Principle And Philosophy Of Design

ESSAY 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 ÐŽoa plan for arranging elements in such a way as to best accomplish a particular purposeÐŽ± a synonymous view with the central view of this course that ÐŽodesign is the designation of things and nothings for a purpose.ÐŽ± 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 is that in the traditional sense designs, like the chop stick was intended to serve a need and in the end embodying the beauty that is the perfect reflection of its aim thus the form is expressing the natural and combined with the individual view of the designer created the beautiful form, rather than from the outset intending to create a beautiful form that is iconic of the designer, requiring a personal touch or seasoning.

In a traditional sense we are all connected towards the origin and of equal distances to it. They understood the importance of that origin having a pendulum effect that balances the world. If in fact