuralist/Deconstructivist paradigm.

We're designers, not philosophers.

Why can't we be both? I mean, I sorta see your point about being just a whiny intellectual who doesn't "do" anything. But on the other hand, is it wrong to have broad, abstract, intellectual considerations within the practice of design? And, is it wrong to be influenced by philosophers who aren't designers? I'm not so sure. For me, it's whatever "floats your boat," so to speak, that's important. Being true to your own subjective, conditional perspective of life is THE most important thing.

It's about the connections you make, not the bridge you take.

This is exactly the spirit behind my design philosophy.

Tan-

I can see the value of Descartes perspective from a mathematics perspective and as a formitable force in the development of "modern" thinking, but do you still think his theories have as much value today? From my point of view, while I think that the whole "mind over matter" construct was very useful in getting Western culture and technology to where we are today, I'm not so sure that it has much value for humanity going forward.

And yeah, I understand that you weren't necessarily promoting the guy. I'm just curious as to how you feel about him now.

form follows emotion

Okay, one other point about this methodology. Human existence is more than just emotion. We've evolved because we think on higher levels than just emotion. And it's the promotion of non-thinking emotion that allows for stupid things like WWF wrestlers and movie action heros to become elected politicians.

Tom Gleason & Other Interested Folk

I?ve been dying for someone to rip my theories apart. Not because I can?t on my own, but because he or she might see something, a challenge, that I don?t.

And to this notion I say thank you so much for taking the time to read over my site and provide critical analysis. And from one design theory savage to another, I say Cheers!

Generally, though, when you?re a savage, you?re not entitled to an opinion and you will be ignored by people smart enough to critique you. For them to acknowledge you would be to give you power, a voice, which they naturally struggle to keep for themselves. They seem to ignore you because you don?t have the minutia, and then if you give them the minutia they will tell you it?s too boring!

Yeah, I have to admit to receiving that reaction, too. Most have just completely ignored me. It's not about brand and it's not within the Modernist/Structuralist vs. the PoMo/Decon/PostStruct debate, so it's hard for most people to get behind it. That's okay. I'm not going away. It just gives me more time to develop my thoughts.

My own research on what I call "neomodernism" involves mainly Habermas

I'm intrigued by certain aspects of your Neomodernism and the writings of Habermas. There's actually a connection there between us already. I'm currently reading The Hidden Connections by Fritjof Capra in which he mentons J�rgen Habermas in relation to integrative social theory. He briefly discusses his Theory of Communicative Action.

More to come later...

Bradley-

In stressing creation you are assuming that the purpose of design is to get a job, make pictures, get paid. As a profession, sure. My concept of “design” is much broader than that, though, and sees the profession as one manifestation of design activity. Again, thought sometimes inspires non-traditional actions. I’ve said that I’m a theoretical savage. But my process is so radical that I even choose to remain outside of the profession for the time being. You mentioned that you had a few personal problems with professionalism as well. The fact that I am not producing advertisements or logos for cash does not make me a non-designer. It does make me a non-professional. My “mentor” Dr. Labuz told me that I actually couldn’t be a professional because I don’t “profess” anything. I think he got that from Bucky Fuller’s intro to Papanek’s Design for the Real World, if not from his impressive store of philological knowledge. He’s always giving me new ways to think about words. It is an interesting point: to be a professional is to profess, or to pledge allegiance to, a particular set of beliefs. It requires that you act like a professional, act like you know something. This would explain why professional designers act in the objectionable ways that you speak of. I think I am generally more inquisitive than dictatorial.

You use Adbusters as an example of being too theory-oriented. I disagree. They seem to be “professional” critics; everything in that magazine is very predictable and very propagandistic. They take incredible liberties with the facts. They also have some excellent creative design. They definitely produce.

Jonathan Goulthier-

If the common language is inadequate for discovering and conveying truth, then a language patterned by symbols and typographic notations could be the key to the exact ordering and verification of all knowledge.

Sounds ambitious, but impossible. Care to elaborate?

Tan and Bradley misread my post on "theory is separate from practice." Rebecca and Descartes were definitely perceptive to realize this.

