Principle and Philosophy of DesignJoin now to read essay Principle and Philosophy of DesignESSAY TOPIC:The value of a work of art today depends in large part on the name and reputation of the artist. Explain why this would be an error in a traditional society?
The designer Charles Ray Eames famously described design as Ў°a plan for arranging elements in such a way as to best accomplish a particular purposeЎ± a synonymous view with the central view of this course that Ў°design is the designation of things and nothings for a purpose.Ў± This is to show that this is neither a new view nor an invalid one today. Yet what is at fault is the understanding of this statement. The very idea of problem solving is the most common interpretation or misinterpretation of the statement. By problem solving there is an obvious emphasis placed on the nature of the problem and requiring a specialist within a particular field. This creates the elitist view that designers are a special kind of person someone that is gifted or a genius. This myth I believe is at the center of the essay topic.
In a primitive or traditional society, the lack of social institutional systems and artificial realities and regulations makes them pure and yet to be invaded by consumerism, global economy and the pressure to be different. The lack of social divide or need for it generated the traditional view of the designer as not a special kind of person but every person is a special kind of designer. In a primitive world they valued the contribution of each individual and worked with the whole of the human condition. They created designs not of personal expression or for personal taste but aimed to benefit the whole community and stayed true to the natural world around them. The value of the work is thus not of the individual who created it but what the artifact it self stands for or expresses. Such designs are often taken for granted in everyday life as it perfectly blends into their lives becoming an indispensable part of living and not of a luxury for the few. Such designs may seem rare yet we are continuously surrounded by them, the fact that they are not jumping out at us to grasp our attention suggests their value.
For example the humble chop stick. It is undoubtedly one of the most used utensils in the world today, not just because the nation that designed it has the largest population but the fact that something that seemingly barbaric or primitive is still widely used today in the modern world is enough to suggest its value and importance. The designer of the artifact is working with the whole human condition when he created it, responding to the human need of a tool for eating or picking up food, that is intrinsically human and native to the culture. No one ever asks of who invented the chop stick and in fact the point is that it does not matter who created it because its beauty lies not within the perception of the designer of what a chop stick is but the outcome that perfectly fulfilled a genuine human need, and is thus usable and understood by everyone without the need for extensive reading into artistic movements or the background of the designer.
In traditional society they understood the tripartite nature of the human condition of the body, mind and spirit. They worked towards wholeness, understanding they are equal parts of a complete whole, such as the idea that everyone has their place in society, not of a whole of society needing to set aside the needs of the human condition to appreciate the personal view of one individual or the whole towards the part. Everyone is an artist practicing their art for the whole human condition, such as the shoemaker contributing to the need for shoes of the community or the builder for his intended art. Art and craft is thus connected as such in a traditional view that he who provides you with the design understands the process of manufacturing it and can make sound judgments on the appropriateness for the whole human condition. Where as in today the designer or architect has very little to do with the production of the designs and understands very little of the significance of the whole human condition shared by the community it is intending for.
Design or the art of design was a way of life in primitive society, something of natural development. Most designers in the primitive world would set out to create designs that are beautiful, understanding that what is beautiful is all around us, it is a matter of expressing that which is beautiful not superficial inventing forms that are intended to be beautiful or worse to only trigger a certain sensation. The art of design is not imitating the natural or copying it, but as all good artworks do they draw from the experience of the natural and expressing it in an abstraction with respect to the intellectual freedom of the designer. The difference between this traditional practice and the contemporary practice
The importance of the designer is so important that it is as if the whole world of design is in charge. This is because architects are not supposed to “design” themselves, the designer is expected to express himself. They are also expected to know what he can’t or can’t do. The nature of design, according to architectural ethics, is to design with care and care for its future generations. For architects, designers should be the ones who understand their work. But who is to know when the future generations will be using design at all and in what way? In most cases this would not be the case because design and its development of function are the subject of a public policy. So the question that will be asked is not, ‘What can I do about this’, but rather, ‘What can I do to prevent it? Will you help me?’
This is not for the first time that I am trying to make it clear that the first point is that there are a lot of ways of looking at architecture. As I have explained before, there are many ways to interpret architectural and cultural history as well as other aspects of architecture in the same way. It should be noted that in the second step, there will be a number of questions which relate to the use of architectural heritage through and through which contemporary architects will come to see themselves. These will involve the use of the architectural history or a related concept – the use of architectural design as part of modern society. But there is always a certain threshold. It will be possible for architects to understand the role of architecture and how it shapes societies and their communities through the use of the architectural tradition. However, this is not the end. The real value of this is to open up all sorts of possibilities and possibilities of understanding. You can play a significant role through the use of the architecture world through the use of it with a certain willingness to try the most things in architecture. Of course the use of architecture is not just the art but the actual development of this art in society. The use of architectural history – whether it be for its sake of showing how things have changed, or their role in creating it – is a whole field, it is very important. In the end, this involves you and all architects.
The most immediate question for today’s architects is to look at architectural history as a whole. It is not easy to do. It is quite rare for modern architects to understand this. But when we were first looking at architecture from a cultural standpoint it was clear that the architecture genre was very different from the classical type. Because of the way that history was written, it was not easy to see what is to be seen within the landscape, what the different shapes of buildings had, the different ways they were designed over time and then the very different ways that people were using architecture to do things like building. It should be said that the