Welcome to the blog of an ordinary 25-year old, PhD student, whose carricatured literary take of all things media and social would drive you up the wall and hopefully...just hopefully, drive you back for more...
What is Design? A Thorough Analysis of Definitions
“Design” and “Designer” – are words that are often used rather liberally to refer to the profession or craft of “making functional and perceivably attractive things”. Design in its contemporary linguistic usage bears an almost absolute resonance with “beautiful aesthetics”; a connection, which is understandable but inherently myopic. Design is creativity and beauty but also much more.
The key word here is “conceptualization”; the process of meticulous planning and the management of functionality and purpose. In this article, I aim to formulate a more feasible framework for interpreting the meaning of design and hopefully shed some light on why it is imperative that we reassess traditionally popular definitions of design.
The Reason for the Confusion
The fundamental reason behind our skewed conception of design lies in how designers (presumably the same people who claim to be well-acquainted with “design”) contextualise and represent the subject. It is more commercially viable to refer to design as the “creation of creative and stunning visuals” as opposed to something more abstract and philosophical (see definition above). Why?
Well, for clients, it makes more economic sense to invest in a service which promises resounding tangible results; design is thus portrayed as a material visual manifestation that is at once noticed and appreciated. As a consequence, design is now limited to definitions which characterise it as a purely aesthetic art or a field of pure creativity. My argument is that, design extends beyond creativity and beauty; it is an institutional practice that is catered to finding practical and functional solutions in an environment of limited resources.
Let’s Get into the Nitty-gritty
Video game developer, Dino Dini, once defined design as the “management of constrains”. Constraints are merely perceived “problems” that need to be addressed with the right kind of solutions. These “problems” are not conventional obstacles in everyday life, but rather they are specific goals and objectives that designers/clients want to achieve. These are the constraints that a designer has to work with. For example, if you are designing a coffee table, then there would be specific set of constraints.
Firstly, the table has to be able to take on a certain load (weight) to be functional and it has to stand independently without external support. According to Dini, these are non-negotiable constraints. On the other hand there are negotiable constraints in constructing a coffee table, such as the choice of materials used and other finer intricate aesthetic qualities; these elements can be altered accordingly. Design involves the clever “tinkering” of these variables to satisfy non-negotiable constraints and fully capitalise on negotiable constraints.
The Methodical Process of Design
The first stage of design is the design brief/proposal – a statement of goals, aims and ambitions. This is followed by a structured analysis of these objectives to develop an understanding of how/if they can be met (which brings us back to the earlier point on negotiable and non-negotiable constraints). More often than not, the “analysis” phase is followed by research, the practice of seeking related design solutions to similar “problems” or design “constraints”. Research is an absolutely vital facet of design because it involves a creative sense, in making connections between interrelated ideas/concepts and applying these ideas in to a new perspective. The final aspect of the design process concerns visual presentation; how an idea is conveyed in an aesthetically pleasing way.
As you may have noticed, several aspects of design that I’ve mentioned so far, pertain to a three-tier approach: problem-solving (identification of constraints), conceptualization (analysis stage) and documentation (design brief). These are the central tenets of design.
Once a topic is selected, start with defining your design concept. If your subject area requisites multiple topics, then be sure to define each area with sufficient depth. It is also crucial that you set the context of your argument – from what perspective will you be examining the proposed areas of design?
Creativity and Design Completely Separate Entities?
Creativity and design are interrelated, no matter how intensely we try to disconnect both fields.
There are a considerable number of designers however who vehemently claim that creativity and design are separate entities, hence arriving at the conclusion that creativity masks and compromises the true essence of good design practice. Their premise is based upon the idea that the concept of creativity does not follow any guided set of design-based principles (Grids, specific visual conventions etc), and it is this perceived freedom (artistic license) that is inconsistent with the highly structured/coded paradigm of design. Proponents of this view have pointed out that an intellectual appreciation of design (the syllabus thought in universities) does not include within its grasp, an acknowledgement of creativity. It thus follows that creativity is not design and vice versa.