"Theory is separate from practice" is the worst theory of design.

Tan-

You make a good point when you say that "thinking about design" implies that they are separate. You actually used the real Descartes' argument for the separation of mind and body: If we can imagine that my mind is separate from my body, then it is necessarily so.

But when we talk about the designed object, we are not talking about "designing", which I daresay cannot be separated from a holistic, integrative concept of "thinking". In my theory, I see the broadest possible concept of "design", "thinking", and "rationality" as the same. I am not sure how to distinguish between them...yet. I do intend to clarify this but I can't do it on my own. For now, for me, this way of thinking brings "design" into a close relationship with Habermas' theory of communicative action.

Steven-

Subjectivity can never fully be separated from rationality.

I think the common “semantic reaction” (a term from Alfred Korzybski) to the word “rationality” in relation to human action is very negative. Nobody wants to think that we are like clockwork. What I think is most interesting about Habermas is that he distinguishes between different spheres of rationality- objective, subjective, social (this is not necessarily Habermas’ contribution, and I’m actually simplifying the language here, though; much of his thought is based on Weber, Mead, Durkheim, Marx, Peirce, and others…where I say “Habermas” sometimes it might be more accurate to credit others, but I lump them all into the Habermas’ synthetic theory since I do not have an extensive background in almost every field of study as Habermas seems to. And I often use Habermas� terms loosely when I either don�t fully understand the distinctions or when I simply feel that my own insight inspired by his theory has some merit.)

He says this distinction is the basis for a modern worldview. Scientific, political, and artistic realms develop autonomously from each other, whereas in mythical worldviews, everything is integrated but confusions exist.

It took me almost half a year to understand something very important about Habermas’ use of the term “subjectivity”. I had been calling Modernism “objective” for so long that I couldn’t understand how he described the whole of modern thought as being immersed into the “philosophy of the subject” or the “philosophy of consciousness”. I think I now understand that what we call “objective” thought, or “logical” thought, the type of thought credited to Descartes, is “monological”. This means that it is inherently subjective (in a technical sense), as it is the product of an individual thinker. So a dialogical model of thought, or better, of “rationality”, is “inter-subjective”.

You say subjectivity cannot be separated from rationality. I think Habermas agrees. Modern theories of rationality are “subjective”. The communicative theory of rationality is “intersubjective.”

A further confusion might arise since I’ve been calling the three spheres “objective”, “subjective”, and “social”. Habermas’ actual words for the “subjective” sphere is the “aesthetic/expressive”. So in these spheres I’ve been talking about the “objective” shouldn’t connote “rationality”, and “subjective” should not be seen as irrationality.

I think since designers use the terms “objective” and “subjective” so often, it would be beneficial to try to make their meanings more precise. Two good books that explicitly discuss the differences between “objective” and “subjective” thought are The Phenomenology of the Social World by Alfred Schutz, and Introduction to Gestalt Psychology by Wolfgang Kohler.

You say subjectivity cannot be separated from rationality. I think Habermas agrees. Modern theories of rationality are “subjective”. The communicative theory of rationality is “intersubjective.”

Sorry I confused this point. When you say "subjectivity" I imagine you are referring to emotions and such. This is an important part of his model of rationality, that it allows for rational argumentation about subjective expressions. The question is one of sincerity.

Steven and Tom -- I have to say I've enjoyed the level of discussions in this thread. It's the deepest philosophical design discussion I've seen to date on SU.

Somehow I ended up taking an opposing stance, eventhough I agree with much of what you're both saying -- mostly. I think.

I'll need to print it out and read it more thoroughly -- and with a dictionary. Heavy stuff guys.

They seem to be “professional” critics

Anyone can be a critic. Big fucking deal.

Anywaaaay.

This has been a fabulous discussion and good for me in that it alerts me even more to what I believe and how I do it, and the importance of other people finding what they like and pursuing it.

I think I agree with everything here on some level; having studied history and philosophy for a long time, I think of both of those things in terms of how they relate to general human experience. Design for me is just one of those things that you do, its a part of a much bigger picture. Do do do. Make make make. Maybe I'm too dogmatic in that, but, at the same time, I love anything good regardless of its point of view or argument or whatever (so long as its not harmful). So its not like it has to follow a certain path or something ridiculous...creating is always better than not creating.

