HI Ranulph, Jenny, Michael and others, <
Jenny asks about shoes and how ''
sometimes social situations take precedence over physical ones.''
..and Ranulph comments how
''......
We tried to believe that form followed function, and it didn't work.
Function follows form just as much. While there is often some function
to be accommodated, some purpose to be achieved, some problem to be
solved (or even quite a lot of them), it seems to me that this is almost
peripheral to the magic that designers do''
I see two interesting points here:
1. Ranulphe mentioned value judgements in a second post, and I wonder that
this is a key point about intention and use ( aka function). We as designers
create things for a purpose; this is what we are told. But ( in real life)
we also solve problems in situations, at least I do in the sense that I am
shown spaces that do not work, functions that fail, or issues in designed
spaces that are causing problems. In my case, interior space : for example,
lighting installations are provided according to a brief, leading to ceiling
mounted fixtures and causing glare on the floor, which a person with
dementia cannot navigate. So I look at this problem, how to solve it, how to
respond to the value assumptions of the users, and what will be appropriate
for the multiple users and situations within a particular context, such as
the patients in an institution who are autonomous and are hampered by the
flickering effects of the ceiling lights, cannot walk and become 'unstable'.
I intervene and suggest solutions once I understand this problem, and yet do
so in a creative way, a way that the institution would not have considered
or the user might have envisioned, had I not come along.The end result means
happier people, less trauma and falling, nurses less inclined to medicate,
and more activities down the halls that were impossible to walk in before,
within beautiful and properly lit transitional and social spaces.
This is a small example within a very limited context that I am using to
make a point ( not the same as creating a new design but with some of the
issues just the same).....
These are experiences produced by the designs, and I suggest here that just
because function or form determine design, does not mean that the design
works.
Another possibility is the idea of flexiblility in the design creation, and
that sometimes functions are multiple, some with priorities and reasons
varied, and
intention becomes less important - priority then becomes the creation of
something due to or in spite of constraint.
This then leads back to the creative generation of ideas in the head that
are visually communicated ( Terry's post ) and then are transferred into the
economic reality of the particular domain...these are ( in part) created
with value judgements as well. The key is to allow as many ideas as possible
to be generated, and to have the capacity as a designer to judge which ideas
work, which do not, and which both serve the function while suiting an
intended form and in my mind, responding to the human and social situations
within which the situation arises.
My point: The 'magic' lies in the creating and the evaluating of the design
itself, and how it responds to the human recipient or recipients as integral
processes in the social sense that Jenny speaks of.
And these processes originate in the head through creative acts communicated
to paper and then realised.It is in the moment of evaluating the ideas that
value judgements enter into to fray, and in part determine intent- whose
values, whose needs, whose functions and so on. And I suggest that without
understanding the user needs and issues at the outset, the designer is
ill-equipped to evaluate the appropriate solution to a given situation. (
ie. the design - will it be appropriate, successful or not, suitable, etc).
My best designs live through multiple changes and are appropriated by my
users and new users in different ways that I could not know, but they live
and transfrom and this is a good thing, in my mind. I am not tied to the
idea of intent and as a result, the designs become flexible, change and are
sustainable over time evolving into new uses, while always remaining useful
for their purpose. My favorite is a bookstore I designed in 1990 that I pass
by daily. It has evolved and changed but the 'bones' of this retail design
are still there ( a rare thing in retail these days!).....
To sum up , I am thinking of a quote by Robert Ornstein who sums up this
transfer of creativity and idea generation well:
On Creativity
" Creativity is part of evolution, and it works in a way similar to natural
selection, in which there are random variations, some of which prove useful
and are "selected" by the environment. People generate many ideas, almost at
random, a few of which are appropriate and become selected. Chance plays a
great role in both the generation and evolution of ideas. Generation of
ideas is the primary stage. People who have many ideas are more likely to
have creative ones. A useful creative idea is rare. Campbell emphasizes:
The tremendous amount of nonproductive thought must not be underestimated.
Think of what a small proportion of thought becomes conscious, and of
conscious thought what a small proportion gets uttered, what a still smaller
fragment gets published, and what a small portion of what is published is
used by the next intellectual generation. There is a tremendous
wastefulness, slowness and rarity of achievement.
Thousands of small and wrongful ideas prepare the way for an occasional
useful one. Thomas Edison supposedly evaluated his progress on an invention
by saying that he knew a hundred ways that wouldn't work. Creativity
involves hard work and the relentless generation of ideas and thoughts to
produce a few that pass evaluation. Evaluation is the assessment of an idea'
s worth. It is perhaps more important to recognize a good idea than it is to
possess one..
..We think of some people as being creative or being dull, without realizing
that creative people aren't creative all the time and dullies aren't dull
all the time and in every way."
Robert Ornstein ( 1991) The evolution of consciousness ; the origins of the
way we think.. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Hope this helps the discussion...
Tiiu Poldma,PhD
University of Montreal
Re: value judgements reference
Vaikla-Poldma, T. ( 2003). An Investigation of Learning and Teaching
Processes in an Interior Design Class: An Interpretive and Contextual
Inquiry. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Montreal: McGill University.
|