PICA 2011 Conference Presentation
If you have any immediate reactions to either definition, please share them by adding a comment below. Which definition do you like better? Why?
Below are some key differences I have pulled out. If you would like an explanation of the diagram, click here.
If you would like to see a larger, categorized list of definitions, click here.
Are design products material, immaterial or both?
What is significant about the inclusion of immaterial products is that Mau’s conception of design becomes the umbrella for all applied disciplines, including the ones not normally considered sub-fields of design: genetics, pharmacy, law, social policy and politics.
The breadth of this definition is the most common critique of the definition (Bamford, 1990). In the context of curriculum development, it is difficult to see what introductory courses could be created to prepare students for such a wide array of problems. Additionally, this definition of design creates a host of difficult questions about how design education might integrate with other well-established disciplines such as engineering, genetics, pharmacy, law and social policy development.
Clearly, there is an important similarity between all of the “applied” disciplines, but due to the complexity of each sub-discipline and disparity of methods used between each, could any education program realistically cover so much terrain in four years?
Artistic or aesthetic focus?
Mau’s definition does not give priority to the traditional role designers had played: the marrying of form and function, or art and technology. This is important because it means his definition makes no distinction between engineering and design. Most importantly, it creates an identity crisis for those disciplines that do still focus on the aesthetic aspects of artifacts (architecture, industrial design, fashion design, graphic design, etc.). What do we call this group of disciplines if, according to Mau, design is considered something much broader?
For Munari, the aesthetic connection is clear. This fits with how most schools introduce students to design and how popular culture views design, especially through the prominence of interior design and fashion design television programs.
This definition though makes no specific mention of the social sciences. Since the days of the Bauhaus, the social sciences has become more established as a discipline and grown in its influence. As this influence grew, designers have employed social scientific methods to test and evaluate the effectiveness of design solutions. This strong link could be reflected in the first diagram if the red “Design” line was expanded to the left, so it appears under the “Social Sciences” and the “Fine Arts.”
Middle alternative?
This proposal leads to a third definition that could be used as an alternative to the broadness of the New definition and the narrowness of the Old definition:
Design is an applied discipline that focuses on the aesthetic, symbolic and socio-psychological functions of material artifacts.
When this definition put in the diagram it looks like this
(click image for full size PDF):
This focus requires designers to have knowledge of theories, methods and techniques employed by the following disciplines:
psychology, sociology and semiotics
(perception, user-centred design, meaning-making)
fine arts
(form/aesthetics, rhetoric/meaning-making)
If you don’t like the Old or New definitions, what do you think of this Alternative middle definition?
Thank you for the comment Adolfo. I’m not sure I agree with your approach to definition. While I agree it makes sense to alter the wording of a definition so it is intelligible for the given audience (i.e. simple for general audience, detailed for academic audience), I don’t think it makes sense to alter the wording to the point where you are changing its meaning. Being consistent across situations is important because it helps us make clearer connections between “theoretical discussions,” “higher-level practice and education” discussions and “day-to-day professional” discussions. In other words, I believe it helps us bridge theory, education and practice. What do you think?
I think that the type of definition you choose depends on the type of discussion you’re trying to have. I would find it perfectly acceptable to use the broad, immaterial definition of design within a theoretical or even research context.
However, I would find it much more useful to use the middle alternative definition for higher-level discussions relating to practice and education.
Finally, I’ve found the artistic/aesthetic definition as an extremely useful tool to be used in day-to-day issues that I’ve encountered in professional contexts (in describing or modifying the formal elements of graphic design), and even in pedagogical contexts (in the critique of student work).