But as this discussion wraps up, I find myself questioning...okay...for what? at the same time I enjoyed it. I guess my rule is don't think too much and never know to much about what you're doing cuz you'll just fuck it up. I think we're thinking way too much. Things discussed here need to manifest somewhere.

Yes. In all, I'm pleased with the level of energy and conviction in this thread. We've made our own points, argued the others, and come out more informed, but maybe not even convinced of our own philosophies or that we've defined them. And in closing? No. No, this is not closing. Everything is always under consideration... sorry, I had to.

> Everything is always under consideration... sorry, I had to.

You want an Amen too, don't you?

But you are right, everything is always under consideration... how 'bout that? That's my philosophy. I didn't pick the name for no reason.

Tan writes:

It's the deepest philosophical design discussion I've seen to date on SU. (snip) Heavy stuff guys.

After holding my tounge (fingers?) for three days now, I have to say 'No, not quite'.

First, some housekeeping...

Steven writes:

Modernism/Structuralism seems too simplistic and reliant upon the myth of universal rationalism and logic. Postmodernism/Post Structuralism/Deconstructivism seems too self-referencial, self-indulgent, and overly concerned (obsessed) with debunking Modernism

One problem with both Steven and Tom Gleason's rhetorical badminton is their common misconception that Modernism and Postmodernism are opposing projects. They are different methods; different conclusions about 'meaning', 'essence', etc. There are elements of each in the other. Remember that the history of philosophy is an ongoing process (evolution, if you will) of refinement and shifts of focus.

In this, I encourage Steven to apply his understanding of 'multiplicity'.

Tom Gleason writes:

I disagree with the approach of creating a new self-referential language that doesn’t say anything significant, but sounds really smart. Theorists are in danger of doing this, because it can be effective in gaining power over other people.

...and then he wanders off into Habermas-speak-land.

I think of modernism as constructive, postmodernism as deconstructive.

Different approaches, both reductive -- see above. Also, deconstruction is a method of close reading that, in the postmodernist project, shows the various assumptions and prejudices in a text. This is an extension of structuralist methods like semiotics or information theory. See? Elements of each in the other.

OK, here's the point.

There is nothing wrong with analysis. I just hate to see people fooling themselves that theory is a generative device. Yes Steven, nature is complex, things can be more complex than they seem, and meaning is dependent on context. Nothing new there. Problem is, there is no way anyone can address multiple meanings, multiple contexts when designing. No one is that smart. No one is that empathic.

And if you were, you probably wouldn't be a designer but a Lotto Millionaire.

A college classmate and I once found ourselves in a competition to see who could build the highest stack of 'weighty tomes' borrowed from the library ("I got all the Kierkegaard!").

Steven and Tom -- thanks for the fond memories.

But as this discussion wraps up, I find myself questioning...okay...for what? at the same time I enjoyed it... I think we're thinking way too much. Things discussed here need to manifest somewhere.

Wraps up? If Steven would get back on my criticism, I'm sure it can go a little further :) I am going to enjoy a little time with my fiancee this weekend, but I'm looking forward to seeing what develops in some of the other threads and responding to Steven's response.

I was thinking about the difference between exploratory writing about design thinking and more formal contributions. Much of what went on in this post was too complex to try to formalize at this point (not that it lacks some value); we've disclosed a bunch of possibile realms of exploration, but cannot really pursue them here. Other posts such as "What is Useful History" have the potential to retain some formal integrity, but I would rather see it develop into an onslaught of sincere nit-picking than fall into the pile of Posts Expecting Too Much Knowledge To Participate In.

Things are manifesting here, which is somewhere, I think.

Bradley > BRILLIANT THINKING NOT EXECUTED IS LITERALLY WORTHLESS

I have read this thread with a mixed feeling of glee (finally designers getting excited enough to really take a rip at articulating their perspective/theory/anti-theory/whatever) and disappointment (the same tired rantings about how irrelevant thinking is).