I however completely disagree with this view.
Having lectured on creativity in an academic environment before, I can quite boldly attest that design has everything to do with creativity and more. Creativity does not connote a sense of “lawless” artistic freedom but a method of thinking. Creativity is about taking seemingly disparate entities and joining them up in inventive but logical ways that meet objectives and provide solutions.
Design is problem-solving. It involves extensive research of practical solutions (for example what type of grid-based design is appropriate for a news portal website), a process which demands creativity to a large extent. One cannot hide behind the vanguard of intellectual knowledge and leave the wider context of design unacknowledged.
Concluding Remarks
I sincerely hope that this piece has perhaps cleared the air on what design actually is, as an independent subject of study. Once again, I urge you to leave any comments, viewpoints and feedback that you may have on the subject of design, as these responses will certainly serve to clarify any lingering doubts we have on the subject.
[ Creativity - Design - Design Environment - Design Philosophy ] Subscribe to the Goodness >>
-
44
- Content-Driven Design – Let’s Throw out Tradition
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 2nd Feb 10 -
11
- Redesigning Personal Projects – A Critical Analysis
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 21st Jan 10 -
14
- The Concept of “Intelligent Design” – Form vs. Function
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 16th Jan 10 -
44
- The Death of Originality in Design- Coming to Terms
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 12th Jan 10 -
22
- Designing an Idea - How to Beautify your Inspiration
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 7th Jan 10 -
40
- The Risk of Being Unique – The Logic of Design Styles
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 3rd Jan 10 -
25
- A “Bystander’s Perspective” on the Design Community
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 29th Dec 09 -
18
- Designing Beautiful User-Experiences for the Web
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 23rd Dec 09 -
33
- What is Design? A Thorough Analysis of Definitions
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 18th Dec 09 -
18
- A Guide to Writing Killer Content for Your Design Blog
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 14th Dec 09 -
12
- Transform Creative Ideas into Stunning Designs
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 10th Dec 09 -
5
- Branding On the Web: The Identity Dilemma
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 8th Dec 09 -
14
- A Primer on Keeping the Creative Flame Alive
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 6th Dec 09 -
17
- A Guide to Writing Effectively about Design
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 3rd Dec 09 -
10
- Designers & Vampires – The Creative Mind
PUBLISHED BY: Josh on 2nd Dec 09
-
- DESIGN INFORMER
THE LATEST IN WEB DESIGN -
- DESIGNER'S COUCH
CREATIVE HUMANS, DESIGNER'S GROUP -
- THE DESIGN MAG
THE DESIGN MAGAZINE FOR WEB AND GRAPHIC DESIGNERS -
- CHRIS WALLACE
USER INTERFACE DESIGNER AND DEVELOPER -
- COLORBURNED
GRAPHIC DESIGN RESOURCES, TUTORIALS -
- AEXT.NET
PROGRAMMING,DESIGN,BLOGGING -
- DESIGNER DAILY
DESIGN INSPIRATION AND RESOURCES -
- SIX REVISIONS
WEB DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN INFORMATION -
- LITTLE BOX OF IDEAS
DESIGN INSPIRATION -
- SPYRE STUDIOS
WEB DESIGN AND INSPIRATION BLOG -
- YOUTHEDESIGNER
GRAPHIC DESIGN BLOG, TIPS AND JOBS -
- INSTANT SHIFT
WEB DESIGNERS AND DEVELOPERS DAILY RESOURCE -
- THE DESIGN SUPERHERO
JUST ANOTHER DESIGN BLOG
Tripping Words runs on a customized version of Expression Engine. This whole website is dynamically randered through multiple EE templates. 
Beautiful. Amazing article Josh. \m/
Excellent article mate!! I think some people should really read this.
Well said about creativity and design. I am really going to promote this is the community.
oops..sorry for the typo.
