I just got done reading Viscoe's ten principles of good design, the ten principles were simple enough to read and to understand but do they really concern all design or just the most intricate parts of design that require a precise understanding to succeed?
Principle one says that all good design is innovative, but the description given in the article is concerned with design that will use technology to advance. Does this just apply to the design that goes into architecture and the like? Or can it be applied into fields such as mine for example? Character design does not rely on technology to be "innovative" it relies on the talent and perception on the creator of the character. So what exactly is innovative about those departments that are not able to invent new technology? It comes to show you that "innovation" is like beauty the two concepts are defined by the person and not by the department as a whole.
The next to concepts bother me slightly. According to this list the design needs to be useful and beautiful. I am aware that a good design is pleasing to the eye and can help attract consumers that are willing to buy a product that appeals to them but does that really mean that beauty is more important than functionality? We do not all create beauty the first time so when we mess up is it really that bad to the point that we need strict perfection and beauty to sell something instead of something that just looks pleasing rather than completely perfect? Perfection is boring.
The next two principles confuse me even more than the last two! Principle four is that good design makes a product understandable about its use. And principle five is that good design is unobtrusive and allows self expression. How can that be when he stated that design needs to be beautiful in order to be successful? I guess principle four can be a little bit more obvious since good products do indeed show their use from association with similar products that way the consumer will know its use and wont have to research about it before buying it. Its really and honestly principle five that contradicts itself. How can you expect a product to be both beautiful and unobtrusive to where the owner can express themselves using it? Self expression is its own beauty so why do we need established beauty to make a product sell??
The other five principles do not confuse the hell out of me like the last listed two did, design is basic when it comes to being long lasting. I mean who would buy a product that was cheap and poorly made? It would be a waste of their money and a waste of space for something that cant last for very long in comparison with something that can. And it is true in recent years that products are environmentally friendly considering our recent concern with global warming. Most of these points come down to just plain common sense that I think even the most basic of designers can understand.
But in reality as stated before beauty isn't something that is established and that each designer will have their own concept of beauty. Why does beauty have to be such a structured thing that its become an integral part of design? It wouldn't be that bad if we weren't expected to provide something that is simple in itself at the same time. Sometimes beauty is simple and sometimes its exaggerated and intricate. It cannot be both at the same time and even if it is its just a combination of certain characteristics of both without meeting both ends of the spectrum in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment