Dear Kari-Hans,
I have been giving that a bit of thought as well...
If we return to Krippendorf (1989), he mentions that design is making
sense of things - in others words, design is what adds meaning to a
product. Products have to make sense to people - not only functionally,
understanding what to do with the product, but also on an emotional level.
You mention that design (as process) can change existing conditions to
preferred ones. Following that, I would consider the designed objects as
change agents, being manifestations of the change the designer intends to
implement, conveyed through the meaning that is stored in the product.
Meaning in relation to design takes place at many different levels from
the basic ³What is this² and ³How should I use this² to the more delicate
³How do I feel about this² and ³How does this product make me feel². You
would often use the term that a product ³speaks to you² or that you can
read the product. How you read it, what you read, how it makes you feel -
and the impact it has on your life and wellbeing - can be a large part of
what makes it meaningful.
When we consider design as something that express meaning, I see two
important sets of meaning that needs to be integral for something to be
design objects:
Practical meaning (purpose)
Affective meaning (expression)
Practical meaning is where people ³read² a products function: ³This is a
hammer, I can hold it like this². People recognize the object as a hammer,
and have a preconceived idea about its functionality. The shape of the
handle also gives information about how to hold it. It has to do with
purpose, but is also something that gives a certain meaning to the product.
The second type of meaning is affective meaning, which leads to an
affective response from people. People don¹t react due to an objects color
or form, but they respond to meanings attached to the configurations of
form and color (Csikszentmihalyi, 1995).
Deforge (1995) has a similar division in what he calls two functions of
design, which he refers to as utilitarian (comparable to practical
meaning) and sign (comparable to affective
meaning). He describes an object with no purpose as a useless object, a
decorative object or an aesthetic object. While I would disagree that
objects without purpose (such as a sculpture) is a useless object, it
leads me to arguing that the difference between design and art lies in
whether or not it has purposeful meaning. This also shows in the
difference between graphic design and art.
Graphic design generally has practical meaning. It has a purpose of
communication,
sending a message that needs to be understood correctly (Frascara, 1995).
Not just to make people feel something and make their own interpretation,
but to make them take action in a certain way. Art, on the other hand, has
no practical purpose, and does not make people take action in a
particular, controlled way. It can be interpreted in many different ways,
and is all about expression in the sense ³how it makes me feel². You might
see an old-fashioned
poster that used to be a sign telling people that the circus is in town,
put up in a someones kitchen many years later, only because of its
expressive qualities. At that time it has no message or purpose anymore.
It has become art.
Likewise the designer and artist, Noah Scalin, has been cited, saying that:
design is meant to be understood, while art is meant to be interpreted.
So as I see it, a designed object is something that has BOTH practical
meaning and affective meaning.
Cheers,
Jesper
_____________________
Jesper Legaard Jensen
PhD Student, Institute for Technology and Innovation
www.jesperlegaard.com <http://www.jesperlegaard.com>
Tel. +45 6550 7525
Tel. (mobile) +45 5190 8172
Email [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Addr. Niels Bohrs Allé 1, 5230 Odense M
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK
Campusvej 55 · DK-5230 Odense M · Denmark · Tel. +45 6550 1000 ·
www.sdu.dk
References:
Krippendorf, K., 1989. On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the
Proposition That "Design Is Making Sense (Of Things)". Design Issues ,
Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring, 1989), pp. 9-39
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1995. Design and Order in Everyday Life. In:
Margolin, V. & Buchanan, R.H., The Idea of Design: A Design Issues Reader,
MIT Press.
Deforge, Y., 1995. ²Avatars of design: Design before design². In Margolin,
V. & Buchanan, R.H., The Idea of Design: A Design Issues Reader, MIT
Press, pp 21-28
Frascara, J., 1995. "Graphic design: Fine art or social science?". In
Margolin,
V. & Buchanan, R.H., The Idea of Design: A Design Issues Reader, MIT
Press, pp 44-55
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