“I am really going to promote this article in the design community”
It is funny how we both ended up discussing the same issue in our posts today. While you offer a view that is contrary to what many “elite” designers (read the likes of Jeffrey Zeldman) think, I believe it is true to a very large extent.
Creativity when applied to usability gives a great design and when applied to style gives a visually pleasing site.
Thanks you for all your insightful comments. Your feedback is invaluable! Please keep them coming.
Cheers
I completely agree with this view. I have the utmost respect for designers such as Andy Rutledge, but claiming that design and creativity are incompatible with each other is just plain arrogant.
Creativity is a process and a way of thinking. Rutledge might claim otherwise, but creativity no doubt plays a part in his profession. He just doesn’t consciously accept it.
The little section on negotiable and non-negotiable constraints is huge. Not to be pedantic but a lot of designers forget their audience is human beings and their process of receiving and processing information is a logical one. I see avant garde design all the time, completely disregarding any form of logic or reason just to be unique and as such their design serves absolutely no function.
@Andy Wilkinson
Hi Andy, thanks for the response. Like you said Andy is a knowledgeable/experienced designer but at times he seems to place an overt emphasis on the theoretical aspects of design, without acknowledging the broader practicalities.
@Anthony Licari
Cheers for the comment! Design in my opinion is one hundred percent logic - in many ways it is the “management of logic”. However we must understand the difference between design theory and logicality. Theoretical aspects of design need not necessarily translate to logic.
The bit on negotiable and non-negotiable constraints, to me at least, seemed to truly capture what design is all about.
Thanks again guys. Great discussion!
Great read…I find myself most drawn to the discussion of creativity and design. I agree that they are related entities, otherwise there is nothing to separate one designer from the next.
In terms of creativity, I agree that its more a thought process that brings things together. Moreover, so much great art has been created with some kind of constraint - color, subject, etc…its not a free for all.
Hi Alvin, thanks for writing in!
You have brought up an excellent point. Creativity does have a subjective relevance, in that every designer is “creatively different”. All designers work within a defined set of perimeters.
Well said Josh. You are really skilled at putting your thoughts into words. I do agree with you about creativity and design. I do believe that while they are not the same, they are closely related to each other.
The dictionary defines creativity as “the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.” Design is “organization or structure of formal elements in a work of art; composition.”
To me, design has more to do with the functionality, the organization, structure of an object. Going back to your table illustration, to me, design is the layout of the table, the pieces used, etc. Everything had design. It’s just that some are good and some are bad. Every table in the world has a design. While every table has a design, not every table is creative. In my opininion, creativity comes into play with the colors used, how it is styled, what process was used to develop the table. Those are creative things. But the two are closely tied together. I’m not sure if what I just said made any sense to you, as I still need to better articulate myself when it comes to this topic.
I think in the future, I will write something about this topic as well. Good job Josh.
Josh, that was an interesting read.
But I do wonder, if the following is true: “Creativity is about taking seemingly disparate entities and joining them up in inventive but logical ways that meet objectives and provide solutions.”
What then are those inventive and logical combinations which are not made in order to meet any objectives and provide no solutions to any problems at hand? By your definition they cannot be called creative, so, are they just randomness, even if they are inventive and logical?
For example, you’re bored during a lecture and start to doodle something, just to have something to do. The only goal is to do something, so only the act, not the product serves a purpose.
Now lets say this is indeed randomness. But then, if it does turn out to be of use later on, and can meet objectives and/or provide solutions, what would it be called then? Would randomness suddenly become creativeness? Would the random doodle suddenly be creativiness if applied as a background in a project, even if the doodling was done before you even met the client?
If you take a broad concept and narrow it down, you need to pay attention to those aspects which are no longer covered by your new concept definition. Define them separately, redefine other concepts to include those aspects, or perhaps argue the aspects are rubbish and should be forgotten. Fail to do any of that, and such questions as put forward above will unavoidable come to the surface.
