256A Reading Response #1
*Caution, contains severe nitpicking and strong yet under-argued thoughts*
“Artful design is conscious effort to elevate that natural process to a higher discipline” (pg. 52)
Does design need to be elevated in order to reach the sublime? Or should it’s “sublimeness” rather be revealed? Was it not always there? And should the majority of our work to experience it not be in adjusting, and readjusting, and readjusting our framing and perspective?
I completely acknowledge that this entire sentiment stems from an over-reading of a single line. However it really stuck with me, almost troubled me. Why the need to elevate? It alludes to undertones of high-art and the “exclusion-as-excellence” culture that has left most people with a sense of active exclusion from creative disciplines. But everyone experiences SO much design every. single. day.
The lens of artful design seems to grant (at least) two perspectives:
1) As appreciator. To unpack, empathize, trust, and value the beauty and sublimeness of the design of things we choose to appreciate. 2) As designer. To appreciate the fact that our design work has the potential to be appreciated, and an invitation to design accordingly.
And these perspectives are constantly overlapping. E.g. often through creative use, appreciators/users become designers and remixers and further this process. We know that everything that has been designed, has been artfully designed. (The whole, “you can’t have food without a flavour, because even bland is a flavour” thing) It is a matter of subjective experience whether or not the sublimeness or “artfulness” of the design is realized, or even attempted. Because design inherently gives it’s audience/users/collaborators agency in their experience, this complicates traditional notions of in and out groups. So we have this great framework, yet it also kind of feels like this:
Framework: Art is everywhere! Art is amazing! Everyone can art! Everyone can experience the sublime in everyday objects! You just have to look for the sublime in the everyday! *Crowd goes wild*
Framework: Designers? *Pens click furiously*
Framework: Think about these transcendent experiences people can have with the stuff you make! You’re awesome, strive to be even awesomer! *The sound of pens clicking is deafening*
Framework *but now with a monocle*: But remember, the everyday must be elevated to the level of the sublime. And only by special individuals who know how to elevate the right things in the right way. *crickets*
These thoughts are energetic and definitely under-formed, but I think they get at my very visceral reaction to these ideas. There is so much potential in them to counter injustice, and yet it feels like it’s a pair of skinny jeans and slick glasses away from being a tool to further oppress. This is especially worrying because I own both skinny jeans, and (arguably) slick glasses. This really is something incredibly messy, and dangerous, and powerful, and beautiful.
“Artful design is conscious effort to elevate that natural process to a higher discipline” (pg. 52)
Does design need to be elevated in order to reach the sublime? Or should it’s “sublimeness” rather be revealed? Was it not always there? And should the majority of our work to experience it not be in adjusting, and readjusting, and readjusting our framing and perspective?
I completely acknowledge that this entire sentiment stems from an over-reading of a single line. However it really stuck with me, almost troubled me. Why the need to elevate? It alludes to undertones of high-art and the “exclusion-as-excellence” culture that has left most people with a sense of active exclusion from creative disciplines. But everyone experiences SO much design every. single. day.
The lens of artful design seems to grant (at least) two perspectives:
1) As appreciator. To unpack, empathize, trust, and value the beauty and sublimeness of the design of things we choose to appreciate. 2) As designer. To appreciate the fact that our design work has the potential to be appreciated, and an invitation to design accordingly.
And these perspectives are constantly overlapping. E.g. often through creative use, appreciators/users become designers and remixers and further this process. We know that everything that has been designed, has been artfully designed. (The whole, “you can’t have food without a flavour, because even bland is a flavour” thing) It is a matter of subjective experience whether or not the sublimeness or “artfulness” of the design is realized, or even attempted. Because design inherently gives it’s audience/users/collaborators agency in their experience, this complicates traditional notions of in and out groups. So we have this great framework, yet it also kind of feels like this:
Framework: Art is everywhere! Art is amazing! Everyone can art! Everyone can experience the sublime in everyday objects! You just have to look for the sublime in the everyday! *Crowd goes wild*
Framework: Designers? *Pens click furiously*
Framework: Think about these transcendent experiences people can have with the stuff you make! You’re awesome, strive to be even awesomer! *The sound of pens clicking is deafening*
Framework *but now with a monocle*: But remember, the everyday must be elevated to the level of the sublime. And only by special individuals who know how to elevate the right things in the right way. *crickets*
These thoughts are energetic and definitely under-formed, but I think they get at my very visceral reaction to these ideas. There is so much potential in them to counter injustice, and yet it feels like it’s a pair of skinny jeans and slick glasses away from being a tool to further oppress. This is especially worrying because I own both skinny jeans, and (arguably) slick glasses. This really is something incredibly messy, and dangerous, and powerful, and beautiful.