While I understand (and can partly agree with) the expressed frustration or disgust with holier-than-thou design discussion that doesn't have anything visual to back it up, at the same time I feel compelled to ask, what about books/writing? Does that not count as "execution of thinking"?

I agree that some people are better at "doing" (making visual stuff/building things) than they are at "thinking" (saying/writing). Many very intelligent artists who DO have deep thoughts about their own work keep quiet about them because they believe that their role is to create and to leave the discourse to the people who have chosen to be critics/writers...I think there is some wisdom in this. But, I also have huge respect and appreciation for artists like Marc Chagal and Bill Viola who took the time to share their perspective/motivations/ideas in text as well as in their visual work.

I have to disagree with (or at least question) the notion that visual production is somehow more relevant or superior in it's ability to contribute ideas/articulate vision/move people/etc than written or spoken theory/ideas. On the contrary, I think that in some ways books/writing are given more weight/influence in the history of ideas/evolution of culture. Until very recently, there have not been many (any?) museums or other institutions dedicated to collecting and preserving design work in a really broad way. Of course there are now lots of books on design that include examples, but most of these are churned out as "annuals" meant for transient inspiration rather than as historical documents.

From today looking forward, it may be true that graphic objects will be preserved and shared in a way that allows a designer who chooses not to speak/write to contribute in a lasting way to the river of culture, but in the past I think this was not the case and that is partly why theory has been given priority over "production" (of graphic design objects) in the documentation and evolution of design ideas. I look forward to seeing more examples of "documents" that use visual/graphic means to articulate a specific ideology or philosophy of design that may not have been included in the past because the designer was not someone who chose to express themselves in written or spoken theory.

(And just in case someone brings it up, I do consider books to be "design objects" too, but I hope you can understand that I am trying to consider the opposition between written theory and graphic design that has been articulated by other people on this thread.)

p.s. Also, huge appologies for the terrible structure of my writing here...all the parenthesis, etc. I don't usually have to resort to that, but in discussions where I am trying to juggle a lot of either/or/maybe ideas, it gets tricky to articulate them in a linear way...maybe I should have made a poster instead! ;-)

One problem with both Steven and Tom Gleason's rhetorical badminton is their common misconception that Modernism and Postmodernism are opposing projects.

I think we both realize that. Derrida can certainly be seen as continuing the modernist project, and Habermas can in some ways be seen as a postmodern rationalist. These are complex issues, and we have to consider various interpretations to see what works for us, what is most meaningful to us. Not that we should absolutize one story of it all. We can have preferred interpretations, and we must. But they need to be informed by deep consideration of as many possibilities as possible.

Since there are elements of each in each other, that is why I prefer a “neo-modernist”, coalescent interpretation. Neo-modernism signifies a shift in our understanding, a movement of thought “beyond objectivism and relativism” (Richard Bernstein).

About self-referential language, I am referring to idiosyncratic philosophies of design (more like Steven’s ;-) that avoid active engagement with discourse and established thought. For him to create a systems theory of design would require engaging more directly with existing models of systems or with other systems theorists in design, which as far as I know, he hasn’t. It remains self-referential and inaccessible for as long as he doesn’t build these access bridges.

Also, deconstruction is a method of close reading that, in the postmodernist project, shows the various assumptions and prejudices in a text. This is an extension of structuralist methods like semiotics or information theory. See? Elements of each in the other.

Derrida also said that deconstruction “constructs”. He also said that its drive has always existed throughout history; it is not a fad. I think his contribution is to recognize, define, and radicalize it. And of course his approach comes from “modernist” influences--Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger…I agree with what you’re saying. But as Bradley said, we can't just be content to say "everything is gray". We constantly need to interpret.

Steven, nature is complex, things can be more complex than they seem, and meaning is dependent on context. Nothing new there.

I agree. More concise than my criticism, but basically I was saying that unless Steven could gain a better understanding of how these systems work, his theory doesn't say much. I think there are still some issues with people understanding the context-dependency of work: Self-referential designers, misunderstandings of the relative importance of particular ASPECTS of context, and general ignorance about context.