Personally I would rather say creativity is more like a tool designers can use. A tool to solve the design problems they face. Design and creativity are then inter-related, but indeed separate, as design problems are not what decide what is creativity and what is not.
To stick with your example of a coffee table: If I put together such a table, I may use a hammer, or I may not. Either way, a hammer is a hammer.
Despite the coffee table example, I do wonder whether you have thought of creativity outside the box of webdesign. You said you have lectured on the subject in relation to webdesign. (On a sidenote, you presented this as if it was some proof of being correct, which is a curious position to take) While you lectured, you’re perspective on creativity likely grew strong bonds with your perspective on design, due to the strong relation between the two concepts. So, while reviewing your definition of creativity, are you sure you did indeed purely consider the concept of creativity?
Moreover, in a comment you said you consider design to be 100% rational. I do not believe there is such a thing as being 100% rational. You always carry emotions with you, and you’d be quite an exception if you can set them all aside at any point in time. Besides, even if you can eliminate the emotions, there is the matter of Bounded Rationality. No man knows everything. Would it truely be best to make decisions based purely on facts? Do you not throw in a somewhat less tangible and factual component based on experience? Personally I think design is indeed a rational analysis of the situation, but complemented by irrational expectations based on experience. Where the balance between those lies is something I think everyone should decide for himself.
Josh, again, your article was an interesting read, but in the end I think you should be more critical on your article if you want to call it a thorough analysis, and more critical on the scientific way of thinking in general.
Sorry if this all seems overcritical. It’s just that I expect a PhD student to be more critical, especially if he presents his work, of which the conclusion is in disagreement with many (notable) collegues, as a thorough analysis of a theoretical concept. Such a disagreement does not mean you are wrong (Galileo), but it does mean you need to be more complete in your arguments.
Regards,
Wouter
@Design Informer
Thanks for the detailed and very well-written comment. That made complete sense!
I think you have raised an important point which I failed to cover. Creativity is the “stylistic” element of design; it bridges together all the various technical components of design into a single meaningful cohesive whole.
I like the definition you provided. “Design is the structure of elements” within a composition. I think that was the point Andy was making, but in doing so he took “creativity” totally out of the equation, hence making his argument rather lopsided.
Creativity is, like you mentioned, the method/style in which various design elements are connected.
Fantastic response and discussion!
The previous comment was meant for designinformer. This comment is in response to Woulter.
@woulter
First off, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to formulate a very solid, sophisticated and elegant perspective on creativity and design.
I wanted this article to cater to a wide audience and as such, I have decided not to go into the precise theoretical intricacies of creative philosophy or likewise and opted for a few generalizations which, as you have sighted (and on hindsight), may have disrupted the fluency/objectivity of my argument.
My definition of creativity was tailored to address design, as a professional and institutional field. Random doodling can contain creative potential. Ones definition of “objectives and aims” is indeed subjective, and because of this very fluid conception of meaning, the notion of creativity can be applied to many things. Let us look at a hypothetical example. A student can provide a “creative” excuse for not finishing his/her homework. The “excuse” in question is creative because it fulfils the student’s own intention (to provide a good excuse). Whether or not the excuse is convincing to the extent that the teacher believes his claim, is another matter altogether.
The point I am making is that a clear delineation needs to be made between form and function. A project can be creative in form, portray a certain level of intentionality to provide a solution, but it may still fall short in fulfilling certain expectations. While for others, the same project can provide a very feasible solution.
Hope I made sense.
Once again, thanks for the comprehensive response.
You’re welcome. And I must say, that was a good and insightful response, right from the first line with remaining so polite after such critique.
With all references to science and scientific methods, and having a somewhat scientific writing style, I was afraid you really did consider this a proper thorough analysis. It is good to know this is purposefully a less than complete picture, and that you are aware of this.
It is also good that you’re explicating your demarcation. It was of course implicated by the context of your blog, but explicit trumps implicit on many occasions. For I wonder, did those others you mentioned use the same demarcation? Or did they perhaps consider creativity in a broader context, despite being collegues, leading therefore to a different definition?
