Comments on: Designing a vocabulary, part 2 http://www.gaussianblur.org/2007/07/designing-a-vocabulary-part-2 Blurring the line between media and design Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:59:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ryan Eanes http://www.gaussianblur.org/2007/07/designing-a-vocabulary-part-2#comment-4 Ryan Eanes Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:27:58 +0000 http://gaussianblur.org.s37177.gridserver.com/?p=8#comment-4 Very interesting--thanks for pointing this out. I don't think that the definitions are exclusive; actually I think they mesh together very well. As you pointed out, his definition does fit under mine, which I decided to make necessarily broad to fit all of the auspices of design and its related fields today (communication design, graphic design, motion graphics design, etc. etc. etc.--I like the rock/coconut idea, too, because tool design and ergonomics are certainly in there as well). Very interesting–thanks for pointing this out. I don’t think that the definitions are exclusive; actually I think they mesh together very well.

As you pointed out, his definition does fit under mine, which I decided to make necessarily broad to fit all of the auspices of design and its related fields today (communication design, graphic design, motion graphics design, etc. etc. etc.–I like the rock/coconut idea, too, because tool design and ergonomics are certainly in there as well).

]]> By: symbot http://www.gaussianblur.org/2007/07/designing-a-vocabulary-part-2#comment-3 symbot Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:07:31 +0000 http://gaussianblur.org.s37177.gridserver.com/?p=8#comment-3 Consider a related definition of design, offered by Paul Rand: "It is the coming together of form and content that is the realization of design." Your definition of design is broader, I think... it works for software design, interior design, architectural design, and using a rock to break open a coconut. Rand's definition is a little more graphic design oriented, which probably reflects the bias in his experience. The reference to "content" puts his definition more in the realm of communication and semantic/symbolic transformation, rather than tool-making and craftwork. Rand's definition might also be a little more media-oriented, because it has so much to do with communication and information. After all, anything that has "form" and "content" is, arguably, a medium. Third, Rand's definition is more focused on the object itself, rather than the intention or motivation of the creator. Rand's definition includes things like highly-evolved plant structures, etc, whereas yours does not (unless we posit the existence of God, which I generally avoid doing). Just another definition to think about. Consider a related definition of design, offered by Paul Rand: “It is the coming together of form and content that is the realization of design.” Your definition of design is broader, I think… it works for software design, interior design, architectural design, and using a rock to break open a coconut.

Rand’s definition is a little more graphic design oriented, which probably reflects the bias in his experience. The reference to “content” puts his definition more in the realm of communication and semantic/symbolic transformation, rather than tool-making and craftwork.

Rand’s definition might also be a little more media-oriented, because it has so much to do with communication and information. After all, anything that has “form” and “content” is, arguably, a medium.

Third, Rand’s definition is more focused on the object itself, rather than the intention or motivation of the creator. Rand’s definition includes things like highly-evolved plant structures, etc, whereas yours does not (unless we posit the existence of God, which I generally avoid doing).

Just another definition to think about.

]]>