Problem is, there is no way anyone can address multiple meanings, multiple contexts when designing. No one is that smart.

This is why I have abandoned the project typical of the Cranbrook people that basically illustrates philosophy with form. It is more about what goes on behind the scenes now. Designers need to talk, become smarter. That is the new movement. What comes out of that will be truly progressive. It will be communicative action.

Hey, to quote Monty Python, "I'm not dead yet!" There's indeed more to say.

Tom G

The communicative theory of rationality is "intersubjective."

Oh, I like the notion that rationality is intersubjective concensus. That's a very good way understanding rationality. As an extreme example, Western culture considers cannibalism to be aborrent, highly disfunctional, and irrational. Yet, within certain traditional tribal customs, eating the flesh of a rival tribe is considered to be normal. The tribesmen are honoring their rivals by consuming their strength and spirit. For them, cannibalism is a part of their intersubjective rationality.

Thanks for the book references.

I guess when I am discussing subjectivity it goes beyond an "aesthetic/expressive" meaning. For me subjectivity is anchored to the construct of the individual. We are all seeing the world through the "tinted-glasses" of our own construct of hereditary and environmental influences. But what's really interesting to me is, given your definition of rationality, as the concensus of a subjective notion builds, it then becomes "rational." This correlates nicely with my concentric relationship of context (subjectivity), within complexity, within natural systems.

Tom, I definitely have more input about your analysis of Organic Multiplicity. I'm just trying to balance my role as a "doer" (design work, errands) and a "thinker" (blogger, happily tapping away as the hours role by).

More to come...

Okay, y'all just keep typing before I can git to it. Argh. Must... keep... fingers... moving...

Bradley-

Ya know, I was thinking that maybe what your "philosophy" or methodology is related to the Buddhist notion of "mindfulness." By focusing on the "doing" of design, you are deriving the solution from context of the design project and your immediate influences, and rejecting larger theoretical structural forces. Like a jazz musician, you design while "in the groove." Is this a correct interpretation?

Designers need to talk, become smarter. That is the new movement. What comes out of that will be truly progressive. It will be communicative action.

We can only hope that this is true...and it is certainly an idea that I can add an "amen" to, even it it does sound a bit utopian in a country where people can hardly get out and vote.

(warning: potentially OT)

Now there is a problem that would be great to make a dent in....and a good example of a place where even non-theorists could make a significant impact on politics and culture.

I know that this is not a new idea but sadly, it seems like it has been tried and that designers are already giving up and falling back on the argument that the public does not absorb more complex messages and that the "stars and stripes" approach is the only way to get their attention. True? I don't know but it certainly seems like a challenge that we shouldn't give up on.

The recent contest run by moveon.org was an encouraging example of excuted thought and I hope that these counter-programming ad-spots will make a difference, but I'm not holding my breath: bushin30seconds.org

I think the AIGA ran a similar contest for posters about 9/11 but I don't know if they were ever shown in broadly public forum or not.

(back to the topic at hand...)

I am a theory-oriented designer...I love books and this thread has already added a few items to my reading list. But, I would certainly like to balance this out with a "seeing" list. Griff? Bradley? Armin? You all seem to be very hardline visual folks...what specifically has shifted or validated your approach? In the same way that others on this list cite specific texts/theorists, I would really like to hear you cite some specific graphic works/designers. Don't worry, I'm not asking for a list of every-great-design-work-ever-made...just maybe a piece or two that really inspired or challenged you or added a significant piece to your (graphic) vocabulary.

The only specific visual reference I have absorbed in this thread so far was to David Carson's design work. (Seen it, liked it, seen it reproduced by every "rebel designer", over it...but still keep his book on my shelf. ;-)

I haven't given up on the power of visual communication and I haven't given up on the relevance of theories and manifestos either. So what are we each doing and what can we do collectively? Where can we do it and when? Is there more or will it be more of the same (making stuff/talking about it/staying in our insulated design/theory bubble...)??? (I confess that I don't feel like my work is making much of an impact on anything of truly lasting value...other than my own survival and daily joy in creating visual stuff that makes me and my clients happy.)

