Reading Response #1

to Artful Design • Chapter 1: “Design Is ______”

Oluseyi O.

10/3/2023

Music 256A / CS476a, Stanford University

Reading Response: Ends in Themselves

From this week's reading, I'd like to respond to Artful Design Principle 1.10, which states:

Principle 1.5: Design is Subtraction

—where design is a process of removing nonessential elements until a design cannot be any simpler.

This strikes me as an especially interesting aspect of design to consider and keep in mind, especially when engaging in artful design. I think it is very easy to design something that is needlessly complicated or complex when there really is no reason for it. Design is also an interplay between form and function and means vs ends. One of the concepts associated with this is the idea of designing “something good in itself, whose value lies primarily in its intrinsic worth” (Artful Design p.34). I think considering this idea alongside the idea that design is subtraction can cause a little friction.

For example, with the pencil bag made out of one zipper used as an example in the textbook, it’s brought up that the transformation of the bag into a single zipper serves seemingly no purpose, but this is also what makes it awesome (p.26). An argument could be made that since the function and ends could have been achieved, the ability of being able to transform the bag into a single zipper should be something that is subtracted.  It is a nonessential element, and design is a process of removing nonessential elements.

When someone is designing something with a focus on the function, it is easy to subtract nonessential elements. If an element doesn’t help achieve the function in some way, it can be safely removed to create a simpler project. This begins to get into a discussion we had in class about whether optimization is always a worthwhile goal and end. When trying to simplify and optimize a design, I think it is possible to quite literally optimize the fun, beautiful, aesthetic component of it out. Simplicity is a good goal, but it should be looked at with some caution when engaging in artful design.

The question fundamentally becomes: What is necessary for the aesthetic parts of a design? Thinking about design as subtraction and reaching simplicity becomes much more complicated in this more subjective realm. Oftentimes the nonessential flourishes and extra additions can be what lends a design its aesthetic components. And in that case, the argument could even be made that those seemingly “nonessential” elements are then in fact quite essential to that design. One response to these thoughts could be that as long as an element of the aesthetics and form doesn’t affect the function of the design negatively, they don’t need to be subtracted from the design. I think this is a good general idea, but I have to wonder if there are some designs where an element that arguably negatively impacts the function results in a more beautiful end design, even if it is perhaps not the simplest design.

Design Etude: Design Etude #1.pdf

ChucK File: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BRuGb0lb_q-PD-rQYVU9kVcFXezbPwfR/view?usp=sharing