Cheers,
Wouter
PS. Just in case… If you don’t readily know the answer, unless the question invoked an interest, don’t go through the trouble of finding the answer. If I’d be interested enough in the subject I could prolly well find out for myself.
Great article Josh! It helps to understand the meaning of design. Hopefully a lot of people will read it.
@Frank
Hi Frank. Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I will be keeping this article up for a bit, so more people can read and engage. Cheers
I agree with your point of view. Creativity & Design are closely linked although the problem solving has to be rational (ie. the table has to work and fulfill it’s purpose) the whole process is not. In my opinion. Great article though.
Great article, thanks! I would like to add that I think creativity and design are clearly interconnected; but creativity can exist alone, without logic, and in that context could probably be described as ‘art’. Sometimes, the aesthetically pleasing results of purely artistic creativity are dismissed as part of a design solution because they are irrelavent to the brief; but they should not be discarded altogether as they can become a valuable source of inspiration for future design projects.
On another tack, I believe design can be described as ‘a process of learning’. This absolutely aligns with your structure of brief/analysis/research. Designers must learn about and understand the subject of their brief before a logical solution can be arrived at - without this process, any kind of solution is guesswork, and could be seen as purely aesthetic. Perhaps it is because of lazy designers that don’t engage in this learning process that our industry is perceived as ‘colouring in’.
@Daisy
Thank you for the response. Yes it’s true that we must never forget the systematic rationalities of design, which is a major facet of the whole design process.
@Adriaan
Thanks for the comment Adriaan. You have brought up some excellent points. Creativity can presumably be regarded as “art” if there is no logical framework structure to back it up.
Design is definitely a learning adventure. It involves a negotiation with several “constraints”, and only through constant engagement with the work at hand, can we arrive at a true masterpiece.
Great perspective Josh! I wholeheartedly agree with you on creativity and design being interconnected, I also do believe exactly what Adriaan has to say, Creativity can exist without design. But for design to exist without some semblance of creativity is extremely hard and quite impossible.
Creativity can get away with being wild and unrestrained. It may even get away without being logical and in that respect it is intoxicating and liberating. But design, especially good design despite having creativity, needs structure and balance, because design is essentially, science. And that is where they are both quite different.
Hi Sneh,
Thanks so much for commenting. I am a huge fan of your work at LBOI!
I totally agree with your explanation. Design in many ways, is the structural foundation behind most creative projects. But like you mentioned, it is hard to completely disconnect both theories because they are so intrinsically linked.
Thanks again for the well crafted response!
great article, thanks
You’re welcome. Nice Gravatar by the way. lol
Wonderfully written and very thought provoking.
To dance in a completely unbounded environment is creativity, however, being able to dance in a cramped closet is also in itself a form of creativity.
I don’t think the circumstance, or the arena in which we are placed in factors into the argument of discussion at all.
Creativity, being such a BIG SWEEPING word, is quite hard to define, but I put it down to the discovery of new and unique ideas (whether or not bounded by a brief).
Design is dancing, or any other form or art. The more inflexible the brief is, the smaller and more cramp the closet.
It seems to me that being able to come up with new ideas whilst bound by restrictions can be just as impressive (or even more so) than the so defined “lawless creativity”.
I mean, I’d be impressed if someone can shoot an apple through the heart with a bow and arrow.
But I’d be even more impressed if he did it blindfolded.
Hi Josh. that nice design
Design is like theoretical physics. There are certainly laws to be considered, but without creativity the discipline can’t exist.
If there is no creativity there is no design, just visual arrangement.
—-
Great writings, by the way, very thought-provoking.
this is great, thanks
Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your post
i found this in google search, very intersting article, thanks for sharing
You made some good points there.I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
Great Site, Nice to visit your site
I just want to say, your skills are awesome! I love the look and feel of this site. Hats off to you, you inspire me.