Here's one encouraging example of stuff out in the world that seems to successfully articulate a personal ideology/philosophy while also impacting the general public in a valuable way: A piece in the most recent ComArts describes the work of designer Masaaki Hiromura. He is apparently going against the main grain of Japanese advertising/signage design (louder/brighter is better) to attempt a quieter and more "transparent" style of graphic communication. He calls it "non-signage." I love this and it is inspiring...the idea that one person could start a trend that might actually make a country (or at least a city) more livable is very utopian, but his work makes it clear that his ideas are not only viable, but appealing AND effective. His designs contribute to both the overall beauty and the function of the projects he works on. Now that is an ideal that I think we can all aspire to.

p.s. I just realized that I inserted the word idea and then the word design without differentiating between the two...funny after all the dialogue here about the separation between these two things. I guess in my own vocabulary, they tend to overlap because you can't really make a design without an idea and you don't often share your (design) idea without creating the design. So, I'm happy to conclude: "and ever the twain shall meet."

Pardon me...I'm happy to see that many of my unanswered questions are actually being addressed on another (newer) thread: "What is Useful History?". I'm new to this forum, so I hope I don't offend anyone too much by stumbling around and making posts that are probably too long....thanks to all here who are contributing to such an articulate and informative space. I appreciate it immensely...even if it does eat into my design time. ;-)

this thread is really interesting, even if at times it makes me think of the occasion (for the movie 'marathon man') that laurence olivier and dustin hoffman were sharing a scene together. hoffman was apparently using all of his method powers to find motivation, get into character, discover grace notes and rhythm, thinking about and around the scene until finally olivier said 'why don't you just act, dear boy'.

which is not to say that any of the discussion here is useless or will not bear fruit-but in the end thought and action are inseparable both with and for and each within the other, and both imply a 'something' to be 'about'; for, example jokes without punchlines can be side splitting, but require a context, a performer, a voice, an audience and most of all that sense of being drawn and almost lost in another persons world, like music, or installation, in fact any manifestation of human thought, imagination.

i'm interested in tom's ideas-they're passionate and are edging towards something, but having had a look at his site along with the posts here, the thread that holds it all together is very delicate indeed and verges on a kind of 'design has to have a philisophy and i'm going to give it one no matter what' approach.

pne person who i think gets over that to a greater extent than most (mainly because he deals with design in the broader sense-product, architecture, language and systems) is john chris jones. his book 'designing designing', after 'design for the real world', is my fave. he's got a website-www.softopia.demon.co.uk. it's worth having a peek.

anyway-kelis is offering some milkshake in the background and it's friday night in ny. lovely.

M Kingsley-

Thanks for your input!

Yes, appologies all around for generalizations and inaccuracies with respect to Modernism, Deconstructivism, etc. This is partly because it's difficult to discuss things in general terms without making mischaracterizations. These philosophies are more complex than I am indicating. I can only say that as I learn more about each of these, I can bring greater depth to what I am proposing.

Also, as I have previously admitted, my theory is a work in progress. My first priority is to rough-out the basic form of my thoughts, and then go back and add the details. I am very aware that I need to learn more, and this is part of the fun and challenge. But I think that there is merit to my theory, so I am driven to continue, the "savage" that I am. Critical analysis can only help to make it stronger (as antagonistic forces to living systems causes the system to adapt and evolve).

Yes Steven, nature is complex, things can be more complex than they seem, and meaning is dependent on context. Nothing new there. Problem is, there is no way anyone can address multiple meanings, multiple contexts when designing. No one is that smart. No one is that empathic.

Tom's comment I was saying that unless Steven could gain a better understanding of how these systems work, his theory doesn't say much. I think there are still some issues with people understanding the context-dependency of work: Self-referential designers, misunderstandings of the relative importance of particular ASPECTS of context, and general ignorance about context.

I actually do think that, as designers, we can address multiple meanings and contexts. Certainly, not all meanings and contexts, but at least a few or multiple constructs. Let me give an example:

A senior designer is engaged with a project. His relationship to the project we can indicate as "D1." He reports to a snr. art director, and her relationship to the project is D2. The snr. art director reports to the creative director/principal of the firm, who sees the project as D3. Their efforts are also coordinated by a production manager, who views the project as D4.

