Last time around, I made an effort to define the word design (in both its noun and adjective forms). This was my summary, for those of you just joining us:
…the definition of design (when used as a verb) is, simply put, creation of something for a specific practical purpose. Logically, then, it would follow that design, when used as a noun, refers to objects–whether a logo, a tea kettle, or a Herman Miller Aeron chair–that resulted from the design process. That is, a “piece of design” is the “something” that was created for a specific practical purpose. Design as a verb is the action–design as a noun is the output.
I hasten to point out that I do certainly include printed materials and websites amongst those “things” that can be (and are) created via the design process.
So, basically, with design reduced to a very formal and stiff definition, you might be wondering where, exactly, personal expression and artistic flair joins in. When we start talking about individual design solutions, we’re talking about style.
In their book Graphic Style, authors Steven Heller and Seymour Chwast define style as follows.
Style, in its most general sense, is a specific or characteristic manner of expression, design, construction, or execution. As it relates to graphic design, style suggests the dominant visual aesthetic of a particular time and place. The word has also been used to refer to a specific graphic designer’s signature: his or her preference for a certain typeface or family of faces, for a characteristic color palette, and for either a decorative or functional approach. Style is further defined by the material being designed and the audience for whom it is being produced: corporate style differs from editorial, news style from advertising, polemical style from commercial, and so on.33
I find this definition of style to be more than adequate; it seems to cover all of the bases. Looking the word up in the Oxford English Dictionary, amongst the alternate meanings of the word as a noun in English (including my personal favorite, “Used as a weapon of offence, for stabbing, etc.”–who knows what, exactly, the “etc.” stands for!), you find the following entries:
21a. A particular mode or form of skilled construction, execution, or production; the manner in which a work of art is executed, regarded as characteristic of the individual artist, or of his time and place; one of the modes recognized in a particular art as suitable for the production of beautiful or skilful work.
22a. A kind, sort, or type, as determined by manner of composition or construction, or by outward appearance.
23a. Manner of executing a task or performing an action or operation. Often with reference to athletics, racing, games: The manner of action of a particular performer, racehorse, etc. Also gen., one’s characteristic manner of acting or reacting.
All three of these definitions roll right into Heller & Chwast’s description of style. It seems fairly straightforward to describe a design (using it as a noun here) as a product–the visual, aesthetic qualities that this product displays comprise its style. A product’s label might be in an Art Deco style, for instance, and a designer (for example, myself) might have a style reminiscent of the De Stijl group or the Swiss International style.
Next on the list… communication. Stay tuned.3
- Heller, Steven and Seymour Chwast. Graphic Style: From Victorian to Digital. New York: Harry M. Abrams, 2000.333
3
symbot | 02-Nov-07 at 12:07 am | Permalink
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.
Ryan Eanes | 02-Nov-07 at 9:27 am | Permalink
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).