Now the senior designer is working directly with the client's representative, marketing manager, who views the project as C1. This manager then reports to snr. manager, who reports to a VP, who reports to a CEO. Their relationship to the project is C2, C3, and C4, respectively.

The client, in turn, will present the project to their customers, who view it as X1, X2, X3, and X4.

The value of Organic Multiplicity, as a model that moves from the internal subjectivity outward to larger forces, is to emphasize and contextualize the non-linear relationships of this design project. Rather just than having the snr designer think of the project in the linear terms such as "D1->C1->X1," he is able to bring greater depth to the solution by considering it as "D1/D2/D3/D4->C1/C2/C3/C4->X1/X2/X3/X4." Moreover, if the snr AD and the CD get together, through mutual agreement, an emergent perspective "D5" could be created, which could then be acknowledged and integrated. Also, there are recursive processes that go on between the various groups.

So this is a way for a designer, or a design manager for that matter, to better understand the design process. I think, in fact, that we understand a lot of these kinds of relationships. But I'm not sure that it is really well represented by current philosophies.

I can also bring up some other points about the relationship of complexity to design, but won't at this time. (I mean, I'm trying to swim my way back to Tom's analysis, eventually. Sigh.)

And yes Tom, I think that there are indeed still misunderstandings about the context-dependency of work, which is one of my motivations with developing OM.

I would say this though, I am not really inclined to give an over-arching, universal systems theory, other than to try present them as a vibrant network of interconnected thought, in which designers can engage and roam through the construct of their subjective importance. I'm not trying to wrap up existence into a tidy bundle, but rather promote the idea that we have options and opportunities. Maybe this is obvious to some; but I wonder if it is more widely accepted.

I guess the one way in which I am being a bit universal and didactic is by refuting the Descartian separtion between mind and matter in order to reintegrate humanity back into our environment. Basically, the history of humanity up to this point has been the saga of overcoming the adversity of nature. Well, we've pretty much won that battle and now we run the significant risk of overwhelming and destroying our environment. So we need to reintegrate and harmonize ourselves to our environment, by understanding, in truth, that we are our environment. There is no separation. Once again, this may be obvious to some, but I think is still not fully embraced and appreciated (otherwise why the hell would we have ridiculous things like the Hummer and nuclear power).

More to come...

Steven - this is a wonderful forum but I really think you should consider framing your work as a graduate thesis...considering your "free-thinking" rigor and your work/family constraints, you might be very interested in a program that I just found out about: The European Graduate School offers MA and PhD degrees in Media & Communications. That might sound dry, but when you look at the faculty, I think you will be inspired by the diversity and calibre of people they have listed. The focus is on philosophy and as most of you seem to know, that discipline can include almost any thinking/research. The courses are mostly administered online and the only residence requirement is for a three week intensive once per year in Switzerland.

Quote from their site:

"The European Graduate School Media and Communications program, facilitating creative breakthroughs and theoretical paradigm shifts, brings together master's and doctoral students with the visionaries and philosophers of the media world who inspire learning about art, philosophy, communications, film, literature, internet, web and cyberspace studies from a cross-disciplinary perspective."

I have spoken with two people who have aready gone through the program and they both confirm that the school is everything it claims to be. (One of these people was a teacher at the school that I did my undergrad at, so I trust her opinion.)

(I'm actually not sure why I'm posting this here because it probably means I will have a lot stiffer competition for a place in the program...but after being very frustrated in my search for a theory/practice program that will accomodate a wide range of different research interests, this seems to be the best and I hope it might be helpful to others on the same quest.)

I think we should simply rename this thread the Steven, Tom and Snow Show.

Very cool guys, you got it going, I'm staying out of this one… weren't we doing 100 words or less? Just kidding, go at it boys.

and girls ;-)....what did we wear Armin out already?

(I admit that this has gone far afield from the original 100 word topic, which was very fresh and inspring. But I'm surprised that 4 posts would warrant adding my name to the title of the "show"...is it just because they're too long? sorry 'bout that...)

Like a jazz musician, you design while "in the groove." Is this a correct interpretation?

Hahahahaha...awesome. Yeah, right on.

Anyway dude I know I'm like such a total dick half the time but I'm just saying what I think and maybe its cathartic to press "post" or something. I may not agree or even be agreeable, but the fact that you guys have the passion you have is pretty fucking cool so...rock on.

While I'm glad to see the outpouring of energy in this thread, it's a shame that more of us couldn't be concise. It's not about wearing people out or acting like a "total dick" (as Bradley points out), but being poignant instead. Although 100 words was set as a "guideline", even Descartes pushed it to 157. Maybe he's willing to expand these thoughts in a one-on-one interview with me.

More from Tom's analysis of my theory

minutia is all there is to theory.

Crap. That didn't post right. ARGH.

a continuing reply to Toms earlier honkin' analysis

minutia is all there is to theory.

I don't completely agree with this statement. I think that there are forms of empirical, common-sense wisdom that I think can just reasonably accepted. I think that the staying power of the classic phrase "form follows function" has a lot to do with its common-sense appeal. I think/hope that some of what I am proposing falls into that catagory, perhaps.

Somehow we need to find a middle way so that we can have a stimulating and productive exchange without resorting to professionalist absolutism.

This is exactly what I'm proposing with Organic Multiplicity.

I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure out how philosophical modernism (from the Enlightenment on) is connected to artistic modernism (from probably not much earlier than the beginning of the 20th century.) What do we mean by modern art and how is it connected to Enlightenment thought? There is an incredible interest in rationality, monological thought, and utopianism in the early 20th century art movements, and I wonder why artistically it came so long after the philosophical shifts.

I think you should look to ideologies of the french painter David. Somehow, I think that this will make a connection.

Modernism is Simplistic, yes. But I also think your understanding of Modernism might be too simplistic as well. It?s a very complicated thing

Well, I may be simplifying Modernism; but hey, what better theory to practice a little reductionist, minimalism! Seriously though, I'm just trying to define some parameters. Invariably, misrepresentation or mischaracterizations can occur; but I'm guessing that you agree with the gist.

more to come... (I mean he did write a lot, ya know)

Snow-

Thanks for the info about the European Graduate School. I've just taken a brief look at it, but it seems interesting.

Bradley-

Ah, man. And here I was giving you a golden opportunity to say that you were the "Miles of styles." ;-)

Tom G and others-

If there are those that want the more indepth response to Tom's posting, I would be willing to send them a direct e-mail, as I intent to do with Tom. But, I'm feeling that I want to revert back to the original gist of this thread and allow others to express themselves rather than hogging the show, as I have already, to a degree.

I will give this brief statment, though, in relation to my theory: when you really begin to understand gardening, you understand that it is almost more about the soil than it is about the plants.

If you really want me to write more here, I'll do so later this afternoon.

where did steven go?

Thanks to everyone for allowing all these thoughts to bouce off of you.

Hey Tom,

The party's over dude. People have moved on to other subjects; such is the ephemeral nature of the blog. It's just you and me folding up the chairs and picking up the beer cups and cigarette butts, at this point, so to speak.

As I mentioned above, I'll contact you directly through e-mail and give you a full, proper reply.

And yeah, thanks everyone for your input. This critical analysis will help me to develop my thoughts further. BTW, I had a total of about 230 people visit my theory site last Thursday and Friday. This was an all-time high, since launching the site. And what really made me happy was that most were taking the time to actually read what I have written. For that, I am most grateful!

Snow and Steven: Concerning European Graduate School:

Feel free to apply - and dont be concerned - there is no political correctness program here -

we care about performance only.

Education be any means necessary.

European Graduate School

i am attempting to write an essay on postmodernism and within that focusing on deconstructivism. In my opinion postmodern design, particularly deconstructive graphic design is more 'universal', than most modern pieces claim to be. This is because deconstructivism wants readers to bring their own experiences etc to the text and therefore should appeal to everyone. Does anyone agree with me?